The Glens Falls Planning Board and Patten Property Development LLC reached a détente of sorts yesterday evening, April 6.
The board has been pushed into the middle of the argument between Chris Patten, the property developer, and the Glens Falls Common Council. Last night the planning board chose to ignore the Glens Falls council and consider Patten’s plan, as they would any developer's plan.
"I just request this move forward, separate and apart" from what the common council will do, Patten’s lawyer, John Lapper, said.
The Common Council wants to preserve the parcel at the corner of Bay and Glen streets downtown as an open greenspace and consolidate that open space into the city’s parks. It has been used as overflow space for years during events such as the LARAC festival.
However, the land is privately held by 333 Glen Street Associates, LLC, and Patten has a contract to buy and develop it, if he can create a plan that wins approval from the planning and zoning boards. His current plan is a four-storey building with 21 apartments and a small commercial space on the ground floor.
The planning board seemed to decide that if the common council wanted the property, they could pursue whatever avenues they have, including taking the property by Eminent Domain.
The board's concern, as it would be with any project before it, focused on the size and placement of the building along with the look and design of it.
By the end of the evening they tabled the plan--again, for lack of detail, as they had last month. However, this time, the board agreed to put together a full list of questions and concerns, highlighting all the detail they need from Patten if he is to move forward.
Some of the details include the way garbage and snow removal will be handled, the location of gas and electric meters, and full drawings of the exterior of the building.
He said he would answer all the questions if he gets the list, but also complained later in the meeting that he has responded to the board only to have them offer more hurdles. He remains undeterred.
"I'll go at this thing 15 times if I have to,” Patten told the board and again he did not rule out lawsuits if the decisions do not go his way.
Board member Ethan Hall put forward the idea of the list.
The two biggest issues for Patten may be the parking lot entry and the density in the zoning.
"As far as design goes, one of my main concerns is the parking lot entry opposite the Maple Street entrance,” said Daniel Brown, the architectural consultant to the board. With the parking lot and Maple Street facing each other across Bay, traffic will snarl during rush hours, he and others on the board said.
Also, the parcel is located in the GC-1 zone which allows mixed use and residential development, but it only allows for one residential unit per 2,500 square feet of property. The parcel is about 24,000 square feet, or about 9.5 residential units are allowed. Patten wants 21 units in the four-storey building.
Judy Calogero, the chair of the Glens Falls Industrial Development Authority, brought this to the attention of the board during the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Patten’s lawyer, John Lapper, had addressed this before she spoke, saying that the IDA, under Calogero’s leadership, supported other projects that allowed for more units than the zoning allowed.
Whether the IDA established a precedent by allowing those projects to move forward appears to be an issue for the lawyers. Near the end of the meeting, when Patten pushed for a deadline on that issue, his own lawyer, interjected and stopped the conversation until later. The City’s attorney Edward Fitzgerald said he would speak privately with the board on this matter.
The board also will be looking to receive consultation from the state on developing in historic areas. The parcel is inside the city's Three Squares Historic District, but Glens Falls does not have a historic review board to review it.