Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Aldermen deny plan for standalone package store on Crossgates Boulevard, cite compatibility and access concerns
Summary
A proposal to open a standalone liquor store at 346 Crossgates Blvd. was denied after the board found the freestanding configuration incompatible with the Community Commercial district and flagged loading/traffic and hospital adjacency concerns.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Board of Aldermen voted March 16 to deny a conditional use permit for a proposed package (liquor) store at 346 Crossgates Boulevard. Applicant John Christian asked to operate a 4,800‑square‑foot ground‑floor package store in an existing two‑story freestanding commercial building; the building is adjacent to a county‑owned hospital parcel.
Opponents and some board members expressed concern that the proposed standalone package‑store configuration is inconsistent with the Community Commercial (CC) district’s intended mixed‑use character and that the project, as presented, lacked an engineered site plan for deliveries, loading access, curb radii and turning for commercial delivery vehicles. Kirk Stewart, representing Greenfield Wine and Spirits, said adding another package store in the corridor could hurt existing businesses. Staff relayed late comments from the county attorney about the proximity to a hospital site that the county is actively marketing for a new hospital tenant.
During deliberation, the board referenced its historical practice of reviewing package stores as conditional uses tailored to each site and concluded that a freestanding package store in a building with no committed co‑tenants and with unresolved service/access issues would be incompatible with nearby medical campus operations and the corridor’s mixed‑use intent. The board’s motion to deny cited insufficient demonstration of satisfactory provision for ingress/egress, off‑street parking and delivery access. The motion to deny was adopted by the board.
Next steps: the applicant could revise the site plan or seek a different configuration that commits other tenants on the property, provides an engineered delivery and parking plan, and secures any needed access agreements with adjacent property owners.

