Glens Falls planning board approves 196 Ridge Street renovation and 6‑unit townhouse addition over neighbor objections
Loading...
Summary
The Planning Board approved site plan SB 25009196 for 196 Ridge Street to renovate a Victorian into apartments and add six rear townhouses after hearing extensive public comment about density, traffic and loss of green space; the board classified the action as an unlisted SEQR action and the motion passed.
The Glens Falls Planning Board voted to approve the site plan for 196 Ridge Street (SB 25009196), advancing a two‑phase project that will restore a Victorian house and add a six‑unit townhouse block behind it.
John Laffer, representing the applicant, told the board the team submitted a traffic letter finding "no traffic impact" and a letter from the school superintendent saying the district has capacity for additional multifamily housing. Architect Ethan Hall said the design was revised since the prior hearing to remove certain parking, add a continuous porch roof on the townhouses’ front, and that New York Fire tested hydrant flow adequate for interior sprinklers. A fire prevention officer told the board he had "no concerns with the project."
Neighbors urged the board to limit development to renovating the main house and to preserve the rear green space. Resident Rachel Forchini Balk showed interior photos of her home and said the proposed access drive and townhouses would "totally lack privacy." Patricia Tadic, a retired Warren County planning director, warned the proposal would roughly double density on the block and urged the board to use site‑plan review authority to modify or deny the project. Judy Calogero, a former New York State housing commissioner, asked for a fuller SEQR review and an updated traffic study, saying the short traffic evaluation underestimated trips.
Board members noted the property lies in a multifamily RM zone that allows up to 19 units and that the proposal is for 12. The board and staff discussed SEQR classification and identified the application as an "unlisted" action. After discussion and public comment, the board made a motion and recorded that the motion "passed." The transcript does not reproduce the full motion language; the applicant asked the board to approve the "measured" redevelopment and the board announced the motion had passed.
What happens next: The applicant must address the minor engineering connection details noted by the city engineer before building permits are issued. Some neighbors asked the board to table the project to allow additional review of recently submitted materials and offered to negotiate purchasing the rear green space; the board did not record further formal direction in the public record beyond the approval.
Sources and attribution: Quotes and claims in this article are drawn from the Planning Board public hearing transcript. Speakers quoted include John Laffer (applicant representative), Ethan Hall (architect), Rachel Forchini Balk, Patricia Tadic, Judy Calogero and other residents who spoke during public comment.
