Loading...
1997-08-19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 19, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMARD, SECRETARY GEORGE STARK CRAIG MAC EWAN ROGER RUEL LARRY RINGER MEMBERS ABSENT TIMOTHY BREWER SENIOR PLANNER -SUSAN CIPPERLY CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER -CHRIS ROUND TOWN COUNSEL -MILLER, MANNIX, & PRATT, MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES June 17, 1997: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES DATED 6/17/97 , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer SITE PLAN NO. 23-97 TYPE: UNLISTED EXIT 18 BUSINESS PARK, INC. OWNER: DOUGLAS MABEY ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 24,000 S.F. ADDITION TO A WAREHOUSE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 200’ BY 50’ SELF-STORAGE BUILDING. PER SECTION 179-26 ALL LAND USES IN LI ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 15-89, 62-89 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 7/7/97 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/9/97 TAX MAP NO. 137-2-4.1 LOT SIZE: 5.066 SECTION: 179-26 GIFFORD HARVEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT nd MRS. LABOMBARD-And the public hearing was left open from July 22, and it’s continuing on this evening. STAFF INPUT 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 23-97, Exit 18 Business Park, Inc., Meeting Date: August 19, 1997 “The applicant has submitted updated plans for the proposed Exit 18 Business Park which was heard before the Planning Board on July 22, 1997. Staff has the following comments on the new plans: 1. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan for this property. The type and quantity of new plantings should be indicated on the plan. Staff recommends that the plan be updated to include plantings along Big Boom Road and that all new plantings address the comments of the Town’s Beautification Committee. 2. All comments from the town’s Engineering Consultant should be addressed prior to Planning Board action on this site plan.” MS. CIPPERLY-And Number Three, I think it ought to just be pointed out that access now shown on the new plans is via an adjacent parcel, which is also owned by the applicant. That’s Parcel No. 137-2-4.3. MR. PALING-Okay. Lets start with Number Two, if you will. Are you satisfied that Bill Levandowski’s letter covers the engineering and that it is satisfactory? MS. CIPPERLY-According to the letter that Rist-Frost wrote to John Goralski, it says “We have received and reviewed Gifford S. Harvey, P.E.’s letter of August 4, 1997 together with the revised plans dated August 4, 1997. The plans as revised satisfactorily address all of our comments subject to their approval by the Town Highway Department. Please call if you have any questions.” MR. PALING-Now, has the Highway Department approved it? MS. CIPPERLY-I saw something in here about the Highway Department. Why don’t you go on while I look for that. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you identify yourself, please, for the record. MR. HARVEY-Yes. My name is Gifford Harvey. I have prepared the plans for Mr. Mabey’s Exit 18 Business Park. MR. PALING-Okay. One of the things I noticed about the print, and it’s also covered in the letter, is that the plantings are not very detailed. I see some markings and all, but I’m not sure what I’m looking at. MR. HARVEY-Well, we’re going to duplicate the existing plantings alongside the new building. I haven’t investigated all of their generic proper latin names. MR. PALING-Well, normally when we have a planting plan, it tells us the number of trees, the type of trees, and so on, so we know what we’re dealing with, and in this case, there’s no identification on the print, as to what any of them are. MR. GIFFORD-That’s true. The Beautification Committee approved our verbal and preliminary th plans on the 7 of July. MR. PALING-All right. Lets go to the Beautification. MR. RUEL-Do you have a letter from the Beautification? th MR. PALING-Yes. I do have. This one is dated July 7. Lets see, I’ll go to part of it. “Mr. Harvey reviewed existing planting around building. Mr. Mabey reviewed bermed planted bed on Big Boom Road, which has sprinkler system. Area between site and Kruger Concrete is forever wild and will remain so. Mr. Mabey stated that he will be installing similar planting around new addition to warehouse. He also stated some blacktopped areas will be removed and grass installed in its place. The Committee recommends: 1. Approval of proposed addition with similar planting…..” I don’t like that, when they tell me similar planting when I don’t know what’s planted there right now. “2. A landscape plan was not presented as Mr. Mabey and Mr. Harvey were not aware it would be reviewed in the meeting with the Committee.” That’s a similar reaction to my own. MR. RUEL-So we do need a landscaping plan. MR. PALING-I think we need, one of the things we need is a landscaping plan. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) MR. RUEL-And we need an answer from the Town Highway Department. MR. PALING-Yes. Now that doesn’t have to be a very detailed plan, and we have another meeting yet this month. Maybe we can table this, if that’s the only thing, and you could just come back with a detailed plan of what your planting is, so it won’t have any undue delay. MR. STARK-Bob, maybe Mr. Harvey could tell us what they are right now. MRS. LABOMBARD-It’s on the third page in. MR. STARK-C-3, on Page C-3. MR. PALING-All right. We’ll do it whatever way we can. MR. HARVEY-Well, most of them are Yews. They’re all pruned shrubs, and there’s a deciduous shrub with red leaves, and I don’t know the name of it, and there’s a five inch Birch tree, and there’s some ground hugging Yews, and we’re going to continue that same type of planting, the Beautification Committee, anyway, they looked at the site the day after we met with them, and, you know, if they had no further objections, I would assume that that was satisfactory. MR. RUEL-Were you representing Mr. Mabey at the last meeting? MR. HARVEY-Yes. MR. RUEL-It seems to me at that time when we had talked about the plantings and the landscaping plan and the fact that it should be on your plot plan. MR. HARVEY-That we should submit a landscape plan, yes, sir. MR. RUEL-Yes. Didn’t you understand that it was to be part of the plan at that time? MR. HARVEY-What is to be part of the plan? MR. RUEL-Landscaping plan, a listing of the plantings and the documentation on this plan of what you intend to do. Remember we talked about it? MR. HARVEY-I didn’t understand it at that time. MR. RUEL-You don’t remember that? MR. HARVEY-I remember it, but I didn’t understand what you’re saying was required. MR. RUEL-I see. Yes. Well, it is a requirement. MR. PALING-All right. Sue, do you have something on that yet? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I did find a letter of August 4, 1997, to John Goralski, from Gifford S. Harvey, P.E., “This letter responds to questions raised during the Planning Board meeting of 7/22/97 and to open comments from Rist-Frost Associates letter dated 7/18/97: 1. We met with the Town Highway Superintendent on 7/22/97 as recommended; Mr. Naylor’s comments have been incorporated in the revised plans. The curb cut has been relocated to afford better sight distance and avoid replacement of the existing catch basin and culvert which are not highway rated. Traffic control signage has been added to the layout plan. A new drywell will accommodate stormwater from the south side of the new pavement curb cut as shown on the revised grading and drainage plan. 2. The entire warehouse and offices will be protected by a sprinkler system meeting NFPA 13 and NYS codes. 3. On 7/30/97 a test pit was dug (in the location shown on drawing C-1) to a depth of eight feet (8’). There was no evidence of water or organic matter. 4. A landscaping plan has been completed. Ten (10) sets of drawings (dated 8/4/97) are submitted as follows: C-1 “Layout and Utility Plan” C-2 “Grading & Drainage Plan” C-3 “Landscape Plan” D-1 “Details” Sincerely, Gifford S. Harvey, P.E.” MR. PALING-These have evidently been looked at by Rist-Frost, but I don’t see evidence that the Highway Department has actually signed off on it. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) MS. CIPPERLY-That’s something that we could take care of. If there’s more information you need from the applicant, we can provide that. MR. PALING-Yes. It’s a little too incomplete, I think for me at least, to act on it, and I’m going to suggest that it be tabled, and lets be very specific in our instructions, so that, I’d like to see you come back next week, next Tuesday, and be put on the agenda, so there’s no further, we’re not trying to delay you, but the information is incomplete, and, Number One, on the letter to John Goralski, can Staff run that by Naylor, or how do you want, okay on that one? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, we can do that. MR. PALING-All right. So they’ll bring this over to Paul Naylor to get his approval on it, and quickly I hope, so that if there’s anything that has to be discussed, it can be discussed before next Tuesday’s meeting. MR. HARVEY-I see him every day. He’s digging up my street. I see Mr. Naylor every day. MR. PALING-Okay. That’s even better, and then what we’re asking for is a specific plan that tells us the type and the number of trees or bushes. MR. HARVEY-You want a planting schedule? MR. PALING-Yes, sir. MR. HARVEY-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. What else are we missing on here? MR. RUEL-What’s missing is the Town Highway Department. MR. PALING-Yes. I’ve got that as Item Number One. MR. SCHACHNER-What are you doing about public hearing? It sounds like you’re ready to move on or table this. MR. PALING-Okay. We’ll have to go to a public hearing, right. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I don’t know, but I though this was scheduled for a continuation of a public hearing or a public hearing tonight. Correct? MR. PALING-Yes. There’s a public hearing scheduled for tonight. It hasn’t been opened yet. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I just want to make sure the Board doesn’t forget about it. MR. PALING-We will. Okay. MR. RUEL-Sue, I have a question for you. Do you know what part of this application is the responsibility of Naylor and the Town Highway Department? MS. CIPPERLY-Well, by looking at the minutes, there was some concerns about, I guess it was recommended that he meet with the Town Highway Superintendent, at the last meeting. So, if I go through the last minutes, it looks like Mr. Naylor made comments, and I will just get him to sign off on this plan, as to whether his comments have been addressed. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-See, the reason I ask is that we did have an application some time ago where Naylor would not sign off until everyone else had signed off on it. MR. PALING-Okay. No, that’s a separate subject. Lets not even bring that up. MR. RUEL-I was just wondering if it was part of this. MS. CIPPERLY-Since he made comments, I will ask him if this addresses those comments, and I think that should be fairly straightforward. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) MR. RUEL-So you feel we’ll have a response before the next meeting? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. PALING-All right. Then there’s three things. Number One is a planting schedule. Number Two is the Highway Department’s approval. MR. RUEL-That’s not part of the motion, though. MR. PALING-Well, wait a minute. Okay. Number Three is that any other comments that Staff th has on the Harvey letter of August 4 to John Goralski. We’d like Staff’s concurrence on that. Those would be for the motion, the three. MR. RUEL-Do you want to have a public hearing? MR. PALING-Yes. All right. Lets open the public hearing on the Exit 18 Business Park matter. Is there anyone here to speak about this, pro or con? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. PALING-All right, if not, then the public hearing will be left open, and I think we should entertain a motion to table. MR. RUEL-I had a question for the applicant. I was wondering why you widened the access road by five feet? MR. HARVEY-Widened it? We narrowed it. MR. RUEL-The original was 20, and now you’ve got 25, or do I have it backwards? MR. HARVEY-It’s backwards. It was originally 25. It’s now 20. MR. RUEL-Okay. Do you want a motion? MR. PALING-Yes. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 23-97 EXIT 18 BUSINESS PARK, INC. , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MAC EWAN: Until 8/26/97, for a specific plan for planting schedule, and an approval by the Town Highway Department, and approval by Planning Staff of Harvey’s letter dated 4 August 1997, addressed to John Goralski. th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. We’ll put you on the agenda for next Tuesday. Hopefully everything can come together by that time. MR. RUEL-Does the applicant understand exactly what’s required on that planting scheduled? MR. HARVEY-Yes. MR. RUEL-You can talk to the Planning Staff, you know, if you need any information. MR. HARVEY-All right. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 25-97 TYPE II JEAN TAYLOR OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, CEA, APA LOCATION: CLEVERDALE ROAD, NORTH, HOUSES NORTH FROM THE CHURCH. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 15’ X 30’ OPEN SIDED SUNDECK-BOATHOUSE. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/13/97 LGPC TAX MAP NO. 14-2-10 LOT SIZE: .22 ACRES SECTION: 170-60 SEAN CALLAHAN & BILL FORBES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 25-97, Jean Taylor, Meeting Date: August 19, 1997 “The applicant proposes the construction of an open sided boathouse. The boathouse will meet the height requirement for boathouses and will be built on a dock which meets the setback and dimensional requirements for docks. Any comment on possible impacts this construction may have on surrounding properties will be provided at the public hearing. Based on the compliance of this proposal with zoning regulations, if the Planning Board is satisfied that this construction will not adversely impact surrounding properties staff recommends approval of this site plan.” MR. PALING-Okay. We do have a Warren County Planning Board comment. They approve with the condition that the ramp be omitted. That is a recommendation, a requirement. MR. STARK-Mark, how come the County says, you know, they approve it with a condition, and there’s one coming up here later on, there’s two or three more coming up this month, that have No County Impact? They decide that doesn’t have a County impact, but this does. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s not really a legal question, but I can tell you from my experience practicing before the Warren County Planning Board. It’s very common for them to find, take offense, for a reason that I’m totally aware of, at any ramp that connects a deck to the land. I’m guessing on this, but I think that the impact here, they say, approve with the condition that the ramp be omitted, and my understanding is that the Warren County Planning Board routinely, automatically, always denies or disapproves its, or does a negative recommendation for any boathouse or dock structure that is connected to shore by a ramp. I haven’t the faintest idea why. MR. PALING-Yes. None of us know why. MR. RUEL-Stairs are all right. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, stairs, as I understand it, come down, typically, from the dock, or from the boathouse, I should say, to the dock. MR. RUEL-We’ve had some like that, almost like a ramp, but it was a staircase. MR. SCHACHNER-I think the only ones we’ve had where the County signed off on did not have stairs going to the land. They had stairs going from boathouse down to dock, but I think that the only thing, in my experience, and my understanding is that the County Planning Board will only say No County Impact if the dock/boathouse structure is connected to land solely by the dock itself, not by a ramp. MR. STARK-Having gone up there, Mark, you know, looking around, there’s probably, within sight, five or six ramps coming from the top of the deck, and this particular property is suited for a ramp. Some of them are ground level and a ramp isn’t a good idea. Here it’s a good idea. MR. SCHACHNER-I have no problem with that at all. I can tell you that my understanding is shared by others, and that none of the people I’ve ever talked to about this have the faintest idea why the Warren County Planning Board takes that position. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) MR. RUEL-In other words, we don’t have anything in our Ordinance about ramps? MR. SCHACHNER-There’s absolutely no problem with that from our Ordinance, correct. MR. RUEL-And if we think the ramp is okay, then we can ignore the Warren County comment? MR. SCHACHNER-So long as at least five of you think it’s okay, that’s correct. Warren County Planning Board recommendation, with the condition they propose, means that a simple or bare majority of this Board is not enough to override that recommendation, but if five or more of you think that it’s fine with the ramp, then that’s fine. MR. PALING-Unless somebody wants to do it, or it’s more proper that someone else do it, I think I’m going to the County folks and ask them what they’re reasoning is because I have the same thing. It’s been before us without any reason. I agree with George that this fits just fine. It would be rather awkward to try to do otherwise. So unless anyone else wants to volunteer, I’m going to find, we’ll work on tonight’s. MS. CIPPERLY-When we’ve addressed this in the past, Warren County has just said they have just a blanket policy against ramps. They just don’t like them, and that’s what they’ve said. MR. PALING-We need a little more than that. Okay. Well, lets proceed with this. Now, we also have here, it says Lake George Park Commission. Sue, it says Lake George Park Commission. I don’t have anything from them. MR. SCHACHNER-The Lake George Park Commission does have jurisdiction over this. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, they’re called for on our list, but I don’t have any input from them. Why don’t we proceed with this while Sue is getting that. Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. CALLAHAN-I’m Sean Callahan. MR. FORBES-I’m Bill Forbes. We represent the owner. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you want to summarize, do you have any comments for the Board, or do you want to summarize what you’re doing. I think that most of us or all of us have been up to see it, and we’ve got a pretty good idea of what you’re doing. MR. CALLAHAN-It does have Park Commission approval. It’s all there. The homeowner has it. I thought I had a copy. MR. PALING-You don’t have it with you, though? MR. CALLAHAN-I don’t have a copy with me. The homeowner has the whole thing. Because the dock and the sundeck got approval at the same time. MR. PALING-Okay. It’s a Lake George Park Commission application, but this, we have a copy of the application, it appears, but we don’t have. MR. CALLAHAN-Right. With them I did it both at the same time, and then I did it separately with Queensbury. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, if there is existence of that, we can do it pending. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. They have applied for the application. MR. PALING-I’ve got that. Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-I don’t see any mention of an approval in the materials that are in the file. MR. PALING-Well, I think we can make the motion contingent on that, on a positive action, and then if it isn’t, then we’ll have to revisit the whole thing. MR. RUEL-Now, what kind of a condition can you make here, that prior to? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) MR. PALING-Well, there’s an existing approval by the Lake George Park Commission. MR. CALLAHAN-So I bring the permit in when I get the permit application? I can bring a copy of the permit in when I file for that building permit? MR. PALING-Yes. You’d have to bring it in to Planning Staff, right. If it’s existing, bring it in right away. MR. RUEL-You want to put it off until next week? MR. PALING-No. I don’t think we have to, no. I don’t think so. All right. Are there any questions or comments by anyone on the Board? MR. RINGER-I was up there, too, and I think that the ramp adds to it, versus detract from it. I think the ramp is a good idea. MR. PALING-Yes. It’s a short, very safe, solid looking situation I think. Lets open the public hearing on this matter. Does anyone care to speak about this, pro or con? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. RUEL-A question for the applicant. You have both stairs and a ramp. What’s the ramp used for? MR. CALLAHAN-This lady is in her late 70’s and has had a heart attack, and for her to go down the hill and then go up the set of stairs, but the house is on the market for sale, so she wanted to have stairs to the deck and the ramp. It’s just a request of hers. It’s a pretty steep bank. MR. PALING-Now, my question is the height. What is the overall height, and you must tell us and be bound by your answer. MR. RUEL-Planning Staff says it meets it. You’ve got the railing is 33 feet. MR. CALLAHAN-About 13 feet. MR. PALING-Okay. It is 13 feet, no more than. MR. CALLAHAN-Maybe a little less. MR. PALING-All right. The limit is 14 feet. So you’re well within that. You’re saying it’s 13 feet. Okay. I didn’t think it was taller, but we’ve got to verify that. MR. STARK-Make sure that he understands that it’s 14 feet to the top of the balusters. MR. PALING-Yes, that’s to the top, the mean high water mark to the top of your railing, is less than 14 feet. That’s all we really care. Okay. All right. Then we have the one pending item which is the Lake George Park Commission approval. Otherwise, we can go to a motion. MR. RUEL-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 25-97 JEAN TAYLOR , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As written, with two conditions. One, that you receive the pending Lake George Park Commission approval, and, Two, that the total height of the structure will be 14 feet or under. th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 26-97 TYPE II PAUL AND LINDA BRADLEY OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, CEA, APA LOCATION: NORTH ASSEMBLY PT. RD., RIGHT HAND (EAST) ON BRAYTON, TO BRADLEY WAY TO THE END. