Middletown zoning board balks at oversized West Main Road sign, sends applicant back for a redesign

The Middletown Zoning Board of Review declined to vote on a new freestanding sign at a West Main Road building supply store on July 28, sending the applicant back to redraw the plan after members raised traffic-safety and sight-line objections. The case was continued to the board's August 25 meeting.

The petition, filed by CGRI Middletown, LLC as owner with Poyant Signs as applicant, sought a special use permit to allow a sign of about 132 square feet where 80 square feet is the maximum, and 23 feet tall where 10 feet is allowed, at 1400 West Main Road, according to the petition as read into the record at the hearing and posted in the Middletown Zoning's published meeting recording. A special use permit is a form of relief that lets a property owner exceed what the zoning ordinance normally permits, if the board finds specific standards are met.

A representative from Poyant Signs, Bethany Leonard, told the board the square footage listed on the application appears to contain a typographical error and that the sign as designed is 126 square feet. She said the existing sign on the site — which still carries a painted-over panel from the former Benny's store, plus an illuminated tenant cabinet — measures roughly 120 square feet across two cabinets and stands 25 feet tall. Under the proposal, that structure and its posts would be removed entirely and replaced in the same location.

What the applicant asked for

Leonard said the new sign would be internally illuminated, with only the lettering lighting at night and the black background staying dark. She said the design includes a blank panel for a future tenant on an undeveloped pad site at the property, and that including it in one structure avoids adding a second sign later.

She also described why the sign carries service wording rather than just a company name. "A lot of people think Riverhead Building Supply is for contractors and it's just a building supply company that not the everyday homeowner can go and still purchase items," Leonard said, adding that the store wanted masonry, kitchens, doors and windows listed so residential customers know they can shop there.

Leonard said an earlier version of essentially the same sign went before the Planning Board in November on behalf of a different prospective tenant, and that planners asked for a reduction to 23 feet and 126 square feet. She said the current design was drawn to those figures.

Board members pressed on height and precedent

Several board members were unpersuaded that the surrounding corridor justified the relief. One member said the ordinance exists for a reason and described the stretch as having become "a sea of oversized signage."

Board member Christopher Rowe told the board he had gone out and taken approximate measurements of other signs along the corridor using geometry. By his count, a fast-food sign came in at roughly 14 feet, a fried chicken restaurant at 18, a pizza chain at 16, a car wash at 12 to 14, a motel at 16 and a nearby plaza at 19. He put the adjacent shopping center's sign at about 19 to 20 feet, lower than the 22 feet Leonard said she had measured. The only comparable he found near the requested height was an auto dealership sign at roughly 23 and a half feet.

"If seven out of eight can get down into that 14 to 19, 20 foot range, why couldn't this one be brought down in size?" Rowe asked, suggesting the applicant could keep the square footage and simply lower the structure. He later noted the average of the other signs he measured came to about 18 feet, and that the request represents a 130 percent increase over the 10-foot limit in the code.

Other members were more sympathetic. One said the property had been looking poor since the former retail tenant left and that the replacement would be an improvement done in good taste. Another said the business is a significant local employer offering jobs paying well above minimum wage, and said he would like to be supportive.

The safety question that changed the outcome

The discussion shifted when a member raised the sign's placement relative to pedestrian crossings. Referring to the six-foot human silhouette drawn at the base of the applicant's rendering, he said his concern was sight lines for drivers entering and leaving the shopping center, because crosswalks run in both directions across West Main Road at that corner.

He asked whether the sign could be moved to the far side of the existing sidewalk, away from the corner. Board member Rick Lombardi agreed that sight lines matter at that kind of entrance, particularly for pedestrians, while saying he was leaning toward supporting the petition to a degree.

Leonard said the sign sits 10 feet back from the road and four and a half feet from the edge of the sidewalk, and that the open space beneath the panels is deliberate so drivers can see through. She said moving it across the sidewalk may not be simple: there is a fence and what appears to be a drainage ditch on that side, and she was not certain whether that strip is private property or the town's.

That prompted an extended exchange among members about who owns and maintains the swale. One member recalled past complaints about trash blowing into the fence and a period when the fence itself became a safety concern, and said he believed the drainage was installed when the plaza was built. Another said that as a general rule, drainage infrastructure sitting on a property belongs to that property owner, who is responsible for maintaining it. No one on the recording resolved the question definitively.

Leonard also pushed back on simply lowering the sign while keeping its area. She said the clearance from the ground is intentional, partly to keep the lower tenant panel out of reach of vandalism, so a shorter structure would require cutting square footage. A member responded that moving the sign back from the corner would address the safety concern and allow the height to come down without shrinking the sign.

No vote taken

A motion to approve was made and seconded, but the board did not act on it. Instead, a member asked the applicant to go back and study the suggestions before any vote, saying he did not personally object to the sign's size but wanted the safety concerns addressed.

Leonard offered an alternative: if the fence and grade rule out crossing the sidewalk, she asked whether pushing the sign farther into the plaza — perhaps a 15-foot setback instead of 10 — would satisfy the board. A member indicated that could work from his viewpoint.

The chair then framed the outcome, telling the applicant the board was asking for a continuance to August 25, with the existing testimony preserved on the record. The applicant is to return with the feasibility of relocating the sign, after which the board will take a vote.

Leonard agreed and confirmed she understood a new plan, rather than a full resubmission, is what is expected before that date.

Separately, the board's attorney recused from advising on the petition, saying the tenant was not listed as an applicant on the paperwork.

The case is scheduled to be heard again at the board's August 25 meeting, where the public portion of the hearing can be reopened before any vote is taken.