The owners of 333 Glen Street may subdivide their land after a unanimous Glens Falls Planning Board OKed the move in their meeting last night, Wednesday Jan. 20. The vote came despite a last-minute push against it from the Glens Falls Industrial Development Agency and a working group that Mayor Dan Hall put together to look into issues such as this.
The four-acre property at 333 Glen Street is the home to a parking garage and Monument Square tower, which houses the Travelers Insurance company.
The subdivided portion would take a little more than half an acre south of the two buildings. It wraps around the Episcopal Church of the Messiah at 296 Glen Street and forms a triangle of lawn at the corner of Bay and Glen streets.
Glens Falls City Park and Crandall Library sit across Bay Street from the parcel.
Planning Chair Daniel Bruno reminded those present on Zoom that the discussion on the property was, once again, about subdividing a privately-owned piece of land.
“Comments are limited to subdivision only. We are not considering development at this time,” Bruno said. The board had broached both together last year, which was a mistake, Bruno said in a previous meeting.
The city has said it may want the property to keep as a park, Bruno said, “Whether it goes to the city or private developer, that doesn’t affect this application.”
“Yes, the city has an interest in acquiring this site,” said Judy Calogero, who spoke for the IDA and the mayor’s working group. “The city has targeted this open lot to be part of the open park district.”
The owner, 333 Glen Street Associates LLC, was represented by John Lapper who replied, “the city has a right of eminent domain” and the applicant is aware of this. He suggested this was the legal course for the city to follow if it wanted the property. Last summer, a developer approached the owners and city about an apartment complex on the site.
Calogero pushed further, as the discussion went on, asking that the board add a condition to the proposal: the city should have a right of first refusal to buy the parcel from the owners.
Deputy City Attorney Edward Fitzgerald replied that would likely be a bad idea.
“I’m not aware of any right of the city to condition approval on that,” he said. He reiterated that throughout the discussion.
Calogero said she was sure the city had conditioned approval in a similar way in the past, but could offer no specific instance. She suggested that the board could either table the decision and take it back up in another month after the city had time to research, or the board could approve the subdivision only on the condition that research into the law and previous instances be completed and shown not to change the outcome.
“We do believe it’s been done in the past,” Calogero said, the "we" referring to the IDA, the working group and mayor.
Again the city’s attorney balked.
“I would recommend not putting a condition in that’s subject to future legal review,” Fitzgerald said. “I really don’t think I’m going to come back with a different answer.”
Kris Vanderzee, the city’s code enforcer, said it would “take years” to find instances of this sort of conditional approval if his office did not know which property to consider. Calogero said her group might be able to find instances in order to help.
Lapper reiterated that the city has a right to eminent domain and that it could buy the property, after subdivision, at full market value. He added that a park is a clear public value of the property, one of the requirements to the use of eminent domain. Calogero argued that eminent domain is a long and costly process.
Her arguments did not win the day, and the board approved the subdivision unanimously.