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO TEAR DOWN EXISTING SUNDECK - 600 SQ. FT., - MOVE DOCK APPROXIMATELY 5’ N.E. AND REBUILD SUNDECK THE SAME SIZE. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/13/97 LGPC TAX MAP NO. 6-3-23 LOT SIZE: 2.45 ACRES SECTION: 179-60 SEAN CALLAHAN & BILL FORBES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. There is no impact from Warren County Planning, but once again, Lake George Park Commission. MR. RUEL-There’s a letter, approval, on the end. MR. PALING-All right. MR. RUEL-They’re okay. I don’t see any conditions. Check dimensions on enclosed sketch and let me know if they are incorrect. MR. PALING-Sue, that does constitute an approval, does it? MS. CIPPERLY-This says notice of complete application. It says, right in Number One, this is not a permit. It looks like this was a request for some more information from the applicant. MR. CALLAHAN-We do have a permit for this one, too. Both of these, we have all the permits from the Park Commission, I didn’t bring them. I’m sorry. My name is Sean Callahan. MR. FORBES-And I’m Bill Forbes. MR. PALING-Okay. Now, go ahead. MR. CALLAHAN-We do have this permit from the Park Commission, but I did not bring it along or send it along. MR. PALING-All right. Then I think the motion can reflect that. MS. CIPPERLY-Would you like me to do the Staff Notes? MR. PALING-Yes, please. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 26-97, Paul and Linda Bradley, Meeting Date: August 19, 1997 “The applicant proposes the construction of an open sided boathouse which will be built over a U- shaped dock on property with 315 feet of shoreline frontage. The height of the proposed boathouse is 12 ft. 6 in. and conforms to zoning ordinance requirements. Any comment on possible impacts this construction may have on surrounding properties will be provided at the public hearing. Based on the compliance of this proposal with zoning regulations, if the Planning Board is satisfied that 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) this construction will not adversely impact surrounding properties staff recommends approval of this site plan.” MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-Have we got Warren County on this? MR. PALING-Yes. Warren County, there’s no County Impact. Okay, and we’re okay there. Any questions, comments? MR. RUEL-The one question, I guess it has to do with both of them, is that you have this railing, pressure treated railing at the top. What’s the separation between the rails? MR. CALLAHAN-Normally, it’s four to six inches, depending on the customer’s preference. MR. RUEL-Code is what? MR. CALLAHAN-I’ve never been told of a specific Code. They just didn’t want you to be able to throw a kid. Six inches is the minimum I’ve ever done, or the maximum I’ve ever done. MR. RUEL-I thought there was a building code on that, for safety. MS. CIPPERLY-What was the question? MR. PALING-The opening in the. MR. RUEL-There was a safety requirement, a building code on all railings, and it must meet that. MS. CIPPERLY-And I’m sure the building permit will reflect that. MR. RUEL-Hopefully. MR. CALLAHAN-I’ve always passed at six inches. MR. RUEL-Six inches? Okay. Those are what, though, one by one’s? MR. CALLAHAN-One by one treated. MR. RUEL-The standard railing. MR. CALLAHAN-Or two by two, inch and a half by inch and a half. MR. RUEL-Yes. It sounds all right, because I’ve seen some that exceed it six inches, and that violates the Code. MR. PALING-Well, to Sue’s point, I think the building inspector would pick that up, would he not? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. They do the height and the distance between the rails. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-And the total height is 12’ 6”, right, on this one? MR. CALLAHAN-I think so. MR. RUEL-From the water line, mean water line, whatever? MR. CALLAHAN-Mean high water. MR. PALING-Okay. Lets open the public hearing on the Paul and Linda Bradley application. Is there anyone here that cares to speak about this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-This is Type II. We don’t need a SEQRA. We can go right to a motion, I would say, just the one item. MR. RUEL-What item? MR. PALING-The approval, Lake George Park Commission approval. They don’t have one. MR. RUEL-Wait a minute. You don’t consider this an approval? MR. PALING-No. They said they can get it. MR. RUEL-All right. So it’s the same as the other one? MR. PALING-The same as the last one. MR. RUEL-The other one. All right. Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 26-97 PAUL & LINDA BRADLEY , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As written, with the condition that the application is okayed based on the receipt of the Lake George Park Commission letter of approval, to be submitted to the Planning Staff, and that the height indicated on the plan is 12’6”, and the total height will not exceed 14 feet to the top of the railing. th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Larry Ringer just passed me a note which I think is very apropos. Is anyone here for the Leo Lombardo application, Leo’s Lobster out on Route 9? Because it’s not going to be heard tonight, and if anyone was here, we just wanted to let you know. Thank you, Larry. MR. RINGER-Sue gave it to me, Bob. I don’t want to take the credit. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, thank whomever thought of it. Sue, thank you. Okay. Lets move on to Crayford & Higgs. SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1997 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED CRAYFORD & HIGGS OWNER: STANLEY E. RYMKEWICZ, JR. ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD & COUNTY LINE ROAD PROPOSAL IS FOR A 14 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 54-2-7.1 LOT SIZE: 74.89 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-And there is no public hearing scheduled this evening. MR. PALING-Okay. Sue, do you have any comment on this one? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) MS. CIPPERLY-Just in looking at the plan, many, about ten of the lots are about two acres in size, which is sort of the average size of lots on Chestnut Ridge. There’s another that’s 16.69 acres, and another that’s eight. These are pretty good sized lots. The only comment I have, as far as compliance with the Zoning Ordinance is that the lots on County Line Road would have to comply with Section 179-30, which would require either a common driveway or double the lot width, because County Line Road is a collector road. MR. PALING-Those are 150 foot lots. They would require a 300 foot front? MS. CIPPERLY-Right. The purpose being to reduce the number of driveways. So the applicant may be planning to have common driveways on these lots. MR. PALING-Would you identify yourself, please. MR. STEVES-Yes, for the record, my name is Matt Steves, with VanDusen and Steves, and I represent Crayford & Higgs. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you want to comment on Sue’s comment and then anything else you might want to add? MR. STEVES-Certainly. As you can see in front of you, this is just a sketch plan, but we are proposing to provide you with the location of common driveways for those lots on County Line Road at Preliminary Stage. MR. PALING-And it’ll be two lots for one driveway, is where you’ll come out? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. RUEL-It doesn’t come out even. How many driveways? MR. PALING-There’s seven driveways. MR. STEVES-Well, we’re working on that with the Lot 13 that you see on there, which is the eight acre parcel, is going to be retained by the Rymkewicz. So at that time we will discuss with them, between now and Preliminary, whether they would want to share a common access drive with our Lot 12, or whether or not we seek a variance for that Lot 12. MR. RUEL-So you’d have four driveways, essentially? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. RUEL-And the next set of plans will show that? MR. STEVES-Yes, it will. We’re all prepared. We have Department of Health ready to go for deep tests and such. MR. STARK-Do me a favor, mark it off better up there, okay. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. STARK-We had a heck of a time where we thought it was, you know, on County Line and Chestnut. MR. STEVES-Okay. Before the next meeting, if you would like, I’d like to mark up, you know, I’ll mark up some corners so you can take it with you. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s going to happen to Lot 3? MR. STEVES-To Lot 3. Lot 3 is the existing farmhouse and structures. That is to be retained as it, and I believe to be modified as a residence. In other words, stay intact as the farm that it appears, a single family residence. MR. RUEL-Sue, any problem with driveways on Chestnut Ridge? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) MS. CIPPERLY-No, because that’s not a collector or arterial road. MR. PALING-Okay. Any comments, questions further? This is an Unlisted action. This is Sketch Plan tonight, and there’s not a public hearing scheduled. Okay. So the only concerns we have so far are the driveways on County Line. The fact that the lots are big, two of them are very big, would be no concern of ours. MR. STARK-Matt, you’re not coming in next week, right? MR. STEVES-Yes, I am. MR. STARK-For this? MR. STEVES-No, not for this, for other matters. MR. STARK-Okay. Next month. MR. PALING-All right. Any other comments on this? MR. MAC EWAN-Do you think you can work this out so that the common driveways will work out? MR. STEVES-Yes, no problem. Well, the better idea, exactly in what manner we supply them, most likely right on the property line, naturally. Once the topography and the test pits have been done, we might have to modify a little bit, but I don’t believe so. MS. CIPPERLY-There are some wet or low areas on some of this property, aren’t there? MR. STEVES-Yes, that’s correct, in the northeast corner, and I’ve contacted with Deb Roberts, and she is going to review that for me. MR. PALING-What’s your concern? It’s not a Critical. MS. CIPPERLY-There aren’t any DEC designated wetlands, but there could be some places where building lots could be effected. The lot lines might be effected. MR. STEVES-Right, and we will address that. This is, like I say, for Sketch Plan, and between now and Preliminary we’ll provide soil tests, perc tests, topography, any kind of wetland delineation that may be necessary. MR. PALING-Okay. That’s why we like to know where these lots are, because we do like to walk them, and we weren’t able to do that this time. We think we knew where we were. MR. RUEL-And you’ll have some two foot contour intervals? MR. STEVES-Yes, I will. MS. CIPPERLY-Are there any waivers that you’re going to be looking for on this? MR. STEVES-Not at this time. The contour intervals will be at a two foot. The area of topography will encompass the lots as we’re proposing to develop. The only thing we probably will not provide is topography in the back of Lot 3, which is that large farm lot, which won’t be in any area of development, or the Lot 14, which is across the road, which is 24 acres, which would be on the west side, which is a parcel to be retained by the Rymkewicz, which is basically a stand alone parcel now. MR. RUEL-And you’ll have a drainage plan, grading? MR. STEVES-That’s correct, yes. House layout, proposed septic layout, wells, grading, drainage, driveways. MR. PALING-The whole thing. Okay. Any further questions? We don’t need a motion on this, do we? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) MR. SCHACHNER-You can do a motion stating you’re in favor of the Sketch as presented this far, if you like, but you don’t have to. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-Sue, this meets the requirements of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan this subdivision? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. RUEL-In that area? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. It meets the 1988 and the Zoning Ordinance. The current zoning is Suburban Residential One Acre. MR. RUEL-Yes. Are there any major changes recommended for this area, surrounding area? MS. CIPPERLY-Well, I really can’t comment on the Comprehensive Plan that’s being made now, because it’s not really a legal document. MR. RUEL-No, it isn’t, but I was wondering. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, but it would fit with the general ideas of what the area would be compatible with. MR. RUEL-There’s just a lot of commercial area around here, though, isn’t there? MS. CIPPERLY-On Chestnut Ridge? MR. RUEL-No, off of County Line Road. MR. STEVES-Not on this area of County Line Road. MR. RUEL-Up further. MS. CIPPERLY-This is up north. MR. STEVES-Quite a ways south of here would be, down on the other side. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. I’ll make a motion. MOTION THAT THE BOARD GENERALLY APPROVES AND ENDORSES THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED FOR CRAYFORD AND HIGGS, WITH COMMENT REGARDING SHARED DRIVEWAYS ON COUNTY LINE ROAD, AND COMPLETE SUBMITTAL INFORMATION AT THE NEXT SUBMITTAL DATE , Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 10-97 TYPE II TOP OF THE WORLD GOLF RESORT, INC. OWNER: TOP OF THE WORLD VENTURES ZONE: PUD LOCATION: OFF LOCKHART MOUNTAIN ROAD PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF SITE PLAN 36-86 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) AND 3-87 TO CREATE A SEPARATE LOT APPROXIMATELY 71 ACRES IN SIZE FOR THE GOLF RESORT SO THAT IT CAN BE OWNED AND OPERATED AS A SEPARATE ENTITY WITHIN THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, WHICH COVERS A TOTAL OF APPROXIMATELY 1300 ACRES. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY TAX MAP NOS. 24-1-5.2, 5.3, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3/24-2-47.1 (PORTION) LOT SIZE: 1300 ACRES SECTION: 179-58 JIM FEENEY, BOB FEENEY & DAN SMITH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT th MRS. LABOMBARD-And there was a public hearing on March 18, and I guess it was left open th for this evening, August 19. MR. PALING-Okay. I’m going to propose that we just take a minute. We have a print we’ve never seen. Lets take a minute and look at it. Okay. Sue, do you have any comments on this? MS. CIPPERLY-Well, we have received a number of letters from concerned homeowners, which I will read. MR. PALING-Okay. Lets make that just before the public hearing, okay. MS. CIPPERLY-After the public hearing or before the public hearing. I don’t know if you want me to read this letter that was just presented by. MR. PALING-I think that seems like the same kind of thing. Lets put that just before the public hearing. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. I would defer to the applicant at this point. MR. PALING-All right. Would you identify yourselves for the record, please, and I think it’s best, in this case, if you would summarize for everyone what it is you want to do. You might even consider hanging a print up on the board, if that would fit. MR. J. FEENEY-You have the map up there, I believe, of the actual proposed subdivision. Is that correct? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. J. FEENEY-My name is Jim Feeney, and I’m a resident of Ramsey, New Jersey. That’s my brother Bob who’s the manager of the Top of the World. MR. SMITH-My name is Dan Smith. I’m an attorney in Chestertown. I have to admit, I’m not used to using a microphone. What I have is two maps, here, that can totally confuse you, but I’ve gone to enough Planning Board’s that about 15 minutes into some presentation, somebody inevitably says, where is that again? The reason I do this is this is a map that is in the file. To get you oriented, for those of you that have gone up there, this is the gate house. This gate house, this is the road that comes up. This is the sports complex that has been built, and all of these units in here are the 170 units that have been approved both by the Park Agency and by the Town. Lockhart Mountain Road is this road in here. It’s part of the previously approved permit. There’s a revision of the road that’s going to come over here. This much of the road is going to be abandoned, and I go through this little bit on here, because this sports complex, if I can lift this up, is right here, to get you oriented as to where the townhouses are. The golf course is on this map, and the lines that are shown on the map, it’s a proposed subdivision, and I have the advantage of being right next to the map, and if you do have the map, you can see that the lines almost follow, to the degree that one can follow, the open fields. In fact, this is an open field, open field, open field, and not that it’s terrible relevant to the Planning Board, but for those of us that used to be foresters, this is the fisher act. There’s a little parcel down here that is in fisher act, and some of the other lands in here are fisher act. I represent Jim Feeney and his family corporation, the Feeney Group. For those of you that may have read some of the correspondence that came in, the Feeney 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) Group is also known as the Feeney family. There are no other people other than family members involved. Jim and his family have been tenants on this golf course for the last five or six, six years, right, Jim, the last six years. We have a 15 year lease. This whole project, the 1300 acres, the 170 townhouses, the use and development of the golf course and the use and development of the structures on the golf course, has been before this Board, has also been to the Adirondack Park Agency, and has been approved to the point that maybe some of you might be getting tired of it. What we are proposing is a two lot subdivision as part of the original PUD, to create this 71 acre lot. There have been some conflicts that have come up. The original permit had some uses for these buildings in here. We propose no changes for those buildings. We’re going to follow the original permit which was approved by the Town of Queensbury, also. I believe the same terms and conditions as the Park Agency permit. The two conflicts that have come up deal with this little motel. It’s an eight unit motel right here, and the access road that goes out, and it would probably go to the ceiling if I had another place to hang a map here. As to the motel, there were a series of units that were sold, townhouse units that were sold, then there was an amendment to the Park Agency permit, and as part of the process, going before the Agency, the proposal is, what do you plan to do? And the project sponsor at that time said, we propose to tear down the motel. After that, the Agency issued a permit, said the project will be completed in accordance with the proposal. The proposal was to tear down the motel. So we came along and said, gee, we’d like to kind of revive that motel. There was nothing originally bad about it except that’s what they wanted to do. There are now about 70 townhouses in here that have been built and sold and probably 66, 67 are privately owned, so to speak. The homeowners are not big fans of this motel. So what we did is we submitted a letter to the Town and to the Park Agency, to the effect that we will go along with the original Park Agency permit, and we will demolish the motel. It’s a little eight unit motel right there. If, at some time in the future, we made application back to the Town, and if you were agreeable to granting us permission to keep the motel, we’d come back, and I think we’ve had enough discussion with the homeowners, I don’t think that’s going to happen, but we would like to preserve that. We have also had the same conversation with the Park Agency as to the motel, and the permit that was approved by the Commissioners, what they did is approved the permit and authorized the Director of Regulatory Programs, Bill Currant, they authorized Bill to issue the permit, subject to this Town Planning Board signing off. So that’s the status on the motel. They said you don’t have to, you have to tear it down, but if you don’t tear it down, you have to post a $10,000 bond to tear it down. So, we’re going to post a $10,000 bond, probably tear it down, but we don’t really know. That’s the issue on the motel. As to the rest of the property, there’s no new change, in anything that’s proposed. There’s an issue on road maintenance coming out through here. There was an original offering plan that was submitted, and in a nutshell what the offering plan said is, there’s going to be 170 townhouses, remember the 170 we had, and there’s this road complex, like so. It’s a big circle, really, on the proposal. Although it ends, right now. I think it ends. There’s no continuity, and in the offering plan it says the Association will own the road, subject to an easement, in favor of the then developer, which was called Lake George Ventures, Inc. We have offered, we have suggested to the Park Agency, that we will pay our fair share of road maintenance from this point, down to what I call a gate house, or Lockhart Mountain Road, but I call it the gate house. We will pay our fair share. What we have suggested to the Agency is we will pay two units. We’ll pay whatever townhouses pay toward that road. We have more business coming up this road in the summer, clearly, than any one townhouses. Probably more than any two townhouses, but we don’t have too many people playing golf in the winter. We have no need for snow maintenance, snow or ice removal in the winter. So we submitted this to the Agency. They thought it was fair and equitable. That’s how the permit reads, that we have to pay two units toward road maintenance from this point on. That’s an issue I don’t know if this Board wants to get into divising, is that the term, a Solomon like decision as to how much we have to pay for road maintenance, but that’s the other main issue. We have a 15 year lease on the property. If we kept on going, nothing, under the lease, nothing would be before this Board. We suspect there will be people coming in telling us how to operate the property. We suspect they will be asking you to limit our operation, but if we’ve leased it continuously, you don’t have any jurisdiction. You’ve already approved these uses. The Agency has already approved these uses. I will try to be brief. I’d be glad to answer any more questions, and Jim is here to answer any also. MR. PALING-Okay. Any questions, comments so far? MR. SMITH-We do have some letters also. I know you have some letters in your file that are not complimentary, so to speak. We, too, have some letters. So we’ll have dueling letters if we could. MR. PALING-Okay. This will all be part of the public hearing, both. MR. SMITH-That’s right. We would like our letters, as much as their letters, so to speak. Can I say one other thing? Jim is the tenant purchaser. I represent Jim. Jim DiNapoli is the business 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) manager for the selling corporation. I have a limited obligation here, and a limited authority, too, I might add, that I just represent the purchaser. If I can use the word, The Galesi Group, Lake George Ventures, they are the actual land owners, and their representative is here also. MR. PALING-Now, the proposal that is before us is to modify this site plan to create a lot of 71 acres, and that’s what you’ve been talking about tonight. MR. SMITH-That’s right. MR. PALING-Now what about the other lot that’s left, should we be discussing that also? MR. SMITH-Do you mean the lot that by subtraction would be 1230 acres? MR. PALING-Okay. That’s the other lot. MR. SMITH-That would be the other lot, right. Well, the map is not right, because some of that has been consumed by this Board’s cottage. Some of that has been conveyed to the homeowners association. There are 70 townhouses up there. MR. RUEL-I have a question. Would you explain to me why want this modification? MR. SMITH-We’d like to buy it. We’d like to buy the golf course. We don’t want to be the developer. We just are in the golf course business. MR. RUEL-Why do you want to buy it? MR. SMITH-I will defer that to Jim. MR. J. FEENEY-The question is why do I want to buy the golf course? MR. RUEL-Yes. How many acres is that? MR. J. FEENEY-71 acres. MR. RUEL-Why do you want to buy this 71 acres? MR. J. FEENEY-I’ve been leasing for the past six years, and in that lease, I had a lease with an option to purchase. MR. RUEL-There was an option for purchase on there? MR. J. FEENEY-Yes, in the lease, and I’m at that point where I would like to own as opposed to. MR. RUEL-Was there a time limit on this option? MR. J. FEENEY-No. It continues throughout the period of the lease, but there is a time limit on my contract right now, with the Galesi Group. MR. SMITH-The option has been replaced with a contract. MR. RUEL-And you will continue to use this as a golf course? MR. J. FEENEY-Yes. MR. SMITH-To answer one question, the 71 acres is almost totally golf course. It doesn’t go into the woods or anything like that. MR. J. FEENEY-And let me just add to that. You get to the point where if you want to continue to put improvements, you would prefer to own as opposed to being a tenant, and I think I’m at that point. I’d like to improve upon the golf course, and some of the surrounding areas, and if I have a chance now to be the owner, I think it would be more beneficial to me, and to the investments that I make. MR. RUEL-It’s equity. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) MR. J. FEENEY-Exactly. MR. STARK-I have a question. Suppose you go ahead and subdivide it and you buy this property from the Galesi Group, you plan on further developing of that 71 acres, motel, restaurant, so on and so forth? MR. J. FEENEY-My plan is to take one step at a time. What I’m trying to do now is put back and restore the bed and breakfast, and if that becomes successful, then I’m going to take a look at doing other things, and one of the other things I’ve talked to the Galesi with, and we’ve had conversations, is possibly expanding the golf course from nine to eighteen holes. MR. SMITH-That would require another subdivision, because you can’t put 18 holes on these 71 acres. MR. J. FEENEY-But it always depends on how successful I am in each endeavor I take. MR. RUEL-And this would be subject to site application, wouldn’t it? MR. SMITH-To expand from nine to eighteen, I think it would. MR. PALING-What is this zoned? MR. RUEL-PUD. MR. SMITH-PUD. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-Have you met all the requirements of the PUD? MR. SMITH-We think so. I’m not being facetious when I say that, but Sue and Mr. Goralski and I have spent, and I know the people here in the Town have spent a lot more time than I have, but we’ve gone back through 10, 15 years worth of resolutions, and to the best of our knowledge, we are in compliance, and to the best of our knowledge the townhouses are in compliance, and in fact we’re just creating a partial, but no new land use and development, to use that term. So the uses are in compliance, the acreage is in compliance. MR. RUEL-The number of people here to me indicates that possibly there’s a problem with the PUD. MR. MAC EWAN-Would your subdivision still retain the parcel as part of the original PUD? MR. SMITH-Yes. It’s totally within the PUD. Sue and Mark, correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s totally within the, the original PUD, as I understand it, is 1300 acres, and the creation of a townhouse is still within, you know, is an 800 square foot footprint that’s still within the PUD. The sports complex is still within the PUD. We would still be within the PUD. We would be governed under that zoning. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not what I asked. Would this be part of the PUD? MR. SMITH-I think so. Sure. MR. PALING-So no matter what we do here tonight, the PUD rules apply to this part of land that we’re talking about, that they want to use as a golf course. The PUD rules apply to that. MR. RUEL-I don’t think so. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not sure what you mean by the PUD rules apply. Planned Unit Development is how the property is zoned, and that’s the correct response to Roger’s question. Whether the subdivision of land as proposed and the change of ownership of a portion of the land as proposed occurs or not, this land is located within the Top of the World Planned Unit Development of the Town of Queensbury. Am I answering your question? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) MR. MAC EWAN-It still falls under all permits in the application and the approval process that was put into effect with the original PUD? In other words, they still have to stay within the guidelines that were set up back then? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. With one change, which would be now there would be two separate owners of a portion of the entire acreage. MR. PALING-But that gives them a pretty wide range of what kind of businesses can be there. MR. SCHACHNER-That gives them no wider range of what kind of businesses can be there than the current PUD approval. The current PUD approval, presumably, I have not reviewed it closely, but states that what will be there will be a golf course, residential townhouse units, a sports complex, and whatever else is within the PUD as approved. The applicant’s proposal does not expand the range of allowed uses at all. MR. PALING-Well, the only other usage in there right now is a motel. MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t believe that’s the current use of the property. Somebody can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe that’s the current use of the property. I believe that what we’re talking about is an existing unit or building that was, at one time, operated as a motel, but that is not currently operated as a motel. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. SMITH-It was operating. It hasn’t been operating for many years. We have looked, and I know that the Town people, Town representatives, have looked back through the resolutions. To the best of my knowledge, there’s nothing that says, yes, the motel is permitted. There’s also nothing that says, no, the motel is not permitted. Is that a fair statement? MR. SCHACHNER-At the Town level. MR. SMITH-At the Town level, that’s right. At the Park Agency, it was a finding of fact that it would be torn down, and the permit said, you’ll do it like you said you’re going to do it, but at the Town level, I don’t think it’s pro or con on the motel. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. That may be correct, but I think that the Town has no, the past Town approvals that we’ve reviewed, don’t try, as best we can tell, to diverge from the APA approval. So I think the Staff’s position, correct me if I’m wrong, Staff, I think it’s the Staff’s position that the motel, there is not an authorized use for that motel on the property, correct? MS. CIPPERLY-That’s correct. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s the Staff’s position. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-Now the gentleman from Ramsey indicated that he might consider bed and breakfast, for instance. Now would this be in violation of PUD? MR. SCHACHNER-It’s not a violation. I believe the gentleman indicated that he might consider any number of uses in the future, and I believe his legal representative, Mr. Smith, acknowledged that any such future change in use would require amended PUD approvals from the Adirondack Park Agency and from the Town. MR. RUEL-You’d have to go through the exercise every time then? MR. SMITH-No. The original permit, back in 1986, had four critical buildings, not counting the motel. One of the buildings was the lodge, and this was the permit that was issued by the Park Agency, to be renovated and used as a restaurant/bed and breakfast building similar to its pre- project use, Dawn cottage, 5,000 feet, to be renovated and used for residential purposes, and there is a restaurant up there. So there’s a sports cottage, a bunk house and a sundeck to be renovated and used to store equipment, house grounds, maintenance personnel, so forth and so on. So there are already pre-approved uses for the buildings on the 71 acres. One of the things that is in here, it says, motel, 4,000 square feet, to be used to temporarily house construction personnel and to be demolished in 1988 or 1989. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) MR. RUEL-What document is that you’re reading from? MR. SMITH-This is the Park Agency permit. For what it’s worth, the number is 86-332-2, and my recollection is. MR. RUEL-It’s not Town of Queensbury. MR. SMITH-No, but this permit could not be issued by the Park Agency unless these findings and these permitted uses were in accordance with the PUD as approved by the Town of Queensbury. Am I right there, Mark? The Park Agency cannot issue a permit in violation of the Town Ordinance, the Town permit. MR. SCHACHNER-As a legal proposition, that’s correct. So now if I understand what the applicant’s position is, is that there are some uses which have not been developed on the property, but which were authorized to by the original PUD approval, at the APA level and perhaps at the Town level. Is that the position? MR. SMITH-That’s right. MR. SCHACHNER-But there are other uses, and maybe I misunderstood part of the question, but if the applicant proposed to put a filling station, a gasoline station on the property, I guess what I’m trying to point out is that anything that goes beyond the scope of the original PUD approval, I think the applicant acknowledged, earlier, would require amending, an attempt to amend the approval at both the APA and the Town level, and that means that that approval to amend could be granted or could be denied. MR. SMITH-I agree. MR. PALING-But the uses that are involved in the original document are allowable. MR. SCHACHNER-That may be so. That’s an APA permit that I’m not familiar with, but assuming that it’s been accurately recited, and assuming there’s nothing to contradict that, that may well be true. MR. PALING-Okay. Then I’ll skip ahead to the tough nuts question. Are you willing to voluntarily modify that in any way? To back away from that agreement, or do you want to, are you looking to have that agreement left as is? MR. SMITH-We would like the permit that was originally approved in 1986, and the permit that was recently approved by the Agency, we would like to live with the terms, conditions, and provisions of that permit, including that part about demolishing the motel. We had originally tried to avoid that, but it didn’t work out too well. MR. PALING-Okay. I think I’m beginning to understand most of this now, I hope. Okay. Any other comments, questions? Sue, lets start off with your letters. I’ll open the public hearing, and lets start off with your letters, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. SMITH-Excuse me. We have some letters. Do you want us to give them to Sue, also? MS. CIPPERLY-I think Chris and I will be able to read them. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. SMITH-Okay. Jim, why don’t you give either Chris or Sue those letters. MS. CIPPERLY-If there’s anybody here in the audience that did submit a letter, who’d prefer to read your own, feel free to. Okay. We have one from A. Andrew Gigliotti 604 Manning Boulevard, Albany, NY. All of these are addressed either to the Planning Board or to the Chairman of the Planning Board. This first one says “We are a homeowner with a home (Unit 13) at Top of the World, Queensbury, NY, and we understand that there is presently a subdivision application pending before the Planning Board to further develop commercial use of lands near or at the golf course at Top of the World. We are opposed to any commercial use of the property as 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) it would create a dangerous condition for the residences of our community. The roadway to our community is steep, narrow, and winding and any increased use of the roadway would be a danger to the residents of our community and to our children who walk along this road. This situation would be further exasperated if alcoholic beverages were sold to customers of the commercial use. We ask that you advise the Board of our objection to this subdivision which we understand to be a commercial development of the property. Very truly yours, A. Andrew Gigliotti, Theresa M. Gigliotti” “Dear Sir: I am writing you this letter to express my support for the proposed changes to the property owned by the Top of the World developer, the Galesi Group, allowing for the expansion of the golf course from a 9 hole to an 18 hole golf course and allowing for the development of a restaurant on the site. The Galesi Group has defacto abandoned the townhouse owners and the project it initiated some 10 years ago at TOW. Since the abandonment by the Galesi Group I personally have realized a 50% devaluation in my townhome valuation which I attribute greatly to the actions taken by the developer. It now seems that another interested party has plans to further develop the property by seeking the changes as specified above, the TOW board is vehemently opposed to the change being sought on the grounds that if the changes are permitted there will be a loss in property valuations and quality of life at TOW. As a townhome owner at TOW I strongly disagree with the board for the following reasons: 1. The property values at TOW cannot suffer any further than they already have under the current property status. 2. The expansion of the golf course from a 9 hole to an 18 hole course will greatly enhance the property valuations as well as add to the enjoyment of the current playing homeowners. 3. The addition of a restaurant to the site would be welcome by many for both the convenience of having a dining choice close to home and would pose no threat to the quality of life enjoyed at TOW. I urged the planning board to listen the arguments at hand with an open mind concerning the development of the properties as petitioned and for the planning board to ask the question, will REAL allowing the proposed changes be a detriment to the TOW and the Town of Queensbury. If logic prevails I know the answer will be that the changes being sought will only enhance TOW and not defile it. Sincerely, Ernest Vallorano Unit 1A, Top of the World” “Dear Mr. Paling: My husband Rick and I are owners of unit 38 at Top of the World and I am writing concerning the application to separate the golf course and buildings from the rest of the development. We have grave concerns about the performance of The Feeney Group and the advisability of such a sub- division. Concern number one relates to the plans to rehabilitate buildings that according to the Offering Plan are scheduled to be torn down. Not only does this materially effect compliance with the Offering Plan, but when Mr. Feeney was the property manager of the townhomes he agreed to do maintenance work in our unit. Despite phone calls in which Mr. Feeney said he welcomed the work, none of it was ever attempted, let alone completed. He was replaced as property manager at the end of one year. His willingness to keep his word with regard to renovations of the motel is suspect. Number two concern is the condition of the building in which the club house for the golf course now resides. I am amazed that it passed building inspection and health department regulations. I was upstairs in that building before Mr. Feeney took over several years ago and felt that the only sensible way to renovate would be to start from the ground up and duplicate the structure. I doubt that the building can be modified as Mr. Feeney suggests. Our third concern is who comprises the Feeney Group. This information is unknown to us. I suspect that one of the group is Mr. Gene Ruiz who represents Galesi. My dealings with this man have proven him to be absent of any business ability what so ever. In connection with this Group we are concerned about the financing. Ruiz and Galesi have no funds: Galesi is over extended and has been for years. How much of his own money is Feeney putting in? Is the rest of the money coming from legitimate sources such as banks and other lending institutions or is the money coming from undesirable sources? Unless Feeney can prove that the funding is legitimate, I would not want to have him develop anything at Top of the World. The concerns that we are sharing with you may be somewhat different from those of our neighbors at Top of the World. We are less concerned with transients than with the character of those proposing the sub-division. Feeney and Ruiz have a history of non-performance and of poor judgment. We do add our voices to the protest that the sub-division violates the Offering Plan and hope that the Planning Board will deny their petition. Sincerely, Stephanie Welder” And the address is 244 Autumn Drive, Exton, PA 19341. “Dear Mr. Paling: It’s our understanding that the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on August 19, 1997 . One issue on the agenda will be the subdivision of the Top of the World property and the sale of the golf course. As we are unable to attend this meeting we would like to take this opportunity to express our views in writing. After many years of spending our summers on Lake George we were fortunate enough to buy a home in the Top of The World community in 1994. We find the beauty of the area and the privacy and safety of our community a constant source of renewal and pleasure. We bought the property after careful reading of the offering plan. It was our understanding that our privacy and quality of life would be maintained, and that certain old and clearly dangerous structures would be removed. Now, we find that not only have these buildings not been removed and other promises of the developer (Galesi) unmet but that the sponsor wish to subdivide and sell part of the property. The public golf course, its inadequate 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) parking, the sale of beer etc. and the pressure it puts on limited road facilities already represent a source of concern and threat to safety. The idea that this property could be expanded and might include some form of overnight accommodations, catering or restaurant facility seems to us to be in violation of the original plan and certainly the spirit with which the Top of the World community was built. We, therefore, respectfully request the Queensbury Planning Board to consider both the long term and short term ramifications including the feeling of the home owners, impact on property values and the environment, safety factors as well as the history of the sponsor and purchasers. If the sale is approved we urge you to put strict, well defined (not for use as a motel, Bed & Breakfast, catering, restaurant or other commercial use) limits regarding use of the land and golf course facility. We are optimistic that the Town of Queensbury will recognize the need for such restrictions. Thank you for your consideration in this most important matter. Sincerely, Joan & David Stern” This one is from Allen B. Wadler, 441 Lockhart Mountain Road, Lake George, NY “My name is Allen B. Wadler. I am an owner of Unit 57 in the Top of the World th Community. I understand there will be a public hearing on August 19 on a petition to sub-divide the remaining property currently owned by the TOW developer and to sell off the Golf Course and associated buildings to the group currently managing the Course. It is further my understanding that the proposed buyer has plans to change the usage of the property in conflict with the Offering Plan of the development, on the basis of which I decided to purchase my unit. I unfortunately cannot attend the hearing, however I am taking the liberty of writing you my views. The Planning Board must ensure that the proposed modification maintain the serenity and vacation type of environment that currently exists at TOW town house development. The property must be limited to that usage specified in the Offering Plan. The Board should permanently prohibit any night club, comedy club or motel on the property. Use of any restaurant or cocktail lounge on the property must be restricted to those normally associated with a golf club house. That is, no entertainment at any time, no loud music at any time and hours of the restaurant must be restricted to golfing hours only. There must be prohibitions to using the golf restaurant for any commercial use over and above use by the golfing customers. No evening parties, weddings, corporate events, etc.; should be permitted. Any liquor license should be