The Walworth Zoning Board of Appeals denied a resident’s challenge to a disputed sign permit Nov. 2, leaving the permit in place after neighbors raised concerns about nighttime lighting and whether town officials had bypassed required variances.
The decision centered on the board’s authority to review the building inspector’s actions. Town Attorney Jake Zoghlin advised members that they could determine whether the inspector properly issued the permit, but could not reconsider the Planning Board’s underlying approval.
Paul Bosdyk of 1212 Fairway 18 brought the appeal over building permit 26-0209, issued Aug. 10 for the sign at Canandaigua Road and Country Club Drive near Blue Heron Golf Course.
Three members participated in the decision. Another member recused herself because of her involvement with the Planning Board.
Residents challenge approval process
Bosdyk said he was challenging how the application was handled, rather than whether applicant Jason Calder could seek permission for a replacement sign.
His appeal outlined four objections: that the Planning Board granted relief only the zoning board could authorize; that the sign required a variance as a freestanding business sign; that lighting information presented during review was inaccurate or incomplete; and that the application and permit process failed to meet town requirements.
Bosdyk argued that waivers under the town’s site plan regulations could not substitute for variances required by Chapter 143, which governs signs.
He also disputed an earlier comparison of the sign’s brightness to a 60-watt household bulb. Bosdyk said information from the sign maker put the output of its 24 LED modules at about 3,400 lumens, compared with the 800 lumens discussed during Planning Board review. That comparison, he said, also excluded exterior lighting.
Bosdyk further questioned whether outstanding conditions could have been satisfied before the building permit was issued on the same day the Planning Board approved the application.
The Planning Board’s Aug. 10 resolution required outstanding town comments to be addressed to the chairman’s satisfaction before a permit was issued. It also invoked the town’s site plan waiver provision to waive additional sign requirements. Members separately approved an exemption from reducing the sign’s lighting output and allowed its three-font design. Walworth’s August meeting minutes
Neighbor describes light entering bedroom
David McBride of 3341 Canandaigua Road said the sign’s lighting reaches his property and bedroom from approximately 165 feet away.
McBride described four sources of illumination: the sign’s internal lighting, a floodlight and two coach-style lights mounted above it. He submitted photographs showing light entering his bedroom and asked that the exterior lights be extinguished.
He said the internally illuminated sign could remain readable from the road without those additional fixtures.
“However, that bedroom is never black with those lights on across the street,” McBride said.
McBride also told the board that only the two upper lantern lights appeared to be operating when he left for the meeting. Those fixtures still cast light toward his house, he said, while doing little to make the sign readable.
Edward Raynor of Fairway 6 reinforced the procedural objections. He argued that the town’s site plan standards themselves require sign lighting to comply with Chapter 143 and protect neighboring properties from unwanted illumination.
Raynor asked officials to follow the proper approval process and ensure the application was complete.
“Our community needs to know that ordinances, code, and codes are being followed,” he said.
Attorney limits scope of review
After public comment closed, Zoghlin told the board that the building inspector had referred the application to the Planning Board, which made the substantive decision to approve it.
- Walworth zoning board approves setback variance for garage addition
- Walworth ZBA approves barn variance, sends home addition proposal back for revision
- Walworth zoning board approves carport variance, delays decision on home addition
- Walworth zoning board signs off on two setback variances after months between meetings
Once that approval was granted, he said, issuing the permit became a required administrative act rather than a discretionary decision by the inspector.
Zoghlin said a challenge to the Planning Board’s determination belonged in state Supreme Court through an Article 78 proceeding.
“You cannot review the planning board’s determination,” he told members. “You can review whether the building inspector acted properly.”
He also pointed to a Sept. 2 certificate of compliance, which he said had not been appealed.
Board members discussed that distinction before denying Bosdyk’s appeal. Their reasoning focused on the inspector’s obligation to issue the permit following Planning Board approval, without reconsidering the objections to how that approval was reached.
Dispute dates to summer review
The sign has drawn scrutiny for months.
At the July Planning Board meeting, residents questioned its installation before approval, its lighting and whether the application complied with town code. A Calder Homes representative said the sign company had installed it without authorization and described that as a mistake. The board postponed a decision until August. FingerLakes1’s July coverage
The dispute reached the Town Board in September, when Raynor sought revocation of the permit and Phil Williamson questioned whether site plan provisions were being used to bypass sign variance requirements. The Town Board accepted their materials without revoking the permit. FingerLakes1’s September coverage
The Nov. 2 denial leaves the permit in place, with residents’ objections to the Planning Board’s approval unresolved by the zoning board.
FingerLakes1.com is the region’s leading all-digital news publication. The company was founded in 1998 and has been keeping residents informed for more than two decades. Have a lead? Send it to news@fingerlakes1.com.