1983-01-18
!:3
A special Public Hearing of the Queensbury Town Planning Board
was conducted Tuesday January 18, 1983 at 7:30 P.M.
Present: Mr. Threw, Mr. Dybas,Mr. Montessi, Mr. Sorlin Mr.
Chairman, Mr. Roberts
Queensbury Town Attorney Mr. PPime also was present
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Roberts explaining
why this special meeting was being conducted. Basically, this
meetimg is to give the people involved in the changes at the
top of the World a chance to explain their plans to the public at
hand. The Chairman also stated that final approval might not be
given here tonight but that they would have 45 days in order to do
so. Involved here is 1300 acres of land owned by Mr. Tuttle presently
known as Top of the World along with 330 f of frontage on the Lake.
Attorney Frank DeSantis was present representing the Top of the World
Development Corp., the applicant. Mr. DeSantis mentioned that there
is being planned a total of 170 units with 46 untts being set for
Phase I. This hearing is to determine whether or not the developer
has met the conditions set forth in the subdivision regulations. He
also mentioned that APA has accepted the application.
Mr. DeSantis brought up the fact that 150 of the proposed units will be
time sharing units. He then explained the term time sharing to the
public present. He also mentioned that annual assessments, set be a
Board of Directors which the owners will elect, will be made to go
towards the cost of the operation as a whole. The Board of Directors
will then set up by-laws and house rules. The time sharing units
will be sold fully furnished the remainder that are not time sharing
will not be furnished.
DeSantis also mentioned that water will be provided to the area pri-
vately. It will not be a drain on the Town of Queensbury system. He
next introduced Bruce Hiier, Landscape Architect.
Mr. Hiser explained how each unit WÐusdructure would be set. He also
explained how the trees in the area would be maintained in order to
maintain a full fiew of the area.
A gentleman in the audience (did not give his name) asked how close
the nearest building would be to the road which he pointed out on a
map. His concern is mainly because he owns the property adjoining this
acreage. He also questioned the lighting in the area.
Mr. Hiser said that the lights will be down lights relatively low.
There will be no lighting on the front of the buildings but on the
parking lots to the rear of the buildings.
Mr. Bishop, summer resident of Plum Bay had concern about the number
of people and the future use of the lake front.
Erosion Control was brought up with the answer from Mr. Hiser that
there is an erosion control plan to be implemented.
\
-
J-L(
Page 2
Special Public Hearing
Planning Board
Page 2
Attorney Thmmas West introduced himself representing the Lake George
Association.
Mr. DeSantis next mentioned that each of the units comprises approxi-
mately 1300 sq. ft. on two (2) levels. He mentioned that it is pro-
posed that the golf course will be upgraded. He mentioned the
facilities available for the owners such as tennis, golf, horseback
riding etc. He said that as the project progresses it will move into
other areas chosen for their buildability. The soil has a lot to do
with the buildatlility of the units along with the excellent views of
the lake itself. There are views to many areas such as Vermont and
the eastern portion of Mew York State. You can see three to four
mountain ranges.
Mr. Hiser explained on a map provided where the facilities for the
area are being planned. He explained that the residential units
themselves are being planned for areas where a view is available for
all. The area that is to be developed is the front end of the site
towards Lake George, the road up is the Lockhart Mt. Road. The front
end of the site slopes gradually and units have been placed setting
down the hill so that each one gets a view over the top of the next
one. On the other side of anhill where the existing buildings are
now we plan putting in a large building to house the indoor swimming
pool, indoor tennis, health clúb etc. Outdoor pool, tennis etc. is
also planned. The existing reataurant will be refurbished. The
golf course will be upgraded. This is the basic schematic concept
being proposed.
Th~s is what is called Phase I, the first 46 residential units for
which a Class A permit is being requested from the Adirondack Park
Agency. Consists of units, roadwork to get into it, utilities,
water supply, sewage disposal and landscaping and a swimming pool
that will service these units.
Photographs of the area were taken from different spots on the
Lake which were on display to show what the area will look like from
each location used. The pictures showed that it would be very hard
to see anything from the lake up on the mountain.
Mr. Hiser answered the question regarding where the road went through
which it did not show on the renderings there. The nearest unit would
be 4-500 yards from the road itself. He mentioned it would be very
hard for the gentleman concerned to see anything from where fue is
located.
Mr. DeSantis asked Mr. Hiser to discuss the colors of the buildings
and other aesthetic items involved.
Mr. Hiser explained that he went out on the lake for a view up to :
determine the best colors for the area and what was discovered was
that that a dark brown or grey building that didn't have any white
-- drapes or trim could be missed. He pointed to the layout on the
desk explaining the color scheme would be similar to that but a little
darker.
~~
Page 3
Special Public Hearing
Planning Board
Page 3
He mentioned that the part of the mountain that will have buildings
on it is very small there is something like 150 feet of the mountain
that will actually have buildings.
Mr. Bishop next used some figures representing how many people would
be using the area which would be approximately 6,500 different people.
Concerned again about the use of the lake front area.