restricted to beer and wine. The rights and responsibility of the golf course owner, the developer and the TOW Home Owners regarding the common access road must be clearly defined. Any increased cost in maintaining the road due to its additional usage by the golf course should not be passed on to the home-owners. Lastly, any enhancement of the golf course property and/or potential expansion of the course beyond its current nine holes must ensure that the overall environment be protected and new access, not disturbing the home-owners be found for any construction vehicles. Thank you very much for your attention. I trust you will help maintain the quality of life for the residents of the community. Allen B. Wadler 441 Lockhart Mountain Road, Unit 57, Lake George, NY” “Dear Mr. Paling: Briefly, as an owner at the Top of the World Townhouse Development, I wish to express my total opposition to the application described above. I do not feel the applicants deserve to be listened to for one minute when seeking to completely change critical terms of the offering plan under which they sold to me my townhouse. Presently, as you approach the Townhouse sites, one must drive past a number of eyesores, the most notable of which is an old, abandoned motel. The offering plan states that this motel must be demolished AND NO MOTEL, would be allowed on the premises. These are the terms I relied upon when making my purchase and I thought they were in concrete. There are two other horribly decayed buildings in the vicinity of the old motel, and I find it hard to believe that they have not been condemned for demolition long ago. Besides being an eyesore that greatly diminishes the value of my investment in a Top of the World Townhouse, all of these buildings are in a state of collapse and ruin that makes them a habitat for unwanted varmints, and a fire hazard. Speaking for myself, I would never, have invested in the Top of the World if there had been any possibility that the developers could make their sales, and then ask to have PUD commitments, as stated in their offering plan, changed to the detriment of the value of the townhouses they had sold. Tearing down the eyesores is a major point. The fact that our second home, and in some instances, only home, will be conjunct to a Motel unthinkable. Please insist that the owners of this property live up to conditions under which they were allowed to develop and sell Townhouses. Very truly yours, Marion Wilhelm” Scott Ventures Limited, Schenectady, NY, To Dr. Emile Sandler, President, Top of the World, “Dear Dr. Sandler: Unfortunately, I was unable st to attend the June 21 meeting. I received a copy of Mr. Durante’s letter and would like to express my concerns about the continuing deterioration of Top Of The World. I feel that a possible 18- hole golf course and a Bed and Breakfast Inn would enhance the lifestyle and values of the property. I believe an 18 hole golf course would attract a more affluent clientele. I am thinking of Equinox in Manchester, VT which borders a beautiful 18-hole golf course. Several town houses overlook the golf course. The Bed and Breakfast Inn would also, in my opinion, attract a more affluent people or perhaps I should say more sophisticated therefore, enhancing the value of all the properties. The more exclusive that a development is made, the higher the values will be and would create a more pleasant lifestyle. There are certain places I would install white, non- maintenance fences, which would state members only. There are other things I could suggest, but 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) I’ve been extremely busy lately. Perhaps some weekend I could sit down with the board members or just you. There is something that has to be done about the rental program at Top Of The World. I constructed something similar to Top Of The World, which had a multitude of rules. Enclosed is a copy of the building. I hope you will encourage the Feeney’s to develop a program, one that could control the esthetics etc. What I’m saying basically is we should work with the Feeney’s to develop something that is pleasing to both parties. Thus enhancing both the Top Of The World and Feeney project. Very truly yours, Reginald A. Scott” Since these aren’t addressed to the Town, I was just wondering, some of this really looks like it’s. MR. J. FEENEY-They’re addressed to the President of the Townhouses. MR. SMITH-But did these people ask you to bring these here? MR. J. FEENEY-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. “Dear Dr. Sandler: It was a pleasure to attend the June 21, 1997 Homeowners Association meeting. The Board put together an interesting and informative agenda. I wish to commend each and every member of the Board for their dedication to our property. I would like to take this opportunity to bring several items to your attention. If you recall when I questioned the Board’s position on the sub-division concerning the golf course, I obviously questioned a sore subject.” Can I paraphrase some of this? MR. J. FEENEY-Yes. Why don’t you just go down to “However”, about the extreme concern about the Board’s decision. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. “However, I have an extreme concern about Board decisions that are affecting the value of my property. It seems to me on this particular issue that the Feeney Group has control of that property for the next 11 years. We as an Association, should consider that his position as a proprietor rather than a tenant would give him the incentive to improve the property. The improvement of that property can only increase the value of our property. The increase in value of our property is my main concern. I know I don’t have to inform you that the value of the property has decreased since we purchased. I understand that Board’s feelings toward the Galesi Group and sympathize with the fact that they have basically abandoned our project. This has caused part of the devaluation problem. However, conflict with the golf course operator, in my opinion, is not the solution to the problem. Someone should be negotiating prior to any government public hearing with the golf course operator to try and achieve as much for the Association as possible. I took your suggestion and spoke personally with Mr. Feeney. Frankly, his plans are quite impressive and if completed can only add to the value of our development. It certainly would correct many of the eye sore problems we are facing today. I know and appreciate your concerns about privacy. I guess I am representing the point of view that my priority is the value of the units over privacy. I would bring to your attention, I have property in other developments including golf resorts. Privacy in all those other locations is electronically controlled and serves the purpose that I am sure you are striving towards. In closing, thank you for your dedicated service. I would tell you that I am considering appearing at the public hearing in favor of the sub division, as I am convinced that in the total picture of The Top Of The World, it is a major improvement in our development. Sincerely, James D. Durant TOW Homeowner - Unit C-8” And I think this is the last one. “Dear Dr. Sandler: I recently received a copy of the minutes of the Top of the World Homeowners Association. I have some questions and comments. 1. A vote on the Feeney project should have waited until he presented his plans to the homeowners so that each and every member could make an informed decision. To ask each member to visit the pro shop to ask what’s going on is ludicrous. This implies the Board knows what’s going on and chose not to reveal it or they don’t know what’s going on, but has made a decision to challenge Feeney based on no facts. 2. The minutes also state that more information is needed on the bed and breakfast/restaurant. If Feeney was allowed at the meeting, you would have gotten the information.” 3. The concern seems to be a negative impact on the property values. Have you checked your property value lately? On the contrary, I think Feeney’s plans could increase property values since his plans call for major investments which should be welcomed. 4. The minutes mentioned the Board fighting the projects. Before that can happen, the members should be asked to make that decision. After all, the Board gets direction from the members not vice versa. Also should Board members opt to testify at the public hearing, they should not state they represent the homeowners but rather represent themselves as individual property owners. 5. I would like to hear the estimated costs of challenging the Feeney project and if this has been budgeted or not. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I look forward to your response. Very truly yours, Joseph J. Nichols TOW Homeowner - Unit C-7” 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) MR. PALING-Okay. Now, is that all of the letters that you have, Sue? JOSEPH WALSH MR. WALSH-Can the author read their particular letter? MR. PALING-Yes. We’d prefer that. Just hang on to it, and you’ll be up in a few minutes. Do you have any other letters from the Planning Staff? MS. CIPPERLY-No. MR. PALING-Okay. Does the applicant have any other letters they want us to read? MR. J.FEENEY-No. MR. PALING-Okay. Lets go to the public hearing. You’ll have to vacate the table so that whoever wishes to speak on this will come up. So would you like to be first? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOSEPH WALSH MR. WALSH-Good evening. My name is Joseph Walsh. I am the attorney representing the Top of the World Homeowners Association. I delivered a letter this evening to the Staff. The letter is addressed to John Goralski, whom I’ve had several conversations with over the pending application, and also to Gary Duprey at the Adirondack Park Agency, and I’ve had several conversations with Mr. Duprey over the past couple of months on this particular subject. I’ve also written prior letters, which the Town has been copied on, and I think today’s letter is probably a good indication of where we are and the Association’s concerns, as of today, and what we see as the important issues here, which we would ask the Town to consider in its deliberations. I’ll read the letter now. It’s addressed to John Goralski and Gary Duprey “Dear Gentlemen: Our client, the Top of the World Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (“HOA”) respectfully requests the Adirondack Park Agency (“APA”) and the Town of Queensbury (“Town”) to remedy the following existing permit violations, and other concerns: 1) The existing Motel was to have been demolished years ago as a permit condition. The APA now proposes that the Motel is to be demolished within 30 days of closing”, with Feeney, “and a Performance Bond posted to ensure this happens, as a condition of permit issuance. 2) According to the APA, the Sponsor must restore the Performance Bond that has been a requirement since permit 82-240A issued, to insure the relocated 1200 ft. access road is constructed, in an amount equal to 120% of actual cost, estimated at $100,000. 3) A Performance Bond guaranteeing the construction of other infrastructure and amenities is supposed to be in place. Tennis court lighting; parking lot lighting, final wear course on Phase II- A access road. See Performance Guarantee No. 3(a) of Permit 86-332 and Special Cond. 5 of Permit 86-332-2. This bond should be restored as a condition of approval. 4) There is supposed to be in place a Performance Bond for reclamation or stabilization if the project does not proceed. This Performance Bond is to guarantee stabilization of any disturbed areas. There is a foundation in place for the next building of 3 townhouses. It is a potential liability and an eyesore. Financial assurances should be in place to fill and seed it over if the project is abandoned. 5) Future sharing of the road maintenance.” And I might add, this is one of the major issues which the applicant has mentioned tonight. “The applicant’s suggestion of paying the equivalent of 2 townhomes equals a contribution of $200-400 per year. An average homeowner in a regular subdivision with a 75 foot long, 16 foot wide driveway probably pays $200. Per year for snow plowing alone. More significantly, the Sponsor’s decision to sell the golf course with the “Shared Road”, is a “cooperative interest in realty” which requires an amendment of the Top of the World Homeowners’ Association Offering Plan to be filed and accepted by the New York State Attorney General’s Office. This should be required as a condition of the Town and APA approvals. 6) Under Amendment No. 7 to the Offering Plan, the Sponsor represented a one acre parcel adjoining the Sports Complex to the west was to be conveyed to the Association along with the Sports Complex Parcel. This has not been done yet. This should be required as a condition of approval. 7) As built drawings for Phase 1 (46 units and related infrastructure) were to have been filed with the APA pursuant to the APA Permit, and with the HOA pursuant to the Offering Plan. This has not been done. It should be required as a condition of approval. Very truly yours, WALSH & WALSH, LLP Joseph M. Walsh” If I can just elaborate on the points in the letter, in addition to what is clearly a complicated land use cooperative endeavor between the Adirondack Park Agency and the Town, I might remind the Town that in addition to that, in the original APA permits, and possibly even the Town approval process started out with a review of what was to be submitted to 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) the Attorney General. This document, without the present 13 amendments attached to it. So we were initially looking at something about an inch thick. It’s now well over two inches thick. So in addition to the land use regulation issues, which were specifically all these permits to date have been incorporated by reference, and in fact copies of the 86332, 86-332-1, and 86332-2 APA permits are in fact included in this Offering Plan. That was part of what the sponsor promised the owner. This is, in effect, a securities offering, just like you might buy stock and bonds. Buying a cooperative interest in realty, where the unit owners are obligated and are mandatory members of this homeowner association which owns this common property, including being responsible for the road, is what makes us a security that is regulated by the Attorney General of the State of New York. Where we stand in this whole process is, and I have had numerous discussions with John. I wish he were here tonight, but he’s not, is our position, and obviously members of the Board are here, and they can elaborate further on the Board’s desires, and it is the Board that speaks for all of the unit owners, as the elected representatives of the homeowners association, but my view of this is that perhaps it’s gotten overly complicated. Simply put, we have an Offering Plan which is, to a degree, separate and distinct from the Town’s concerns and the APA’s concerns, but nevertheless both the Town and the APA recognize the importance of this document back on Day One, when they had to approve it initially. What has happened in the interim, as far as approving the various amendments along the way, I have a feeling that has kind of fallen by the wayside, but nevertheless, this Offering Plan is a contract as well as a security to the homeowners. They bought a security which guaranteed and represented that certain things would be required and provided to them. We’re down to several major issues, and these are things that were a given under the existing APA permit, and while I’ve not had the opportunity to review all the proceedings of the Town’s PUD legislation and amendments over the years, I expect that fundamentally there is at least a condition that it is subject to whatever the APA permit requires of the applicant as well. That’s an assumption on my part, but I think the Town PUD certainly incorporates the APA permit by reference, and that’s a question. I’m not stating it as a fact, but I would presume that that is a condition of the various PUD approvals over the years. Under the APA permit, there was an obligation for the sponsor, starting with Phase 2A, which was from 46 townhomes up to 73. The next 27 units after the first 46, to relocate the access road leading up from the gate house to the entrance, common entrance, to the golf course and the homeowners association. That part of the road, there was about 1200 feet in question, was going to be relocated. There was supposed to be a performance bond in place. Since my getting involved in this project, since roughly February of this year, I have had many discussions with Gary Duprey. Initially, the response was, they don’t need to have that permit there. As of last week, they have acknowledge that, yes, you’re right. That permit should have been there all along, and as I understand it, the Agency will, in fact, not issue the permit until that performance bond is back in place. The sponsor is aware of this and has agreed to do it, by the way. So that issue, as far as that particular concern of ours, is apparently going to be addressed at least by the Adirondack Park Agency. Other performance bond requirements are specified in the permits. There is to be a performance bond in place, which is intended to guarantee the performance of the infrastructure and the amenities that were supposed to be built within each sub phase of Phase 2. We’re now in Phase 2A, and clearly under the existing APA permits, in addition to building those 27 units, there was to be the access road or loop road of 4500 feet, built during Phase A, or at least bonded during Phase A, in addition to that relocated access road of 1200 feet. It is our position to the Agency that there is that spur road of the loop road leading to the Phase 2A units, which is about 1500 to 1800 feet, which has only the base course. The final top course has not been added, and we have asked, and actually I believe the sponsor is in agreement that yes we will, in fact, restore that performance bond, which would at least guarantee that if nothing else happens on this development, there will be money in place to assure that that topcoat on that access road is in fact installed. There is also a third element of the performance bonds, under the existing permit. There is a requirement that if the project is not completed, for instance if it is abandoned or the actual wording of the permit “if it is not completed within a reasonable time”, there is a bond supposed to be in place which would permit the stabilization and restoration of any disturbed areas. One of our main concerns, as noted in the letter, there is a foundation built for the next building. It’s been the foundation only for the last couple of years. We are concerned about people falling into the hole at night, and what happens if the project doesn’t go forward. There ought to be a mechanism in place to fill in that foundation, knock it down to grade, and re-seed it, and I think that is entirely consistent with what the APA permit now requires. The sponsor, by the way, is willing to address that particular concern of ours. The sponsor is also in agreement, as far as the existing motel going, and apparently they will post a performance bond necessary to ensure the demolition and restoration of the old motel site. So that is very gratifying to the homeowners, to be assured that that will happen. I think one of the main issues tonight, there are other issues, which we’ve discussed, that deal with site improvements. There are questions where, under the APA permit and the Offering Plan, tennis courts, for instance, are supposed to have lights. The tennis courts are supposed to be lighted. They’re not lighted now. We have a tentative understanding with the sponsor that the sponsor will 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) address that. If we, the homeowners, decide we really want the lighting, as promised in the Offering Plan, it will supposedly be done, assuming the Feeney closing occurs and the sponsor has the present ability to fund it. That would be an acceptable resolution to us, also. There’s a similar issue on parking lot lighting, and again, the sponsor has agreed to do that within a certain time frame following the closing, which again is acceptable to us. I think, as far as asking, and all we’ve ever asked for is give us, sponsor, what you promised us under the Offering Plan, and what you represented we would get under the APA permits. The only other issue here which is significant is this road sharing issue. It is my position that as a technical matter, if the sponsor desires to sell the golf course, with a shared road arrangement, it does require, technically, an amendment to the Offering Plan. I think more importantly, the sponsor and the Association are in agreement that all we really expect everyone to do who is going to use that road in conjunction with the Association, after that road is deeded to us, upon the completion of l70 units, is that they pay their fair share, and in my conversations with the applicant’s attorney up until tonight, that has always been represented that, yes, of course we’ll pay our fair share. I am informed tonight that the proposal set forth in the draft application, which apparently the APA has already approved, and I’d like to go on notice that back in March I sent the APA a letter, which was copied to the Town, requesting that my firm be notified as a representative of the Association of all notices of any proceedings. I did not get notice of the APA Board’s proposed meeting and action that apparently took place within the last 10 days, but Mr. Feeney, in his conversation tonight, basically says, I’ve offered you two units, and that’s fair in my opinion. Now, we vehemently disagree that two units, which would mean he would be funding in anywhere from $200 to $400 a year, and that was based upon an assumption that the sponsor was currently paying Mr. Feeney $12,000 a year to plow sand and mow the road. Mr. Feeney, Jim Feeney, informs me tonight that no, that might be a $6500 figure. So if that were true, that $200 to $400 potential contribution on behalf of the golf course for that 1200 foot of access road would in fact be less than $200 to $400 a year, depending on the number of homeowners in the Association at a given time. Right now, with only 66 units contributing, the figure would be $400 a year, approximately the equivalent of what two unit owners would be paying. When we’re at 170, it would drop down to about $200 per year, for two units, assuming current prices. We submit that all we’ve ever asked for is that both the sponsor and Mr. Feeney, and by the way, we were not notified of the contract. We learned about it last March, when there was a notice received that there was going to be a public hearing on this very application. All we’ve ever asked is that, lets work out a fair mechanism where Feeney will be obligated to pay a fair share of what his proportional use of that access road will be. Mr. Feeney thinks that’s too complicated for him to get involved with at this point in time. He wants, by feit, to tell us I’ll pay you two units and nothing more, and that, I think, is a common sense reaction to pay $200 or $400 on an annual basis to cover plowing, sanding, mowing, pot hole repair, and eventual replacement of the wearing costs, probably ever 10 or 15 years is a little bit on the small side. That really is our remaining concern. The sponsor, by the way, also acknowledges that whatever the formula should be, and Mr. DiNapoli is here, and he can certainly give his version of that, but whatever that formula should be, it should be based on a fair and reasonable formulation, based on the approximate use that is attributable to any given specific owner on the hill, be it the golf course, the Association or in time the balance of the 1100 plus or minus acres that is still part of the PUD, and for which there presently are no development plans. Thank you very much. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Please bear in mind that we don’t enter into a dialogue with you, but rather we are in receipt of your information. It’s all documented, and especially with the evident complexities of the situation like we’re involved with tonight. It might take us a while to answer, and I hope you understand that position. Okay. Who’s next? GEORGE DEJONG MR. DEJONG-I’m George DeJong, and I am a resident at Number 16 Unit, up at Top of the World, and my first question to the Planning Staff, I believe I had sent a letter, in March. Has that been included into the record? Those other ones that were faxed to you? Is this an adjournment from that, or is it something new? MS. CIPPERLY-That’s what I was going to ask the Chairman, whether letters were ever read into the record before, on this? MR. PALING-I don’t remember exactly. Maybe somebody else does. If there were letters here, they would have been read in, but I don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-We never got that far. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. Because there are some more letters in here, but I was going to wait until you were done with the, but they are dated in March and April. So I didn’t know if they’d been read into some previous. MR. PALING-What was your letter dated? MR. DEJONG-When the first hearing was scheduled, I believe it was in March. MR. PALING-Well, that sounds like it might be among these letters. MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. DEJONG-Well, I’m just wondering, will they be included into the record? MR. PALING-What we can do is after you’re finished, I think we better go back to the letters before we continue with the public hearing, but go ahead, and then we’ll go back to the letters. MR. DEJONG-My question and concern is, as the attorney has mentioned, the road, and when we had the original Planned Unit Development, and I don’t know if any of you gentlemen were on the Planning Board here, or even the members of the Planning Staff, there were many proposals made, and there was one sponsor, and now we’re asking for a subdivision, and I would ask the Board to seriously consider, usually when you have a subdivision, and if roads are required, I believe they have to be put in to the Town’s specifications, so that the Town will take them over, because we have a number of people up there, and now we are going to have many owners. The primary sponsor is subdividing a part of it off, and my concern is the Offering Plan that I bought under, back in 1986, said that we would have a right-of-way over the access road up to Top of the World. Then the Offering Plan has been amended many, many times, and I don’t believe there’s been complete proper notification to the homeowners, where they’re going to deed the road over to the homeowners and keep a right-of-way for themselves and let the homeowners be responsible for the maintenance of the road, which we have one subdivision and it’s possible we could have many more subdivisions, and this is something I think is very, very important and critical, because we have no access with school children trying to go to school. You have to take them down to the public road, Lockhart Mountain Road, which is over a mile down. I don’t believe that’s good planning for a Planned Unit Development with the future possibility of 170 units there, and I would strongly recommend the Board and the Planning Board to reconsider that. I think that that road should become a public road, and it should be put into the requirements of the Town, and it should be taken over, so that we have access for safety, for public safety, and it would also be maintained by the Town. That’s my biggest concern. Thank you, Gentlemen. MR. PALING-Thank you. Sue, I think we really ought to include those letters, if the Board agrees, to make the whole thing complete. Because I can’t remember, Craig, you say you don’t think we got to the letters. MR. MAC EWAN-We never got that far. MS. CIPPERLY-I think it was tabled. MR. PALING-Yes. Then we should include those letters tonight. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. Do you want to read them in now? MR. PALING-I think so. How many letters have you got, Sue? MS. CIPPERLY-Maybe half a dozen. The ones that are, there are some that are the same people that I read earlier, and they’re duplicate letters. MR. PALING-Well, maybe those we could put aside, if they’re written by the same person, but if not, I think we should read them into the record, unless someone objects to that. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. MR. ROUND-This is from George E. DeJong, Unit 16. “Dear Members of the Board: I am a resident of Top of the World community. I am informing the Board of my dissatisfaction with the plans of Top of the World Ventures desire to amend the PUD Development Plans. Their lack of completion of Approved Plans for the present Development is reason enough to reevaluate their 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) latest desire to again change what I thought was to be a Development of 160 units on 1300 acres with the present Golf Course. The roads to the Development are yet to be completed as required by the present Building Permit and the added Traffic would be a deterrent to the character of the neighborhood and the well being of the residents. I am asking the Board to deny the application for a change in the present PUD Plans as it is not in the best interest of the homeowners or the overall th community. Thank you. Sincerely, George E. DeJong” That’s dated the 17 of March, 1997. This letter is from William Caspersan, Unit 37, Top of the World, Lake George, NY, received in our office March18, 1997. “Dear Mr. Martin: As a homeowner and member of the board, I object to any attempt to divide the property at Top of the World. When we purchased our homes it was a part of the PUD consisting of 1300 acres of which the Golf Course was a part. Our objections will be registered with the State of New York and the APA. Sincerely, William Casperson” This letter is from Robert A. Mitchell, 441 Lockhart Mountain Road, Unit #40, Lake George, NY, dated March 31, 1997 “Dear Mr. Martin: I am writing as a homeowner at Top of the World and officer of the Board of Directors of the Top of the World Homeowners Association. The homeowners bought their property knowing that it would be a private residential community. It is my understanding the application by Mr. Feeney plans to separate the golf course and other parts of the development from the property owned by the homeowner’s association. It is our desire that this application, when it is refiled, be denied. The original project did not include a bed & breakfast, hotel, motel, bar or other commercial ventures. There are many concerns of the homeowners if this application is approved. 1. Who will own and maintain the private road coming to the golf course? 2. How large will the motel be? 3. How large will the hotel be? 4. How large will the bar and restaurant be? 5. Where will the parking spaces be for the bar, hotel, motel, bed & breakfast be? 6. If the new purchaser is buying around the swimming pool, log cabin, how will their guest get to the look out, etc.? 7. Is he purchasing the area where the second outdoor pool is planned for? 8. Will there be any activities other than golf, i.e. hunting, snowmobiling, etc.? 9. Where will this new development obtain the water and sewage treatment facilities? If it is from the Top of the World Water Company, do they have adequate facilities and capacity? 10. The offering plan restricts all ATV, snowmobiles, etc. from the Top of the World. Will these vehicles be allowed on the development? 11. Will the homeowners be restricted from walking, jogging, etc. on the new development’s property? There are many other unanswered questions concerning this application. It is our feeling that the application should be denied. Sincerely, Robert A. Mitchell” This letter is dated March 18, 1997, from James J. Otto, MD “Dear Mr. Martin: I am in receipt of the proposed modification to Top of the World Resort. Being a home owner this is my first acknowledgment that the Golf Course was sold and a change is pending. This proposal is of great concern to me about the ambiguous plan and how it will effect the area and the home owners. As a home owner I would like to know more about the plan and how it will have an impact on us as home owners and the area. I would ask that the proposal not be passed tonight so that more of a study can be done and forwarded to the home owners and the association. Sincerely, James J. Otto, MD” “To Whom It May Concern: Being a private owner at Top of the World, Okay, this is from R.A. Ciccotti, Inc., Cohoes, NY. “Being a private owner at Top of the World, I’m totally dismayed at anyone who’s intent to overrun said property. One question. Any person be allowed to commercialize any of said properties that the owners of condominiums have the final say to what degree any new commercial business be considered. R.A. Ciccotti Unit F-18” And it was received in our office 3/18/97, by fax. Another one from Daniel Chapple, dated 3/18/97 “Dear Mr. Martin: This proposal by Top of the World Resort, Inc. is outrageous! As a property owner, Unit 21, who paid Top of the World Ventures over $200,000 cash, and has watched the value of my investment decline anywhere from 25% to 50% in value to now hear that they propose to render my investment virtually worthless is making me very upset. I object and will hold your planning office/zoning board for the Town of Queensbury fully accountable if you approve this site plan number 10-97, or destroying the value of my property. Thank you for your attention to this grave matter. Yours truly, Daniel J. Chapple” To the Queensbury Town Planning Board, dated 3/18/97, actually it was dated 3/17/97, from Linda Noon. “As a 12 month resident of Top of the World, I have concerns regarding any changes in the development project. I chose this location because of its quiet atmosphere. Therefore, I have a sincere interest in the use of the golf course property in regards to noise, traffic and retail business. I hope these areas are fully explored before there is any consideration to change the present arrangements. I thank you for your assistance in this matter.” MS. CIPPERLY-Greg, do you want to read yours? GREG SHERRY MR. SHERRY-I’ll make a statement. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. So should I? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) MR. SHERRY-No, you don’t have to. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. Now lets go back to the people here. Who else would like to come up and talk about this matter? MR. SMITH-Eventually, we would like another. MR. PALING-You sure will. You’ll have your chance. MR. SMITH-Good. Thanks. MR. SHERRY-My name’s Greg Sherry. I’m a homeowner, Unit 61, at Top of the World, and I’m here tonight to voice my concerns over this planned subdivision. You’ve heard all the issues, both technical and somewhat personal reasons why we’re concerned, and we’re hoping that the Board, or this Board at least, will have the opportunity to work with the APA and with the Town Planning Board to assure that we, the homeowners, are guaranteed the rights that were offered to us in our Offering Plan. The other issues that we’d like to bring forward, once and if the subdivision is approved, that we can be reasonably assured of knowing what kind of operation would be running at that location, and as it is now, or would it change drastically, and if any assurity could be given to us now, before the subdivision is approved, and things eventually change and maybe deteriorate the condition that is up there. It’s not in a bad condition now. We would just like to know where we’ll be in years to come, and if this Board can help us to understand that and guarantee it for us. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. EMIL SANDLER DR. SANDLER-My name’s Emil Sandler. I’m the President of the Homeowners Association. I just wanted to make it clear that without question the overwhelming majority of the homeowners are opposed to this application, for varying reasons, which you’ve heard. I don’t want to reiterate all of that, but there is great concern in many directions. We have great concern about the operation of a bar so close to our homes, and I don’t know what the long term plans are for this business, but up to this point, it is basically a bar, and we feel very concerned about that. The only other thing I would like to mention is that there were several letters from a few people in favor of the subdivision. There was one from Vallerano, a Durante, and a Nichols. All of those homes are for sale, incidentally. So I don’t understand their positive feelings, yet they put their houses up for sale. It’s very questionable in my mind. That’s it. Thank you very much for your consideration. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Who else would like to speak? MARY CASPERSAN MRS. CASPERSAN-My name is Mary Caspersan, Unit 37 at Top of the World, and I think I have maybe the dubious honor of being one of the first purchasers of a home at Top of the World. When we bought, of course you know what was in the Offering Plan, and of course it has turned out to be vastly different. I think the Queensbury Town motto is a good place to work and a great place to live, and I thought I had found a great place to live. I love Top of the World. I love my neighbors. I am a full time resident for about five and a half months of the year there, and I have been that way I guess since 1991 when I retired. It was bought as a retirement home. I think that if anyone of the Planning Board or the people here would take a ride up to Top of the World, they could see, in very concrete form, the dedication of the homeowners to their homes and the lack of dedication that the Galesi Group or the Golf Course management has exhibited. I think we can justifiably be proud of the way we have maintained the property, which is a lot different on the shoulders of 60 some members than supposedly the 170 members, which of course has never materialized. The homes have been well maintained. They are attractive. We have kept our grounds in an attractive manner, and I think if you came up here you would acknowledge that. If you look off of our property onto what is not under our immediate control, you would say, what kind of pride do the people have to let those rat traps be standings? Holes in the road. To get to our dumpster, the holes in the road almost lurch your car into rocks. I don’t think that shows any kind of pride at all. The Galesi corporation, as far as I’m concerned, and we did investigate the Manchester Development of Equinox, I don’t know whether they were held to stricter standards or 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) what, but it impressed us enough that we decided to buy. It has been a vast disappointment. The APA, as far as I’m concerned, has a reputation for being very strict. Well, what happened in this case? Did we just fall through the cracks? This has been a very expensive thing to bear. The road alone is a big, big thing, as you can well expect, and to say that just because the Golf Course is closed in the winter, well I don’t think you could get insurance on your buildings unless you kept the roads plowed, and I would guarantee that if someone wanted to clock the number of cars that went up the road during the summer, that the Golf Course would have far more traffic than the homeowners, and I just wish that you could come up and visit and just see the kind of impression you would get from people who love the homes where they are living, and people who are there in a business sense. As far as this 18 hole golf course, that is just, you know, you can say you’re going to do anything. Sure, an 18 hole golf course sounds nice, well, I don’t believe it. I want to see it. I urge you to just support us in making and keeping our homes the way we thought they were going to be. Just let us have, the homeowners, have their homes the way the homeowners offering plan was presented to them, and I just think that to let the Galesi Group sell this off, just to kind of bail out and leave us even more abandoned than ever, would not be fair or ethical in any way. Thank you very much. MR. PALING-Thank you. JIM DINAPOLI MR. DINAPOLI-Good evening. My name is Jim DiNapoli. I represent Top of the World Ventures, and it’s our belief that the Feeneys have been doing a very good job over the past six years in trying to operate a nine hole golf course, which is the only thing that’s in front of you tonight for approval is the nine hole golf course. I think there’s a lot of misstatements made in the letters that were read, regarding an 18 hole golf course. That’s not what’s up for approval. It’s our belief that improvements will be made to the 71 acres and to the Golf Course, under your question, and why do you want to own? You want to own because of equity, and you’re reluctant to put money into a piece of property when you lease it. When you own it, you can afford to make those investments and get those tax advantages. This is strictly a business transaction for us. We are not golf course operators. We don’t pretend to be golf course operators, and we think this is a step in the right direction to improve the property. Because the Golf Course is there, because the restaurant is there, is not the reason that decreased values in real estate have occurred to the Top of the World homeowners. We have, presently, three units that are up, that have been up for five years. We have been unable to sell any of those units, and it’s not because of the Golf Course. It’s the real estate market. They mention the pod that’s there for three other units, that’s correct. It’s there, and we cannot afford to construct three more units at this point in time. We have already put three and a half million dollars in infrastructure. We made a tremendous investment up there, and we feel that this is strictly a business transaction that is good for the homeowners, as well as for the Feeneys, as well as for us. Because this will allow us to put more money back into the property, which Mr. Walsh acknowledged today. We had an hour and a half phone conversation, and he understands where we’re coming from. If there are any questions that the Board would like to ask me, I’d be happy to answer them. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. WILLIAM CASPERSAN MR. CASPERSAN-My name is William Caspersan. I’m also a homeowner at Top of the World. Again, I would like to tell you that Mr. Nichols and Mr. Durante, although they wrote letters in support, do not live there. Their units are for sale. They live down the road. They have no interest in Top of the World. You just heard Mr. Feeney say a moment ago that he has various plans, which he intends to take it one step at a time. He has proposed, in the past, and has requested a comedy club at Top of the World. This we are violently opposed to. We do not want our nice, quiet area disturbed in any way. This I think would be a part of his plans in the future. He has stated he would like to have an 18 hole golf course. I wonder what the impact studies would show, concerning an 18 hole golf course, and I would certainly hope something like that would be studied before you would ever approve it. As a matter of fact, I think you might close the barn door now, and prohibit such a development as he is proposing, prohibit the type of comedy clubs and weddings and funerals and so forth that he’s proposing. He has all kinds of plans for that 71 acres, and I would hope that you would deny this request. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. REGINALD A. SCOTT 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) MR. SCOTT-I’m a Real Estate developer by the name of Reginald A. Scott. I’ve been before Boards like this for many a time, and I believe the lady who received a lot of applause here was very accurate in what she said. However, at the Top of the World, since I’ve had a condo there I think since 1987, we lease space out there cheaper than the sleaziest motel room in Lake George, per square foot. We have barns, as she said, that are falling apart. We have dumpsters that are practically out in the open, and we have dirt roads which should be amosided and so forth, but on the other hand, this has nothing to do with the Feeneys buying the Golf Course. They’re a tenant or an owner. I don’t see, as a real estate developer, the difference between the two of them. As a tenant he’s made great improvements, since I’ve been up there. The club house, which at first was a disheveled old building, and we had a pro there by the name of Doc, and he stood there with a glass case with a couple of balls in it, and that was the main attraction of the clubhouse, and we already do have a bar up there. Unfortunately, we didn’t do a traffic study, or an impact study on what would be the difference if the Feeneys owned the golf course, prior to the Galesi’s transferring it over. I don’t think the Impact Study would show any difference. The people come up there and play golf would be the same people who are playing golf there now. We do have a bar up there. It does serve wine and beer. I am not the type of person who likes to see things stand still. There has been a great deal of improvement, as I said, in that one building alone. Yes, I would like to see some of those old buildings, and there’s a foundation there. I’d like to see the dumpsters moved somewhere else where they’re enclosed in a cyclone fence with trees around it and so forth, where it becomes more attractive. I think we’ve lost site of the fact that we have to do something in order to enhance our property, and we have to have other people help us. Now, you people are the government. We’re the people, and we need a road up there real badly, and we need it paved and taken over by the Town of Queensbury. We pay you people pretty good taxes, and if you enhance our property, we in turn will pay you more taxes, because we’ll build more units up there. If you help us create a better environment up there, by taking over that road, and if the Feeneys can enhance the property even more than what they’ve already done, we, the people, would probably be paying you more taxes in the long run. Our assessments have dropped at an all time low, I understand, from where they were. So our taxes are pretty reasonable now, compared to what they were, which is great, but I think that’s all because of the decay and the depreciation. If we stand still the way we are now, what have we accomplished? I don’t see where we’ve accomplished anything. If these people who are tenants become owners, well, owners always do something more than tenants do. When you rent a house out to somebody, they’re not going to keep it up as well as an owner would. You know that, and this is the same way, what these people want to do. If they were telling me that they were going to go out on that golf course, and they were going to build things on it, well then I’d say no, but you’ve got a PUD. I understand a PUD . I’ve done several of them, which is more than the average layman does. Your PUD restricts them from doing anything of that sort, and maybe they don’t understand that, but I do have to agree with the homeowners here. We do have a dilemma up there. Part of it is unsafe, and we have people that come up there, strangers who drive around, turn around in our complex, drive around in our streets, and that’s probably our fault because we don’t protect ourselves, and maybe if we got together and spent a little money and protected ourselves from the sight seers and the tourists who come up there, so that we would have more privacy, but we are remote from the Golf Course, and so what I have, on the street that I’m on, I very seldom see anybody but the people who live on the street, but we do have tenants up there in those townhouses, and we are renting very, very cheap per square foot, very cheap. Why? I would like to see things done up there so that maybe if they are going to rent those units up there, they’ll rent them to people who will pay a bigger price. If they pay a bigger price, it makes the units worth more. If they’re worth more, the Town gets more taxes. If you people take over that road and improve it, you’re going to make that property worth more. I think a traffic study, if it had been done, or an impact study had been done, I don’t think that the Feeneys owning the Golf Course would change that one iota. I don’t think that the Feeneys owning the Golf Course is going to change the PUD. I don’t think the Feeneys owning the Golf Course is going to change the, if they do put a Bed & Breakfast up there, what have they got, eight rooms? It’s not the Sagamore. I mean, the Sagamore has condos and they have a big hotel, and their condos, I understand, sell very well, unless I’ve been misinformed. So what have we got here? Sixty-one units. We don’t have a large hotel. We don’t have an 18 hole Golf Course like the Sagamore. I wish we did. I go play the Glens Falls Country Club because it’s 18 holes. Once in a while I venture over and play the 9 hole golf course. I wish it were 18 holes. I wish that road would be better. I think it’s partly your responsibility here to help us out, and I don’t think that the Feeneys are going to hinder, maybe they’ll make a little progress and help us out, and improve that property, but we can’t wait for an angel, and some people are waiting for angels to come down and bail us out. Well, in the real estate business today, angels are very few and far between. You don’t find them in real estate business anymore. So somebody like the Feeneys who want to do something is an improvement. If they’re there another nine years on a lease, what the heck’s the difference? They’ve already made some improvements in that Bed & Breakfast building. They’ve 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) got one apartment in it already, and it hasn’t changed the complex it all. Nobody even knows, probably, it’s there. So I think that we ought to study the whole thing, and I think the homeowners have a good point. I think the road is a great deal of concern. I think some of those buildings which are falling apart, something should be done with them. I think the dumpsters, very unattractive, very unattractive. Should be placed elsewhere. I think our property should be fenced in. We do have tourists that come up here just to take pictures. It’s a beautiful site. Lets face it. You can’t stop them from coming up there. We haven’t had a guard at the gate for a long time, and when we did, we never stopped anybody from coming up there. I don’t think that what’s being done is wrong. I think that maybe, I think the minds of some people I think is fear, and whenever you want to make change, fear comes into someone’s mind, and really I don’t see any change there, except ownership, and I feel that if you own something, you’re going to do something better with it than what’s there, and again, I ask you people, give us a good road up there, because you’re collecting our taxes, and that’s where you people can come in and help, too. Thank you very much. MR. PALING-Thank you. JOE NICHOLS MR. NICHOLS-Hi. My name is Joe Nichols. I’m owner of C-7, and I just am in favor of the project by the Feeneys. When I purchased in 1984, one of the reasons I purchased, was because of the Golf Course, and since then, the improvements which have been made to that course by the Feeneys has been astronomical. It’s a very nice golf course. I don’t think Feeney will hurt that property in any way, shape or manner. I think they will improve it, and I think we should give them that shot. As Reggie said, there are no angels, and as far as me having my place for sale, versus owning, most of these people here know that I put a lot of time in there. I worried about the way of life there, and it doesn’t really make me a second class citizen, simply because it’s for sale. I still care about Top of the World. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. DAVE ROWEN MR. ROWEN-My name is Dave Rowen. I live at Number 14 Top of the World, and I have nothing against the Feeneys taking over the Golf Course. They’re going to be there for six more years. They’re not looking at expanding it, as far as I can see, and what we’re going over tonight is just a case of them owning it. I’m not a legal person at all, but if you take the money that is being offered, price on it, and put it in a trust or something, so Galesi, you know, we have control of the money until all of the problems that are up there are taken care of with Galesi, that seems to be their problem is Galesi, not Feeneys. MR. PALING-Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? DICK LATORRE MR. LATORRE-My name is Dick LaTorre. We’re in Unit 47 at Top of the World. I’m an old Schenectady boy. My wife and I used to court up at Top of the World. That was one of the reasons why we bought up there eventually. We’re very concerned. We do enjoy the tourists coming up and taking pictures. We think that should never be stopped. We think the Ruiz representation was absolutely horrible. I don’t know whether this is your people’s thing here that we should be complaining here. Maybe we should have gone through legal courses before, but the Galesi corporation, as far as I’m concerned, has reneged on everything that they sold. Now we still love it up there. The homeowners are closer together, 90% of them, are closer together than they’ve ever been. The place is looking beautiful now, in the last three years, because of about 10 people working their buts off. I have no ax to grind about Bob Feeney. I like the guy. I just saw his brother for the first time tonight and I’m not sure about him. I’m honest. I haven’t made up my mind about him yet. I hope I will feel the same way. If somebody’s going to run the Golf Course, I don’t care who runs it. I have some questions that couldn’t be answered here probably. Number One, homeowners, were they asked when they put the Golf Course up for a lease? No. We were told like two years later that the Golf Course came up, that there was a lease. We’re told that they’re going to be selling it, that when they made the lease up, that they made a buy/sell agreement. I shouldn’t say buy/sell agreement, that they made a contingency lease on buying with the Feeneys. Now it’s not the Feeneys I’m picking on. It’s anybody that Galesi would have done it with. I heard somebody representing Galesi tonight say that the money that they get from Feeneys would be spent on doing things at the Top of the World. Excuse me for laughing, but if there was 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) a way that this Group could guarantee that that money be held in escrow, you would make me go home very happy tonight. I thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else that wants to talk about this? All right. Lets take a five minute break, okay. Okay. We’ll call the meeting back to order. Now, just one last call. Is there anyone from the public who would like to address this matter? Now, I’m going to leave the public hearing open, but we’ll ask the applicant now to come back and to address some of these concerns. MR. SMITH-Thank you very much. I am not going to kick this to death, but do you remember when I first stood up and I showed you the map, and I had it upside down, and it had all the 170 Townhouses. Much of which you have heard here this evening had to do with those 170 townhouse, and if you will look at the map that’s up there now, those 170 townhouses are nowhere near our property. The only major concern that seems to have come up this evening has to do with the motel. This is as to the purchase of the Golf Course. It has to do with the motel, the permit says to tear it down, we’re going to tear it down. We have some other questions on zoning. I would like to make part of the record here some of the permits that were issued by the Park Agency, and I have a whole package. It’s Schedule E. I think it came from the Offering Plan, but there is a Project No. 86-332, the first statement says the project will meet all the pertinent requirements and conditions of the Town of Queensbury local land use program. So the project that has been submitted to the Park Agency, the Agency has made a finding of compliance with Town zoning. So, as to that, I will, I’m not going to answer funerals and comedy clubs. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a copy of Mr. Walsh’s letter? Did you get a copy of Mr. Walsh’s letter? MR. SMITH-I received a number of letters from Mr. Walsh, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-The one that we read into the record tonight, his Paragraph Three, referenced that permit 86-332-2 from the APA, and you’re saying that the APA said that all the infrastructures and amenities that you were supposed to, they were supposed to have been done as part of the PUD? MR. SMITH-No. Not done, permitted. MR. MAC EWAN-You said they were in compliance, though, right? MR. SMITH-No. What I’m saying is that this Golf Course and the Townhouses are in compliance with the permit, in the sense that they are permitted. Whether or not there’s a six inch pipe or an eight inch pipe should be, I don’t have a clue. MR. MAC EWAN-Then you’re referencing that only the Golf Course is in compliance with (lost words) the permit? MR. SMITH-Except for the motel, that’s true. That’s right, but the important point that I would like to make is the fact that the uses that have occurred for the past five or six years, while Jim Feeney and his family have operated this Golf Course and as proposed are permitted by the Agency, and are permitted by the Town. So on a zoning basis, I think we’re in compliance. The other issue that we heard a great deal about tonight is maintenance of the road. We have suggested to the Park Agency that we would pay the share two townhouse units. Be there 64 townhouse units or be there 170 units, we would pay the share allocated to two for that portion of the road which comes from what I call the gate house up to the Golf Course. We submitted to the Agency. They issued a permit to the substances, thou shalt pay two. There’s been talk about the offering plan. What I would like to do is I would like, and I know this would make great reading for each and every one of you, but what I would like to do is to make part of your record the original offering plan as submitted, it’s called a re-stated and amended offering plan, and this does not have the amendments, but the paragraphs on Page Four and Five have, I don’t believe, been changed. I would like, I’m not going to read the whole thing. I would like to read a part of Page Four. “Top of the World Road provides access to site from Lockhart Mountain Road. Sponsor shall maintain the road until completion of the development construction, at which time Sponsor shall repair the road, if required, and deed such road to the Association.” So this is the representation that has been made to every homeowner up there, is that this road will be maintained by the Sponsor and repaired and turned over to the Association, when the project, I’m sorry, let me read this, upon completion of the development. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) MR. PALING-Let me just ask a question in that regard. We’ve had many, many references to the Offering Plan tonight, but is that a document that this Board has any kind of relationship to, or are we more concerned with the APA document in that? MR. SCHACHNER-What do you mean by relationship to? MR. PALING-Well, he’s just quoted there about road maintenance. Is that what should guide us, or do we have a different set of rules by which road maintenance may have been mentioned? MR. SCHACHNER-Neither. We don’t have a set of rules regarding road maintenance. MR. PALING-No, I meant a previous approval. MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t know if any of the Town previous approvals discuss road maintenance. MR. PALING-I don’t, either. MR. SCHACHNER-I think that Staff thinks that the previous approvals don’t specifically discuss issues like road maintenance, other than to reference the APA permits. Is that correct? MS. CIPPERLY-Right, and certainly not people’s shares. I agree with Mark’s statement, especially in regard to who’s paying what portion. That’s really more a matter between the developer and the buyers. That’s not something that the Town would get into. MR. RUEL-Did the Town Planning Board have any terms and conditions, or we did nothing and just accepted APA? MS. CIPPERLY-That’s basically what we found when we researched the records, that it’s really been both Town Board approvals and Planning Board approvals really said sort of contingent on the APA permits. MR. RUEL-Did we monitor this at all, or did we enforce any of these performances, etc., that were part of the PUD, whether we had them documented or whether they were APA? MS. CIPPERLY-The only real time we’ve been asked to be up there, really, is when building permits were issued, and construction was going on. As far as compliance with permits and things, we really haven’t had, until now, we really haven’t had a lot of input. MR. RUEL-But building permits and things like that are just checking the thing out initially. What I’m talking about is over a period of time, the nonperformance that was indicated here tonight, the violations, etc., apparently things were supposed to be done, and weren’t done. I don’t know if there was a time limit on it. I don’t know if anybody enforced it, but how does Queensbury fit into this? This is all APA here? You have a homeowners organization. They have a document that’s two inches thick, and how do we fit into this? Is this part of, is that document part of our PUD or not? MS. CIPPERLY-You’re asking some of the same questions I asked our attorney today. So I’ll let him answer. MR. SCHACHNER-We’re not, the Town is not charged with enforcing the terms of the Offering Plan, the thick document that was shown earlier. MR. RUEL-That’s not part of it? MR. SCHACHNER-The Town is not charged with the enforcement of the terms of the Offering Plan. MR. RUEL-What are we supposed to be doing when we have an application for a PUD and we pass on it? MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t understand your question. MR. PALING-Well, the Offering Plan follows that. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) MR. RUEL-I know it’s about 10 years ago. I wasn’t here. MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t understand your question, Roger. What’s your question? MR. RUEL-My question is, how does the Queensbury Town Planning Board, or Planning Staff, fit into this? All I’ve heard tonight is APA. MR. SCHACHNER-The Staff’s research seems to indicate that the Planning Board’s prior approvals of the project have not contained specific conditions of approval, but have just said, essentially, correct me if I’m wrong, Staff, but have just said, we approve what’s been approved by the APA, subject to the APA permits. MR. PALING-And we’re not familiar with that APA document, I think is one of the problems I’m having. MR. SCHACHNER-Meaning the Planning Board members? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-Right, and so we were relying on the APA to enforce certain elements of the contract? Is that it? MR. SCHACHNER-No, I don’t think that’s an accurate statement. I think that you’re asking two different questions. As to enforcement, the Town has certain enforcement authority. The APA has certain enforcement authority, and as one of the gentlemen mentioned earlier, the New York State Attorney General’s Office also has an enforcement authority, and none of those are identical, but most importantly, perhaps to answer that specific question, Roger, remember that the Planning Board has no enforcement authority. MR. RUEL-Right. We had this letter tonight that had a list of violations, and Mr. Walsh presented this. I guess he represented the homeowners group, and these violations apparently were based on things that were written in this two inch document. Correct? MR. SCHACHNER-No. I don’t believe that’s correct. I believe some of them are allegedly based on violation of things written in the APA permit. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Not the two and a half inch document which is called the Offering Plan. MR. RUEL-Well, would you agree that they are violations? MR. SCHACHNER-I haven’t the faintest idea. MR. RUEL-Well, how do we know they are violations? MR. SCHACHNER-We don’t know that. They may well be, but we don’t know that. MR. RUEL-And if they are? Lets assume that these are all violations. How can we propose or even accept an application for a subdivision when there is a bunch of violations existing? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I guess there’s a couple of answers to that, but once answer is that, there’s two answers. One answer is enforcement of violations is not the Planning Board’s responsibility. Enforcement of violations is the Enforcement Staff’s responsibility, and ultimately if push comes to shove, the Town Board’s responsibility. A second answer to that is, it’s possible, though I don’t know, that we have an apples and oranges situation here, in that if the violations don’t have anything to do with the 71 acre Golf Course parcel, then we may have apples and oranges here. If the violations do have something to do with the 71 acre Golf Course parcel, then we may have apples and apples. MR. RUEL-You mean it has to apply to the 71 acres? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, let me give you an example, a bad example. If an applicant owns property on one side of the Town of Queensbury, and on the other side of the Town of Queensbury, 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) and applies to subdivide the property on the north side of the Town of Queensbury, we could not lawfully take the position that we would deny or not entertain that subdivision application because of violations over on the south side, or the north side, whichever one I used as the other one. Now, it’s a lousy analogy, because obviously here we have property that is some 1300 plus or minus acres, all contiguous. I don’t know if any of these alleged violations have anything to do with the 71 acre Golf Course property or not. MR. RUEL-And if none of these violations effect that Section, then it has nothing to do with it, right? MR. SCHACHNER-That’s possible. MR. PALING-That’s something we have to find out about. We have to familiarize ourselves with this document. We know the concerns, and we’ve got to see where we are and where we’re not involved, but we can’t answer that tonight. MR. SCHACHNER-No, that’s reasonable. MR. STARK-Rather than keep this up, we could just, why don’t you poll the Board and see our concerns. MR. PALING-Well, okay. Lets finish here, though. We’re going to turn it back to you, and we’ve obviously got some discussing amongst ourselves to do. MR. SMITH-If I could answer, maybe have a dialogue with Mark, I know I’m not supposed to have one with you guys, but the analogy that Mark made was a violation of the Town of Queensbury on the north side, and no violation on the south side, but in both cases that he mentioned, the violation was of something that the Town of Queensbury had imposed the condition. I’ve been sitting here for an hour and a half, maybe. I don’t recall an awful lot of violations that have been alleged that say that either the Galesi Group or the Golf Course have presented you with evidence, or the homeowners, of any evidence of a violation of any terms, conditions, provisions, etc., etc., from the Town of Queensbury. All of the violations that have been alleged are violations of the Adirondack Park Agency permit, failure to bond, or allegedly violations of the Offering Plan, we said A, and did B, but I haven’t heard, and I don’t know, did you hear anything, Mark, that said this is a violation of a specific condition of either the PUD approval or the Planning Board approval. I haven’t heard that. MR. PALING-Well, okay. Let me stop you there if I can. I’m just going to repeat that I think that there’s a couple of documents we’ve got to familiarize ourselves with, and I think that I’ve got probably eight or ten areas that we’ve got to address, to see if we’re concerned with them, or the Compliance Officer is, and then we would take it from there, but insofar as giving an answer tonight to the specific questions, I don’t think any of us can. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, could I get Mr. Smith, that Section you just read was out of the Offering Plan? MR. SMITH-I haven’t read the whole thing, but I would like to finish it, for the record. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you start from the beginning, please, and re-read that one Section? MR. SMITH-Maybe I’ll read the whole paragraph, because I don’t want to take anything out of context. This is what it says, the whole paragraph. This is the Offering Plan. This is the disclosure. You buy here, this is the deal. “Access roadways and parking areas within each Phase will be owned and maintained by the Association. Top Of The World Road provides access to the site from Lockhart Mountain Road. Sponsor”, this is the developer, “shall maintain the road until completion of the development construction, at which time Sponsor shall repair the road, if required, and deed such road to the Association.” So according to this disclosure document, the Sponsor represents they will maintain the road until they’re out of business, and sold out, Point Number One. Point Number Two, “At such time, the Association shall own and maintain the road and shall grant an easement for ingress and egress to Lake George Ventures, Inc., its successors and assigns.” No place in this paragraph does that say that that easement will carry with it some obligation to pay some pro rata share. So I think that’s relevant, and I want to make this whole Offering Plan part of your record, because you have nothing else in your record, I don’t think, but I would like to also ask you to look at another point here in the Offering Plan, and I’m not going to read this, but there are a whole series of budgets in here. You’re going to have a Budget of 30 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) units, 60 units, 90 units, so forth and so on, and in each one of these budgets, there is a budget for road maintenance, and if you will look at the budget, there’s road maintenance, there’s insurance, there’s water, sewage and tennis courts, maybe lightbulbs for the tennis court lights, but there is a budget, and it has a list of expenditures. One of those is road maintenance, and it has income, and if you look at this Offering Plan, if you look for the word “income”, it shows dues. No place does it say, money from Lake George Ventures, Inc. for its pro rata share of the road maintenance. So the disclosure that has been made says, you’re going to own the road. You’re going to maintain them, and you’re subject to our easement. If I go to Page Five, and I’m not going to read the whole Page Five, either, but the important thing is, “The approximately one thousand one hundred and eighty-five (1,185) remaining acreage (owned by the Sponsor) of the thirteen hundred three (1,303) acre site, which contains a nine-hole golf course, may be further developed by the Sponsor, to the extent permitted by the State of New York Adirondack Park Agency and the Town of Queensbury. The golf course will be open to the public and to Owners.” So there’s been a full disclosure. You’re getting a road, subject to the easement. We volunteered to pay two. We offered that to the Park Agency. They seemed to think that was reasonable. So we would like to ask you to look at the Offering Plan, and look at the budgets. There’s no extra money coming in for that easement. MR. PALING-Well, did that not say that you would, that the Sponsor would maintain the road until they were sold out? MR. SMITH-That’s right. MR. PALING-And it’s nowhere near sold out now. MR. SMITH-No. MR. PALING-So you’re going to be maintaining that road. MR. SMITH-No, no. We’re not the developer. Remember way back in the beginning when I said, I represent the fellow that’s buying the golf course. Mr. DiNapoli over here represents the developer. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s exactly where I was going with this, Bob. You said, the terms that you read in that statement were that the Sponsor was going to take care of all these things in here, unless he either A., sold out, or, B. went out of business. MR. SMITH-I don’t think, goes out of business. MR. MAC EWAN-You said those words. MR. SMITH-I said those words, but I will quote “Sponsor shall maintain the road until completion of the development construction, at which time Sponsor shall repair the road, if required, and deed such road to the Association.” Well, that’s how you go out of business, you sell all your units. MR. MAC EWAN-I wrote down what you said. You said if you sold out, or out of business. MR. SMITH-Well, I guess that’s the same way. If you sell out, there’s no sense staying around. MR. MAC EWAN-No, you can always develop further parcels. There’s a lot of acreage up there. MR. SMITH-No, you can’t. MR. MAC EWAN-Just answer me one thing. Has he sold out? MR. SMITH-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Is he out of business? MR. SMITH-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SMITH-They are on the hook for the maintenance of the road, I think, for a long time. So all of this we’re arguing on road maintenance could, especially if the Town picks up the road, could be moot. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) MR. MAC EWAN-Without investigating this any further, and if the obligations of this letter from the Walsh law firm are accurate, it would seem that he’s on the hook for a lot of other things, as well. MR. SMITH-Yes. No question about it. The Park Agency staff has indicated, well, let me back up on the Park Agency. The Agency staff drafted a permit. They submitted that to the Commissioners, as a committee of the whole, and it was approved the next day, and the resolution was that the Director of Regulatory Programs is authorized to sign the permit, One, when the Town of Queensbury signs off, and, Two, when the project Sponsor, not us, but the Galesi Group, Lake George Ventures, when they are in compliance with the terms of the permit, in other words the bonding. MR. MAC EWAN-You have to bear in mind. What the Town Planning Board did 10 years ago, the resolutions that are passed, or were passed for any project back then, whether it be subdivisions, site plans, or PUD’s, were very vague at best. There’s no real documentation to verify like what we go through in our day and age now, where everything is pretty well, your T’s are crossed and your I’s are dotted. Now we can tell you exactly what kind of project has, how many Hemlock trees versus tulip bulbs are put in. The scenario I think where probably the Planning Board was going back then, and I would like to research this, and I would encourage the rest of our Board to do the same, is that to document, if we can, or try to find out through the minutes of those meetings, is if the Town Planning Board was tying all its approvals based on living up to the expectations of the APA permitting. If it didn’t live up to APA permitting, and it didn’t meet what you were supposed to have done with performance bonding, what does that do to approval of the PUD and what recourses does the Planning Board have to make sure that those things are all brought up to where they’re supposed to be? MR. SMITH-As best we could find, looking through the records, and I think Sue and everybody else has spent a lot more time, obviously. I think there’s probably, what, 10 person days looking through records on this. There’s not an awful lot. It’s pretty much, and I hate to use the term a wimp out in favor of the Park Agency. Hey, if you’ve got a Park Agency permit, we’ll go along with it, and I find that terribly common, and I think that’s what happened. Obviously, I wasn’t here either. MR. STARK-Sue, did you find the minutes to that meeting? MS. CIPPERLY-There were a lot of meetings, the minutes were not done verbatim at that time. They were summarized. If it’s something that you really want, we can provide you with copies of every resolution. MR. PALING-Do we have the APA document, Sue? MS. CIPPERLY-The original permit? MR. PALING-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. PALING-Yes, okay. We have that. Okay. At least we can read that. MR. ROUND-The document Mr. Smith is talking about is a new draft permit for the subdivision. I don’t think he was clear to the Board on that. MR. SCHACHNER-No, but I think what the Chairman’s asking about is the original APA permit. MR. ROUND-No, I realize that, but I just wanted to back up on the other issue. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. We have two APA permits that you’re talking about. One is the original permit, which was done in 1986, 86332-1 and -2, and that has findings of fact. It’s about a quarter of an inch thick. They tend to list everything that’s there, what’s going to happen to it, and that’s where this, for instance, the motel demolition was listed. MR. MAC EWAN-I would be interested in getting a copy of that one, for me, and also the other permit that I’d be looking for, for myself, would be 82-240A. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) MR. PALING-Yes. I think we all need a copy of that. MR. SMITH-I’m not terribly sure if that’s relevant, because the ’86 permit superseded everything that was done prior to that. MR. MAC EWAN-I think it would be only fair, if you’re asking this Board to pass judgment on a project that’s over 10 years old, to let us look at all the information available to us. MR. SMITH-More power to you to look at it, but I do think that the ’86 Park Agency permit is the one that’s been governing this project since its real inception. MR. PALING-Okay. Well that may be, but I’d like to see the background, too. MR. STARK-I’d like to see the minutes and the resolution. MR. PALING-And how about minutes. MS. CIPPERLY-UPS isn’t on strike anymore. We can get those out. No, it will be some reading for you, but we can get those to you. The other permit that Mr. Smith was referring to was one that was drafted by Park Agency staff recently, and at their meeting last Thursday, was sort of a permit in limbo, I guess you would call it, pending what happens with this Planning Board, and just a voice mail message I had from one of their staff that’s been involved with it, said that the APA had approved the subdivision contingent on Town approval, and that it requires compliance with the previous APA permit. I didn’t get to speak with him and see whether they were going to. MR. PALING-I think we’re getting to the point where we’re saying virtually that we’ve got to have a scoping session on this. We’ve got to find out what the background is, and then define to ourself where we should be involved and where we shouldn’t be involved. We can’t do that tonight, but after the documentation and discussion, I think we can put ourselves in that place. Okay. MR. SMITH-I have a couple of other things. I have provided your staff with some permits from the Park Agency, and the ones that you are talking about, I would ask that you look at 86-332-2. That is the one that’s, among other things, says the motel must come down. It also says other things are permitted, both on and off the Golf Course. It says you build a lot of townhouses, too. What I would like to point out most importantly in this whole program. We have an option to buy. We’re not trying to gain any rights. We’re not trying to lose any rights, but if you buy the property, you can invest money and know that it’s yours, and I think somebody pointed this out. If you continue leasing, you’re not going to make those capital improvements, and the place goes down hill. If you buy it, you put money in, and it gets better. I also hate to say this, and I know it’s not terribly relevant for you, but it might solve a lot of your decision makings, depending on how the business goes. Bottom line is, we signed a contract last January. Time is of the essence. stst On September 1, if we don’t have approval from this Planning Board by September 1, unless the contract is modified, we are dead. We continue leasing the place, exactly like we have been leasing, except you’re probably not, I don’t mean this in a threatening way, probably not going to see capital improvements, as a tenant, with the lease getting shorter every day. If the contract is extended, there’s no way, I know, you’re going to give us the decision next week. I know that, and I don’t have to really beg on that. I don’t think I’d succeed, but we do have that problem. So if you’re going to decide on this, and if you’re going to decide between now and next Tuesday, we would love that, but if you’re not, we might be getting back to you saying, relax, you don’t have to do anything. We have been in this process for 10 months. We were here in March before this st Board. We thought if we submitted an application in February, for a September 1, time is of the essence, it seemed like a good idea at the time. We thought we could have plenty of time. We had the same crisis with the Park Agency. We got the permit from the Park Agency about 15 days before our deadline. So if you can decide between now and your next meeting, figure this out, fine. We might talk to you in September saying, we apologize for taking your time, and that’s not your fault. MR. PALING-We’ll move as deliberately as we can. We’ll have special meetings. We’ll do whatever we can, but it does sound like I don’t think there’s time. We’ll try to do it. MR. SMITH-I understand where you’re coming from. I’ve been on your side and Mark’s side. So I understand that, but I do tell you that there is that possibility. MR. PALING-Well, let me ask the question, then, of Staff, how soon could you get this documentation out to the members, for the Board, that we’ve asked for? 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) MS. CIPPERLY-It could be delivered to you on Thursday. MR. PALING-The day after tomorrow, Thursday? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. PALING-If we got it Thursday, I don’t see any reason we couldn’t reschedule this meeting for a week from tonight. It may be a long night. There’s six items on next week’s agenda, and I think they’ll put the Lombardo one, it’ll be seven. I think we should go for a special meeting for this, so we have reasonable, get the information in a reasonable time to review it, and then come back and meet. The only guarantee we can’t make is that a final decision would be made at that meeting. We’ll do our best. MR. SMITH-I understand. We understand. We have a contract provision that time is of the st essence, as of September 1. th MR. PALING-Well, could we schedule it for the 27? Possibly have a meeting then, Wednesday? Is that good or bad? How does everybody feel? MR. STARK-Bob, make it for Tuesday. It goes late, that’s all. MR. PALING-Okay. It doesn’t, I’ll go with that if you want. It’ll be a long night. MR. SMITH-We can be here Tuesday. We can stay late. MS. CIPPERLY-Bob, I think Lombardo’s application wanted to be on in September, not next week. MR. PALING-Okay. That’s right, too. So what we have on there is six plus one, and I don’t dare to say what’s long and what’s short anymore. MS. CIPPERLY-You would need to leave the public hearing open, in that case. MR. PALING-Yes. We will leave the public hearing open, and with the concurrence of the Board, we’ll put it on next week’s agenda. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. Now, did you wish to make further comment? MR. SMITH-No. I would like to provide the staff this information, the Offering Plan and the permits. MR. PALING-Okay. I think this gentleman back here did want to say something. We’ll try to keep everything brief, if there are any more comments. MR. SMITH-What date was that? th MR. PALING-Tuesday the 26 , a week from tonight is our next meeting, and we hope to have the material in our hands Thursday, Friday at the latest, kind of a thing. Then we’ve got the weekend to look at it. MR. WALSH-My name is Joseph Walsh. I would just like to offer a brief reply to Mr. Smith’s remarks. First of all, he indicated, or at least gave me the impression that he said the Adirondack Park Agency had decided the issue, to the effect that the applicant would pay two units worth toward road maintenance. I spoke with Gary Duprey, last week, just before the, I think the Agency met, unbeknownst to me it was meeting, and my conversation with him, when I pointed out and he had faxed me the proposed draft of the permit, and when I commented to him on that preamble language in there, as far as the applicant proposes to pay two units, he was under the distinct impression that the Association had agreed, in fact, to such a sharing arrangement. As my letter to him of last week confirmed, and the Planning Board was copied on that letter, we emphatically pointed out to Mr. Duprey, the Association had no way even been approached with this proposal. At one point in time Mr. Smith, last March, had suggested one unit. He was told at that meeting by me that that would be totally unacceptable. Please think about it and get back to us. The next 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) time I heard about it was in the draft permit, where it stated they would pay two units. Mr. Duprey, in questioning him further about this today, acknowledged that this is just what the application stated, or the applicant stated he wanted to do. It is certainly not binding on the Association. How could it be? We were not a party to that proceedings, even though we had asked to be notified of the Agency’s deliberations. We didn’t get that notice, Number One. So if you were left with the same impression I was, following Mr. Smith’s comments, that decision by the Agency, as far as that language in the draft permit, is certainly not binding on us, nor do I think it is binding on this Board. The other point I’d like to briefly make is in my conversations with Planning Board staff and with Gary Duprey at the Agency, there seems to be a little bit of this going on, as far as who’s going to do what between the Town and the APA. The APA isn’t going to act unless this Board approves, through it’s site planning review function, this aspect of the PUD. Your approval, on the other hand, would directly reference and incorporate the APA permit. There’s a little bit of a circle going on here, as far as who has to go first and take responsibility for assuring some of these compliance issues. I would remind that under your Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Board, in its jurisdiction over PUD’s, does have the ability to, under Section 179-59(1), it does have the ability to impose certain financial responsibility and obligations on the applicant, in connection with the PUD, including performance bonds, to make sure that roads are, in fact, constructed as they were proposed to be suggested. Now I’m not suggesting that you have to do that, because in theory the APA is going to do that for us, but I do take issue when Mr. Smith is asked the question, are you in violation of the Town’s PUD, and he very carefully walked around it. I would agree. As far as the use of the Golf Course, there is no violation, but the PUD, I do believe, incorporates by reference as one of its conditions, the APA permit, and to the extent specific permit conditions have remained uncomplied with, for seven years in the case of the motel coming down, and for apparently a number of years which no one really wants to truly admit at the APA, as to the performance bonds, which were let go. Now, did the Sponsor amend his Offering Plan, as he’s required to do to disclose that there are no longer Performance Bonds in place? The answer is, and when you see this document, the answer is no. He didn’t advise the homeowners that, notwithstanding, that the Offering Plan, which incorporates a copy of the APA permit, which says, thou shalt have this Performance Bond, was apparently let go, by the APA, under some misimpression or what. That was not disclosed, and the Agency has finally acknowledged, after several months of arguing with them on the subject, that, yes, in fact, that Performance Bond requirement should never have been released. It was, and that wasn’t ever disclosed in the Offering. So we have an ongoing, I think it’s a technical violation of the APA permit, which is a direct condition, I believe, of the Town’s PUD. So is there a violation? There may very well be an existing violation, not only of the APA permit, but of the Town’s PUD legislation. That’s a possibility. I don’t know if that’s a fact. Finally, again, Mr. Smith told me emphatically, last March, that of course we’re going to pay our fair share of road maintenance, and tonight he’s telling you, as Mr. Feeney told me earlier tonight, that, well, read your Offering Plan. We get the right, and we don’t have to have any corresponding obligation to contribute if we don’t want to. So you should take our two units, and be thankful for it. When you read that Offering Plan, I would like you to pay close attention to its scope. It is very clear that what it covers is Phase I and Phase II of this PUD project, which is the Phase I 46 units and the Phase II buildout of the units 170 and