Neighbors press Glens Falls Planning Board over density, traffic and stormwater for 196 Ridge Street proposal

At a public hearing before the Glens Falls City Planning Board, a stream of neighbors urged the board to reject or substantially revise a redevelopment plan for 196 Ridge Street, arguing the proposal would dramatically increase density and strain traffic, stormwater systems and neighborhood character.

David Cook, a resident of 202 Ridge Street, summarized the neighborhood group’s priorities—"character, history, and green space"—and disputed the project’s short environmental assessment answer that the proposal would not substantially increase traffic. "With 29 parking spaces for that many units, it would definitely be a substantial increase," Cook said, and asked the board to require a traffic impact study.

Britney Mason, a registered nurse at Glens Falls Hospital who lives next door at 50 William Street, said the developer, identified in the record as Snyder’s Drywall, proposed converting the historic house into six 2‑bedroom apartments and adding six 3‑bedroom townhomes in a second building for a total of 12 units plus parking. Mason called the proposed new entry an "access road," not a driveway, and said it would increase cut‑through traffic and pose safety risks for children. "The access road will not only serve the residents, it will become a critical pathway for emergency vehicles, visitors, service vehicles, including delivery trucks," she said, and asked the board to order traffic counts, driveway analysis and drainage review.

Multiple residents raised overlapping concerns: Jeffrey Evalk (200 Ridge Street) asked that soil and watershed impacts be examined before construction; Sarah Schultz (7 Vanderhaddon Street) said the development could bring dozens of new residents and "put a strain on the city’s police, fire, water, sewer and snow removal"; and John Turgeon (12 Vanderheiden Street) requested exterior‑lighting restrictions to prevent light trespass onto neighboring properties.

Long‑time residents and local civic leaders framed objections in historic‑preservation and compatibility terms. "This proposal is not merely a new development. It's an incompatible intrusion that threatens the character, safety, and history of our long established single‑family home neighborhood," a coalition representative said. Judy Calleggero, a former chair of the city planning body and current chair of the Glens Falls IDA, supported restoring the main house but opposed a second structure behind it; she specifically asked whether work near a nearby private well and in the watershed had adequate protections and requested documentation of any asbestos abatement.

City staff and the project team responded that technical materials are on file. An applicant representative said final site plans were prepared by Environmental Design Partnership and include stormwater reports, test pits and infiltration testing. Staff told the board the asbestos abatement report has been provided to the building department and that "the building has been 100% cleared" of asbestos. On traffic, staff said prior local practice treats resident trips under 100 per day as "minor" for traffic studies but acknowledged that the board can require a project‑specific study. The applicant said drainage would be contained on site with catch basins and required sediment controls; geotechnical testing for the expansion is pending.

The transcript contains inconsistent numerical details raised by different speakers: some speakers referenced 29 proposed parking spaces, while at least one speaker cited 49 parking spaces and various speakers estimated potential new residents in the range of roughly 28–56 people. The article notes those discrepancies rather than reconciling them; the planning board record and submitted site plans should be consulted for the authoritative counts.

Procedurally, the board discussed arranging a public site visit and staff said code enforcement would follow up after the applicant had already reportedly turned on site lighting; staff indicated violations would be issued if lights were found to be noncompliant. The project previously received sketch‑plan review and the applicant has submitted final plans; the applicant’s representative said geotechnical results are expected within weeks. The board did not take a final vote at the hearing and indicated the project will return to the agenda after required follow‑up and any outstanding reviews.

What happens next: the planning board will schedule or accept proposed dates for a site visit, staff will pursue code‑enforcement follow‑up about installed lights, and the board may require additional studies (traffic, drainage, geotechnical) before taking a decision.