Loading...
2006-09-19 SP MTG37 619 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-19-2006 MTG. #37 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG. #37 SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 RES. 443 7:00 p.m. TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC-Absent COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR COUNCILMAN RICHARD SANFORD COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER-Deputy Supervisor DEPUTY SUPERVISOR TIM BREWER – Opened the Meeting CRANDALL LIBRARY – PROPOSAL FOR BUDGET Councilman Sanford-Noted he contacted Bob Hafner and also I did read the enabling legislation – In essence it is their budget it is our resolution and Bob Hafner agreed with me, it is up to this Board to do what we think is appropriate and at the end of his memo he states that he feels it would be a difficult position for the library to argue against providing more information to the voter when you are not changing the libraries budget information which we would not be doing. I think we have a majority of people who are fine with that. I mentioned to Bob, this is not an effort to bash the library at all it is just the way I like to think of things in terms of properly informing the voter on topics. The only question I have is how do we see it through to conclusion. Councilman Brewer-I would suggest that Dan or you prepare a resolution and have Dan put it on the agenda like we do the regular resolutions. Councilman Sanford-It will be the one that was distributed last night with the added one line. DISCUSSION REVIEW DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Sr. Planner Baker-Town Board is to set a public hearing ninety days from the date PORC turned over the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Proposed date for Public Hearing October 16, 2006 Resolution to be prepared for September 25, 2006 setting the date. Adds to be placed in the paper announcing the public hearing…. (Using Citizens for Queensbury Letter Items numbered compared to the draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan see letter at end of minutes-page numbers refer to CLUP document. #1 Councilman Boor-Introduction Page 1 Citizens letter language; the goal is to devise a plan that pushes the look and feel of Queensbury closer to what the community desires while letting the market place govern uses…as opposed to the goal is to devise a plan that moves Queensbury closer to what the community desires economic.. Sr. Planner Baker-At the end of that point they write in bold revised wording is improved and further editing occurred at the June PORC meeting.. I think they are fine with the way it was revised. #2 Page 29 620 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-19-2006 MTG. #37 Insert the language that the Citizens for Queensbury suggests. #3 Leave as is, do not change. #4 Top of page three-Councilman Sanford agrees with their statement. Councilman Boor- Also taking about economic diversity with the types of homes that are built, rather than concentrating low income in one area…Councilman Brewer-Comprehensive Plan page 36 second paragraph – creating housing choices is an important part of creating a vibrant community, different people require different housing types especially as the population ages and or ..demographic shifts, in communities this often means encouraging diversity in terms of unit size, pedestrian amenities and near by services and prices. That covers it. Board agreed leave it as is. #5 Page 40 Pocket Parks Leave as is. #6 Agreed to leave it as is. #7 Agreed to leave it as is. #8 Agreed to leave it as is. #9 Page 44 Citizens for Queensbury do not want to encourage privately owned public land; they want it to be publicly owned. Sr. Planner Baker-If it read conserved areas could be conveyed to and managed by the Town, or managed by the Homeowners Association which could ideally allow for public access.. Town Board agreed to the change. #10 Page 44 Discussion on bonuses for areas with sewer and water… Board did not have consensus will leave it as is at this time. #11 Board Ok with this #12 Not addressed Roof Ridge Lines Page 47 The issues brought forth by the Queensbury Citizens will be addressed in the Zoning Code #13 Critical Environmental Area - Site Plan Review The Planning Board has sent a recommendation on that…would like to more forward. Will review- develop CEA strategies. #14 Page 52 Recommendation B no mention of east west trails Not an issue for tonight 621 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-19-2006 MTG. #37 #15 No comment #16 Flagged to look at carefully in the draft zoning. #17 Ok #18 Page 69 . #19 No comment #20 Page 71 Needs to be better explained individuals can make recommendations. #21 The details that are being sought will be in the Zoning Code Regs. COUNCILMAN COMMENTS Councilman Sanford- 1.Add Round Pond to the areas mentioned such as Halfway Brook and Hudson River as recreational area…Page 55 B8 waterfront overlay district page 58 ..make more locations along water accessible to the public 2. noise standards, would like zoning follow up on noise. 