SCHENECTADY Walgreens fighting code restrictions Pharmacy chain says new store may not get built at all BY KATHLEEN MOORE Gazette Reporter
Walgreens is not surrendering in its war with the city’s building codes. Although several of the drugstore chain’s suburban-style plans were rejected by the Board of Zoning Appeals, it’s trying again next month. This is the first company to challenge the city’s new codes, which were approved by the Schenectady City Council on March 24. Walgreens isn’t just testing the city. Company officials insist that if they cannot build the pharmacy they want, they will not build one at all. They have also argued that the city’s code puts new businesses at a severe competitive disadvantage with long-time businesses. Stores that opened before March were able to surround themselves with a sea of asphalt, put up towering pole signs to attract customers, erect buildings the size of warehouses and install drive-throughs even if the traffi c flow sent cars across a sidewalk heavily used by pedestrians. In Walgreens’ case, the competition is enjoying all those perks just across the street, at the busy intersection of Brandywine Avenue and State Street. Customers would be able to choose between walking into Walgreens or simply cruising through the drive-through at Rite Aid. They would also choose between a new store with no front parking and an older building where lucky customers can park just a foot from the front door. In other words, Walgreens says, the code just isn’t fair. Officials have also pointed out that Walgreens would clean up a long-blighted corner on a heavily traveled intersection, and pay roughly $50,000 a year in city, county and school taxes. The store would bring new jobs as well, including several high-paid pharmacy positions. But city officials are sticking to their guns, saying they must start enforcing the new code for every new business or abandon it altogether. They want a city in which buildings are flush against the sidewalks with front doors, so that pedestrians can walk from store to store instead of driving to each location. They also say parking should be relegated to the back of buildings so that pedestrians can walk down main sidewalks without dodging cars every few feet. In essence, they say, they want an attractive city instead of a suburb. The next design battle will begin Dec. 3, when Walgreens tries to persuade the Board of Zoning Appeals to reverse its own decision on parking maximums and parking lot locations. Walgreens just submitted paperwork to get onto the Dec. 3 agenda. ........................ http://www.dailygazette.net/Re.....cale=&ChunkNum=0
In Walgreens’ case, the competition is enjoying all those perks just across the street, at the busy intersection of Brandywine Avenue and State Street. Customers would be able to choose between walking into Walgreens or simply cruising through the drive-through at Rite Aid. They would also choose between a new store with no front parking and an older building where lucky customers can park just a foot from the front door.
I guess they haven't seen the foot traffic in that area.......it's quite heavy.....and the drug dealers will give them some good competition.....
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
The buildings at the intersection of State Street and Brandywine Avenue — specifically, the two suburban-style drugstore buildings on diagonally opposite corners — provide a terrific argument for the design standards that the city of Schenectady passed with its new comprehensive plan in March. The buildings are not just ugly, but impractical for urban use — set back well off their corners, with a sea of asphalt (for driving, parking and drive-upwindow idling) on all sides: the definition of pedestrian-unfriendly. So city officials, who have thus far refused to accommodate developers seeking to build yet another suburban-style drugstore on a third corner of the intersection — a Walgreens — are to be congratulated for sticking to their guns. ..............................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....amp;EntityId=Ar04001
I realize that there are empty 'box buildings' already in that area. But to keep Walgreen's out because of poor past planning doesn't really make sense to me. Walgreens would do great there! 'I' would even go there. (during daylight of course)
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
If it wasn't sooooo true and sad, it could be funny!!!!!! EXCELLENT!!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Excellent analysis by Schenectady Today. The anti-business Krats have run the City into the ground with 34 years of bad planning, over taxation, and arrrogance.
The Gazetto editorial is hilarious. From Saratoga County it is great planning policy to thumb your nose at a tax paying business and protect an empty gravel lot. They also think Metrograft is wonderful and the Big Hose will open by St Patty's Day 2007! The vacant Eckard's is now a Aaron's Rents. Walgreen's must be welcomed and taxpayer sink holes like the nearby Bethesda House given the boot.
SCHENECTADY Walgreens still has its eye on city site Store plans still a source of contention BY KATHLEEN MOORE Gazette Reporter Reach Gazette reporter Kathleen Moore at 395-3120 or moore@dailygazette.com.