Mr. Hiser answered that not many people would be down at the lake.
Even in a motel situation where there is a pool it is utilized more
they rarely go to the lake.
Mr. Bishop brought up the fact that the area involved on the lake
faces West and gets sun all day long. He then asked what kind of
structures are intended for the lake shore property owned by Mr.
Tuttle.
Mr. DeSantis said this application is for a planned unit d~velopment
and by definition of the Queensbury ordinance all the property initially
must be contiguous. The property on the lake is not contiguous. No
property at the lake is contiguous to this parcel. For that reason it
is not part of the planned unit development. Additionally, the town
ordinance does not allow a planned unit development to take place in
a lake shore residential zone, this is another reason it is not part
of the development. That parcel is a potential lace access. However
that parcel is not part of this planned unit development. It never
has been and can't be by law.
The Chairman interjected that we have discussed this knowing that this
would be the most emotional issue of the entire project. You have
come up with some ideas about this which we have discussed. As was
said earlier, technically although it is not part of the planned unit
development, as a practical matter everyone is interested in it and
it seems as though we should be able to discuss it. He asked Mr.
DeSantis if he was prepared at all to discuss this tonight.
Mr. DeSantis reinterated the fact that it was his understanding of
this public hearing was that it was for the planned unit development
what he did not want to get into tonight was a discussion regarding
the lake front parcel. He iaid that there was a process whereby if
this Board sees fitproceed in discussing the use of the lake front
parcel, we will but he would like to go into whether or not the
developers met the conditions imposed upon them by the Town Board
because that is the reason for this public hearing. It should be
discussed apart from our application for the planned unit development,
because by law we can't tie it in.
Mrs. Mann agreed that the discussion on the development of the
top of the mountain should be completed before we discuss the lake
parcel.
-- Mr. Bishop then asked if the Board were to approve what they have
asked for, would that by defa lt give '.approval to what they propose
for the lake shore.
_I)' (p
Page 4
Special Public Hearing
Planning Board
January 18, 1983
Chairman Roberts answered No. It all has to comply with the current
ordinance which is very restrictive.
Attorney West asked if there was any diagram showing an overhead
view of the area in which maintaining tree growth is being planned.
Mr. Hiser said there was but it actually would be a site decision
as to what would be removed and what would be cut out. It can't
be shown exactly but generally it is shown on the drawings. He
explained the system used to decide how it would be done. He then
said until the units are actually in place it won't be known exactly
what will be cut, maintained or whatever.
Malcolm Mitchell, owner of adjoining property, again asked about
the road and how far back it would be to the first unit.
Chairman askef if better maps were available. There were better
maps in the building here.
Mr. Hiser said all the units are staked out but it will be difficult
until they were up to actually say which trees would be affected.
He pointed out the base of one of the units you would be talking
about 1300-1400 feet from the base of the Lockhart Mt. Road to the
first unit. The road is quite a way below the lowest set of units.
Mr. Mitc.hell then, asked the elevation of the golf building above
the road.
Mr. Hiser answered the elevation of the existing building is about
elevation 950. The road intersection is about 750, 200 ft. vertically
distant.
Next question involved parking lots. The answer to which was that
currently there will be a gatehouse at the entrance to control traffic.
There will be some parking for fisitors to the sight. Further up
the hill there will be a maintenance building with some parking for
vehicles adjacent to that. There will be a buffer zone between the
Lockhart Mt. road and the closest edge of the parking areas. There
will be some parking at the base to accormnodate visitor cars. There
will be a mini vehicle of some sort to drive the visitors into the
area
~he engineer for the developer was next. He explained that for the
first 46 units the developer plans to rehabilitate two existing wells
and bring the water supply from the wells to a new storage tank to be
located a few hundred feet vertically up the side of the mountain about
1000 feet away from the current central facilities area. It is planned
that some 91,000 gallons of water will be stored there. That water
will be sufficient for the untis there. This will meet all state
department of health regulations. He then described the proposed
- sewage disposal system, where it would be located and the different
agencies involved with it. It will be virtually an invisible unit
away from the area itself, it will be screened. There is also a
provision for chlorination of the water before it is pipied up to the
51
Page 5
Special Public Hearing
Planning Board
January 18, 1983
storeage tank. At it's manimum use, there is at least a 48 hour
'supply of water. If both wells should fail simultaneously there
will be adequate ~ater there. Auxiliary ~mwer will be developed
for the area. There is a backup existing supply of water on the
site which is an existing pond. As far as fire pcctection, all
units will meet all fire codes and where necessary sprinkler pro-
visions will be made.
Mr. Hershberg next discussed in full the plans for sewage disposal.
He discussed the water tables in the area. He was asked about the
test pits in the open area to the west are much deeper and seem like
much better soil, why aren't they sending the effiliiliànt from those
central core buildings west instead of east?
Mr. Hershberg said one of the problems is the density of development
in that area. From a visibility viewpoint it is practically invisible
if you want to have tennis courts, lighted facilitœes parking etc.
and cans't be seen from the lake. We decided not to dse one of the
best isolated areas from a view standpoint with the sewage disposal
system. As we get into this it pay prove there is adequate area in
there to accommodate the syptic system. It could possibly be divided
into different areas.