3. Charts – Page 86 Wetlands policy needs to be an immediate action needs to be addressed. Councilman Strough-Re: Graphs page 87 under recommendation reference A1 – what does it mean strengthened? Asked for a better word than strengthened. Sr. Planner Baker-look for more opportunities to connect more streets. The intent of the chart is to be a brief summary. Will reword A1. Councilman Strough-Below that, all new construction will require sidewalks. Councilman Boor-That is not going to happen.. Councilman Strough-We can encourage sidewalks.. Councilman Boor-Subdivisions should encourage sidewalks as opposed to someone building a house… Sr. Planner Baker-Flag this and see what comes out at the public hearing, maybe some middle ground will be established during public comment. Councilman Strough-Neighborhood Section-felt it was outdated, information is not accurate, it is not integrated, on page 30 So. Queensbury is discussed in two separate areas of the book…the neighborhoods and the recommendations are not together… Sr. Planner Baker-The Ordinance Review Committee had a lot of discussion on do we want a neighborhood based plan or a different approach they chose not to focus on the neighborhood approach which is why you have the neighborhood description being a lower profile section of the plan vs the 98 plan and why you don’t see neighborhood specific policies as in the 98 plan. Councilman Brewer-Wouldn’t it be a good idea to have your segment you did as an addendum on the back, as the historic significance of any part of the town … 622 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-19-2006 MTG. #37 Councilman Strough-I took the neighborhood section and the Open Space Plan and the Glen Lake Study and incorporated it in here…Reviewed his document and how to look up neighbors of interest, spoke on cross referencing…advantage to this system it is easy to amend. Noted each Councilman has to review the document and the Historian should go through it adding historical sites, then the public should have this for their review and input. When this is done, hire an individual familiar with the Town and the process and is a professional editor, we need someone to condense it. Councilman Brewer-Noted Sherman Island and Hudson Pointe is not mentioned … Councilman Strough-Hudson Pointe is there but it should be broken out is what you are saying. Councilman Sanford-The stone fences along Ridge Road should be mentioned. Board asked for CD copy of Councilman Strough’s document along with having a hard copy. Councilman Strough-At the end of the Comprehensive Plan we have to make sure the vision statements are integrated with those sites and they match up. Councilman Sanford-Take out the first twenty six pages of the CLUP and start at page th one at that point in time, that will be the main thrust of the meeting will be on the 16 …have John introduce his work as an additional product that is going to be combined with this. Sr. Planner Baker-And keep the public hearing open… Citizens for Queensbury P.O. Box 4883 Queensbury, NY 12804 July 9, 2006 P.O.R.C. Clo Stuart Baker Department of Community Development Town Office Building 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 Dear Committee Members: Below please find an update to our previous comments on the draft comprehensive land use plan. The purpose of this update is to provide the committee and other interested 623 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-19-2006 MTG. #37 parties with an analysis of which items have been appropriately addressed in the revised draft of June 2006 and which items remain of concern. In order to facilitate your review, quotations from the original draft remain in italics, our initial comments are in plain font and our analyses of the revised draft with updated comments are in bold print. Thank you for your attention to these comments. April 28, 2006 Dear Committee Members: Citizens for Queensbury believes the planned update of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Code is of the utmost importance at this critical juncture in the town's history. For this reason, we offer the following comments on the draft plan dated April 10,2006. We will reference each comment to a specific item or items in the draft with page number in parenthesis. While many aspects of the draft are excellent, in the interest of conciseness, we will focus mainly on aspects that need improvement. 1. Introduction. "The goal is to devise a plan that pushes the "look and feel" of Queensbury closer to what the community desires while letting the market place govern uses. "(1) While we welcome the plan of emphasizing design guidelines to ease the impact of certain uses on neighbors, we don't accept the principle that uses don't matter. No matter what design guidelines are followed, certain uses will be associated with more noise, traffic, odors, late night disturbances etc. Examples would include high volume restaurants, gas stations, fast food establishments, large retail stores with late hours, automobile dealerships, car washes, and amusement parks. It may not be appropriate to mix such uses with residential uses. Such uses may require extensive buffers from neighborhoods, probably considerably larger buffers than required in the current code. On the other hand, lower intensity uses such as small cafes, boutiques, small grocery stores, hair salons and bookstores may be very appropriate to locate near residences with relatively little buffer. Revised wording is improved and further editing occurred at the June PORC meeting. 2. Queensbury's Comprehensive Vision. "As a community we strive to preserve existing neighborhood character, while creating new neighborhoods that promote... "(5) (Current page 29) 624 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-19-2006 MTG. #37 This sentence could be interpreted as suggesting that Queensbury is officially encouraging the development of new residential neighborhoods. We would edit this sentence to state, "As a community, we strive to protect and encourage neighborhoods that promote relationships, healthy lifestyles, and community involvement." No relevant was change made to previous draft. 3. Third Comprehensive Plan Goal. "Natural amenities such as open space and waterfronts are in high demand for residential development. However, there is not enough waterfront or nature preserve to border everyone's property...." The draft goes on to mention various lakes and wetlands and encourages bicycle and pedestrian access. The need to protect natural areas and viewsheds, ridges and slopes is further discussed in the fourth Plan Goal.