Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Video Boards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ashwaubenon committee recommends denying ordinance to permit video boards in Sports and Entertainment District
Summary
After extended debate about safety, visual impact and enforceability, the Site Plan Review Committee voted to recommend denial of an ordinance that would permit permanent video boards in parts of the Sports and Entertainment District, sending the draft to the Planning Commission with that recommendation.
The Ashwaubenon Site Plan Review Committee voted Aug. 7 to recommend denial of a draft ordinance that would have allowed permanent video boards in parts of the village's Sports and Entertainment District.
Staff introduced the ordinance as a narrowly tailored measure to permit video boards for live sporting programming (for example Packers or Badger games) but only when the adjacent street is closed to vehicular traffic. The draft included technical limits such as dimmable displays and a minimum screen threshold (anything larger than a 55-inch outdoor television would be classified as a video board) and provided that any installation must meet applicable village code requirements.
Committee members raised multiple concerns during the discussion. Several said permitting permanent video boards risks visual saturation of the district and could change its character; others cited public‑safety risks from distracted driving and the difficulty of enforcing on/off conditions tied to road closures. Members also questioned whether advertising that appears during televised games could be separated from the live programming and noted that the sign code treats standalone commercial advertising differently than event programming.
Aaron, a village planning staff member, said the draft was brought forward to give staff and the governing bodies clear direction and that any permanent board would require a permitting process with committee and Village Board review and the ability to place site‑specific conditions. He also noted that some temporary or portable displays currently operate in a regulatory gray area and that additional code amendments could address those situations.
After extended exchanges on size, screening, the potential for legal challenges to denials, noise and testing, and alternatives such as limiting the number of permanent boards or limiting visibility from public rights of way, a member moved to deny the ordinance. The motion was seconded and carried. Aaron said the ordinance would go to the Planning Commission that afternoon with the Site Plan Review Committee recommendation to deny.
The Planning Commission will consider the draft next; any future action by the Village Board would follow that review and any staff revisions.
