Board of Appeals declines to overturn planning board denial of Noyes Real Estate sign

The Rangeley Board of Appeals on Wednesday declined to overturn the planning board's December decision denying Noyes Real Estate additional square footage for a business sign at 2198 Main Street, voting to "turn down the applicant's request for reconsideration." The board's action leaves in place the planning board's finding that the applicant did not prove the "special circumstances" required to depart from the town's 32-square-foot sign limit.

The appeal, presented by Leah Raichin of the law firm Drummond Woodson on behalf of Noyes Real Estate, argued two main points: that a planning-board member should have recused himself and that the planning board erred in applying the ordinance and the record when it denied the extra 10.28 square feet the applicant requested. "This appeal is a very different issue," Raichin said, distinguishing the current appeal from earlier proceedings about whether the sign as installed exceeded the 32-square-foot maximum.

The town's counsel, Attorney Steve Langsdorf, told the board the legal standard is narrow: the planning board must find "special circumstances which exist on a particular lot to warrant a departure from the square footage limitations." Langsdorf emphasized that those special circumstances must relate to the lot itself and that the Board of Appeals, acting on appeal, may only reverse the planning board if its decision was contrary to the ordinance or the record presented to that board.

Code enforcement deputy Carl (present on Zoom) said he did not recall any special circumstances being raised at the planning-board hearing and stated that the planning-board record did not show the board deliberated on the applicant's claimed circumstances. "I believe the code enforcement officer Breck during the previous planning board hearing did specifically ask for special circumstances, verbally during the meeting to be discussed. I don't believe any were brought up at that time," Carl said.

Raichin and the applicant, identified in the record as Mr. Bowen, pointed to the building's large façade and the business's long-used moose logo as examples of circumstances that, they argued, should justify additional signage. Raichin said the application supplied photographs and written submissions documenting those points and that the planning board "did not deliberate on them" in reaching its denial.

Board members debated whether the record before the planning board contained sufficient evidence of lot-specific special circumstances. One member said the sign itself appeared appropriate but that the applicant had not demonstrated the statutory threshold for an exception. Another member expressed concern about inconsistent finding-of-fact documents for similar requests and urged the planning board to use uniform paperwork to avoid the appearance of disparate treatment.

After discussion, a motion to "turn down the applicant's request for reconsideration" was made, seconded and approved by voice vote; individual member votes were not recorded in the hearing minutes. The board did not remand the matter to the planning board. A town attorney present noted the board could remand only if it found a legal error in the planning-board proceeding.

The applicant sought an additional 10.28 square feet beyond the town's 32-square-foot sign limit. Documents submitted to the planning board calculated portions of the installed sign as: 23.83 square feet for the "Noise" portion, 9.75 square feet for the real-estate lettering, and 8.70 square feet for the moose logo (the figures were presented in the applicant's filings and discussed in hearings). The planning board's December denial and a subsequent reconsideration request (heard Jan. 8) are part of the record cited in the appeal.

Board members and counsel discussed informal options for resolution outside court; the town attorney and the applicant's counsel both said they were open to negotiating a settlement to avoid prolonged litigation. The Board of Appeals' decision to deny the reconsideration preserves the planning board denial and leaves potential next steps to the applicant, including litigation or negotiated resolution.

The meeting included extended public- and deliberative discussion on process and how planning-board findings are documented; several members urged procedural consistency in future cases to reduce uncertainty.

The Board of Appeals closed the public hearing and resumed its regular meeting agenda after taking the vote.