Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Lawrence Street topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board recommends ZBA consider 12‑lot Lawrence Street subdivision after extensive public comment on wetlands and flooding
Summary
Developers asked to create 12 lots from a paper street; the Planning Board recommended the Zoning Board of Appeals consider area variances while residents warned of wetlands, flooding, wildlife loss and traffic impacts. The board urged additional engineering and coordinated environmental review.
The Glens Falls Planning Board voted July 1 to recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals consider area variances requested by Land Holdings LLC for a proposed subdivision on the Lawrence Street Extension that would create 12 single‑family lots.
The project team, represented by Ethan Hall of Brzinski Hall Architecture and Tom Center of Hudson Engineering, told the board the plan calls for a new city street built to municipal standards with utilities brought in and hammerhead turnaround at the end. Hall said the lots will be two‑story single‑family homes with utilities and stormwater management provided as the project moves forward.
Why it matters: Neighbors repeatedly urged caution during public comment. Jarrett, who identified himself from 12 Catherine Street, said the proposal concerns him because "it is a wetland" and residents already experience ponding and basement flooding. Several residents noted the parcel functions as a buffer between homes and nearby ballfields and industrial properties and warned the loss of trees and habitat could worsen local flooding and noise exposure.
Board concerns focused on infrastructure and environment. Members cited potential stormwater management burdens, snow‑plow and emergency‑vehicle turnaround constraints on the proposed hammerhead, and the need for fire‑department and DPW review before site work begins. Board members also discussed whether the benefits sought by the applicant could be achieved by alternative designs.
The board acknowledged the neighborhood context; one member said the proposed lot sizes would match surrounding lots, but several members said additional engineering—particularly on stormwater—and fire‑department input are essential before final approvals. Staff reported the applicant had provided materials used in the discussion and that New York State had preliminarily indicated the mapped tax‑map wetlands did not meet the state wetland designation for regulatory protection, though local stormwater impacts remained a concern.
Outcome and next steps: The planning board voted to recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals consider the requested area variances for lot size and frontage, while noting that final site plan approval will be contingent on subsequent engineering, utility extension plans, and fire and DPW reviews. The board discussed but did not take lead‑agency status for the environmental review at this meeting; coordinated review and a complete submission package were recommended as the project advances.
Public comments and developer responses are on the record; the zoning board will schedule its consideration of the variances and the planning board may revisit detailed site‑plan review if variances are granted.