Even though Walgreens is dramatically reducing the number of new pharmacies it’s building this year, Schenectady is still on the list. “The company will continue to open new stores in strategic markets, on the best corners and which offer the greatest rates of return,” Walgreens officials said in a press release. They said Schenectady made the cut because of its population profile, the busy traffi c at the State Street-Brandywine Avenue intersection where the Walgreens store would be built and the close proximity of the Hometown Health clinic, which is across the intersection. Even though the company considers the Schenectady site highly desirable, it still won’t budge on the suburban-style design that has been repeatedly rejected by city planners. The company plans to duke it out with the city Board of Zoning Appeals again on Wednesday at 7 p.m. at City Hall. Many other planned Walgreens locations throughout the country were dropped last week when the company announced its annual earnings. Pharmacy sales were up, but the company’s gross profi ts fell. Walgreens officials said they had intended to build up to 700 new stores this year but would cut that back to 495. The company is now focusing on building new stores in the Northeast and California. At issue now in Schenectady is the fact that the company wants to surround its building by what some city officials call “a sea of asphalt.” Walgreens describes it as a convenient parking lot that allows quick access to the store. The front parking lot is specifi - cally forbidden in the city’s new comprehensive plan. Walgreens has already wrested some concessions from the city and believes that it may be able to build a drive-through as well as a building much larger than normally allowed. The BZA also.....................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....amp;EntityId=Ar01002
SCHENECTADY Walgreens design rejected again Pharmacy developer says rules are unfair BY KATHLEEN MOORE Gazette Reporter
The Board of Zoning Appeals stuck to its guns Wednesday night and rejected the Walgreens application as virtually identical to the State Street plan it had previously denied. “What’s different about this plan?” asked BZA Chairman James Gleason. The board voted 5-0, with two members absent, to require Walgreens to file a new application if it wants to try again. The pharmacy has been waging a war against the city’s new comprehensive plan for almost a year now, in hopes of getting the city to waive its new rules that ban suburban-style designs. The city’s new comprehensive plan calls for a pedestrian-friendly city, with buildings placed near the sidewalk, parking lots behind buildings and far fewer drive-throughs. The rules had wide support last year, but Walgreens developer Tom Burke has argued that the comprehensive plan is patently unfair for his pharmacy. Walgreens wants to build a store directly across the street from the Rite Aid at the corner of State Street and Brandywine Avenue. Rite Aid, which was built long before the new rules, is surrounded by parking, is placed well back from the street and has a drive-through that cuts across the sidewalk. If Walgreens is held to the new standards, Burke has argued, it would be placed at a disadvantage with its direct competitor. So far, with the support of city officials from all departments, the BZA has held its ground and enforced the new rules. But Burke vowed Wednesday to return next month and try again. He argued that making an exception in this one case won’t hurt anything. “This plan is in harmony with the other uses in the neighborhood,” he said. “It will eliminate urban blight. It will create new taxes. This is a good plan.” But the plan still calls for 21 parking spaces in front of the pharmacy. The pavement surrounds the building with what some city officials have derisively called “a sea of asphalt” and a “suburban design.” Board members wanted Walgreens to eliminate all or most of the parking in front of the proposed building. Instead, Burke’s latest plan eliminates five parking spaces behind the building — where the board wants most cars to park. Board members dismissed that change. Burke tried to defend the plan, but did not impress when he argued that parking behind the store would be a safety hazard. “It’s not just for convenience, it’s for safety,” he said of frontdoor parking. “You don’t want to have parking behind the building. It’s remote, dark, far from the entrance.” Board members did not even debate the merits of the city parking design with Burke this time. They simply told him to redesign it before he comes back. Burke said he would discuss the issue with Walgreens before next month’s meeting but admitted he has no authority to cut the parking spaces himself. “I feel like a rope in a tug of........................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....amp;EntityId=Ar00902
The individual chairing the Schenectady Board of Zoning Appeals meeting Jan. 7 was David Connelly; he was misidentified in Thursday’s Gazette story on the meeting. Also, the BZA scheduled a hearing on a new application for a Walgreens pharmacy at State Street and Brandywine Avenue. No application was rejected, according to the board.
The Board of Zoning Appeals stuck to its guns Wednesday night and rejected the Walgreens application
Which is what the entire story was based on.
Then the "correction"
Quoted Text
No application was rejected, according to the board.
How exactly can you screw that part up? I don't get it. Was it just a headline attraction thing? Did Kathleen even GO to the meeting (or did she leave early?)?
Who exactly is Tom Burke? How did his name creep into this story?
I thought Ms. Moore was better than this. This is just sloppy reporting.
Sometimes it appears the city has difficulty seeing the forest for the trees. As much as our leaders pretend, Schenectady is not Williamsburg, Va. As a taxpayer on six branch offices in the city, we would gladly welcome additional businesses and the added tax base. In these difficult economic times, where companies are contracting in many areas throughout the region and country, the city should be promoting a pro-businesses climate, not sending companies back and forth to the Planning Commission for a so called “pedestrian-friendly” building. Trustco welcomes business to the city, and we believe our city leaders should do the same. It appears all Walgreens wants is a building similar to the one their competitor has directly across the street. The city leaders have spent much time, money and energy on promoting Schenectady. They should not lose focus on a regulation that may look good on paper but only hurts the city and its taxpayers in the long run.
ROBERT M. LEONARD Schenectady The writer is an administrative vice president for Truscto Bank
Another new low for the Gazetto. Who's doing the fact checking over there? Don't know who's the Chairman and stated the application was rejected again. Did a meeting actually take place? And they wonder why readership is dropping like a stone.
Great letter from Mr. Leonard. He's getting sick of having to pay more taxes because of the stupidity of the all-Krat Schenectady government. When you have an anti-business mentality, don't be surprised when you have no businesses. The Mayor and Paper want to protect the vacant eyesore gravel lot like its some sort of historical site.
The City sheeple don't mind paying more taxes for the nonexistent services. When a prime corner sits vacant, you got a big problem. But then again the Mayor is unsure of where Brandywine Avenue is. Somebody point his Jeep in the right direction.
why dont you let the people do theyre jobs instead of harrassing them over there, and there are to many drug storea already you know
Don't worry Sal. I'm sure you are aware that they don't listen to our concerns 'over there' anyway. They pretty much do whatever they want. So don't worry yourself.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Logged
Excellent analysis by Schenectady Today. The anti-business Krats have run the City into the ground with 34 years of bad planning, over taxation, and arrrogance. 
