Emery & Webb requests variance for new sign
A public hearing was held at the Town of Rhinebeck Zoning Board of Appeals meeting Aug. 15 on a request for a variance to erect a new 17.25 square foot sign that would replace the Emery & Webb sign of similar size located at 344-346 Old Post Rd., across from CJ’s Restaurant on Route 9G.
Board members raised questions on whether the sign’s lighting effect, described by a representative of the sign company as “push-through letters and a reverse channel letters, should be considered internal or external illumination. According to the representative, the letters on the sign would be raised with blue LEDs behind them to create a “halo effect.”
Members also expressed concern with the insurance company’s plan to leave the lights on after business hours, into the evening, and whether that was compatible with the law.
The board requested that the applicant provide a more detailed diagram of the sign and the method of illumination so that they can decide whether it should be considered internal illumination. The sign company representative said she would speak with the applicant so they could decide whether to proceed with the application.
There were no comments from the public and the public hearing was continued to the next meeting, scheduled for Sept. 19.
Frontage variance sought for Old Albany Post Road property
Eric Martin, an engineer representing owner Bellmore Partners, Inc., attended the Aug. ZBA meeting for the continued public hearing on a variance request for reduced frontage at 120 Old Albany Post Road.
On the lot in question, according to Martin, “under the current code you need 400 feet. This is an existing house that is already there. We don’t have 400 feet now, and even after subdividing we won’t have 400 feet.”
A variance granted for the reduction of frontage would allow the creation of a flag lot—a lot with a long thin piece of land typically used as a driveway to access a larger parcel shaped like a flag—to access the newly subdivided property in the rear.
The board took no action on the request and continued the public hearing to the Sept. 19 meeting to allow time to clarify some procedural issues that arose from recent zoning changes.