Glenville rejects proposal to allow electronic message centers in town center after heated public hearing

The Glenville Town Board declined to adopt Local Law 4‑2026, a proposed zoning amendment to allow electronic message centers (EMCs) in the town center overlay, after public testimony and extended board discussion on June 17.

Residents and business owners offered contrasting views during the public hearing. Judy Reitmeyer, a long‑time resident, told the board she opposed the proposal, saying it could “make driving through [a] main thoroughfare really dangerous and distracting” and that excessive digital signage can undermine small‑town character. "I do not want to see light‑polluting electronic signage up in our town center," she said.

Ed Capovani, a 54‑year resident and small‑business owner, warned of long‑term proliferation: “Once you let the genie out of the bottle, good luck getting it back in,” and questioned whether the public had been notified broadly enough about the proposal.

Business representatives and supporters focused on regulated use and economic benefits. Tom Wheeler, owner of AJ Signs, urged the board to trust modern signage technology and industry standards, saying “digital signs don't have to be ugly” and noting features such as auto‑dimming and timed shutoffs. Caroline Welch Webster, a member of the Small Business Economic Development Committee, told the board EMCs are a cost‑effective way to reach the 18,000–20,000 vehicles that travel Route 50 daily and argued EMCs can promote events, emergency notifications and local commerce.

Christine Camiano, the town’s principal planner, described the proposed code as aiming to balance character and commerce by limiting EMCs to designated corridors and setting technical controls — including ground‑mounted units capped at 12 square feet and 6 feet tall, automatic dimming, a curfew from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m., and a one‑minute minimum between message changes.

Board members debated whether the town center was an appropriate place for EMCs and whether additional outreach and work sessions were needed. When the clerk called the roll on the resolution to adopt Local Law 4‑2026, multiple members recorded 'No' or 'No for now' while the supervisor recorded 'Yes.' The motion failed on the recorded roll call.

By declining the amendment, the board left in place existing sign regulations for the town center overlay; the planner and staff may return with revised proposals or additional outreach if the board requests further review.