Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signs Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board tables proposed revisions to Chapter 38.10 (signs); asks enforcement and ordinance committee to refine language
Summary
The board reviewed proposed edits to the town sign ordinance (Chapter 38.10), discussed definitions, nonconforming signs, electronic signs, and multi-tenant signage rules, and voted to table the draft until May 14 while staff and enforcement incorporate suggested changes.
The Rangeley Planning Board reviewed an ordinance-committee draft of changes to Chapter 38.10 (signs), identified multiple areas needing clearer definitions, and voted to table the chapter to allow planning staff and enforcement to consolidate comments and return the draft on May 14 for further review.
Planning Board Chair Carlos said he supports straightforward, unambiguous language and urged tighter definitions instead of vague phrasing; he told the board he was “okay with the signs as long as they’re black and white and they don’t move,” arguing for clarity in definitions such as logo, trademark, roof sign and the measurement of sign area. Board members discussed specific items in the draft: treatment of two-sided signs (counting only one side toward square-footage limits); handling of nonconforming signs and when repairs or changes force a sign to meet current standards; window signage and decal area limits; temporary and exempt signage; the approach to electronic signs (to be addressed in a separate special town meeting); and how to handle signage on multi-tenant buildings.
Members repeatedly raised the tension between a prescriptive sign code that enforcement can apply administratively and requests for flexibility via conditional-use review. Several members suggested a pragmatic approach: set fixed allowances tied to the number of businesses on a property (for example, one business = X square feet, two businesses = Y square feet) and require departures beyond that to come to the board as a special circumstance. The ordinance committee’s proposal would, among other changes, treat identical two-sided signs as counting only one side toward the area limit and would remove some square-foot limits for certain temporary window displays; board members flagged those changes for clarification.
The board asked enforcement to prepare recommended edits and gather examples from other towns for comparison. The planning board then approved a motion to table the draft until the next workshop on May 14 to allow enforcement and the ordinance committee to reconcile ambiguous language and return a revised draft for further markup and possible public hearings. The board emphasized that nonconforming signs that remain unchanged may be grandfathered but that any replacement or modification would need to comply with updated standards.
