Rangeley select board approves edits to sign ordinance, sends revisions to planning board

Rangeley's Board of Selectmen voted to approve a package of edits to the town's sign regulations (referred to in the meeting as Section 38, edited as of February) and moved the revised section to the Planning Board for review.

The board's action, announced during the meeting when the chair said, "That is unanimous," covered cleanup and amendments to the sign section and sends the edited text onward to the Planning Board and interim review, according to meeting discussion. The approved edits were described by speakers as the set of changes the committee had already worked through and were ready to forward for the next step in the review process.

Why it matters: Sign rules affect how businesses and property owners may display messages, whether double-sided panels count toward allowed area, limits on illuminated signs and electronic message displays, and how the town enforces lighting standards such as "light in the sky" compliance. Changes to those rules can alter permitted sign sizes and lighting types across commercial and mixed-use properties in Rangeley.

Board members spent substantial time debating several technical points in the ordinance text: whether references should be to "internally illuminated" signs versus other illumination types; how electronic signs and message boards are regulated; whether double-sided signs should have each face counted separately toward a single-area limit; and how numerical size caps (the transcript refers to a 30-square-foot total and to a numeric limit referenced as "5,000" in one passage) should apply. Speakers discussed that the existing draft attempts to avoid duplicative or conflicting language across multiple ordinance sections and to make the sign rules consistent with a townwide lighting standard.

During the meeting a second motion was put on the floor to remove certain subsections of the sign section (referred to in the transcript as "38 10 8 8 and b"). That motion was seconded by Scott. Board members then debated details including how two sides of a sign should be measured (several speakers said two sides that display different content could still be counted toward the same total area) and whether removing the subsection would create gaps addressed elsewhere in the code. The transcript does not record the result of that removal motion. The meeting record shows discussion continued after the motion was made but does not capture a completed vote for that specific motion.

Speakers noted the board is waiting for additional language from Linda Dexter, who was expected to bring revised text to ensure compliance with the town's lighting standard referred to in the meeting as "light in the sky" compliance. Members said that further refinements will be needed and that more public input is likely as the process moves to the Planning Board.

The discussion included practical clarifications the board asked staff to confirm later: whether a double-sided sign counts as one or two faces for area limits, how to treat corner buildings with multiple façades, whether electronic message centers should be limited by brightness or hours, and how to avoid duplicative restrictions in multiple ordinance sections. Several speakers emphasized that the board's role is to craft townwide language rather than impose individual preferences.

What remains: the edited Section 38 has been forwarded to the Planning Board for review and any further technical or legal edits. The record indicates the board expects additional draft language from staff and further meetings before final adoption; specific timelines and the final vote outcomes for the removal motion were not recorded in the provided transcript.