Loading...
1993-07-29 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD JULY 29, 1993 7:30 P.M. MTG #56 RES. 423-427 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT MICHEL BRANDT -SUPERVISOR BETTY MONAHAN-COUNCILMAN SUSAN GOETZ-COUNCILMAN NICK CAIMANO-COUNCILMAN PLINEY TUCKER-COUNCILMAN TOWN OFFICIALS JAMES MARTIN SCOTT HARLICKER ARLYNE RUTHSCHILD Supervisor Brandt called meeting to order ... we're going to adjourn to another room for a brief couple of minutes for Executive Session for a legal and personnel matter. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 423, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and enter Executive Session to discuss a legal and personnel matter. Duly adopted this 29th day of July, 1993, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO RECONVENE RESOLUTION NO. 424, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Executive Session and enter Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 29th day of July, 1993, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING - ROUTE 149 CORRIDOR STUDY SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, we're back, we're in open session. I think the last time Queensbury did a town plan, was what, 1988? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -And we're seeing alot of requests from landowners asking to have rezoning of their property, alot of it and that's a pretty good indication that our zoning doesn't reflect the needs of the community. Things have shifted quite a bit from what was perceived to be the plan to what it is, what's happening and that's about when we ought to get busy and start re-examining the town plan. There was alot of discussion of Route 149, several people were asking at the same time along Route 149 for potential rezonings and we said, well, we really need to address the whole thing, why don't we take the Route 149 corridor and take it first. And we're leaming our way of doing this ourselves. What we've done here is, we've asked for alot of input and we've tried to encourage alot of input and we've tried to make it pretty uninhibited and at times it was pretty uninhibited. And in the end, I look at it this way, we're your government and we're going to run this for you the way you want it. We've got to find a consensus, we've got to find what we feel is what you're telling us. There were alot of things said at that, in those first couple of meetings and people also answered forms and I guess from that our staff has prepared an analysis of the entire area and made a plan in response to what we've heard. And that's basically correct, isn't it? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Tried. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Alright, so tonight we're really at the next step which is a public hearing with a formal record, a legal record. It will be typed, there will be transcripts of the whole meeting. So, everybody that speaks is going to be asked to come and speak in a microphone so that it will be recorded, so that it will have an official record. And to start out, Jim, do you want to take lead and or your people and show, explain what it is you came up with. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-My name is Jim Martin and I'm the Director of the Planning Department. As everybody probably knows by now, if they've been associated with this plan, I'm a resident on the road so I really stepped aside from any formulation of the plan, any development of the plan and many of the recommendations are of the Assistant Planners, Arlyne Ruthschild to my left and Scott Harlicker. So, I would hope that they would lead the bulk of the meeting tonight in terms of explaining their recommendations and I think what the Board is primarily interested in, is hearing the public's reaction to this and seeing if some refinements or changes need to be made, any recommendations. But what I thought we might do is just have Scott take us through a brief summary of the recommendations. Many people here have read the plan, came in to see the maps, so I think we're all well associated with the concepts but we'll just go through them one more time to refresh everybody's memory and then I would suggest we get on with the public comment. One thing I would just like to clarify is, I think this is more of a public informational meeting rather than a hearing as no resolution was passed to set this meeting. So, any adoption of elements of the plan would be subject yet to another scheduled public hearing set by resolution. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, thank you. MR. SCOTT HARLICKER-I'lljust kind of go through the summary of the recommendations that are here in the plan. As you know commercial development is important if an area is to prosper. However, the existing highway commercial zones allow uses that are not entirely compatible with the rural character. Therefore, establishment or expansion of certain uses as allowed in existing highway commercial zone would have a negative impact on the rural character of the corridor. However, the character of the corridor can be preserved by allowing the expansion of certain commercial uses. One way of accommodating growth while preserving the rural features is to expand the commercial zones in areas that can accommodate it. This can be done by expanding the commercial districts to allow uses that are less intense than those currently allowed in the existing highway commercial zones. The expanded commercial zones would limit the size of a building to five thousand square feet for every one acre. For instance, if you have an acre, you can put up a five thousand square foot building, five acres, twenty-five thousand square feet and so on. Permitted uses would include restaurants, retail business, professional and medical offices, boat storage, repair and sales, farm and logging equipment service and sales. These commercial nodes would be able to service the growing residential population to the north Queensbury, as well as service the traffic passing through the corridor from areas outside the town. It's also desirous to allow some sort of small scale commercial activity in areas outside these designated commercial zones. In order to facilitate this, the study suggests the adoption of a rural home occupation. This concept would permit small scale commercial uses such as crafts, sales of goods grown and produced on site, small scale repair work, professional offices. The rural home occupation would be considered an accessory use to an existing residence. You can use up to forty percent of the gross floor area for the dwelling and require on site parking at one space for every two hundred square feet of floor area that's used or devoted to the home occupation. Site design and architectural considerations will also be used to preserve the rural character. A dimensional buffer along the road frontage will screen commercial activity and allow for the planned reconstruction and widening of the highway. This buffer would also extend around the property lines to eliminate the appearance of strip development. These buffers and with interior landscaping of the sites, the use of indigenous vegetation will be encouraged. The placement of parking behind commercial buildings and designs that work towards the enhancement of the natural features and are compatible with the rural, residential character will also strengthen the image of the area. Use of natural materials in the construction and highway reconstruction will promote compatibility between development construction and the rural character of the corridor. I'm talking about using things like, instead of iron protective beams along the highway, use some sort of wood. Instead of using just straight concrete, incorporate some sort of natural field stone, that's sort of thing in infrastructure development along the road. Residential development, can be accomplished and still maintain the rural attributes of the corridor. The natural wooded and agricultural appearance can be maintained with thoughtful residential development. Agricultural areas, residential structures should not be placed in open fields but should be adjacent to tree lines and wooded edges. Stone rows and tree lines should be preserved. The existing agricultural structures should be preserved where feasible. In wooded areas, structures should not be placed on ridge lines or will stand out. Trees on ridges, as well as stone rows and tree lines, should be preserved. The creation of large yards should be discouraged, and the retention of trees between the principal structure and the roadway should be encouraged. We also incorporated a reduction oflot sizes. In many areas that were initially rural residential three acre, and change it to a rural residential one acre. And the same with the rural residential five acre zone, in some areas, suggested to be reduced down to a three acre, in areas where environmental constraints area allowed. There are certain stretches along the highway that we believe where the environmental constraints generally prohibit the reduction of lot sizes beneath three acres. The use of cluster development in subdivisions in five or more lots will help preserve the existing character and still allow property owners to develop their land. By using cluster, you'll be able to preserve the rural character and it will also lower infrastructure costs, installation and maintenance costs, through road construction, utility service and that sort of thing. Site disturbance should be kept to a minimum i.e., the clearing oflarge areas or large building envelopes should be discouraged. The use of planned unit development designation in areas where appropriate is also suggested. Prime area for the PUD designation would be the properties near the Town of Fort Ann line that are currently zoned land conservation ten acres. This area is close to the proposed commercial zone, is easily accessible and would provide a developer with an opportunity to utilize a variety of innovative development options. In the interest of improving the traffic flow on the highway, the study supports the reconstruction of Route 149. This reconstruction was proposed to include the widening of the roadway and shoulder as well as the straightening out of some of the curves. In order to further improve the traffic flow along the corridor, access to the road from commercial and residential properties should be controlled. This can be accomplished by the utilization of interior service roads in subdivisions and to connect commercial developments. Given the proposed designation of the route as a national highway and the subsequent high volumes of commercial and tourist related traffic, curb cuts must be kept to a minimum. FurtlIermore, commercial development is recommended to be concentrated around the signalized intersections of Bay Road, Ridge Road and Route 9. In an attempt to improve the administration of the development process, property owners are encouraged to meet with the staff of the Planning Department to discuss development ideas prior to submitting plans. This pre submittal meeting will enable applicants to become aware of potential problem areas and will expedite the review process. The implementation of a minor subdivision regulations will also speed up the subdivision process for subdivisions of four lots or less. The Town and the Adirondack Park Agency will also be encouraged to work cooperatively in order to improve development process. It's also suggested that an association of property owners be established to encourage and insure active involvement of local residents in the development of the route. That's pretty much a summary of the recommendations that were made in the study here. I don't know what you want to do next, open it up? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -How do you want to proceed? Do you want public input now, or questions, open it up to the public? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yes, does the Board have any comments they would like to make before public comment or do you want to hear the public first? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I have none. I want to tell you that we try and run a fairly informal meeting and we try and let everybody speak and say as much as they want to say. But there's alot of people that want to give input and so have a little respect for each other and don't drag it on forever, get to the point, tell us what you've got in mind or ask the question and you know, leave room for somebody else to speak. If you have spoken, leave other people to have a tum to speak. I'm going to try and give everybody a tum and if you want to come back and speak again, you're welcome to do that. I don't really want to limit anybody's input but I hope you limit your own a bit and show a little respect for all of us. Okay, come on right up. MR. JIM WELLER-Good evening, I'm Jim Weller, I live here in the Town of Queensbury. My home is on the Route 149 corridor. My home is actually between 149 and Glen Lake Road. My office is on the corridor, in a commercial zone, it's at the intersection of Bay and Route 149. I own almost a hundred acres of undeveloped residential land in the residential zone along Route 149 and I own several acres of vacant land in commercial zones on 149. I pay alot of taxes on 149. I came to both of the public meetings that were held earlier, listened to the comments, had my own input, got my own copy, made my own copy of the report that was done, spent some time with the Planning Staff and gave them my own input of what I thought I would like. When I finally went through the plan that was submitted to you and it was made public, I must say that I didn't get everything that I was looking for and I'm sure my neighbors aren't going to get in this plan everything that they're looking for. But I think your Planning Department after listening to all of the input did a phenomenal job in reaching a compromise that we should all be able to live with. I expect to be regulated by this plan and I know if it's adopted that my neighbors on 149 will be regulated by this plan and I personally believe it's a good plan. It's good for Route 149, it's good for all of us that pay taxes on 149 and it's a good plan for the Town of Queensbury. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you Jim. Anyone else that would like to speak? Or even if you've got questions. Hi. MRS. CAROL MARTINDALE-Hi, Carol Martindale, Fran Martindale. My first question is, is there a conflict of interest with Betty Monahan being here? UNKNOWN-We can't hear you back here. MRS. MARTINDALE-My first question is, is there a conflict of interest with Betty Monahan being present tonight on this Board with her owning a considerable amount of acreage in this area? When anything is addressed with Mr. Brandt, he has to leave the room when it concerns anything up on West Mountain. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I don't know that I have to but I chose to. MRS. MARTINDALE-Okay, that's my first question. Jim Martin ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I can't answer that. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-In the first place, this is vacant wood land that's completely landlocked, has no accessed to 149, has no access to any place. It doesn't front on 149, it's back a long ways. There's no way that this plan can have any affect on the land that I have there. No way at all. MRS. MARTINDALE-It is still an area where you have property. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, you know, that's really stretching it Carol. It really is stretching. UNKNOWN-You all have microphones, why don't you use them please so we can hear. UNKNOWN-Yea. MR. MARTINDALE-This Board has seen our requests and know what we want to do. What we want to do is fully in line with what the character want's to be. We're using very little land keeping many, many acres of land rural. It would be done in a rural characteristic, this site. This corridor study, these guys have done a great job and they've forgotten every, they remembered everybody else except me and this is the whole point. If this town can tum down the kind of tax revenue that will be generated if our project was allowed, I think that that's something that has to be considered. This is going to become a federal road or a national road and we're talking about limiting curb cuts in one breath but preceding that we're talking about making this a residential road. Now, there certainly contradictoring matters here. People that have homes on this road or people that have property on this road and they feel that they're going to develop it for residential, yes, Jimmy will, his hundred acres way back but you're not going to put up a hundred, two hundred, three hundred thousand dollar house on Route 149. You're just not going to have the piece, Jimmy's got a beautiful house up there but I'm sure that, that traffic has got to drive him some nights right out of his tree, after you having a rough day on the job. It's a commercial road. If you're going to make one end of that road commercial, it's not fair not to make the whole thing commercial. There is, we talked about the traffic on that road. The traffic on that road, if anybody was to sit there and look at the cars, you would see that the largest percentage of those cars, are non area people. You've got Vermont cars, you got Connecticut cars, you got New Jersey cars, any state you can think of, they are non local people. Any housing development, residential area is in a, is for local people. You can talk about their study of the cars coming up as far as Oxbow Hill, those are the local people that go down the back way. Look at the people that's going through that are going to spend money. This is tax dollars. We have an assessor in this town that it made it point blank clear, anybody with vacant land had to pay more taxes to try and get them to develop this land. Fine, we're going to develop it. Let us develop it. You can't punish us because we're having vacant land. We're trying to live within the guide lines of what the Town of Queensbury has set forth. Now, you raise the taxes up and punish us for having vacant land. That's not fair, that's not reasonable. I think alot of things have to be taken into consideration and I charge you as Board members to think about the tax base, the tax base that will be accomplished direct through commercialism, rather than residentialism and what expenditures are going to have to go out versus the two. You'll find you need that commercial base. That is a commercial road. MRS. MARTINDALE-I talked with a customer today, while were selling vegetables at the bam and his, he's a resident, his land abuts 149 and his main concern was the commercialism on a one acre parcel which would be allowed and I would make a further suggestion. We have an access of thirty-four acres that we want to develop and we would limit it to the first two or three acres in front, keeping the rest rural, totally rural with the maples and you know, leaving the wildlife back there, we know there are deer and turkeys, and it's beautiful, there's a stream and the, you saw the conceptual drawing. The drawing would be totally rural in design with the covered bridge as separating the buildings and it would enhance the character of the town for a rural commercial look and my suggestion here would be, his concern was one acre commercialism, so, why couldn't you make it with a certain amount of acres, say twenty acres, you had suggested that before at last February to make, to establish a commercial PUD. You could limit the amount of development on one acre parcels and extend it on a twenty acre or more parcel and that would answer, that would help us immensely and still have, you know, the other people would have confidence that the town is looking out for their interest as well. If they're allowing rural residential commercialism, that's like Nick Caimano spoke at one of the Town Board meetings recently, he said that's opening up alot of hazards and it is. If you were to take Jim Martin's driveway for instance, he has, right on the crest of the hill, he has virtually no, no view, no, for anybody to drive in, he shouldn't have commercialism on his property, no matter what. And there are other houses on the road with the same thing, winding roads. If you were to come out to our place, you would definitely see that we have one of the better views for entrance and exits on the road, with all the acreage we have there. I have a copy also of the corridor study and I could only see where four people replied for, to keep it residential only. All the other ones, wanted some commercialism. They were, some, many people at the last March 29th meeting were present and they said, make it rural commercial, the whole road which is what we had kind of thought was the way the town was going to go but I can, I can see where rural commercial on the whole road may not be the answer but if you would limit it to a minimum of twenty acres, it would certainly eliminate alot of hazardous sites from being developed in a commercial way. I just wanted to point out, Jim Weller does have a beautiful house up on 149 but he also has a business and take that into consideration also. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I want to say something about what you, what was brought up about tax issue. The Town of Queensbury must maintain tax rolls, that's law. The assessor is charged to do that, thank God we aren't and the assessor has to assess property for what it's market value is. And the assessor doesn't have a right to try and drive development by assessment. By law, the assessor is supposed assess the value of property as it is and we're not in a taxation policy as a town to force development or to stop development. We're trying to assess correctly. We don't do so awful good at that, I've heard and there are alot of people that are fighting our assessments and I sympathize with them. But that's an on going process and it's not designed to cause development or to prevent development. By law, it's supposed to reflect what is. So, I don't want to confuse those and I don't want the impression that there's a policy that we use assessment to force development, because that's not true and it shouldn't be true. MR. MARTINDALE-Well, it is a public statement. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea, I know that statement was made but it's not, it's not accurate. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think Mike, that's one of the problems that's happened. That was a statement made by the assessor, if she were quoted correctly by the press and that I don't know, but it certainly was never a policy as far as I know or a statement issued by anybody on this Town Board. I have never heard one member of this Town Board make a comment and I think it's too bad that it keeps coming back in our face when we had nothing to do with it and certainly do not, I personally do not approve of the statement and I don't think the rest of the Town Board does either. MRS. MARTINDALE-We've been at several of the Town Board meetings and we do know that the Town Board did not agree with the assessment and they didn't want it to go through so we uphold you for your ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But we're talking about that particular statement when she, you know... MRS. MARTINDALE-Right, but the statement was made in the paper and this was only what Fran was referring to. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I just want that ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, and it's my understanding also that if you weren't on Quaker Road or an area like that, that the assessor even took a second look at vacant land out in areas that had no infrastructure and did change alot of those assessments from the original assessor. MRS. MARTINDALE-They didn't change ours. MR. MARTINDALE-She must have over skipped us then, Betty. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I don't know about that, I'mjust saying that, that's my understanding from talking to her, that she did make some adjustments on the vacant land. MRS. MARTINDALE-But I would like to strongly urge the Board to consider the residents on the road, most of them did want commercialism and not to penalize us, to please, if you're going to rezone, to please consider if you, the twenty acre minimum or ten acre minimum, so that it will allow us to have our commercialism as well as the other residents with site plan review. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay. MRS. MARTINDALE-Thank you. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Anyone else? MR. TODD ENGWER-My name is Todd Engwer and I have a few brief questions. The first would be that on the map, I was concerned with, where they decide to make the break on Martindale Road for one acre zoning versus three acre. Not every residence on Martindale Road touches 149 and I was wondering, you know, why the line came there and most of the other residences on that particular corner, about the size of an acre, maybe a little more and Mr. Brandt had mentioned the fact that you're going to look at total zoning in the town all together. Is that, are they going to look at their RR3 area, right there? If so, I guess that question is not quite so important at this time. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Help me. We're going to look at the whole town and this is the staff that's going to lead us through it and you know, it's an educational process, let me tell you, we don't have the answers to all, we're searching for them. MR. HARLICKER-Well to you specific, I think I spoke to you on the phone today, you know that was just, it seemed like a natural progression of that boundary. It wasn't, you know, two lots above that have frontage on 149, the property all around it has frontage on 149 accept for your piece to the south. So it just seemed like it was a natural extension of that boundary line to go to the road, that was the reason for that. MR. ENGWER-Will they be looking at that, to rezone it for residential use to a lower, lesser acreage or? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I think when the overall town is looked at and as the Master Plan is updated, yea, that would be the case. And the difficult thing in whenever a legislative body is considering adoption of a zoning map of any kind, is always, where do you place the line. Is it my lot line or is it the next lot line over? And those are the last issues to be discussed and decided upon and that's subject to change even in the context of a focus study like this. Where these lot lines are shown in our study, are not necessarily where they will turn out to be and they can shift, you know, several lots, given the input from the public, as the Board makes their decision. MR. ENGWER-I ask that only because it was my understanding some of the other concerns that people of 149 deeding land to their family, to their family members. So, to go on from there, you had mentioned five thousand square feet per acre. Okay, does that mean one building or does that mean you could collectively put ten buildings at five hundred square feet for businesses on one acre on that road or? What I'm getting at is, I don't, I'm not an advocate of strip development along 149. If you're saying, one building of five thousand square feet per acre, fine, but I'm not saying, I would not care to see ten buildings at five hundred square feet scattered along that look like the outlet malls on Route 9. MR. HARLICKER-Okay, the way it's worded as proposed here, is that it's, in rural commercial zone, one principal building of up to five thousand square feet, gross floor area would be allowed for every acre. So you would have, one principal building, if you have one acre, it could be five thousand square feet, two acres, ten thousand square feet and so on. MR. ENGWER-Okay, if you ... MR. HARLICKER- To answer your question, no they couldn't put a bunch of smaller buildings on the site. MR. ENGWER-How it would it be affected, if there's like one building on an existing parcel now? You know, if you just subtract the square footage, they can put another building up? MR. HARLICKER-No, they would still have to maintain the one principal building, you know, whether they tear it down or incorporate it into the new structure or whatever. MR. ENGWER-These residential businesses that are proposed in an one acre lot, now, do they have to come before a site plan review and all that, the whole nine yards? MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. ENGWER-But this is not just a blanket go ahead? MR. HARLICKER-Yea. The same thing holds true with anybody who wants to put in a rural home occupation, they would also be subject to site plan review. That would clear up part of the problems, like the couple before you mentioned about people having bad access onto the road and site limits and stuff like that, those sort of items would be discussed and reviewed during the site plan review process. MR. ENGWER-Okay. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Anyone else? MR. BOB MARTINDALE-My name is Bob Martindale. Ijust, I had a piece of paper that I wrote up and I'd like everyone to sign afterwards to get everyone's feeling on what the main issue here and I think the main issue is, should this road be a commercial residential road or should it be just strictly residential. What I think is, we have a Planning Department here and we have a Site Plan Review Board that will make a decision if this piece of property is adequate for a commercial venture on here, kept in a choked down atmosphere in a residential look. And all I'm asking for is, if the whole road would be a commercial residential rural commercial zone and let the Planning Board decide if that business that's going in there is going to cause a traffic problem or if it's going to be hazardous in any way and if it's going to keep in the nature of a rural zone. That's all I ask. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, that's the way it would be anyway, right Jim? Site Plan Review is, that's what it's all for. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. MARTINDALE-Yea, but I what I'm saying is at right now, the whole road is not going to be taken to be a rural commercial zone. I think the whole road should be rural commercial and then let the Planning Board decide if that piece of property is adequate for something commercial. I mean, we've got a wonderful Planning Board here, let them decide if that piece of property is what should be done there. That's all I'm asking but I think everyone should be given the opportunity to at least have the chance to do something with their property and if they say it's not right, you're on a blind corner, there's nothing we can do to give you a proper driveway to get in and out, then you can't have this here. I think everyone, that's what America is about is the opportunity to do something and I think everyone should be not restricted that way. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. Anyone else? MS. PEGGY HASTINGS-The only thing I would like to say about the corridor is this. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Excuse me, would you give your name for the record, please? MS. HASTINGS-Excuse me, Peggy Hastings from Len and Pegs. You have the million dollar corridor, right, which is how many blocks long? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I'm sorry, say that again? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- The million dollar half mile. MS. HASTINGS-The million dollar corridor is how many blocks long, four blocks? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea, I don't know. MS. HASTINGS-Probably, four blocks, five blocks. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea. MS. HASTINGS-Do you realize how many eating establishments are there? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -No. MS. HASTINGS-Has anybody ever thought about it? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- There's three. MS. HASTINGS-There are eleven that I can think of right off hand, right. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay. MS. HASTINGS-So now, were going to take a fourteen mile stretch and tum it into a restaurant industry more or less, right? They want a pancake house, you can't blame them for that. They have the property, they should have as much right as anybody else. But it just, you totally saturate an area and we're all going to end up with nothing. Nothing, absolutely nothing. We really are. None of us are getting rich, that's for sure and I hope they understand that too because it's just not there. The only thing we have is tourism, period, other than our locals that support us during the Winter. That's it. Thank you. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Thank you. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, thank you. Anyone else? MR. JEFF JACOBS-My name is Jeff Jacobs, I live in Queensbury and this is the first time I've been to one of these meetings concerning 149. Alot of talk about maintaining the aura of Route 149. My concern is, I don't believe that when Quaker Road was installed as an artery around Glens Falls that anybody envisioned what we have today. And the plan that I have heard discussed tonight, I'm sure has more detail in it then what I've heard because it looks like its about this thick. But there needs to be something substantive in there, forward thinking. Minimizing curb cuts is nice rhetoric but I don't know how much frontage per acre is required for development, I assume that's been discussed. I would only suggest that the setbacks of buildings be adequate so that twenty-five, thirty years from now, when we're not expecting 149 to be what it tums out to be, then at the very least we might be able to get a frontage road in so that the traffic can continue to flow. Because it does not flow on Quaker Road, there are too many lights, too many businesses. If you lived in Hudson Falls and tried to go to work at Queensbury School, for example, which we've done, it takes forever and that was simply poor planning. If you're going to build an artery or if you have one in place, which 149 is, make provisions for setback that frontage roads at least can be put in. Because it's nice to think that everything is going to be a pasture with little businesses sprinkled in the woods but unfortunately, that is not reality and we have alot of developable space in this edge of the Adirondack Park and it's simply going to be developed and we know that. We're not talking about depriving people of their rights to develop, we'll try and do it as tastefully as possible but we have to think far enough ahead to at least allow for some problem solving down the road. MR. HARLICKER-For your information, I guess, they're proposing a seventy-five foot setback, front setback from the front property line along Route 149. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And Scott, if the plans for 149, the reconstruction takes place, how much of that seventy-five feet will the State need for that road? On each side, I'm talking about. MR. HARLICKER-Yea. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-It's going to be fifty feet from the center line on each. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So, of the land that's there now, like we're talking about the seventy-five foot setback from the lot line there now, if the State reconstructs that road, how far do they have to come in on that seventy-five foot setback? Providing it follows the same lines that are there now. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Oh, okay, I'll give you the run down and Joanna Brunso happens to be here tonight from the State. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Oh good, maybe we ought to let her answer that. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Well, she can correct me if I'm wrong, I think I've heard this enough times. The road right now is, in most places ten foot lanes with two or three foot shoulders. The requirement of a national highway on a national highway system, which this is, is twelve foot lanes with eight foot shoulders and thirty foot clear zones. MS. JOANNA BRUNSO-From the edge of the pavement. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Thirty foot clear zones from the edge of the shoulder. MS. BRUNSO-From the edge of the pavement. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Oh, the edge of the pavement. MS. BRUNSO-Yes. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, you're talking about a distance, I believe we added it up and it tumed out to be a hundred foot wide right-of-way, fifty foot from the center line. And in some, in most cases, that means in terms of pavement, you're going to see an increase of eight feet on each side potentially and the clear zone will be in addition to that. I understand the clear zone can vary depending the physical limitations of the topography and things but that's what's going to be preferred when they can accommodate it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Alright, as that road is laid out there right now, how wide is the width that the State owns at the present time? MS. BRUNSO- They probably own all the right -of-way they need with the exception of straightening out some of the, of the curbs. There are both vertical curbs and horizontal curbs in that road and while they don't really want to do alot to it because if it's, any curb you do, you try to straighten out, it's going to be expensive. There are certain very short reductions in site distance, that will have to be cleared up to a certain extent. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, you know, as you well know, we had a week just recently, we had four accidents up there on that road. MS. BRUNSO-Well, I know that ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-There was one tonight on 149 but it was in the Town of Fort Ann, it was over the line, it wasn't in Queensbury. But when you say that the town or the State right now has possession of a hundred feet there? MS. BRUNSO-I'm not sure of that ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I'm trying to get this seventy-five foot setback to see if the State has got to take any of that so we know what we're going to look like in the future and do we have room for service roads and everything because I agree with you, service roads in this town should have been part of the planning when million dollar half mile went in, we should have learned our lesson with Quaker Road and we haven't leamed our lesson yet. MR. TIM BREWER-We're trying though Betty. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I some times wonder. MR. BREWER-We tried the other night and the applicant wouldn't do it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, then you shouldn't have given them what he wanted. You're in the driver's seat and you don't exercise the power you have. UNKNOWN-What happens to houses that are already built along 149 that don't have the seventy-five foot setbacks? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, according to what Joanna said, you apparently... UNKNOWN-You mean, I'm going to lose half of my front yard? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, apparently, no, no, if you're already there, you're, Jim, you're the planner, you should answer this. But their house is grandfathered, I mean nobody can touch their house unless the State has to move the road. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-No, your not going to be held to the seventy-five foot setback by the town but depending on where the road lies in certain areas, it can be, it will be significantly closer to some peoples houses. UNKNOWN-Well, that's what I mean, just how much ... EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That I can, we don't have any known designs of where the road is going to lie, where the corrections to the curvature will be made or where the widening is specifically going to occur. We just know what the dimensions are but we don't know how it's going to be set on the land. UNKNOWN-I know five houses that don't have seventy-five feet ... EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Well, the seventy-five feet is a local standard for new construction. UNKNOWN-Well, I know but I'm just saying, they don't have that now... and if they're going to take more of my land ... MS. BRUNSO-Okay, I wonder if I could just speak to that a little bit. I am an employee of DOT, I've just been appointed the Staff Director for the Glens Falls Transportational Counsel which is an organization, if anyone saw the newspaper article last Monday, we're an organization trying to use the existing officials in this area to get together and make a good transportation plan for the next twenty years. One of the things we have to do is make a transportation plan for every five years, that's called a TIP or a transportation improvement program, we're always working on that six year. Within that five year plan, that TIP, is the beginning, the letting of the contract for 149. Prior to being appointed to this position, I worked as in the, in a similar capacity for, in the Region 1 Office. One of my duties was to work with all of the Planning Boards in Rensselaer County, Albany County, Green County and Essex County, to try to get them to understand the traffic impacts of their landuse decisions. In addition to that, on a personal note, I sit on my own Town Planning Board. So, I come to you with a variety of information that comes from not necessarily from my Department of Transportation background. When they, when you decide upon a seventy-five foot setback, the road, you're talking about a seventy-five foot setback from the edge of the person's property. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right. MS. BRUNSO-What most of the people along Route 149 don't realize that much of their, that some of their front yard is already owned by DOT. So, when DOT goes through, it will look like they're taking part of your property but in fact it already is their property. Now, what the Town of Guilderland, Guilderland is where Crossgates Mall is located and it goes west along Route 20 in Albany County, they have a route running between Schenectady and Route 20 known as Carmen Road. A long time ago, fifteen years ago or so, they decided that, that was going to be an important corridor and they came to the department and they tried to say, well, what are we going to do to make this better, we know in the future this has got to be a four lane road. We know in the future that, in all probability, Route 149 is only going to be two lane road. But this is the kind of thinking that they went through and they, so they set up a number of policies and one of those was sidewalks, another one was setbacks, and then they made plans for sewer and water along this corridor because there's alot of residential development. Talking about a one mile stretch with five hundred and seventy-five houses planned in the near future. If you drive down Carmen Road today, what you will see is a sidewalk for maybe a hundred and twenty feet and then there's an older house that people have been living in for the last fifty years and there's no sidewalk and maybe the next one there will be a church and there's a sidewalk in front of that but that's, that church was built in the time that they adopted their plan. And what they did was they set out a number of policies including the installation of sidewalks at the sixty- five foot setback that they decided was going to be necessary in that particular area and as each piece of property turns over, they then apply their policies. They don't do it to those properties that are already there. I don't say that you should have sidewalks, all I'm saying is, this is the kind of thinking that you might think about. The kind of policy that you might have in your plan for 149, that will lead you in a sensible way toward the future that you want to have and not upset the property owners that are already there. But as far as houses that have less than a seventy-five foot setback from the edge of the property line, unless that house is directly in the way of the roadway that is going to be put in there, nothing will happen to that house at all. You may not want... what? MR. DUFRESNE-Do you live right on that road? MS. BRUNSO-Do I live ... MR. DUFRESNE-Where you don't have the frontage. I'm in that predicament, I'm sixty feet off the road right now, my house. So, if you widen it thirty feet, I'm right on top of a freeway... thirty feet from the road. MR. BOB MARTINDALE-And what happens if you have two that are exactly the same on one side of the road and another, and then like when Mr. Odell is going to face with Mr. Morrison, directly across from him, if they take some of his property and they can't just shift the road thirty feet the other direction because then they're going to be in somebody else's front yard. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But I think that's what Joanna just said, the State already owns in most instances, all the land that they need. UNKNOWN-How come we're paying taxes on that land then? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That I don't, you should not be. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Now, wait a minute, this isn't going to turn into a beat up session. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Joanna, I have a couple of questions. You said in the next, first five years segment, letting of contracts, 149. Is that planning or construction contracts? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-They said today, 1996 for letting. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Letting what? MS. BRUNSO-For letting, that is ... EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Contracts for construction. MS. BRUNSO-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Okay. Now, the other thing I wanted to know is, in these plans 149, is a bikeway included? MS. BRUNSO-No. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I would suggest we start thinking of how we're going to get people around in that area besides cars. I know DOT now is talking about moving people as part of their transportation concepts and I think you have to start figuring how you're moving people there because 149 splits the Town of Queensbury in a good many ways. MS. BRUNSO-Yes, I know it does. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You could have a Route 9 like you have going into Boston from ... and Framingham. MS. BRUNSO-Now, let me just say that, there's been alot of talk about developing 149 as a commercial road. That is a national highway system road. Now, the last thing, well, I won't say it that way, I don't think you really want, if you want to preserve the rural character, I don't think you want to see the kind of development that you're now seeing on Route 9 from Exit 20 up through to Lake George. People use Route 9 because they want to go to Lake George and this is residential area, this is a recreational area and we do have to provide for a certain amount of services for that recreational travel. I'm not at all certain that you're going to get the same interest in commercial activities on Route 149 where people are in the business of trying to get to Vermont. You're going to have alot more through traffic, it's going to be going much more rapidly and people are not going to stop for alot of small commercial establishments. And having said that, when we're talking about limiting curb cuts, I think you really ought to come out with a strong policy that says, we will only allow a curb cut every so many feet. Because if you have a commercial strip all the way along Route 149, what you're going to have is a whole lot of cars coming, trying to decide where they're going to tum in, they're going to slow down, people behind them are going to slow down, your going to have some rear-end accidents and the only way your going to control that, is to control the number of left tumers and right tumers on Route 149. So, I think that the suggestions that are made here, of having commercial nodes at existing intersections and controlling the number of curb cuts, making service roads, also making reverse, what we call reverse service roads where you actually, you may have a strip of properties or developments along the road but you go to an intersection, you go into the back of that property and you look for parking behind there for a whole lot of different properties rather than having a driveway for each one of them off of 149. The other thing that I happened to notice when I came through here, you have an example of a rural character, what you call guardrail, the proper term for that is guiderail and that won't be allowed on a road of, a national highway system road. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Steel cables, metal posts. MS. BRUNSO-No, look at the guiderail you see up in the Adirondack Park. It's what they call rusted box beam. It's alot more expensive, DOT doesn't like to put them in because it is expensive but it's just as effective and it's almost as attractive as your wooden guiderail that you have there. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That's part of the reason why we sent you a copy of the plan so you could take note of the Town's desire for those types of improvements as the designs are formulated for the road, even if it is more expensive. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-This is the dialogue we need and it's very important. I'm awful glad you took time to come over to this hearing and we'll certainly continue our dialogue and it involves the people, the State Government and the Town Government, we've got to come to these answers together. We can't each march in a different direction, that doesn't work too well. Okay, thank you. MS. BRUNSO-Well, I'djust like to say one other thing, from my personal experience as a Town Planning Board member in my town, the Town of Glenville which is in northern Schenectady County. We have Route 50 going through our town and we just have finished a Master Plan and as the Town Historian said, he said, in order to keep the rural character, what we need is a little bit of commercialism and then a little bit of relief in the form of lawns and houses and that sort of thing. Then we can have a little bit more commercialism and then a little bit more relief and that will keep the suburban character. And that's exactly what we've done, we've sort of locked in the existing uses of that land and not allowed residential properties to tum commercial and or commercial properties to become even bigger commercial properties. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Do you have a Town Planner? MS. BRUNSO- Yes, we have a single Town Planner. I'm a little jealous when I see your facility here and note that you have three Town Planners, we have a single Town Planner and we have just about as many people. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-What would be that individual's name? MS. BRUNSO-His name is Kevin Korkiran. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Come on up, right on the record. MR. RON MONTESI-I like your comment about locking in. My concern is that whenever we're dealing with Town Government, you have a Zoning Board of Appeals, that has jurisdiction over and above what the Town Board and the Planning Board thinks the future of the town should be. And how do you lock in so much commercialism and so much residential and take away the right of the Zoning Board of Appeals to make a decision that, we ought to give that farm and let it be a K-Mart? How do you do that or how did you do it? That was my only question? MS. BRUNSO- Well, we have Town Master Plan and we held numerous hearings just like this hearing and finally after about a year and a half we adopted our Town Master Plan. We haven't yet come up with the Zoning Regulations which is probably where the battle lines are going to be drawn. We expect that to happen within this year. We have certain areas that, where there are covenants, we have other areas where there are people who feel very strongly that they should be allowed to do whatever they please with the area. We have some people who want to do whatever they can do to their area and say, but you shouldn't allow those people down the road to do what they want to do with their property because that's going to impede my way of getting my trucks back and forth to my property. So, somewhere or another along the way, you have to reach some sort of a consensus as to what you're going to do with the, everybody can't have it exactly their ways. So you have to reach some sort of a consensus. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Right, but the answer to Mr. Montesi's question is, you haven't settled that problem. MS. BRUNSO-No, we haven't settled it. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-And that's what the Zoning Board of Appeals is supposed to do is, to help reach that consensus. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Joanna, I think what Ron is talking about, we do have some pretty strong rules and regulations and let's say, we have buffer zones around wetlands. MS. BRUNSO- That's good. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We have buffer zones around critical environmental areas. We have buffer zones between commercial and residential and etcetera and around cemeteries. Unfortunately, they go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and they get a variance and they let them invade all these buffer zones and that's the type of thing that Ron is referring to. MS. BRUNSO-Well, we have a Zoning Board of Appeals that works very closely with us and we also have an environmental counsel which sees the development before it comes to the Town Planning and Zoning Board and then from there on, we usually accept their, their determination of non-significance or significance and we usually follow most of their rules. One of the things they don't look at and they stay away from it, is traffic because they don't know what to do with it. So, we've taken it upon ourselves and we've worked very closely with the Department of Transportation or the County, depending upon whether we're on a County or a State road and tried to get some good feeling from those professional people as to what we should do under the circumstances. Essentially, what we're doing is, what we'll probably going to do is zone what is right now and we accept the fact that we're going to have a pattern on our major roads of some commercial area and some residential area and some mixes in between. We also know that on a road like Route 50, which is rather like Route 9, even though we may have residential land along that road, it's probably not going to be very attractive in the future because it's not terribly nice to live by all that traffic. So, what we're allowing is a certain amount of two family homes, we're allowing professional offices to go in and they have to be landscaped. We like to keep buffer areas of intense landscaping around the residential areas to shield them as much as possible from the traffic and from the commercial activities. And so we looked very closely at landscaping whenever a development comes in along the road. And we're also, we also have a number of little service roads, particularly around our ... where we do have commercial activity and the developers themselves build those roads. We draw a suggested line and they draw, they build those service roads. The town doesn't do that. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Can I ask you a question? I'm interested in your comment about the Zoning Board of Appeals working closely with the Planning Board because I don't think that happens in this Town. Can you describe that a little bit more? MS. BRUNSO-Well, we always send a representative to the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Zoning Board of Appeals always sends a representative to the Planning and Zoning Board and they went through our Master Plan with a step by step by step and they agreed with the policies that we were trying to, to establish and promote in the town. And I don't, we've been fortunate, I would say, recently. There have been some things that have been over tumed and we had, that we haven't liked but by in large, I think we have a cooperative relationship. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Thank you. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you Joanna. Anyone else that would like to speak? MR. RALPH COBE-Hello, my name is Ralph Cobe, I live on 149, not in the Town of Queensbury but further over towards Fort Ann. I grew up in Glens Falls, we moved to Fort Ann to get away from the big city and I'm sorry that I was unaware of the previous meetings but my comments are of a more general character then some of the points that have been brought out. We moved to 149, we set the house that we built five hundred feet back from the road to be away from the traffic and in the twenty years that I've lived there, I've seen what used to be a beautiful ride in the country, gradually disappear. Every year more trees are taken down, more parallel or side roads are built and the congestion on 149 increases. It's an increasingly dangerous and frustrating road to drive. I think that it should remain a low density residential area and not be developed for commercial or higher density residential purposes. I think that it's an illusion to think that because the shoulders will be expanded, it will cease to be, in effect still a two lane road used by big trucks, by school buses that stop, by gravel trucks that go two miles an hour, by tractors that have to get to the field. It's slow, we live there, it's, people are pulling out from hidden drives every second. I have a hidden drive like that and it's an adventure every morning to get out onto the other side in between trucks. I think that by encouraging or allowing the development of clustered housing there, even if there are limited curb cuts, there will still be more traffic, more of this big mix of traffic and I think it's a mistake. I think that having more businesses, more restaurants, miniature golf courses or any other kind of thing there is going, it's an illusion to think that a little bit of landscaping or a little bit of natural stone is going to preserve the rural character. It, the rural, these lots are not vacant, they're occupied by trees and that's what I think that they should be occupied for. People think that, some people, think that development, that the tax base will be broader because there are more businesses, yet anyone whose live here can see empty businesses. Businesses gone broke, we have no shortage of commercial, we have a whole shopping center full of empty businesses. In Glens Falls, we have a city center that's been fighting for it's life for a long time and to think that simply opening up more businesses, Peg and Lens made a good point that having another dozen restaurants doesn't mean that you're going to have more business, it just means that there will be more competition. I think, what? UNKNOWN-More