Neighbors oppose townhomes, ask for traffic and stormwater studies at Glens Falls City planning hearing

Glens Falls City residents packed a planning board hearing to oppose a redevelopment plan at 196 Ridge Street that would convert a historic Victorian house into multiple rental units and add a separate building of townhomes with expanded parking.

Neighbors repeatedly asked the board to require a traffic impact study and a fuller environmental review before allowing the project to proceed. "Our neighborhood's created a logo: character, history, and green space," said David Cook, identifying those three priorities and urging the board to preserve them. Britney Mason, who lives next door at 50 William Street, said the new owners, Snyder's Drywall, "want to change the historic Victorian house next door to my home into 6 2‑bedroom apartments, and in the separate and second building add 6 3‑bedroom townhomes" for a total of 12 units and 29 parking spaces; Mason argued the change would substantially raise daily trips and reduce pedestrian safety.

Why it matters: Speakers said the rear building, an internal access road and a large parking lot would alter a low‑density, historic block, increase runoff and strain city services. "This proposed expansion is significant and will greatly increase traffic and demand for parking," Mason said, urging a professional traffic analysis. Multiple residents raised stormwater and impervious surface concerns, noting the parcel lies in a watershed district and that the city already contends with localized flooding.

Planning board staff and the applicant provided technical updates but did not move to a decision. A planning board representative said copies of an asbestos clearance report have been provided to the city building department and asserted, "The building has been 100% cleared. None of it remains." Applicant materials submitted by Environmental Design Partnership (EDP) include stormwater management plans, infiltration testing and proposed catch basins; the applicant said geotechnical testing for the expansion is complete and the formal report is expected within a few weeks.

Residents flagged inconsistencies in project details: some speakers referenced 29 parking spaces, one speaker cited 49 parking spaces, and several offered differing occupancy estimates (one neighborhood estimate projected roughly 40–45 residents; another cited a broader 28–56 range). The planning board representative said that, in prior work, trips under 100 per day often fall below common traffic‑study thresholds, but neighbors argued that local context — narrow one‑way streets and nearby schools — warrants a case‑specific analysis.

Other concerns included potential light trespass from new exterior lighting, impacts on nearby private wells (one resident said a working well lies within 25 feet of the property), long‑term maintenance of stormwater buffers, and refuse placement near residences. Judy Calleggero, former chair of the Glens Falls IDA, asked whether asbestos abatement followed federal and state protocols and whether remediation is complete; staff confirmed the clearance report is on file.

Administrative notes and next steps: City staff warned that there is no state requirement to send additional mail notices beyond routine agenda publishing and that interested residents must monitor future agendas to track the application. City code enforcement told the board it "intends to issue violations first thing in the morning" regarding exterior lights that staff say were turned on earlier than permitted; staff also said the applicant missed a deadline for architectural review, meaning the project would not automatically appear at the next meeting but could reapply in January if needed.

What remains unresolved: The planning board received final site plans from EDP and said it would await outstanding technical reports (the geotechnical report in particular) and proceed with the internal review process; the board did not take a formal vote at the hearing. Neighbors pressed repeatedly for a traffic impact study, fuller stormwater assurances, and enforceable conditions on lighting and buffer maintenance if the board allows redevelopment.

The planning board meeting closed with no formal action taken on the application; staff directed that outstanding documents be filed and indicated the item will return to the board once required studies and reports are submitted.