about 130 acres of the entire 1300 acre PUD. It is my position, and I would suggest that if there’s any doubt in your mind, there’s an easy way to clear it up, and that, lets ask the Attorney General. Is there a requirement to disclose the intention to sell of the Golf Course, which was never disclosed initially in the Offering Plan as it stands. The Sponsor is in control of this project. The normal routine under today’s regulations that the Attorney General, the Sponsor has to disclose in the Offering Plan what he owns as contiguous property and what the intentions are. If he’s then going to go on, and if he were to sell the Golf Course and the Golf Course was to have its own road, not an issue. There wouldn’t even be Attorney General regulation, but because he is selling the Golf Course with that shared road facility, that is a continuing jurisdiction question for the Attorney General to be involved in, and I would submit that perhaps any approval should be made contingent upon the Attorney General either blessing this as is, and agreeing with Mr. Smith’s interpretation, or with our interpretation, that, yes, you have to in fact disclose this in the ramifications. Mr. Smith also made reference to the various budget figures which were contained in the Offering Plan, and from time to time amended. I will submit it’s very unclear as to whether the various references to the roads that you will find in the various budgets for Phase I, Phase II, and I think those are the only two that deal with the road, really are talking about the access road in question. I think they are talking about the internal roads, because at one point the loop road inside alone is 4500 feet, referenced in the APA permit, and on top of that, there’s an additional 4800 feet of driveway accesses serving only the HOA Association. So when you go through that, please don’t assume that Mr. Smith’s version is correct. I believe that the numbers in those budgets reflect the 4500 foot loop road, and the 4800 feet of access drives, separate and distinct from the 1200 foot access road which clearly is the Sponsor’s obligation until he sells it, the project is built out. The other thing I would just suggest to you, as a matter of fundamental property law, if I get 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) the benefit of an easement, even if my agreement or easement doesn’t say I’m obligated to pay, I believe the law is pretty clear that there is a corresponding obligation to kick in, unless there is a contrary intent specified in the agreement. The Offering Plan, as far as it goes, covering only 130 acres, really didn’t deal with what the Sponsor was going to do beyond that, because the Sponsor didn’t know what the Sponsor was going to do 10 years ago, and to suggest that we are stuck with a perpetual onus to maintain the road to the benefit of all the other owners in the PUD, I think really doesn’t make a lot of sense, and certainly if that is proposition that could be asked of the Attorney General, and I expect their answer would be, certainly not. They have to go back and amend their plan to disclose exactly what the ramifications are, and what the interrelationship will be between the homeowners association and the Golf Course in the future, when we get to the issue when the owners have to share the responsibility for the road with someone else. The suggestion that Mr. Feeney is entitled carte blanche, without having to pay a corresponding fair share I think is contrary to law, contrary to the intent of the APA permits, and the Offering Plan. Thank you very much. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you, but lets clarify and be clear on one point, and stop me if I’m wrong. This Board will not be reviewing the Offering Plan. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s up to you. You can. MR. PALING-No. I don’t intend that we do review the Offering Plan, because I don’ think we have any jurisdiction there. We’re going to review the documents that we talked about before, the minutes, the resolution, the APA agreement, and the specific documents we referred to, but I don’t believe that we should review an Offering Plan, because I don’t think we have any jurisdiction over it anyway. MR. RUEL-If somebody wants to look at it, it’s not going to hurt anything. MR. PALING-If you want to look at it, go ahead, but the Offering Plan is independent of anything we do. We have no jurisdiction over an Offering Plan. MRS. LABOMBARD-Do you concur with that, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-You certainly have no jurisdiction over enforcing the terms of an Offering Plan. That’s definitely true. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, then you’ll provide us with the information requested, and it does not include the Offering Plan, and I hope things fall in place such that we can make this all work within the timeframe you’ve asked for, and we’ll do our best is all I can say. So the public hearing is still open, but there’ll be no further notice sent out of it. It’s just open, but there won’t be any other mailings or any other notices of that, and the next meeting on this will be a week from tonight. Again, I’m sorry, but you’ll have to be the last on the agenda. So it might be a little late night for all of us. Okay. Now, do we need a motion to table this, I guess? MR. RUEL-Do you want a motion? MR. PALING-Yes. MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 10-97 TOP OF THE WORLD GOLF RESORT , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Until 8/26/97, to allow the Planning Board time to review documentation relevant to this application. th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. See you in a week. MR. MAC EWAN-Two things on this Top of the World thing, updated maps. I want to know what I’m looking at, and Number Two, the Offering Plan, I think you made a mistake on that. The reason why I’m suggesting we take a look at that section of the Offering Plan. I don’t want to look at the whole thing, but the Section of the Offering Plan that Smith referred to, because he made statements in there that they met the obligations of the APA permits, what was done according to the Offering Plan. The Offering Plan that they said they’d do everything they were supposed to do, was contingent upon those APA permits. We’re going to base our ruling on those APA permits. So I want to know if they did do what they were supposed to do. So I at least want a copy of it. I only want that one Section. I don’t want the whole thing. I want that one Section he read to me tonight. He read it to me twice, and both times he read it to me, he didn’t read it to me the same way. MR. PALING-All right. Lets take that up after this. I think it will be easier. We’ve had a request by one of the Board members, the Chairman, I think it is, George Stark, to re-visit the Ermiger Go Kart situation, which I agree we should discuss again, and then since then we’ve got a letter from Lemery & Reid, in which I think we better read this letter. I haven’t read it yet, and then just discuss this matter further, and see if we come up with a recommendation or something. MR. STARK-I’d like to talk to Mark about this for a second. MR. PALING-Okay, but don’t you think we should read the letter first? MRS. LABOMBARD-Read it . It’s basically everything we already know. It was in the paper. MR. STARK-They’re having a duel in the paper now. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. PALING-Yes, I know. Okay. Lets just read this. It will take a minute. Okay. George, we’ll turn the mic over to you. MR. STARK-Mark, this thing does make noise. Tommy Nace stood right there and said, if there’s any complaint, he didn’t conditionalize or anything, any complaint, we’re going to close right down at 11 o’clock. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s correct. MR. STARK-Marianne’s had a million complaints. She’s made a million complaints, and now Ermiger’s new hot shot there says, well, it’s not enforceable because it wasn’t in the motion, and John kind of agreed with him. Okay. Now John isn’t the lawyer for the Board, or for the Town, for that matter. You are. What should we do about this? MR. SCHACHNER-“We”, the Planning Board, can’t do anything about it, but my understanding is that John Goralski is intending to issue a notice of violation, and is intending, if necessary, to take this to Town Court. MR. STARK-When will this happen? MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t know the answer to that. I assume soon, but I don’t know. MR. STARK-No, I mean, because, you know, if Ermiger stalls it, and all of a sudden it’s st September 1, which in two weeks it is. It’s been 13 days now. They’ll say, okay, what the hell, we’ll close at 11. What the hell, we’ll close at 10 now. It’s the end of the season, and then everything kind of goes away, and then next year, Fourth of July, well, we’re open until 12 again. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, all I can say in response to that is, it’s certainly correct that, being that th it’s already August 19, a Town Court enforcement action might not be resolved prior to Labor Day. That’s certainly correct. If it’s not resolved prior to Labor Day, it can still be resolved, and it’s resolution would presumably have a lot of impact on what does or does not happen next season. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) MRS. LABOMBARD-But then all the damage is done, and they’d lose all their guests for next year. MR. STARK-She’s actually sustained a large monetary loss, period. I go by her Motel every night on the way home. The last few nights she’s been full. Very rarely is she full this year, whereas in the years past, and this is a pretty good year. I mean, everybody can see it’s a pretty good year. She hasn’t been full half the time that she was last year. Now I don’t know whether that’s attributed to her operation, or Ermiger’s making noise. I’m just stating a fact. She is not as full as she has been in the past. So this is correct in saying her business is down, and I feel I dropped the ball on this, personally. Tommy Nace is making all kinds of promises up there, you know, this is quieter than the other two go kart tracks, and geez, if that’s the case, anytime anybody says anything, we’re going to put it in the motion. The motion’s going to be a mile long. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, quite honestly, I think the Board, well, whether you recognize this or not, I will certainly say as your Counsel for a little over three years now, it has always, consistently, I believe, I hope always consistently been my advice to take any feature that you feel important, as a condition of approval, and incorporate it into your motion for approval. MRS. LABOMBARD-But, you know, Mark, we got bumped on this, because Tom Nace, the familiarity that we have with him, and he’s like Mr. Good Guy, and that’s why, we were had. Not me, I voted against it. MR. SCHACHNER-I think you may be right, but again, I have to say, and I don’t mean to sound like a broken record, but I have to say that you have to, in my opinion, you have to take every application on its merits, take every representative on their merits, and it doesn’t matter whether the representative is somebody that you’ve dealt with for 100 years and trust as far as you can throw them, or further, or it’s some complete stranger that’s new in Town. It doesn’t matter if the applicant is somebody you know and trust. It doesn’t matter if the representative is somebody you know and trust, and that’s why I’ve made some of the statements I’ve made in the past about the manner in which we make our decisions. It’s very difficult to do what I’m saying, but what I’m saying is, when you hear an important feature of a particular application that you feel is sufficiently important so that it’s really critical, I absolutely do agree that it should be part of the motion for approval, and I do agree that that will make your job a little more cumbersome and will somewhat lengthen your resolutions of approval. I think you’re right, George. MR. PALING-The only part I disagree with you a little bit on, Mark, is the degree. Well, then you say, is it important or isn’t it important? I don’t think we can tell at that point in the discussion, and the only way out of it is to then make these long resolutions, and it’s what we’re going to have to do until at least we resolve this matter. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I guess what I mean by degree of importance, Bob, is that you may have an applicant who makes a representation about something that the Planning Board really doesn’t care about. Whatever it may be. That’s all I meant. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. I’d like to read into the record, and I’d like it specifically turned over to John Goralski, so that we don’t miss it, that these are the, I’ve been through those minutes quite a few times. There are three references to change in closing times. On the 8/20 meeting, th they’re on Pages 81 and 82, and on March 19 they’re on Page 30. Tom Nace further suggested to us that in order to make a judgment on noise, we visit other tracks. I think this is very important. th On the 8/20 minutes, they’re on Page 58, and August 29 minutes, they’re on Page 14. Point Three is that they stated emphatically that the motors are enclosed in a fiberglass housing th references August 20 Page 61, and the dictionary definition of enclosed is what I’m going by, th means completely covered, and they don’t even come close. They also said on March 19, Page 25, that the turns would be banks inward. They’re not banked inward at the most critical spot, where the greatest noise is generated on the corner, near the motel. They’re banked outward. MRS. LABOMBARD-More noise on Route 9. That was supposed to camouflage. MR. PALING-Yes, and I would add this to it. In John Goralski’s absence, I tried to keep this going. George and I did, and we talked directly to Ermiger and to the guy that runs the track for him, and they said they would do three things. Number One, they’d put new mufflers on all cars. They did this. Number Two, they’d put right angle pipes on all muffler pipes to direct the noise downward. They didn’t do it. Number Three, that they would put three pieces of four by eight 44 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) plywood up on the critical curve I was talking about as a test to see if that would help muffler noise. They have not done it. MR. SCHACHNER-The first of the three they did do or did not do? MRS. LABOMBARD-The first they did. MR. SCHACHNER-The first they did, the next two they didn’t. MR. PALING-Yes. The mufflers they did do. The pipes they did not do, and the test, plywood, they didn’t do. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-How long ago did you go see him? MR. STARK-Two weeks. MR. PALING-Two weeks ago now, and I had, until John came back, I’d been there three or four times. So I think those are things that should be recognized, and I am personally very embarrassed over this thing, and I know darn right well, there’s not much going to be left out of resolutions now, and I hope that they back off on this. Because now it tells me how I’m going to deal with people that I thought I could take their word, but I don’t think I can anymore. MR. SCHACHNER-And I have to say, the more you adopt the attitude you’re talking about now, by far, the easier you make my job in defending us, by far, and just by way of example, I assume you all got a memo from me that we won our Newton’s case? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-By way of example, if you’ll recall that particular deliberation, at the end of it, when you made the motion to deny initially, I said, wait a minute, Planning Board, I think that our motion to deny is not specific enough, and we thought there was a possibility of challenge, and we kind of went back, and a couple of Board members in particular started getting into the nitty gritty of what was in the Ordinance, and I made a few suggestions, and I can tell you that, had we not gone back and added to that resolution, my opinion is we would not have prevailed in that litigation. Even though our reasons were the same, without specifying it, it’s not going to be enough. So I applaud your proposed change in approach here. I applaud it. I can tell you that it will make my job dramatically easier. MR. RUEL-If we have enough conditions, we won’t even need you. MR. SCHACHNER-All the better. If you want send me home, Roger, that’s fine by me. MS. CIPPERLY-I think this Top of the World thing, too, is a good example of somebody in the future trying to figure out what you did on a particular night. If all the conditions are, I mean, the Planning Board is going to change, and the more specific you would be, the better off we’ll be in the future. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, the other thing, Bob, as far as getting too concerned about getting nit picking, like George says, mile long resolutions, it seems to me, lets face it, most of the applications we have before us don’t have any opposition. This is my perception anyway. Don’t have any opposition, don’t have any controversial issues like noise or whatever, and I don’t think it will necessarily change, you know, the attitude or approach we’re talking about, I don’t think will nor do I think it has to necessarily change what I call your green, garden variety, typical application that doesn’t have any problems with it, that nobody opposes, but when you have controversial ones, that people are concerned, raise specific concerns or that have issues of controversy, I’ve said, I hope I’ve always been consistent in saying, the more detail you add, the more specificity you add, by far the better. MRS. LABOMBARD-Like, I think that when we did the boathouses, the 14 feet stipulation, to me that is redundant, because I always thought, they can’t get a building permit unless the plan is there, plus the building code inspector goes on the job, and if it’s not there, he’s just going to, you know, but we always put that in. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. The truth of the matter if you’re correct. That’s not necessary because you can’t get the permit if it exceeds that height. You’re right. MR. PALING-Height is such a sensitive issue on the lake, though. MR. MAC EWAN-Probably we do that more so for the builder. MR. SCHACHNER-The bottom line, there’s no harm in doing that, but you’re correct in saying it’s redundant. The same thing for saying, for example, if something is subject to Lake George Park Commission jurisdiction, and you add as a condition of approval, this is only conditioned on getting Lake George Park Commission approval, that’s true, whether you say it or not, but I’m not sitting here telling you not to say that. You can say that. That’s fine. MR. STARK-Mark, reiterate what John’s going to do. He’s going to send them a letter? MR. SCHACHNER-I believe, based on a conversation I had with John Goralski, I believe it was yesterday, that he has now come around, if you will, to the opinion that this does constitute a violation based on the representations made by the applicant, during the course of your administrative review, and that, therefore, I believe he intends to issue, not a letter, but an actual violation, I believe. MR. MAC EWAN-It would certainly appear that what Bob has presented tonight would solidify his position even more. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, but I don’t want you all to get the wrong impression. I remain of the legal opinion that this is in a gray area, not a black/white. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, I understand. MR. SCHACHNER-But I also agree that we have some nice statements bolstering our side of this. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you know, as part of our deliberations, in coming up with an approval or a denial for a project, it’s not just based on the engineering, or the consultants reports that we see, but it’s also based on what the applicant’s testimony is, and what the public hearing says. So it’s not all just on written information or drawing information. It’s based on what they’re telling us. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s true. That’s certainly true. MR. PALING-Mark introduced me to a new term, though, that I thought described this very well. He called all this stuff that I referred to as feel good talk, and we got this, they said this, and they said that, and we felt good and they accomplished their purpose. We went away, and we had a lousy resolution. So, I used that with my daughter in a problem she had, and I said, listen, that’s feel good talk, Carol. MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t remember saying that, but I do use that phrase. MR. RUEL-What kind of talk? MR. PALING-Feel good. In other words, Tom Nace gave us this pitch about, hey, we’ll close at 11, no matter what the reason. Didn’t you feel good when he said that, confident? MR. RUEL-Yes, and I thought he would. MR. PALING-All right. Lets get on to the last subject. Craig has asked that we add one thing to the information. MR. MAC EWAN-Two things. I’d like to add to our packet regarding Top of the World. Add to our packet more accurate plans than what we had to look at tonight. I specifically want to know the areas where this roadway they’re talking about works into the Townhouse area, and where the motel is. That one we looked at, that map that he gave us tonight, I didn’t think was very accurate, and I’d also like you to put in our packets a copy of the Section in the Offering that Mr. Smith referred to tonight as being in compliance with the APA permits. MR. PALING-Craig is not asking for the whole Offering Plan. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/19/97) MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t have enough time to read the whole thing. MR. SCHACHNER-The only thing I want to add on that, if I could. To the Board, as always, I commend your efforts to try to do things in as timely a fashion as possible, but you all should th remember, in my opinion, the applicant came here on August 19, and the applicant is who asked, in March, that this be tabled. So don’t feel too much pressure. MR. PALING-We’ll try. Are there any more items to come before the Board? On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman 47