(6,7) (Current page 30) We would emphasize that open space protection should involve more than merely protecting unique environmentally sensitive areas. A look at the town map demonstrates that only a negligible amount of Queensbury' s huge land area is designated as public parkland. We believe that there should be public open space (parkland) within walking distance of every child in Queensbury, especially in the high and moderate density residential areas. Only in this way can the demand for large lot zoning and resultant sprawl be diminished by providing alternate access to a range of opportunities for active and passive recreation. Some of the language from the original draft quoted in #3 above appears to have been deleted. However, the specific objective of having public open space within walking distance of every child in Queensbury was not addressed. 4. Neighborhoods. "in communities, this often means encouraging diversity in terms of unit size, pedestrian amenities, nearby services and prices. "(13)(current page 37) Elsewhere in the draft, mention is made of the importance of regional cooperation. Part of regional cooperation is recognizing that different communities in close proximity have 625 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-19-2006 MTG. #37 different strengths. It is not necessarily desirable for every type of housing to be in abundant supply in every community. Several communities adjacent to Queensbury have excellent infrastructures to support high density housing but are losing population. Rather than competing with these communities to supply the same kind of housing, we should be helping them with their own planning efforts to enhance their quality of life and desirability. Comments not addressed in revised draft. 5. Neighborhood Residential Planning Area. "The planning area is completely within already designated sewer and water districts.... Allow two- family homes in neighborhoods and multi-family dwellings where appropriate in scale or form.... Density, (f done well offers the housing choice that is an important driver of vibrant communities. "( 15)(Current page 40) Portions of this area, as depicted on the Plan Recommendations Map, are not currently served by sewer. Furthermore, the urban infrastructure necessary to support a livable high density community should also include real public transportation, pedestrian amenities, retail and food services, parks, neighborhood schools, adequate roads and parking, sidewalks, fire, police, health care and emergency medical services. Are we confident that these services are in place or definitely will be in place when such high density housing is constructed? How do we define "appropriate in scale or form"? Many neighborhoods in this area are quiet, single family residential neighborhoods. Which "bigger streets" will be appropriate for multifamily residential? How do we define density "done well"? Without careful attention to detail, such cavalier statements could have disastrous planning consequences. The inaccurate statement was revised. The revised draft also includes a welcome provision for "pocket parks" in neighborhood residential zones. We would not, however, limit the size of such parks as done in the most recent draft. We would substitute the word "urban" for "pocket" and describe size as "small to moderate". We would not restrict uses to eliminate "ball playing." Successful urban communities have a range of park sizes (e.g. Central Park, N.Y.C.). The rest of the concerns discussed above were not addressed. 6. Moderate Density Residential Planning Area. "Develop a plan to increase automotive and pedestrian connections between... subdivisions. "(17)(Current 626 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-19-2006 MTG. #37 page 41) We strongly approve of pedestrian and bicycle connections between subdivisions. To accomplish this most effectively, substantial public open space should be planned for within subdivisions so that these paths can be constructed without infringing on private property or interfering with privacy. Creation of automobile connections is more problematic because of residents' desires to minimize traffic within their residential neighborhoods. Presumably, some but not all streets would have such traffic connections. These streets would likely become heavily used thoroughfares as people seek alternate routes to the ever expanding, sprawling "suburbs". Any new automobile connections must be accompanied by specific and extensive traffic calming interventions to prevent abuse of such residential streets as alternate major thoroughfares. Such techniques would include but are not limited to keeping streets narrow, providing traffic bumps, pedestrian islands, crosswalks, frequent stop signs, curves, bike lanes, and, of course, sidewalks. Without such mitigating interventions, automobile connections should be minimized. Cooperation with highway and fire departments is necessary to accomplish these goals. Concerns addressed in current draft. Thank you. 7. "Developers should be required to provide sidewalks in all new subdivisions and the town should install sidewalks as it rebuilds roads."