Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signs And Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Albany BZA grants three wall‑sign variances for Bishop Lifting at 427 Tasha Street
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals approved three area variances to allow larger wall signs at a Bishop Lifting property in a mixed‑use/form‑based warehouse district; one previously contested variance was withdrawn by the applicant.
The Board of Zoning Appeals for Albany City on Jan. 8 approved three area variances allowing larger wall signs for Bishop Lifting at 427 Tasha Street after the applicant withdrew a separate variance earlier in the hearing.
The variances clear constraints in the mixed‑use/form‑based warehouse district so the applicant can install wall signs larger than the standard allowance. The board was told the applicant reduced a previously proposed 220‑square‑foot sign to 149.85 square feet and removed an additional requested sign from the application.
Board members discussed procedure after the applicant said it would no longer seek area variance 0190. The applicant’s representative said the application had been revised to remove that variance. The board accepted the withdrawal and moved to vote on the remaining items.
Motions passed as follows: area variance 0191 to allow a 44‑square‑foot sign (three in favor, one opposed); area variance 0192 to allow a 44‑square‑foot sign (three in favor, one opposed); and area variance 0193 to allow a 149.85‑square‑foot sign (three in favor, one opposed). The board announced each motion “carries” after the roll calls. One board member voted “no” on each motion; other votes were recorded by first name during roll call.
No public commenters objected to the signage matters during the hearing and staff confirmed no written public submissions were outstanding on those items. The applicant thanked the board and left the meeting after the votes.
The approvals allow the applicant to proceed with the revised sign program described on the record; the board did not attach additional follow‑up conditions during the motion.
