NEW SCOTLAND — At a special meeting on Monday, Oct. 23, the planning board dropped its appeal to the zoning board over flashing signs, an issue that has become politicized before hotly contested town-board elections.  

New Scotland Building Inspector Jeremy Cramer had determined

that two applications for electronic signs — for Track 32 Italian Pub and for Olsen’s self-storage facility — were not considered flashing.

The town board subsequently passed a new law prohibiting flashing signs, making the appeal a non-issue.

After the Oct. 23 planning board adjourned, there was an outburst from Joseph Salvino, owner of Track 32, who was upset that the building inspector’s determination over what constitutes a flashing sign had been overturned.

“Immoral — and you reap what you sow. It’s immoral what you guys did, and you know it. You guys postponed this with a garbage appeal — that has never happened, an appeal to your own building inspector.”

“I see the concern from the town, and I see the concern from the applicant. My hope is that we can work something out between the two sides that is mutually beneficial,” Building Inspector Jeremy Cramer told The Enterprise this week.

One of the planning board members, Daniel Leinung, is running for town board as is incumbent Councilman Adam Greenberg, who voted with the rest of the town board for the new law that further defined what constitutes “flashing” and “digital” with regards to signs. This made the two signs Cramer had determined not to be flashing out of compliance with town code. Both Leinung and Greenberg are Democrats. The Republican challenger, Craig A. Shufelt, and his supporters said the move was anti-business but Democrats and their supporters have said keeping the town rural is good for business and flashing signs aren’t needed.

Planning Board Chairman Charles Voss said at the Oct. 23 meeting that his board was “withdrawing our variance appeals to the zoning board for the Track 32 sign, from which this board issued its appeal notification last month, as well as the Olsen sign.”

Voss asked planning and zoning board lawyer, Crystal Peck, to provide a legal explanation for the planning board pulling its appeal.

“The town board, on Oct. 11, passed a new local law that redefined what the term “flashing” will be in the sign code, which would include the two signs that were in the applications: Track 32 and the Olsen sign,” Peck said.

“Because of that, the board has two options: They could continue and see what the ZBA does — the ZBA would probably call it moot,” or the application for appeal could be withdrawn, she said.

“A question was raised as to whether the application should just be withdrawn and, if you want to do that — because there was a formal motion to make the applications [to the zoning board], you would make a formal motion to withdraw the applications. And they were going to be on the zoning board’s agenda for tomorrow night,” said Peck.

Voss said at the Oct. 23 meeting, “The planning board needed direction from either the zoning board or the town board. Procedurally, the town board acted — they pre-empted the zoning board — and defined it.”

“It’s not necessarily pre-empting the zoning board; what it does is amend the law, and essentially makes the appeal a non-issue at this point,” said Peck.

Voss said the law passed by the town board provided the clarity the planning board was seeking when it appealed Cramer’s determination.

“Laws can change while applications are pending … The new law that is adopted will govern the pending application,” said Peck; this means the two signs are not be permissible.

At the zoning board meeting the following night, Tuesday, Oct. 24, Chairman Jeff Baker, said, “The appeals that have been filed by the planning board … were withdrawn. They [the appeals] would have been deemed moot, anyway, as a matter of law because the town board passed a new law defining what are digital and flashing signs. So, it put the issue all to rest.”

Baker went on, “I will state for the record — certainly my colleagues on the ZBA can voice their opinion on this as well, if they want — that it’s certainly my opinion that, if the application, if the appeals, had gone forward, we would have upheld Jeremy’s [Cramer] determination with regard that the signs as being proposed, especially the sign being proposed by Hudson Valley Restaurant [Track 32], did not constitute a flashing sign. And could have gone forward, but the issue is irrelevant since the law has changed,” Baker said.  

Peck told The Enterprise that the new sign law was filed with the New York State Department of State on Oct. 12. She said the act of filing with Department of State makes it a formal law.

Salvino goes “back and forth”

After the Oct. 23 meeting, a frustrated Salvino spoke with The Enterprise.

