Glens Falls planning board approves 196 Ridge Street site plan after sharp neighborhood objections
Loading...
Summary
The Glens Falls City Planning Board approved site plan and architectural review SP 25009196 for 196 Ridge Street, a 12-unit renovation and six new townhouses, after hearing residents’ concerns about density, traffic, privacy and the need for further traffic and environmental review.
The Glens Falls City Planning Board voted to approve the site plan and architectural review for SP 25009196, a project to renovate a Victorian at 196 Ridge Street and add six new three‑bedroom townhouse units behind it.
John Raffer, representing the applicant, said the project team submitted requested materials, including "a traffic letter indicating that there's no traffic impact" and a letter from the school superintendent saying the district has capacity and "encourages" multifamily development. Ethan Hall of Hall Architecture described design changes made after prior hearings, including a continuous porch to better address William Street, color and material samples, and water‑flow testing that showed adequate hydrant capacity.
Neighbors and several planning professionals told the board the townhouse portion of the proposal would change neighborhood character, reduce green space and increase traffic. Rachel Forchini Volk said the project "totally lacks privacy" from her kitchen and bedroom views. Judy Calogero, a former New York State housing commissioner, said the application "is not affordable housing" and urged the board to require a fuller environmental and traffic assessment, arguing the submitted traffic evaluation undercounts vehicle trips and did not account for the proposed internal access road. Other residents raised similar concerns about a proposed parking area of roughly 23 spaces and the effect of added households on an already busy Ridge/William/Dix intersection.
Patricia Tadic, a retired Warren County planning director and member of the city's consolidated plan committee, noted the city recently received $155,000 from the Department of State Smart Growth Program for an updated comprehensive plan and said the parcel sits in a traditional residential block; she asked the board to use site‑plan authority to modify or deny the project.
The applicant contended the proposal is a compromise: the zone permits up to 19 units on the parcel and the application seeks 12. The applicant also said city engineering comments on sewer and water are minor construction details that can be addressed before permits are issued.
After discussion about environmental classification — board members characterized the proposal as an "unlisted action" under state environmental review rules as recorded in the meeting — the planning board moved and voted to approve the site plan and architectural review. The chair announced, "Motion passed." The record does not identify individual recorded votes by name in the transcript available.
Next steps for the project include resolution of the city engineer's connection details, submission of any required follow‑up documents and standard building permits. Residents said they expect continued outreach and negotiation over the secondary townhouse phase.
