Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Business Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables signage request for Bargain Grocery Outlet after lengthy debate over wayfinding and visual impact
Summary
The Troy board tabled a signage variance for Bargain Grocery Outlet at 558 River St (PLZBA 20250013) after members and the public debated wayfinding needs, sign size and character of the waterfront. The applicant agreed to revise the package and return.
The Troy Planning/Zoning Board on PLZBA 20250013 declined to approve a proposed two-part sign package for Bargain Grocery Outlet at 558 River Street and instead voted to table the application so the applicant can submit revisions.
Adirondack Sign Company representative Adam (last name not specified) and First Columbia representative Joe Castaldo told the board that patrons are missing the grocery’s parking and that directional signage on Hoosick Street and at the building’s rear would guide drivers into the lot. The applicant reduced the previously proposed font and submitted revised drawings to city staff before the meeting.
Several board members and members of the public urged smaller, less visually intrusive signage. Commissioners said the large directional panel already drew attention and that the existing building sign may be sufficient for most local patrons. Board members suggested alternatives including a smaller directional panel with the store’s logo and a parking arrow, painted wayfinding, or a simplified sign mounted to the building rather than a separate freestanding panel.
First Columbia said the store is a nonprofit tenant operating in a long-vacant storefront in a neighborhood lacking groceries, and that leadership is concerned about low foot traffic and customers missing available parking. The applicant and board discussed moving to a middle-ground design: retain the circular branding sign and add a small “Parking →” panel or arrow beneath it, then resubmit a rendering showing the sign in situ and a nighttime view to demonstrate illumination effects.
The board voted to table the signage request so the applicant could return with a revised, smaller proposal and renderings showing the sign in place. Staff noted DOT involvement for signage in the state right-of-way and requested clearer documentation from DOT on the proposed ground-mounted sign.
Outcome: Motion to table passed (vote recorded as 5–0 for tabling).