“I’ve been in business since November of 2016,” he said of his restaurant in New Scotland.

“I can’t give you an accurate date of when I applied for my sign.”

“I’ve been to no less than a dozen meetings,” he said. “I don’t know which board I’m in front of, because I have to go back and forth to 50 boards.”

“The only reason the process was extended the way it was, was due to the applicant,” Voss told The Enterprise this week.

“He was perfectly entitled to come in and have a sign under the current sign code, and he could have even had a digital sign under the sign code. But he was the one who chose to put the flashing component, or variable-message component, in his sign application,” Voss said

The planning board wanted clarification if the flashing or variable-message component was allowed by town law, which is why it appealed Cramer’s determination.

“His initial sign application could have been approved months ago had he not requested the flashing, or variable-messaging part of it. That’s the only thing that really delayed his sign application,” Voss said.

Salvino’s sign appears on the agendas of the zoning, planning, and town boards numerous times over the past year, in different iterations. Some agendas deal with the electronic nature of the sign, and some deal only with code issues like how far the sign is set back from the street. And, in other instances, the sign had been voluntarily taken off the agenda by the applicant, with months passing before it reappears on boards’ agendas.  

The first time Salvino’s sign appears on an agenda is for the Sept. 27, 2016 zoning board meeting. According to the agenda, Salvino was seeking a variance to construct a sign that was larger and closer to the road than the code allows; there is nothing about what type of sign he was seeking.

The variances — for size and proximity to the road — were ultimately granted.

According to the meeting minutes, the zoning board voted unanimously to refer the application to the planning board. The minutes also say a public hearing should be scheduled for the next zoning board meeting.

At the planning board meeting on Oct. 4 2016, according to the meeting minutes, there was a postponement on the variance application referral and the special-use permit “to allow for an internally illuminated sign detached from the new restaurant to be constructed.”

The next zoning board meeting was not held until Jan 24, 2017, and Salvino’s sign doesn’t appear on the agenda.

The next time the sign appears is on the March 28, 2017 zoning board agenda. At that meeting, Salvino was seeking a sign that was smaller in area than the one at the Sept. 27, 2016 zoning board meeting. There are no minutes posted for the March meeting. The sign next appears on the zoning board agendas for July, August, September, and October of 2017.

The sign then appears on the agenda for the planning board at its April 4, 2017 meeting, for a referral and special-use permit for digital message board sign. But, according to the meeting notes, the applicant removed both applications from the agenda. The sign then appears on the planning board agendas of the September, and two separate October, meetings.

At the Aug. 1, 2017 planning board meeting, Salvino is again seeking a special-use permit “to allow for a digital message board sign detached from the new restaurant to be constructed.”

At the Sept. 26, 2017, zoning board meeting, the board hears the planning board’s appeal of Cramer’s determination that the signs were not flashing.

The town board first looked at flashing/scrolling signs at its April 12, 2017 meeting, and again at a special town board meeting on April 26, 2017. The sign appears three more times, at the May 10, 2017,  Sept. 13, 2017, and Oct 11, 2017 meetings. At the Oct. 11 meeting, the law was passed that defined “flashing” and “digital” in the town code as it pertains to signs.

Salvino said, when he first decided to invest in New Scotland, he looked at all the laws and thought that he would be able to install the type of sign he wanted, which for him was very important.

“I know the value of a sign … I know what signs do. As a person in business, I make the determination that I’m willing to spend $40,000 on a sign, because I know that I can get my return out of it.” Salvino said.

Originally, he wanted a sign similar to the one he has at his restaurant in Coxsackie, Paul’s Pizza. But, he says, a sign similar to that one would not have been approved. So, he began to make changes to his sign.

Salvino’s third restaurant, Pomodoro’s, in Catskill, is located off a main road, in a plaza — Catskill Commons — with other businesses in a mall that does not allow for the type of sign he has in Coxsackie, and was seeking in New Scotland, he says.

“I’m not trying to turn this into the Las Vegas strip,” he said. “I’m trying to do business.”