Neighbors near an industrial park off Wayto Road in Guilderland thought they had won when the town's zoning board voted 3-2 against a special-use permit for a warehouse this past August. Now they're being told that vote might not count as a denial at all, and the board could take up the same proposal again as soon as next month.
Board member Elizabeth Lott, who voted yes on the permit in August alongside Sharon Cupoli, says a procedural issue means the panel must revisit the matter. According to the Times Union, Lott has argued that a vote lacking a majority on a special-use permit amounts to nonaction rather than a statutory denial, and that the board should have taken a separate affirmative motion to formally reject the warehouse after the permit vote failed. She has said the second vote could occur at the board's Dec. 2 meeting.
Nicole Ventresca-Cohen voted no on the permit in August, telling the paper that the industrial park's zoning classification did not actually prohibit a warehouse from being built there. Lott, for her part, has said the board must balance competing interests around the proposal, and that she would make the same motion again at the next meeting.
A Fight Residents Thought Was Over
For neighbors who live near the industrial park, the idea that the August vote might not stick has landed as a gut punch. William Delanoy called the prospect of reopening the application for a revote ridiculous, according to the same report, and said he believed residents would not even be allowed to speak at a future meeting. He has also described the industrial park proposal itself as egregious.
That concern tracks with something else Lott reportedly said: that the public should not speak at the upcoming meeting on procedural grounds, even as the developer would be allowed to address the board. She has also said the public hearing closure remains in effect because the case is sitting in nonaction status.
Residents in the area, which includes roughly 25 houses bordered by Interstate 890, Interstate 90 and the industrial park itself, have said they often feel overlooked by the town because of where they live. Debra Dederick put it bluntly, saying the neighborhood is treated as the last neighborhood in Guilderland, the Times Union reported. Residents have also said vehicle noise wakes them at night, with tractor-trailers driving and idling on neighborhood streets, and they argued the warehouse would only add more traffic to those residential streets.
Who's Behind the Project
The permit applicant on file is Sandell Manufacturing, a company that zoning board documents identify as the project's business and applicant even though it no longer exists, according to the report. Saverio Minucci, who owns SJM Realty, said he sold Sandell Manufacturing to Berkshire Hathaway years ago. SJM Realty, which owns several rental properties in the Capital Region, is the entity actually pursuing the warehouse project, while SJM Property Management owns the industrial park property on Wayto Road and the land itself.
Minucci said he believed the project was still moving forward and that the August meeting was intended for public comments rather than a final vote. He said he had heard neighbors' complaints and was trying to address them, adding that SJM had discussed those concerns and planned upgrades to the property. The industrial park was zoned industrial before Minucci owned it.
Project engineer Luigi Palleschi said the plan has been revised to address residents' concerns. The revised proposal reportedly includes a stockade fence meant to insulate residents from industrial park noise, along with additional signage directing truck drivers and new garbage receptacles. Palleschi said the warehouse would operate from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and that the facility would generate four additional vehicle trips per day. The project would also remove a water tower visible from Thruway Exit 25, according to the report.
How Big Is the Warehouse, Really?
Even the basic size of the project is in dispute. A project description circulated by the Guilderland Coalition for Responsible Growth describes a one-story, 30,250-square-foot warehouse on 11.2 acres within the existing industrial park. But a zoning notice published earlier this year in The Altamont Enterprise described Sandell Manufacturing's special-use permit request as covering a 40,000-square-foot warehouse at the same Wayto Road address. The Times Union's reporting on the August vote also refers to a 40,000-square-foot warehouse, and it's not clear from available records whether the two figures describe different versions of the same proposal.
The Legal Gray Area
Town code sheds some light on why a split vote might not settle the matter. Under the Town of Guilderland's zoning code, hosted on eCode360, the Zoning Board of Appeals consists of five members appointed by the Town Board, and hearing notices must be published in an official town newspaper at least 10 days ahead of time. The same code states that a denied special-use-permit application is not eligible for resubmittal for one year from the date of denial, though it also describes exceptions tied to new evidence or changed conditions without spelling out the full language governing those exceptions.
A separate New York Court of Appeals decision offers a point of comparison, though it dealt with a variance application rather than a special-use permit. In that case, the court held that when a quorum of a board is present and participates in a vote, a vote that fails to produce a majority in favor is deemed a denial. Whether that reasoning applies to Guilderland's special-use-permit situation is not addressed in the available code language, and the town has not said so publicly.
Jacqueline Coons, the town's chief building and zoning inspector, declined to comment on the board's agenda when asked by the Times Union. James Melita, the town's attorney, was also named in the paper's reporting. Lott has indicated the matter could return to the board on Dec. 2, but whether that meeting will produce a final resolution — or another procedural detour — remains to be seen.