( 18)(Current page 43) We support sidewalk construction and retrofitting of sidewalks. Because of practical limitations, the town should prioritize sidewalk construction, beginning with streets , having higher traffic volumes that pose the greatest threat to pedestrian safety. Concerns addressed in current draft. Thank you. 8. "All new residential subdivisions should be required to be conservation subdivisions. "(18)(Current page 44) We enthusiastically support the conservation subdivision concept. In order to prevent any misinterpretation of the intent of this concept, we would clarify several issues. Conservation subdivisions should include primary and secondary conservation areas. Primary conservation areas include undevelopable lands such as wetlands and steep slopes and are not used for calculation of density or for the >50% open space requirement. Secondary conservation areas have some development potential but are deliberately set aside for community enjoyment. Regarding the themes for organizing such conservation subdivisions, we would emphasize that this is a continuously evolving process and should be expanded as opportunities emerge. 627 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-19-2006 MTG. #37 Exclusion of "undevelopable" properties from the above calculation clarified. Thank you. 9. "Alternatively, the lands might be part of private lots, with conservation easements. "(20)(Current page 45) The benefits of conservation subdivisions would be lost under such an arrangement, which would differ little from large lot zoning. Conservation areas ideally should be part of a town-wide network of parks and trails. Concerns not addressed. 1O. "Maintain a moderate density of one unit for every two acres throughout this planning area. Provide a density bonus for developers who connect projects to public water and sewer. "(20)(Current page 45) We agree that reducing the total number of buildable units within this area, combined with conservation subdivisions will help maintain quality of life and limit worsening traffic problems and impact on school overcrowding. However, some recognition needs to be given to already developed properties so that large numbers of properties do not become non-conforming. Furthermore, we would recommend that all undeveloped areas (without natural development limitations) in the moderate density regions of six acres or more be zoned at one unit for every three net developable acres. Care must be taken to consider geologic, environmental and topographic factors as well. It makes no sense to zone a wetland as moderate density. Regarding density bonuses for sewer and water connections, large areas of the town do not have such access, especially to sewer. We see no net public benefit to expanding sewer access to less densely populated areas of town and the comprehensive land use plan should not imply this as a goal. Not addressed specifically in revised draft. To the extent that the final draft allows increased residential development in mixed use and neighborhood residential areas, a commensurate decrease in number of units allowed in the moderate density areas is appropriate to encourage "smart growth" and to minimize traffic and other problems. 11. "in the Rural Residential Planning Area, densities should be one house per ten acres. However, multiunit developments that use conservation subdivision design may increase density to one house per five acres. "(21)(Current page 46) 628 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-19-2006 MTG. #37 Some of the comments regarding the moderate density area apply also to this area, including accommodation for existing structures, consideration of natural development limitations etc. Furthermore, a bonus allowing doubling of density is excessive. It would result in no net open space protection from a conservation subdivision if you assume a requirement for 50% of developable area left as conservation land. Current draft requires 66% of property to be preserved as open space, which is an improvement. Development should still be subject to underlying environmental and topographic limitations of the property, with clarifications as in #8 above. 12. "Roof ridgelines should follow the slope of the terrain. "(22)(Current page 48) We agree with design guidelines to minimize visual impact of residences in certain areas. However, this should not be a substitute for development restrictions on steep slopes. The build-out analysis calculations were based on precluding development from slopes greater than 15%. Not addressed. 13. "Use water as an organizing (theme) for development. "(23)(Current page 49) Aside from the misprint, this statement is confusing and poorly worded. We would suggest, "Use water and other natural features as an organizing theme for development restriction." Furthermore, in an area where all open space is disappearing, the need for recreation of public open space becomes increasingly acute, regardless of whether it's a wetland, a forest, or an open field that kids can play on. Although the "Open Space Vision" provides a useful review of environmentally sensitive lands, we would not rely entirely on it for direction. It is somewhat vague, timid, contingent in its recommendations, and focuses largely on protecting lands which are already have major development restrictions. Regarding environmentally sensitive areas, we also suggest that building within a "critical environmental area" should be subject to site plan review. Misprint corrected. Other concerns remain. Critical environmental areas are now mentioned under "goals" on page 30 but few strategies specifically for their protection are discussed. Steering committee members wished to reaffirm the need to have all development within C.E.A.'s subject to planning board review. 