A request to place a 576‑square‑foot electronic message center (EMC) on the north face of a proposed six‑story building at 516 Elm Street drew sustained scrutiny July 10 from the Manchester Zoning Board, the arena overlay design review committee and local residents.

Proposal and rationale: The applicant, the development team for a new six‑story mixed‑use building at 516 Elm, proposed relocating an existing billboard that now sits atop a neighboring single‑story building (Murphy's Taproom) to the new taller façade because the new building would block the billboard’s current sightlines. The applicant said the request is a relocation, not a new billboard, and argued the new location would generate fewer pedestrian impacts because it would sit higher above street level.

Committee and neighbor objections: The arena overlay design review committee submitted detailed comments and recommended denial, saying the EMC does not enhance or maintain the aesthetic character of the overlay district and would create light trespass for dozens of residential units at 550 Elm Street. "The proposed sign is not in the spirit of the ordinance and is contrary to the public interest of promoting the character of the Arena Overlay District," the committee wrote in a memo read into the record.

Neighbors and civic commenters raised similar concerns, citing light pollution, off‑premise advertising and driver distraction. Vanessa Blaze wrote that the sign would be "an obvious eyesore" and a distraction for drivers; another resident warned of possible accidents and urged the board to consider pedestrian safety and the district’s historic character.

Applicant’s response: The applicant said they had studied multiple options, including adjusting billboard angles on the existing structure and changing placement, and that the current request represents a negotiated solution with the abutter who owns the existing billboard. A representative for the billboard owner read a letter stating the owner would prefer relocation rather than losing the billboard’s visibility entirely after the new building is built.

Board deliberation and decision: Board members expressed strong reservations about adding large, off‑premise advertising to a gateway area the city is trying to brand as the Gaslight District. One board member described the billboard as contrary to the overlay’s design goals and said moving it would merely shift adverse effects to another block. After deliberation, the board moved on the matter; the arena overlay committee’s recommendation and multiple resident letters were part of the board’s record.

Outcome: The board considered a motion to deny the requested sign variance; after debate and a friendly amendment referencing the overlay committee’s findings, members voted. (Board record shows a formal motion to deny was made and seconded; the transcript records board votes and statements during deliberation.) The board emphasized that signage that does not advertise the building’s own use and introduces off‑premise commercial advertising raises concerns for the overlay district’s character and nearby residents.

Next steps: Because the overlay committee had strongly opposed the request and several abutters and residents objected, any applicant wishing to pursue a similar sign will need to address the committee’s design standards, mitigate light trespass for nearby residences and secure any necessary administrative approvals or pursue alternate billboard siting outside the overlay district.