GUILDERLAND — The Guilderland Town Board has been asked by the town’s planner and chief building inspector to look at the section of zoning code prohibiting painted wall signs. 

The re-evaluation came about after Nicholas Warchol, the owner of Herbie’s Burgers on Western Avenue, unaware of the prohibition against painted signs, put up a painted sign and then refused to paint over it.

“It’s a painted sign. It’s not the painted wall. And one of the things about this is that the sign for this particular business says, ‘Herbie’s,’ and it says, ‘Burgers, Shakes, and Fries.’ It’s only the ‘Herbie’s.’ The ‘Burgers, Shakes, and Fries’ is not the sign. The sign is ‘Herbie’s,’” explained Supervisor Peter Barber at the board’s Dec. 7 meeting. 

Some board members thought the issue should be addressed with the comprehensive plan update, but Barber said painted signs hadn’t been a concern in the previous 20 years, adding that he didn’t think the update committee was going to get to that “level of granule detail. I mean, again, it hasn’t even been addressed by the zoning staff.”

Barber said of Warchol’s rationale for not painting over the sign, “He didn’t want to do that because he hired an artist to paint the whole wall, including the Herbie’s. And I think it’s more principle.”

“It’s principle for me too,” Councilwoman Rosemary Centi said in response to Barber. “It’s in violation of our code.”

While stating he didn’t want to speak for either Jacqueline Coons, Guilderland’s chief building inspector, or Kenneth Kovalchik, the town’s planner, Barber said, “Now, is this a code provision? Yes, it’s in the code. But should it be there or should [it] be drafted slightly differently? Should there be a prohibition on something that does not  — there’s no lighting … It’s less intrusive in terms of signage.”

“But it can be intrusive,” Centi said.

To which Barber responded, “But once it’s a sign, then it’s regulated.”

Barber said a painted wall is not intrusive, not offensive, nor is it neon lit.

“Can I just say in response to that, unless we regulate it, it can be,” Centi responded. “And I can’t see Western Avenue becoming a Route 28, like on Cape [Cod] or a boardwalk or where there’s all this neon-colored, painted signs, one after the other … I’m looking at what it could become, and I frankly don’t see the point. I just don’t.”

Then, as increasingly ridiculous examples were cited, Councilman Jacob Crawford noted that Warchol would be in compliance if an exact replica of his exterior sign was located on the interior side of the front windows.

Or, Barber said, if Warchol were to leave everything else the way it is and paint “Herbie’s” on a piece of plywood, and affix it to the wall, he’d be in compliance that way.

Or, Barber went on, “He could take that same sign that’s painted on the building. He could take a picture of it. Take it to an expensive digital printer, print it out, and stick it right back on there. And it’s no longer painted. Now it’s simply just attached.”

Crawford, like Barber, noted Centi’s concerns could be addressed if the board were to make changes to the code.

But Councilwoman Christine Napierski shared Centi’s sentiment on the signs and how they look. 

“I do want to say, Rosemary, that I hear you when you say we have to worry about the aesthetics and what Route 20 looks like,” said Napierski. “We really do, because, well, it reflects poorly on the whole town if it starts to look cheap and ugly.”

She suggested that Coons and Kovalchik could come up with “something that will satisfy both those concerns — wanting it to be attractive and aesthetically maintained, as well as the other aspects.”

The board ultimately took no action on painted signs, and appeared open to Coons and Kovalchik coming up with a proposal for members to vote on.