629 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-19-2006 MTG. #37 14. "At public meetings, residents also spoke of the need to find an east/west trail across town. "(27) (current page 53) The draft then goes on to talk about a canoe trail along Halfway Brook. This is confusing and doesn't address the issue of a pedestrian bicycle trail. Indeed, there is a need for multiple east-west trails and there is potential for such trails in the City watershed property, along the Hudson River, through the Rush Pond area and elsewhere. We recommend that off-road bicycle trails should be a first option. When not feasible, bicycle paths along roads, preferably with some physical separation from traffic should be a second choice. A third choice would be paved shoulders or other shared roadways. One crucial requirement should be that no area of the town should be "off-limits" to bicycles and pedestrians. It is the responsibility of the town to make sure every commercial and residential area of Queensbury is pedestrian bicycle accessible. Above comments were not specifically addressed in revised draft. Also in this section, under recommendation #5 in the revised draft dealing with the Glens Falls watershed property (p54), we would edit the last paragraph to more explicitly restrict uses to those that protect and enhance the natural character of the property. It will be important to establish this as an official town land use goal as the town moves forward in negotiations with the City. An additional recommendation #7 was added on page 55 of the revised draft to establish a committee to "manage" certain conservation and open space recommendations of the plan. More detailed explanation of the responsibilities and authority of this committee would be helpful. The committee might be more effective if one or more town board members were on it. 15. "The recently constructed office complex (on Aviation Road) o.ffers an example of the size and style ofbuildings appropriate to the area. "(33) "Create a neighborhood commercialjloating district. "(34) (Current page 61, 62) One factor which has made this complex well received is that it was forced to provide an entrance to the structure from a sidewalk on Aviation Road, creating an architecturally welcoming appearance. A need to address the street and sidewalk should be part of the design guidelines. Revised draft contains helpful revisions. We strongly encourage the development of new neighborhood commercial centers. In order to accomplish this without conflicting with neighborhood character, attention must be given to both style and uses. Commercial enterprises should complement the style of neighboring residences and 630 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-19-2006 MTG. #37 should be limited to sizes and uses that are much less intense than those in regular commercial zones (see #1 above). It is unclear what the nature and implementation mechanism would be for the "neighborhood commercial floating district Revised draft requires editorial changes (proof-reading). 16. "Require large new commercial development and major redevelopment projects to be walkable and built to "town center" scale. "(36)(current page 64) Town center scale needs to be better defined. Examples in other communities are only helpful to the extent Queensbury residents are familiar with these communities. What unique planning features in our community would make these feasible and how would they be integrated into the existing community? Walkability and bicycle access are important not only within such shopping developments, but also in getting to such developments. Street connections to surrounding residential areas should include traffic calming methods that preclude excessive external traffic. Very intense uses should be heavily buffered from residential neighborhoods both in distance and with visual and sound barriers. In some cases, transitional, less intense uses can lessen the impact and form a partial buffer to neighborhoods. In all cases, neighbors should be buffered and visually screened from commercial parking lots. All site plans should include a detailed bicycle and pedestrian access plan as well as facilities for secure bicycle parking in commercial enterprises. Public and private road construction or renovation plans should be required to address pedestrian bicycle issues before approval. Adequate street space reserved for bicycle riding is especially important if on-street parking is anticipated, as illustrated in one of the pictures. The introduction to "commercial mixed-use corridors" (p63) now includes a welcome acknowledgement that certain uses are incompatible with residential living. However, such uses are not defined. Since all commercial uses in Queensbury are mixed-use under this draft, where will such incompatible uses be placed? It seems that more variation in types of commercial zones with different design guidelines should be tailored to the specific needs of Queensbury, rather than a "one size fits all" approach. Similarly, lesser degrees of residential density may be more appropriate for certain mixed use zones without adequate (or probable future)urban amenities. 17. "The southern portions and more developed corridors should reflect the look of Glens Falls. "(38) "Create build-to lines along public and private roads in the Route 9 North, Route 9 South, and Quaker Road West areas. "(40)( current page 66, 68) 631 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-19-2006 MTG. #37 The draft also describes multi-story building guidelines. While, in general, it's preferable for buildings to grow upward rather than outward, we suggest considering the potential traffic implications of very intense commercial mixed use development. Regarding residential development along these corridors, we question the impact of heavy commercial traffic on desirability of these residences and suggest that a limited setback from streets like Route 9 may actually serve as an appropriate buffer from such traffic. It would also provide an opportunity for landscaping to soften the visual and noise impact from the street for pedestrians, stores and residences. Nevertheless, guidelines that orient buildings to the street, that move parking to the rear of buildings and that encourage properly designed sidewalks are welcome and long overdue. Revised draft includes vegetative buffer and setbacks on busier roads, a welcome addition. 