Developers present 205‑unit Lansingburgh Gateway project; board, residents press parking, traffic and density concerns

Andrew Schriever of Attic Labs introduced the Lansingburgh Gateway proposal for 851–867 Second Avenue as a 6.27‑acre mixed‑use project with 205 workforce housing units and roughly 11,000 square feet of ground‑floor commercial space. Schriever said the development team (Attic Labs, Rockabill Development, AGC and others) seeks to balance a strong street presence with a waterfront green buffer and identified floodplain elevation and existing utility constraints as drivers for several requested variances.

Kelsey of LaBella, the project’s site engineer, described the site context: a former Price Chopper/Burger King parcel that has been vacant and sits within a resilient waterfront/flood overlay. The team proposed 205 off‑street parking spaces (one per unit) plus 21 on‑street parallel spaces on Second Avenue, and said a Transportation Demand Management plan supports the parking strategy. The design puts parking between the buildings to preserve riverside pedestrian space and proposes a riverwalk easement and bicycle parking for public use.

The applicants read a list of at least eight specific variance requests: a modest building‑height increase (about 3 ft for the central building driven by required flood‑elevation of residential floors), an elevated ground‑floor commercial height, reduced building frontage percentage, side and fourth‑story setbacks, a reduced front parking setback, allowances to locate parking nearer the river at certain points, and an exception for planting required street trees adjacent to a shallow combined sewer and water main. The team argued several variances were necessitated by the site’s floodplain, subsurface utilities and the need to maintain view corridors and access for signalized intersections.

Residents and board members pressed the team on parking access and allocation (concern that on‑street spaces will be used by residents rather than retail customers), how parallel parking will affect travel lanes coming off the bridge, and whether the planned parking and restricted curb geometry could cause congestion. Schriever said the project’s traffic analyses (site access and operational analysis) show the intersections operate well with minor signal timing adjustments and that the team will return with final traffic reporting and additional details at future hearings.

The project’s affordability plan drew questions: Schriever said the project targets an average of 60% area median income (AMI), with many units at 50–60% AMI and some at the 30–80% ranges the state typically funds; he provided sample 2026 rent figures cited to AMI bands (for example, one‑bedroom rents roughly $1,380 at 60% AMI and $1,850 at 80% AMI; 30% AMI one‑bedroom roughly $690). He said final AMI allocations will be determined by the market study and by state housing agency (HCR) funding decisions.

Multiple public commenters urged the board and planning authorities to prioritize high design standards and infrastructure improvements, questioned whether some variance requests were “self‑created” by the design, and asked the city to require developer contributions to public infrastructure replacements where appropriate. Architect Barb Nelson urged the board to insist on stronger street‑front design and to examine whether some variances could be avoided by different massing; resident Ronnie Shamam stressed historic and neighborhood context.

The board and applicants agreed the Planning Board will continue coordinated environmental review; the project was presented to the Planning Board on June 16 and is scheduled for a public hearing there on July 21. The Zoning Board heard the introduction and asked the developers to return with additional traffic, parking, and landscaping details before any final zoning action.