GUILDERLAND — After the town was alerted to perceived violations of a local shopping center’s sign permit and no enforcement action was taken, one local resident was before the town board Tuesday seeking another avenue of redress. 

But Supervisor Peter Barber explained during the board’s March 15 meeting  there is a process in place, it was followed, a determination was made — even if it wasn’t favorable — while adding there is still more that can be done. 

On Feb. 15, resident Robyn Gray called into the Guilderland Town Board meeting to follow up on a letter she’d sent, notifying members that Town Center plaza at 1704 Western Ave. was not following the permit conditions for its electronic digital sign.

Gray did not know that Jacqueline Coons, Guilderland’s chief building and zoning inspector, had already determined there was no enforcement action that needed to be taken. 

On March 15, resident Iris Broyde asked the town board what more could be done because the zoning board had been clear in the conditions of its approval “around how that directory sign was going to be used,” but the photos she submitted showed the applicant “pretty clearly to be in violation.”

What brought Broyde to the town board on March 15 was that she was looking for someone to explain to her who in town has the “kind of authority to supersede” the inaction of “what looks like a very should-be-a-very-enforceable action.”

 There were apartments being advertised that should not be advertised, Broyde said, as well as classified ads being shown on a sign whose purpose is a tenant directory. The sign is on 24 hours a day, seven days a week, also a violation, she said. Broyde said the typical channels were used “to exact some … ramifications” meaning Coons, but she “declined to take action.” 

Coons in a Feb. 14 email to the town board explaining her decision not to take any action, wrote, “The intent of the approval of the digital message board for use as a tenant directory sign at 1700/1704/1710 Western Avenue was to reflect the tenants of the Town Center Plaza and 1700 Multi-Residence projects. If the display is representing that a space is available at this location, that would be consistent with the use of the sign for directory purposes.” 

The three properties are owned by limited-liability companies and partnerships with names reflecting their location. 

Broyde said Coons’s inaction was “kind of stymieing” because there doesn’t appear to be a “way to supersede” the denial process “when an enforceable action is not being taken.”

One avenue of enforcement appeared to be getting the zoning board to enforce the conditions of its approval, she said.

Broyde sent an appeal to Coons and zoning board Chairman Thomas Remmert on Feb. 28, but no action was taken on her application because Broyde did not send in the $300 fee, which was reduced to $75, required for such matters.

March 15

During the March 15 meeting, Gray said, if board members were to look at the documents provided to them by Broyde, they’d see when the zoning board approved the Town Center signage, it had only OK’d the tenants of the plaza to be displayed on the digital sign. 

But then Barber added a wrinkle.

“I’ve really got to be careful not to get into the merits of the decision; I just want you to understand that this property is somewhat unique in that it’s a planned-unit development from 30 years ago,” Barber said during the March 15 meeting. So the permit that governs the 96-unit apartment complex at 1700 Western Ave. also governs the 1704 Western shopping center, he said. “It’s the same property for purposes of zoning.”

The apartments at 1700 Western, which were being advertised on the digital sign, “are not in that plaza,” Gray said. “I don’t think it matters whether they’re part of a PUD or not, they are not part of that plaza.” Gray said the apartments and shopping center “might be connected in terms of a PUD but I don’t believe that they’re connected in terms of this particular sign permit.” 

The town’s interactive mapping site in addition to its zoning map shows 1704 and 1710 Western Ave. zoned LB, or local business, and 1700 Western Ave. zoned MR, or multi-residential.

Behind the apartments at 1700 Western Ave. is a 20.8-acre parcel, 6270 Johnston Road Rear, that is zoned for a planned-unit development, Town Planner Kenneth Kovalchik told Enterprise by email. “If you look at the aerial map you can see there is a driveway that accesses the PUD from the Town Center Plaza.”

“I believe this is what Supervisor Barber was referring to at the March 15th Town Board meeting, that you can access the apartments and PUD from Town Center Plaza,” Kovalchik wrote. 

The March 2020 zoning board approval allows a place on the directory sign for tenants from 1704 and 1710 Western Ave. 

The process

Councilwoman Laurel Bohl summed up the issue, “It sounds like [Broyde’s] main question is: Where does a resident go who wants to get a determination made about if a permit’s being violated or not? And if the [zoning-enforcement officer] gives an answer that seems very inconsistent with the facts, how does she appeal that or go from there?”

Bohl said she’s “not sure” there’s a “real appeal” process in place either.

Barber, qualifying his answer with, “And I haven’t had a chance to look into this,” said that, according to New York State Town Law — in addition to Guilderland’s own code — he’s “pretty sure there’s a provision” that “says any order, direction, or anything from the chief-enforcement officer goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals” when appealing an enforcement officer’s ruling.

Broyde said what convinced her she wasn’t taking the right path with the appeals process — because the appeal would be an interpretation of a zoning ordinance, which needs no interpretation; it’s about enforcing the conditions in the zoning board’s sign approval — was that she was charged $75 for her troubles, “a reprieve from $300,” which was because the appeal of Coons’s decision not to act on the Feb. 14 letter had an impact on Broyde’s personal property.

Barber defended the $75 application cost because it takes money to run a municipality. 

He said anytime the zoning board receives an application, its meeting on the matter is effectively a public hearing, which requires published notification in a newspaper as well as notice being sent to neighboring property owners, which are a courtesy and not required by law.

“You add up just those hard costs, it’s well over $100,” Barber said, stating that the “town can’t run a deficit, can’t underwrite [this] sort of thing.” He said, while all other costs have gone up over the same period, the $75 fee hasn’t changed in 20 years. And said he thought the fee “is probably actually too low.”

Broyde said trying to get “the town to enforce their own rules does not seem like it should cost anything.”

Bohl said it was her understanding that Coons is often made aware of permit violations by town residents. “So it seems kind of illogical to be charging the residents to pursue something like this,” she said. 

Barber said, “I think that’s missing one point.”

Barber said a concern was raised to Coons, who made a determination on the issue raised. “You might disagree with that determination,” he said. “But she’s entrusted to make that determination.” If someone doesn’t like the decision, Barber said, “the route is to go to the ZBA,” and then file an Article 78 in court challenging the determination.

Bohl said she thought the appeal fee had more to do with denied applicants who were looking to build a shed rather than residents reporting a violation. “So I think it does need a little more thought,” she said, which Christine Napierski volunteered to look into more, as did Bohl. 

Napierski said later, “I think we do need to do some clarification [as to] what that process is, and make the rules a little bit clearer and easier to follow. But once the zoning officer has made a decision, even if it’s: I’m not going to enforce this permit decision. Then the next step is to [go to] the ZBA.” 

Barber thought valid concerns had been raised, but said he’d still “like to see what we could do administratively to address some of these things, and not necessarily, you know, keep on adopting local laws to change our zoning code.”

What’s next

The next step is up to Broyde whether or not she chooses to pursue an appeal of Coons’s determination with the zoning board. 

Brodye told The Enterprise by email that, after receiving the town board’s feedback, she determined she needed “rescind my initial application for appeal and refile with some editing to the form which will more accurately specify what I am appealing.”

Because she’s not appealing an “interpretation of a zoning ordinance,” but rather “a decision made to not enforce the conditions already established in an authorized sign permit.”