buildings. MR. COBE-Well, you'll have more buildings, you may have more empty buildings but the trees won't come back, the bulldoze plots won't spring to life because the business goes out of business. I would hate to see it become a Lake George Road or a Quaker Road and I think it's, there are enough other places in Queensbury to put up the three hundred housing units we need without putting them on 149. Now, I know that individual property owners, they see, this is their pocketbook and they feel it's in their right to sell it or to use it or to develop it, but I think it's the job of the silent contingency to make itself felt and in also of the Town Planning Board, the elected representatives to look out for the general interest of the whole community and not just the individual landowner. That's why you have to impose zoning laws which are bitterly opposed often by the individual or environmental impact restrictions and many other kinds of things for safety and welfare. I think what brings people to this area is it's beauty. I think people come here because of the, they come here as tourist because it's beautiful and I think we could take a tip from Vermont and be very careful about where we put yet another strip zone and yet another carefully landscaped area. If we're going to have parallel roads setback behind the buildings so that they, people won't, will have to drive along these roads to enter the individual buildings, there's not going to be much left of tree frontage or of depth. You've got the setback and then you've got the building and then you've got the parking lot and then you've got the road which has to, behind that with people driving along that. I, it's no longer a rural area in any sense that I can think of. I have a few questions, those are my sentiments in general and I appreciate your patience with the time I've taken. I do have a couple of, a few questions which I'll ask together and perhaps you, the appropriate person could answer them. When you say that the restrictions and I do appreciate the care, the intent to put restrictions in to encourage this and to encourage that, are these formalized and regulations which are enforceable and punishable if they are ignored? Is there coordination with an environmental counsel? Do we have an environmental counsel that's distinct from the Planning Board and if not, what would be the procedure for instituting an advisory board of that nature? And my third question which, excuse me if it's common knowledge, I didn't hear it mentioned, what is the time table for the road and what is the time table for the implementation of this Master Plan? I would hope that as it appears, if it is adopted in some form, the change in the density and the permission of more commercial buildings, that it would be made contingent on the completion of the highway. That we would not be in a position of having more businesses on the existing 149 and more people on 149 who are living on houses there and be in the position that the road doesn't get built or the gets built much later or the funds are withdrawn and we end up having, not having the highway before we have, we have all the extra use on that highway. So, if you would answer those questions, I would appreciate it. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We have an environmental committee, we kind of screwed up and forgot to commission them, we commissioned them the other day. It's up to us to ask them as a Town Board if they, if we as a Town Board want to involve them here. They pretty much have a free reign, we don't have a formal system with them. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-What the town currently has, is we have in terms, we have a site plan review process which is really, the ordinance depends on that as a process which allows a planning review of a given project whether it be residential, if it's a multi family situation or a multi family dwelling or a commercial. For example, a commercial site plan review, when the application comes into the town, will have to go to the Beautification Committee as a requirement, that's an advisory board to the Planning Board and the board usually takes those, that advice very seriously and will incorporate that into their approval. And those are a group of volunteer people who are skilled in landscaping and various types of trees and plants that would be appropriate given a certain development scheme. So, that's the process that exists here in the town, then after it goes through that board, the Beautification Committee, it obviously goes onto the Planning Board for review and approval and it also is reviewed by a consulting engineer if necessary and by the planning staff here in town for compliance with the regulations and the master plan. So, that's what the process is that exists currently. And yes, this plan is followed up, the appendix to this plan is full of specific zones, rural commercial zone, rural residential zone, a home occupancy definition that are laid out in such a fashion that pending what the Town Board view of it is could be adopted and inserted right into the zoning ordinance. So, the regulations are followed up by, they do follow the plan. MR. COBE- What about the time table for the highway? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I was told today that at a meeting of the Glens Falls Transportation Counsel that the let date for the contract of construction would be 1996 leading a person to believe construction 1997. MR. COBE-Would this plan be implemented before that? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That's up to this Board. I would hope so, I think there are some things in here that, you know, warrant immediate attention. MR. WELLER-I'm Jim Weller again. I've got a couple of questions that go beyond I think what we've discussed so far. One thing, it's my understanding that there are going to be some technical questions to this particular report, prior to it actually being acted upon. And my question is, will those, will the corrected report or the report with the technical corrections be available for us to view before it comes before the Board for their passage. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yes, I think we've already made efforts to include those corrections. MR. WELLER-So, we can come over and see the corrected one then because I don't have the corrected one? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Before we're going to adopted something, we have to go through a total public hearing anyhow. So, there has to be another formal public hearing. MR. WELLER-The other issue that goes beyond this particular study that I have some concern with and I would like to bring to the attention of the Board, in the more recent hearings that I've been to of the Planning Board, there seems to be more and more discussion about architecture, the architecture of buildings. I think it's quite clear, at least it's clear in my mind that currently, whether it's the Planning Board or whoever, that there are no regulations for architecture. In my mind, architecture is in the eyes of the beholder but it's being talked about here. This particular report talks about architecture and given consideration to architecture and my question is or my concern is, is the Town of Queensbury headed in the direction to regulate architecture, the architecture of buildings? And if they are, then I think this report is appropriate. If they're not headed in that direction, to further regulate what we can do here in our Town, then maybe we should consider eliminating all references in this particular report to architectural type review. Thank you. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-This is the first that I've heard of any technical corrections being discussed. Could you enlighten us on that? Jim Weller just mentioned some technical corrections. MR. HARLICKER-Well there's typos in here and things that have been brought out and things that ... MS. ARLYNE RUTHSCHILD-We know a few things that have to be eliminated because they're redundant. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Oh, no major ideas? MS. RUTHSCHILD-No, I don't think so, no. MR. HARLICKER-Not as of now. You know, we haven't made the corrections pending the outcome of this meeting and the discussions that are going on tonight. We've got a list of things, some suggestions that people have come in and given us that, you know, every consideration will be implemented into the revised plan. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-More importantly, not more importantly, I shouldn't have say it that way, also, is this idea of, this architectural review, I for one, don't know that we have ever made any plans to have an architectural review and I think Jim brings up a very good point, if in fact, we are not going to require architectural review, then we ought not to imply that we are. MR. HARLICKER -Correct. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-And I think also, as we go along in this process, as this Town Board watches this, we should be in a discussion here and give you input of what we think we ought to adopt and then put it back out to the public. We're listening now and then it's for us to sit and make a commitment, say to you, well, we agree with you here but we don't agree with you there and what ever we modify, then bring it back to the people to get more input and at that point it's, would be structured so that, either we would adopt what we propose or we don't adopt what we propose. Okay, I think that's, at least my understanding of it. MR. BERNARD RA YHILL-My name is Bernard Rayhill and I have one question to start. I'll let you answer the question after I make my statement. The question is, has this been articulated with the Supervisors in Fort Ann and Fort Edward and with the Washington County Board of Supervisors as well as the Warren County Board of Supervisors in order to see what the economic, social and traffic impact of this process will be? That is my first question. Second part is that I had a conversation with Ms. Brunso on the telephone with regard to the 149 corridor and I suggested to her that it would be a viable option to move people from 17N along Washington County into Vermont. And her response was that the highway goes with the population rather than the population going with highway. My idea being that, Washington County would be able to develop economically in terms of real estate, residences and also businesses as a result of moving traffic in that direction rather than on 149 and also because of the tremendous back up that we experience on Exit 20, on the Northway going into 149. I know I've sat for ten minutes on the Northway, waiting just to get off Exit 20 to go to that area, the Million Dollar Half Mile. I think these are things that I'd like you to think about and I think that if you're going to do something like this, you're talking about something that's being written about nationally about creating mega malls in one area and then leaving out rural communities, community completely and in a sense taking away from the rural communities. I'm just wondering what you're positions are on this and I think this is something that should be looked at very carefully. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Maybe I'm missing something but it seems to me what was proposed here is not mega malls. We're talking very low intensity commercial structures, what is being proposed. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I guess I'm missing something too because while it's nice and it's certainly you would want to have some discussions with, on a theoretical basis with Washington County and with the Board of Supervisors, it seems as if our first responsibility is the, is the financial well being of our own community, not Washington County. I think we would be a little bit remiss if we made decisions based upon the financial well being of Washington County. No disrespect to Washington County, that's just not our job. I don't understand, I didn't understand that part of it at all. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We do communicate with them through the, our whole process they're copied of ... EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-A copy of this was sent onto the Supervisor of Fort Ann and to ... MR. HARLICKER-And to Warren County. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-And to the Warren County Planning Board. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Yes and they can have input, I mean, they can tell us what they want. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -And there is discussion in this municipal traffic counsel, or whatever we call it, I don't know. Anyhow, all these people are represented and you know, it's regional and as far as the Exit 20 problem, that's a separate problem but it is being addressed also. You know, Joanna is on, leading the discussions at looking at the whole corridor and from our perspective, from her's it goes at least Exit 17, I don't know how much further south but 17. We look 18, 19 and 20 and I think she has responsibilities beyond that. Her responsibilities also go into Washington County but she's the coordinator for all of is and we certainly all look at what's happening and try to understand it and try to accommodate the traffic but we don't create it and it's like, you know, how much traffic is this corridor going to take. Lord, we don't know. I think though that it's our responsibility to respond to what we see is happening as best as we can understand it together with all you people. But, you know, we're not the master planner of the world. MR. RA YHILL-I understand that and I appreciate that Mr. Brandt but at the same time, we have to realize that just four years ago when the Million Dollar Half Mile first opened up, we didn't have the kinds of problems that we have at the present time. I think you should take a look at these things very carefully. If we're talking about traffic onto Vermont, you should think in terms of the appropriate manner of doing this and once again, people may not understand what I'm saying but this is very much a concern of the political science community in the United States at the present time in terms of planning because it creates urban scroll in communities, in addition to which it's an example of poor planning in many situations. So, please look at it carefully. I'd like to ask one more answer, say one more thing. Just six years ago, the people of this community voted to have a community which maintained it's rural character and that's not going on right now and I think this is an example of it. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Anyone else? MS. SUE PARADISE-Hi, my name is Sue Paradise, I've just moved into this area recently but the first question I'd like to ask is, what provisions are being made with Route 129 being a main truck route? Or 149, I'm sorry, being a main truck route, what kind of provisions will be made if commercial business is allowed to develop in the area along with the tractor trailers that are back and forth on that road day and night to prevent more accidents then there are? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I don't know the answer to that. MS. PARADISE-Like the gentleman in the back who said that, seventy-five feet from the center line of the road would cut into his house, it would with us also, possibly the living room. But there are times of the day when the tractor trailers and this includes many tandem trucks going passed, going up and down that road to the point where it's extremely difficult just to get out of our own driveway. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I don't have answers for you. All I can tell you is that it is part of the national highway system, it's a national highway system road as a designation which means it's a preferred truck route, it's going to be a major route, it's going to have to be expanded to traffic that it's seeing and we can sit here and say, it will never be a four lane road. That may not happen, there's more and more trucks and more and more car traffic, it may have to do that. I think we all look in a crystal ball, we try and look as far ahead as we can and right now, we're saying that, that road will be altered somewhat but not in a major way. And what we're saying here, what's being proposed here is a certain amount of commercial growth but limiting it and really restricted it and restricted access to the road. I think that's basically what this document is saying. It's not, it's not proposing to make a major commercial development along this road. In fact, just the opposite, basically saying not to let that happen. Now, I don't, you know, if that's right or wrong, tell us. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I don't know that we can restrict, we can't, we have no authority to restrict the use of that road by tractor trailer. UNKNOWN-Can't you restrict tandems, I believe ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-But tandems, they shouldn't even be on there, as far as I know, double bottoms are only for ... MS. P ARADISE- They are daily, just about daily. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Double bottoms? MS. PARADISE-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Drive it a while Nick, you ought to drive that road. MS. PARADISE-Logging trucks, the logging trucks. UNKNOWN-Eighteen wheelers but not tandem trailers. MS. PARADISE-I'll be honest with you, I moved here in May... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I've never seen a double bottom on there myself. UNKNOWN-No ... MS. PARADISE-And the school district did not want to pick up my children on Route 149. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I've lived on there for five years and never seen one. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Wait a minute, one at a time. Go ahead. MS. PARADISE-I moved here in May and the school district did not want to pickup my children for school on Route 149 because of the trucks. And now when they do, when school is in session, they run two buses by, one to sit down around the turn with the lights flashing while the other one picks up the children. MR. BOB MARTINDALE-Where abouts is your house? MS. PARADISE-It's the, Lackey Farm on 149. MR. BOB MARTINDALE-Right across from Dr. Taft? MS. PARADISE-Yes. UNKNOWN-It's another farm. MS. PARADISE-Another farm, almost a hundred and seventy acres. MR. BOB MARTINDALE-That's something maybe you should have looked at before you bought the property ... MS. PARADISE-I didn't ... MR. BOB MARTINDALE-You know, preplanning ... MS. PARADISE-It still belongs to Mrs. Lackey. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, yes but, wait a minute. This is a hearing on this, we're not going to tell people ... EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Again, I think ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Excuse me, what school district is that? MS. PARADISE-Pardon me? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-What school district? MS. P ARADISE- That's Lake George. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Lake George. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Again, the designation of this road as a national highway system is acknowledging the fact that truck traffic is occurring on there and that designation means that they're going to make provisions to accommodate it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I hope they make provisions for enforcing the speed limit, that's half the problem right there on that road. MS. P ARADISE- That would be nice. UNKNOWN-It should be forty-five. MS. PARADISE-It is forty-five there. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-They don't even enforce the [Ifty-five. MS. P ARADISE- Thank you. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Come on right up. MR. GEORGE RYAN-My name is George Ryan and I live on 149. I live within the five hundred feet on the corner of the highway commercial and I've been round and round with these guys down there. I honestly got to tell you, I go down there and I bang heads with them but they're, I think they're doing a good job. I work with them, I mean, I don't come out and get the answers I want to get and I got a big problem but at least they're trying. I mean, I've been dealing with the town for five years and I never got an answer, I still won't get an answer but I see we're going in the right direction. So, I can't complain. The road is commercial, there's no doubt about it and some of the things I don't like but I can't fight because these guys, I think they're doing a good job. They got, every which way they come and I don't think anybody comes and drives them harder than me. And they keep the same line. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That's true George. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-George, I think you're right on that one. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's the truest thing said tonight. MR. RYAN-And now I'm going to go home and goodnight. But, you know, I told Jim that some things I don't like and some things I do but you know, what can I tell you. I go around and around with them, they help me and they come in there sometimes, they turn their head when they see me. Goodbye. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Okay. Yes sir. MR. STEVEN LACKEY -I just have one question, are there any long term plans for diverting the flow of traffic? UNKNOWN-Can't hear you. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Wait a minute. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-And a name please? MR. LACKEY-I have one question. My name is Steven Lackey. I have on question regarding, I'd like to know if there are any long term plans regarding diverting traffic, the flow of traffic from the Northway, you know, through 149, over to Vermont and New Hampshire? The majority of people, while I was attending school at Union College in Schenectady, the majority of people I knew who came up this way, basically, I didn't stop between Schenectady and say, you know in Vermont, it was just a thmway there, I've noticed over the years that the interchanges for Exit 20 northbound and southbound, are different locations and they're far off set from the 149 which to mean sort of looked like it was a temporary solution at the time. Is there a long term plan to build, say another access road from the thmway over there to Vermont? Say a road cutting ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-You got two questions there. First of all, the question about how Exit 20 was formed is being re-examined. MR. LACKEY-Okay. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Whether they're going to make a whole new exit or slightly modify that one, that's being studied and proposals are being brought forth on that. But that's just in the study stage. As far as building a whole new interstate system or a large road system between interstate 87 and over into Vermont ... MR. LACKEY-Not the whole thing. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's not going to happen. MR. LACKEY-I mean ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's not even a consideration and we've been told that very clearly by the state planners, that that's not a consideration. MR. LACKEY-Well, not from there to Vermont but perhaps just crossing behind where the factory outlet stores are and meeting it later on ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-But we've been told, is that the federal people will not entertain looking at major changes as far as exits go on the interstate system. You basically, what you got is what you're going to see for a long time. There is no movement in that direction. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Now, I think you were asking about a bypass road like behind the stores connecting onto 149? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That specifically is proposed in one of the corridor studies that was done of the Million Dollar or of the corridor study that was done for the Million Dollar Half Mile. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -And Exit 20, that whole study. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN -Yes and now to how real that is or what kind of time frame that occurs in, I don't know. There's other improvements that are proposed in that area that will probably occur sooner than that. Meaning, installation of tum lanes and things like that to get traffic to flow a little better and give people more options. But in terms of a major road construction, I think that's more then ten years away would be my guess. MR. LACKEY-Okay, because I'm looking at and from my hearing everything else, it doesn't seem to me that simply trying to widen 149 and also the strip between Exit 20 and 149 that's, that since there were no provisions made in the past for any sort of expansion and since the traffic there is quite a problem during much of the, during the peak periods, during the summer months, it may be better just to go back to the beginning and just to try a whole, a bigger solution, more long term solution. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Joanne, do you have any comment on those questions? MS. BRUNSO-Exit 20 is a little bit unusual in it's design. It's not my fault, I wasn't around when it was designed. Nobody ever expected this much traffic this far. Nobody ever expected that eighty-four percent of the licensed drivers or that there would be a vehicle for eighty-four percent of the licensed drivers in the State of New York. I know when I went, I was a little girl and when these roads were being conceived, there were times when we didn't even have one car for our family. There are times when I look out in my driveway and all three of my sons are home, we've got more than five cars in that driveway and all those cars are being driven. I'm just as guilty. I don't carpool, I'm sorry but I have alot of excuses, I think. But the problem is that the Route 149 reflects the preferred route for the people who come from the north and want to get to Vermont. The either have to go way up to the north or they, perhaps they can take a ferry if the ferry is running but it's the preferred route for people coming down the Northway and then wanting to get to Vermont. People coming up from the south usually take route, well, certainly the trucks do, they take Route 197 over to Route 4 they take, and then they take Route 4 all the way to Rutland, Vermont. The reason that... AUDIENCE-What ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think you ought to go watch 149 on our end sometime, there's alot of truck drivers that aren't doing that. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Hey, alright, alright. MS. BRUNSO-One of the, okay and one of the reasons that, that alot of people, the skiers come up to the Exit 20 area and take 149 over, is because you have so many good restaurants there and it's a convenient stop. It's a, and that's something that the Planning Board has allowed. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Okay, let me make the rounds first, who hasn't spoken that would like to yet? Come on up. MR. ANDY PLISCOFSKY-My name is Andy Pliscofsky and I live on 149 and I'm not as eloquent as some of these people who have spoken this evening. To address one thing that was said, this gentleman said it was an illusion to think that it would maintain the natural surroundings. I think it's an illusion to believe that we can, can keep them, progress is just going to take over. I am for the commercialism myself. I own four point six acres, I don't pay as many taxes as some of these people do but it's my ambition to own my own business. The existing commercial line goes across the front of my property which is impossible for me to do that. So I am for the commercialism. I think the thing that's getting out of hand is everybody's looking at the long range affect. Everything is going to happen to this area whether it's commercial or non commercial. I don't think it's going to increase truck traffic, I think we're talking about twenty-five to thirty-five thousand dollar a year businesses that aren't going to be getting three deliveries a day from Red Star, Yellow and TNT. We're talking about people that want to make a living off of what they own, what they pay taxes on and what they live on. And I understand some of these peoples ideas about the area and I agree with them also, that there should be some control to maintain the natural beauty. I live on French Mountain, I live right across from Jim Weller. The area up there is beautiful, it's also probably one of the most undevelopable places on that road. It's all ledge, it's mountain and for that very long strip, I think it's almost impossible to develop it unless you have unlimited resources. There is enough area on that road to maintain the natural beauty of the road and still meet the people's needs to be either self employed or if they already exist on some form of self employment, be it vegetables, any type of automotive or anything like that. I just think that it's being looked at too closely, like everything is being magnified when the question is really very simple. The area can be maintained it's natural beauty and still let these people, myself included, do what they want and that's about it. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Thank you. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. MR. MONTESI-Ron Montesi. I know we're all battling for something that's going to happen, whether the road gets wider or doesn't get wider, we have the truck traffic there. Widening the road because it's a federal road obviously will make it easier, there will be more traffic on that road. I think that doing battle with the neighbors and saying what should be commercial and what's residential, is going to be a battle all the way down the line. The Zoning Board of Appeals will get into it, they'll get mad at us, we'll get mad at them for allowing some things. Maybe the point of the view that the Town Board should take on this road is, just because you have commercialism, doesn't mean that you cut trees down. I'd have to tell you that one of the nicest commercial developments on that road is the RV Park and the trees are still there. For a very special reason, people come up here to be in the woods in that park. John Hughes's development, is a housing development that you really don't know exists there until you get into it, the trees are still there. So, some forms of commercialism can be tastefully done and maintain that character that we want on that road. Maybe the job that the Town Board and the Planning Board has, is to make, just what someone mentioned, an architectural review that says, we're going to maintain the character of that road and if it is commercial, it's going to be commercial on our terms. That way, you'll avoid the ..., it's going to be commercial, we know that. There's going to be alot of traffic there, so let's control that, let's make it look like one of those villages that you go into in Vermont, that you wouldn't realize it but there's a wood working factory there, there's a golf pro shop, there's a golf course and all of that exists on what you think is a little country road because they control the format for that. Maybe that's the approach that we should be taking instead of trying to figure out, in ten years from now, 149 will probably be the Quaker Road that we all loved and thought was great and the problem will be that if we think of it as rural residential, we're doing the wrong thing in planning and we're going to have houses too close to the road, we're going to have driveway cuts that we're really not comfortable with and we're going to have a hodge podge. I would just think in those terms, maybe we can control things better that way. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Whose next? MR. JOHN WALKER-My name is John Walker, I have a business on Route 149 and I also have my residence on 149. I think people who perhaps are dissatisfied with the flow of traffic, the amount of traffic on 149 should perhaps have looked at this before they bought and they built or they bought an existing building. My wife and I for one, are several hundred feet back from the highway, we don't have a problem with the traffic. We don't have a problem with the noise of the traffic. You'll hear what you want to hear and if you want to lay awake at night and listen for these big eighteen wheelers, you would hear them. But if you don't, you won't have a problem with them. I think as far as the plan, basically, it's probably pretty good. I think we need zoning definitely but I think and I'll put this to the three planners, they have put zoning on one end to satisfy certain people, they've put it on the other end to satisfy certain people and there's a party in the middle that hasn't even been considered. MR. HARLICKER-Property ownership in ... MR. WALKER -Wait a minute Scott, wait a minute. MR. HARLICKER-The development of this plan was not taken into consideration. MR. WALKER-No, I'm not ... MR. HARLICKER-I don't know who owns the pieces of property. MR. WALKER -Well, maybe you should. If you don't the Martindales, I'm sure... MR. HARLICKER-Why should property ownership play any role in ... MR. WALKER-I'm just saying that, you're attending to situations in certain parts of the highway and you're not addressing the same situation somewhere else. And I think that if you're going to address this, it is going to be a commercial highway, let's make it a commercial highway but let's keep, let's keep it fair for everybody, not just for certain ones. And I would put this to the Town Board, to each and every ward person and the Supervisor, I think it would behoove you people to talk with the people who live on the Route 149 corridor, Betty Monahan. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I have talked to many of them John. MR. WALKER -You haven't talked to me and I can name you alot of people you haven't talked to on our corridor. And I think it would behoove all of you to get the input from the people who live directly on the highway. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. Whose next? MR. BOB MARTINDALE-Anybody else who wants to go that hasn't gone. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Anybody who hasn't spoke who would like to? Round two. MR. BOB MARTINDALE-I think this lady behind me has a good point about trying to give a zone where there is some commercialism and then a break of not having commercialism. I don't really down deep in my heart believe that is right because it's discriminating against somebody else that does have one acre and maybe wants to do something but in order to maybe limit the amount of commercialism on here, if you do put a restriction of acreage that would cut the number of curb cuts on the road for commercialism. Because if somebody has to have twenty acres of property in order to build a business of some sort, then that's going to stop it because everybody, if you know the area there, everyone does not own twenty acres. Okay, so what that is going to do is that's going to limit the amount of commercialism on that road. I don't entirely agree with that because I think if somebody wants to put a business in like the gentleman that was up here earlier, he's got four or five acres and he wants to put a, maybe an auto body repair shop or something like that, if he can make a better living for himself and his family and for his kids, then that's up to him and I think he should be entitled to that. But if it gets down to brass, knuckles, saying that, hey, we don't want any commercialism on there unless it's twenty acres or above, that's going to limit the amount of curb cuts that are taken on here. But going on the other ways, if you've got a residential piece of property there and you want to limit to how many curb cuts you have on there, maybe there's, I don't know however many people on here that want to put a house on that and if they have an acre, that's still going to give you a curb cut, commercial or not, and that curb cut is going to be smaller then, then a, you're not going to get the amount of traffic coming in and out of there as a resident but then if you go one step further and have a home occupation there, that means that you should have to have a larger driveway. I'm in the situation now where I live right across from a person that has a vegetable stand, I don't have any problem with him having a vegetable stand, I'll state on the record, I don't have a problem with having wood craft items but what happens is, his piece of property does not allow of people to get in to the property. I have pictures of motor homes and cars parked all up and down Route 149 because somebody comes into his place and blocks the driveway and nobody else can get through so they have to park on the road. If they're going to make a restriction in this home occupation, maybe they ought to have a setback rule of where this accessory use should be. They, right now they have it has to be within a hundred and fifty feet of the house. Well, that hundred and fifty feet, does that mean that they can be twenty-five feet from the road? MS. RUTH SCHILD-Well, there's a parking requirement with the home occupation. MR. BOB MARTINDALE-Okay, but ... MR. HARLICKER-It's also subject to site plan review. MR. BOB MARTINDALE-Right but are you going to limit that person where they can put their accessory use? It's says a hundred and fifty feet from the house but if their house is twenty-five feet from the road as it starts, a hundred and fifty feet in the same direction parallel or perpendicular to the house, is still going to be twenty-five feet from the road. MR. HARLICKER-New construction would have to meet the new setbacks. MR. BOB MARTINDALE-Okay, but what happens if it's a temporary structure, if it's a tent? MR. HARLICKER-Then it's not subject to site plan review. MR. BOB MARTINDALE-Okay, then what's going to happen is ... MR. HARLICKER-That's, same as it is right now. MR. BOB MARTINDALE-He's going to park right in that front driveways, make all these cars so they can't get in and I've got pictures of it. What we have at our bam is at least we have a driveway where people can pull in and get back off the road and not stop anybody, it's not, people aren't parking right on 149 to buy where we are. Put a restriction on where that accessory use structure can be. So people ... MR. HARLICKER-Well, there are, it's built into the definition, within a hundred and fifty feet of the house and it has to meet the seventy-five foot setback that ... MR. BOB MARTINDALE-Okay, an accessory structure or a permanent structure? MR. HARLICKER-They're both subject to the setbacks. MR. BOB MARTINDALE-Both, both have to have a setback? MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. BOB MARTINDALE-Of seventy-five feet? MR. HARLICKER-Ifit's larger than a hundred square feet, it's got to meet the setbacks of the principal building. MR. BOB MARTINDALE-Okay, but it's still, if somebody has a ten foot square, or say a fifty foot square accessory structure right there, people are still stopping to buy at that structure ... MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BOB MARTINDALE-And if somebody, if that driveway is not large enough for people to get in and out and they block that driveway, people still have to park on 149 and that causes a traffic problem. MR. HARLICKER-Like I said, if they're going to consider this a home occupation it's subject to site plan review, that sort of situation would be addressed during site plan review. MR. BOB MARTINDALE-Okay, that's all I have. But the other thing is, back to, if they limit the size of where the commercial property can go, that's going to create it's own buffer zone so to speak because some people can't do that. And the other thing is, there's so many natural characteristics of this road where ledges and stuff like that, where there's no way in hell that anybody's going to put a commercial piece of property on there because they can't do it, they can't move a mountain cause they're going to be paying alot of money. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Okay. Anybody first time? Okay. MS. BRUNSO-I'djust like to say that it's against the law to park along a state highway and your plans ought to take that into account and not allow any structure to be so close to the highway that people are encouraged to park along it. MS. RUTHSCHILD-I think he was talking about a temporary structure or it can't ... MS. BRUNSO-I don't care, any kind of structure. Any kind of structure that encourages commercial or retail type parking, should be setback far enough so that, so that there's no parking within, on the shoulders. The only time you're allowed to park on the shoulders of a road is when you have an emergency. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We're talking procedure here. We're going to take this input now and rework and then come back another round. That's the process, right? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yes. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-There's no point in keeping an open public hearing for a long period of time, is there, on this matter? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-No, no. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, this isn't a public hearing, this just an information meeting. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-This is public informational at this point. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Oh, I thought this was a public hearing. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Oh, no. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-No, you were out of the room maybe when that was said. MR. JACOBS-Mine's just a real quick question. Maybe, it should probably be addressed to Joanna. Accommodations being made for alternative transportation on 149? MS. BRUNSO-Accommodations, what do you mean by accommodations? MR. JACOBS-Bike path, pedestrian way, is that part of the? MR. HARLICKER-That's one of things that we'll incorporate. MR. JACOBS-It may sound insignificant to people who don't ride cycles but there's alot of bicycle traffic in this region. UNKNOWN-Not on 149 ... MR. JACOBS-Well, there's a reason for that, it's not a safe highway but it should be and could be. MR. HARLICKER-Yea, it should. UNKNOWN-It should be is right. MR. JACOBS-It should be and could be. MS. BRUNSO- There was alot of, a comment about bicycle travel in the Adirondacks and I know when I worked on the Adirondack plan for the twenty first century, there was a policy that came out of the Department of Transportation, that any time a road is reconstructed that the shoulders will be made at least six feet wide and that they will be suitable for riding bicycles on them. So ... MR. JACOBS-Thank you. MR. LEW STONE-Just a quick comment. What I'm listening to is alot of people's different definitions or different understandings of various words like commercialism, commercial, I would advise all of us to make sure we understand what we mean by a commercial highway. Obviously, a commercial highway is one that has a business on it, it's a commercial highway. I think some people think that the word commercial highway means everything on the highway is going to be commercial. I think we have to be very clear in understanding what the various words mean and that's all I would encourage us to do. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-It's defined. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We have definitions here of different kinds of what, what's allowed in the different commercial zones. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-In the book, it's defined, right. It's pretty well defined. MR. STONE-Okay, but I mean we need ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But I don't think alot of the people have really seen this and have had a chance to maybe digest those type of new uses that are in this report. MR. STONE-Correct. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Anyone else? MS. MARTINDALE-Carol Martindale again. I'd like to point out, alot of people that have spoken tonight are saying, especially the homeowners, they're saying that it's a heavy traffic road and it's really not suitable for a residence. They're saying that there's so much traffic there, the tractor trailers, everything, the truck traffic, they're complaining. So, it's really isn't a road that should be zoned for residential. I'd like to point out also, the Zoning Board and the Planning Board are not elected officials, so alot of things, should be taken into consideration in the rezoning so that the political, everybody's aware that there is a political awareness of what's going on with the Town Planning Board and the Zoning Board and it shouldn't be such. They aren't elected, you are. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-What is going on? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well... MS. MARTINDALE-There's alot of politics being played. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I don't think we want, that isn't what we're here talking about folks. MS. MARTINDALE-But it should be zoned ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We're going to stick to the subject. I... MS. MARTINDALE-Okay, what I'm saying, it should be zoned so that people don't have to go for a variance in order to have a commercial adventure. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We got you. I, but ... MS. MARTINDALE-Okay. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -But we're talking about this plan. MS. MARTINDALE-Right, that's what I'm saying, it should, you're the elected officials and so it shouldn't have to go to the Planning Board ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I understand but we're talking ... MS. MARTINDALE-Or the Zoning Board. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -About how that affects there. You said, you know, there is a, there's a process. When we make a zone, then it's going to be interpreted and that's going to get in the Zoning Board of Appeals at times and it's going to certainly work with the Planning Board. They're independent bodies. I don't, I'm not comfortable with beating up on them at all. I'll go there and tell them what I think and I have, I've been criticized for that but I don't think that's wrong. On the other hand I think to come here under a format and beat up on them, is wrong. MS. MARTINDALE-No, I'm not doing, I'm just saying that in, when your rezoning now in your 149 corridor study, you should take into, make into effect a plan that would allow the commercialism, so you don't have to go to a variance. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea, but that's the tug or war here, you know. MS. MARTINDALE-That's what I'm saying. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I mean, everybody, somebody want alot of commercialism, other people don't want alot of commercialism. I heard alot of things that are of interest to me. To me, I think suggestions that have been made about limiting or the amount or requiring a large acreage for a commercial development, proper setbacks, proper plannings, setbacks for plannings, certain site distance requirements for driveways. I mean, you start meeting all those, you can find large sections of the road where that won't work. To me, that's proper zoning. I think those are good ideas. MS. MARTINDALE-Does this pertain to residential commercial as well? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Y ea but, you answered the question properly and I think that what Mrs. Martindale is saying is, we ought not to leave the impression that this could happen. Ifwe, let's say we took this plan and we in good faith said this is it, all these zones stay where they are. There's not a reason in the world why the person living in RR3A, in that little piece right there, can't go before the Zoning Board of Appeals, no matter how careful we are because it's their right to do so. MS. MARTINDALE-That's right. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-So we can't do anything about that and I don't want to leave impression that we can. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And also Nick, commercial will be in front of the Planning Board for site plan review, it's a part of the process. You don't skip those boards. MS. MARTINDALE-No, we don't expect to skip those boards, we don't ask to skip them but I'mjust saying that commercialism for a variance should not, you should, it should be, you've heard the people, they want commercialism on that road and so it shouldn't have to go for a variance. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Carol we've heard some of the people say that, we've heard some of the people say something different. MS. MAR TIND ALE-Most of them have said commercialism. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, we've heard both. We've heard some people say they don't want to see that growth. We've heard some people say they do and that's a balancing act and you know, I think there's been a pretty good attempt at addressing that. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Right. MS. MARTINDALE-Did I understand, is it my understanding that Mr. Cobe who spoke here tonight was a resident of Fort Ann? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's correct. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's what he said. MS. MARTINDALE-So, why should he come to the Queensbury Town Board and ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Listen, if he was from Washington DC, I wouldn't hold that against him, I mean ... MS. MARTINDALE-I'm just saying that, should, should his ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We'd factor it in, I mean we do know who votes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Carol, what we do will affect the road in front of his house, the road doesn't stop at the borders of the Town of Queensbury. MS. MARTINDALE-But ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It very much will affect his area. MS. MARTINDALE-Fort Ann is all for commercialism on the whole road. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That isn't the point. The point of it is, you said, does he have a right to speak here, yes. MS. MARTINDALE-I'm just saying, yea, but he's not paying taxes and so, to our town. He's not a property owner. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But he's impacted, he's impacted. MS. MARTINDALE-He's impacted, certainly. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's, he's got a right to speak, he's welcome and ... MS. MARTINDALE-Right. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -and we welcome his input. We'll factor it in our, you know, as we listen, that's all. MS. MARTINDALE-And the Planning Department has said that they are listening to suggestions and I would like to make the suggestion that they be documented with tax maps numbers and made available to every taxpayer on 149, not just taken verbally. MR. HARLICKER- That what be made available? MS. MARTINDALE-Pardon? MR. HARLICKER-You said tax maps documented with numbers, what do you, what? MS. MARTINDALE-You made a statement here that alot of people have come into your office and made suggestions and they're being incorporated into the 149 corridor study and I'm just saying that if your incorporating them into your 149 corridor study, that you should back it up with documentation on what they have said and make it available that who they are and what tax map number they are so that everybody can hear their voice as well as ours that have spoken publicly. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Okay, now wait a minute, now you're getting into the process and ... MS. MARTINDALE-I'm just saying it should be made available. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Of how they run their department. We're going to look at this proposal and we're going to stick our conversation to this proposal. So, you know, if their process, you know, if you've got a question about their process, come and talk to us separately about it. MS. MARTINDALE-I'm just saying that they have made the statement that it's being incorporated into the 149... SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I heard what they said but ... MS. MARTINDALE-And it should be made available to everybody... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-But they have a right to do that. MS. MARTINDALE-What their comments of these people are. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-You know, we're listening to everybody, it doesn't mean that one person is going to, I mean it's is a power persuasion, it's whoever gives the best arguments, the most logical that appeal to the most people, that's what's going to hold it. I don't want to sit here all night and just beat this to death, if we've got some ideas ... MR. BOB MARTINDALE-I think what she's saying is, if somebody came into to the office and said something, like Scott said they did, why don't you read it in front of us right now so we ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Because they don't have the time nor the inclination, they have a public record of everything that was said, that's why. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Right and this isn't a public hearing to see if they're doing their job right or a flogging session. MS. MARTINDALE-No, make it a... MR. BOB MARTINDALE-I'm not asking if they do their job but ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mike ... MR. BOB MARTINDALE-I'm interested in what these people that can't make it to the meeting want to say. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Now, I think this is getting in... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mike, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Get the gavel. MS. MAR TIND ALE-I'm just asking. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Come on ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Right down to this input ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mike, I think ... MS. MARTINDALE-I just asked ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think the answer ... MS. MARTINDALE-That it be made available. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Wait a minute, one at a time. Go ahead Betty. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think the answer to what they're saying is, if what people suggested, the Planning Department thought it had merit, it shows right up in this plan and they can comment on it through when they comment on this plan. I don't see it's as important who make what or tax map numbers, if the Planning Department that, that suggestion had merit, it shows up here. This is a plan that they're supposed to be commenting on, so they do get a chance to comment on every suggestion that's been made. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-And if anybody makes a suggestion that's worthy of a change to this plan, that suggestion will go back out before the public and get a full review. MR. BOB MARTINDALE-That's all, that's all I wanted. MS. MARTINDALE-Okay, thank you. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, anybody else? We've got a couple of resolutions we've got to handle I think before we adjourn. So, that's the end of this, I'm going to close this informal public hearing and go back to the other business of the town. (letter submitted for the record from John Whalen, Route 149, Queensbury, New York/letter on file in the Town Clerk's Office) Attention: Queensbury Town Board James M. Martin As a property owner of 70 acres along Route 149, between Bay and Ridge Roads, I want to comment in regard to the July 29, 1993 meeting on the Route 149 plan. In the proposed plan, many tracts ofland west of Bay Road, which are currently zoned RR-3A, have been rezoned to RR-IA. I request that my lands, which are now currently zoned RR-3A, also be rezoned to RR-IA in the proposed zoning. A study of the maps in the Route 149 report covering, depth to bedrock, percolation rates, water table, and slope show that my land has a high to moderate suitability for development and should have no constraints going to a RR-IA zoning: Depth to Bedrock- greater than 60" - High suitability for development Percolation Rate - 0.6" to 2" - Moderate suitability for development Water Table - greater than 72" - High suitability for development Slope - 3 to 8 degrees, 8 to 15 degrees - High to moderate suitability for development. Sincerely, John Whalen (letter on file in the Clerk's Office and to be made a part of the record) RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL AUDIT OF BILLS RESOLUTION NO. 425, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano RESOLVED, that the special audit of bills as represented by Voucher #93-2884, in the total amount of $36.50, payable to Health Education Services, be and hereby is approved. Duly adopted this 29th day of July, 1993, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: Mrs. Goetz ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF CONTRACT FOR STATE ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS FOR MUNICIPAL LANDFILL CLOSURE PROJECT RESOLUTION NO. 426, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, the Department of Environmental Conservation has advised the Town that a further sum of money is available under the Contract for State Assistance Payments for Municipal Landfill Closure Projects in the amount of $45,000.00, and the Town Supervisor sent a letter indicating the Town would agree to amend the contract to increase the amount of the assistance by that amount, and WHEREAS, the Department of Environmental Conservation again advised the Town today that an additional sum in the amount of $221,860.00 may be available to increase the amount of the assistance going to the Town of Queensbury and has requested that the Town once again agree to an amendment of the contract, and WHEREAS, attachment no. 1 of the contract concerning the dates of submission of the Closure Investigation Report and Closure Plan have been amended to indicate dates of January 25, 1993 and August 1, 1993 respectively, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves and ratifies the amendments to attachment no. 1 of the contract and the increase in the assistance amount by $45,000.00 and hereby further approves and authorizes an increase in the amount by $221,860.00 should the same be available and hereby further authorizes the Town Supervisor to send such letters and sign such documents as may be necessary to indicate the Town's agreement to the amendments indicated herein, and further, the Town Supervisor is authorized to agree to any further increases in the assistance amount to the Town of Queensbury should the same become available. Duly adopted this 29th day of July, 1993, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN RESOLUTION NO. 427, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns. Duly adopted this 29th day of July, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK TOWN OF QUEENSBURY