18. "in the Bay Road and Quaker Road East Mixed- Use Areas, parking should remain behind buildings but setbacks should reflect the more rural nature of the areas. "(41 )(Current page 69) Bay Road and Quaker Road East are very different and should not be lumped together. Bay Road has a less intense feel and is predominantly occupied by professional offices and A.C.C. The key design feature for Bay Road is to give any commercial or office development there a residential feel, best exemplified by the projects on the west side of the road. Any residential development should be limited in intensity and should be preceded by adequate urban infrastructure, including sidewalks, parks, public transportation, and appropriate neighborhood services. Similar aesthetic considerations, such as orienting buildings presentations to the street, as discussed above under neighborhood commercial areas, should be instituted. Quaker Road East has become an important service and sales area tor automobiles. Design guidelines should probably reflect this reality and try to make the best of it. There are few residential uses adjacent to this area. Of note, some areas of Quaker Road East border wetlands and there may be environmental restrictions on development potential. Above concerns not addressed in revised draft. i9. "The path would meander in front o.f buildings and connect to other pedestrian networks. "(41)(current page 69) Meandering paths will not be used except by people out for a Sunday stroll. Because it takes so much longer to walk than to drive, anyone using walking or biking for transportation purposes will take the shortest distance between two 632 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-19-2006 MTG. #37 points. Wording changed. Thank you. 20. "Allow commercial areas to house denser and more varied housing than is found in other parts of Queens bury.... The smaller units, located close to services and the Northway, might be attractive to the technology workers the region hopes to attract. "(42) (current page 71) The same issues, discussed above, relating to traffic impacts and presence or absence of urban amenities, apply here. We must also be careful not to imply that we want to become a bedroom community for workers with jobs elsewhere. It is not so much workers that we hope to attract but rather jobs. Above concerns not addressed in revised draft. An additional recommendation #9 is added on page 71 & 72 for appropriate buffers between mixed use and residential neighborhoods, which is welcome. However, we do not agree with the author that "thinning out" of commercial uses with residential uses will eliminate the need for buffers over the long term. Indeed, this statement appears to contradict other statements encouraging increased density in commercial zones. We also need to recognize that dense retail activity is a draw for many consumers, who power our retail oriented economy. Rather. determining what types and sizes of commercial enterprises are compatible with residences and designing relevant zones and 2uidelines for different types and intensities of commercial activities will help solve this problem. Controlling the amount and location of truck and automobile traffic in the specific commercial zones designed for compatibility with residences would be essential. Relying on some future theoretical increase in pedestrian use vs. automobiles will not be sufficient to solve this problem. Steering committee members emphasized the need to transition from pole signs to monument size with stronger language than what appears in recommendation #10 on page 72. A 5 year transition of all signs was advocated. 21. "increase the enforceability of the zoning code and subdivision regulations. "(54) (Current page 83). Some discussion of penalties for not following the rules ensues but only vaguely. More detail is required here. Comment not addressed. Steering committee members wished to reemphasize the 633 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-19-2006 MTG. #37 need for strict enforcement with appropriate penalties. 21. The "Plan Recommendations Map" is perhaps too simplistic and ignores important environmental and geologic issues and some historic development patterns. For example, Coles Woods is shown in either heavy commercial mixed use or neighborhood (high density) residential zone. Much ofthe Great Cedar Swamp is located in neighborhood residential. The heavy commercial zone extends west across the Northway to an area without sewer and which already has major traffic problems associated with Queensbury School. Some areas are fortunately described as "conservation areas" but the planning implications of such designation are not explained. The map now designates Great Cedar Swamp as a "conservation area". Other concerns not addressed in revised draft. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please feel free to contact us with questions or comments regarding any of the issues discussed above. Sincerely, Mark Hoffinan On behalf of the steering committee Citizens for Queensbury RESOLUTION ADJOURNING TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO. 443, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Special Town Board Meeting. th Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2006 by the following vote: 634 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING 09-19-2006 MTG. #37 AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Stec Respectfully submitted, Miss Darleen M Dougher Town Clerk-Queensbury