Hounsfield gets earful about Route 3
The Hounsfield Town Council got two clear messages from residents who turned up Wednesday for a public hearing on proposed changes to the zoning law.
The first message was the long-simmering frustration of Route 3 property owners over strict limitations on development along the roadway. And the second was general confusion over just what the proposals would mean for the town, and a desire for more time for the public to look over them and make comments.
The proposals would reduce the requirement for road frontage along Route 3 from 600 to 300 feet for commercial uses and from 300 to 200 feet for residential uses. The protected area, known as an arterial corridor overlay district, currently encompasses land within 2,000 feet of the roadway; the new proposal would shrink that to 1,000 feet but greatly expand the district to all state highways, adding restrictions along routes 12F and 180.
Thomas F. Gillespie, who lives in Henderson Harbor but owns about 40 acres in Hounsfield along Route 3 near the town of Watertown line, said the current zoning restrictions have long hindered him from selling his property for development.
He spoke of one prospective buyer for a portion of his land that he was offering for $6,000 per acre who instead opted for $14,000 per acre land in the town of Watertown to set up a business because the rules were less restrictive.
"That's what I've been putting up with for the last 40 years," Mr. Gillespie said. Several other Route 3 residents echoed his frustrations.
Sackets Harbor Village Trustee Peter R. Daly, 106 Broad St., said he was attending on behalf of Mayor F. Eric Constance, and asked that the village be more involved in the process of recommending changes.
"We don't live on Route 3," he said. "But we drive through it."
"If you'd like to be involved, would you like to be involved in paying my taxes?" retorted Edward L. Mereand, 20598 Old Rome State Road.
Mr. Mereand's wife, Kathleen Mereand, said the proposed easing of Route 3 development restrictions didn't go far enough and took issue with the rationale included in the proposals that the area's rural and residential character should be preserved.
Dairy farms are in decline, she said, and the Route 3 corridor isn't suited to residential use because of the heavy traffic there.
Kathy Snyder, chairwoman of the Hounsfield Planning Board, submitted a memo to the Town Council asserting that the board felt the proposed amendments were "inadequate to meet the future needs of the community," and urging the council not to take any action on them until they could be fine-tuned.
Town Councilman David B. Cobb, who worked with Councilwoman Yvonne M. Podvin and Code Enforcement Officer Marlene A. Lennox to draft an overhaul of the zoning law, defended the changes as necessary to create fairness and uniformity in the regulations. But he said more input may be needed from the public before the Town Council votes on the law.
If so, the process, including review by the Jefferson County Planning Board and another public hearing, would have to be started over again. Councilman Stephen H. Lee echoed Mr. Cobb's impression after the meeting, saying the message he was getting was that more time for public comment was needed.