Storm water was discussed. Mr. Hershberg said that storm water
management and retention is included in the basic design. Soil
conditions were discussed.
A member of the audience asked how close any of the runoff would corne
to the stream in the area.
Mr. Hershberg said in the phase I area there is nothing within 200 ft.
Mr. Hershberg explained in full the design of the storm water plan.
There should be no runoff from the site. There will be a rather large
dry well structure to allow the water to perko late into the ground.
Erosion was discussed. There is provision for containing erosion
that would develop during construction. An erosion barrier would
be used. Several systems were discussed in full with drawings to
show where placed. Different steps are taken during construction to
prevent this erosion.
Chairman Roberts mentioned that it has been referred to several times
that your application before the park agency is just for a class A
permit on Phase I as well. He said he understood the application before
the park agency was for a Class ~ permit for khe entire project.
Chuck Scrafford said the application was for full project, the permit
was for Phase I.
---
Sð
Page 6
Special Public Hearing
Planning Board
January l8, 1983
Chairman next asked Mr. Scrafford how closely will future phases
be checked.
Mr. Scrafford answered that similar determinations as were done in
Phase I, possibly more detail. Potential problems such as any
streams will be picked up.
Mrs. Mann questioned asked what kind of agreements have to be
reached with the developer on these future potential problems
before the permit to the one being applied for is granted. What
kind of a time limit or agreement are you extracting from him for
something you might see down the road or are you just pointing
these out as potential problems, there is a big difference here.
Mr. Scrafford mentioned that any problems they are on top of.
Mrs. Mann added that what she is saying is if you are pointing out
something are you merely pointing them out as potential problems
or are you requiring him to make accomodations before yOU qrant
the permit verbally or written or what. - -
Mr. Scrafford said with regard to those streams, the condition
will read that they will have to meet those standards £
Mrx.Mann then asked if this was before you gave a permit for the
first or before agreeing on the permit for the second which would
include the stream.
Mr. Scrafford answered subsequent phases.
Mrs. Mann then said the phase that would involve the stream but
not necessarily if it wasn't involved in the first phase.
Mr. Scrafford this relates simply to the first phase.
Mrs. Mann in essence said that if þe meets the standards for the
section for which he is applying you will grant it regardless of
what your potential recommendations would be for future phases.
Chairman then asked if it was true that before initial class A
permit is given that you will feel faitly comfortable that there are
at least viable alternatives to solve any of the problems that are
pointed out initially. Future pcoblems are solvable in one way or
another for the entire project.
Chairman asked if the investigation of Phase 1 far enough along
to lend expertise and are they comfortable with what they have
seen.
',--
Mr. Scrafford said that they have looked at it closely but could
not give their recommendations. They would be conducting their
own public hearing.
S1
Page 7
Special Public Hearing
Planning Board
January 18, 1983
Chairman added that it is a question of which comes first. We
were relying on EPA to do some of the engineering, we knew they
would be doing it and we didn't want to spend Town money and
duplicate the effort. Unfortunately, their work is not that well
progressed for us to have benefit of that information tonight.
This could be a possible reason why we may not want to render a
verdict tonight.
Mr. Montessi asked fufiwhe (Scrafford) feel comfortable with what
you have seen here tonight to approve something like a Phase 1
and feel that the subsequent phases would not lock us into something
where there is a problem that you might see down the line.
Mr. Scrafford mentioned that the decision was not his.
Attorney West said it was his understanding that this Board would
have a review for each subsequent phase that is proposed and
therefore, any question, specific questions, that might come up
about a subsequent phase to meet a particular standard, or the
impact that might arise from the subsequent phase would be addressed
in detail at that time.
The Chairman added that we may possibly be looking at the overall
project a little more closely than we should be. It has been his
feeling that as a planning board that we wanted to look at the
overall project closely enough to be sure the whole thing will
work. Every phase will be tlea!t with in detail as it comes up.
Mr. West interjected that the Lake George Association would like
to recommend that the Planning Board review the entire project to
the extent that you assure yourselves that what is proposed is
feasible subject to seeing the detail work when the additional
phases are proposed. This is required by the State Environmental
Review Act for projects this size. In essence, the overall impact
should be considered along with the first part of the project. A
refined detailed analysis will come at a later time. We commend
that the planning board consider an in depth review at this time.
Bryan Harrison explained that all the analysis work has been c
filed with the Town.such as road, soil, sloap, shhool systems have
all been filed with the Town. Everything covers the entire site..
Mr. West added a few additional thoughts on behalf of the Lake
George Association. There is concern regarding the aesthetic impact
and environmental impact from both the sewage and ground water
treatment. He also suggested that it would be advisable to have
the developer submit a schematic diagram or some sort of rendition
of exactly what areas they intend to manage, especially involving
tree height. On the water quality issues, perhaps there is
something that could be required by the Planning Board, something
_. that the Adirondack Park Agency might consider would at least iive
a way of monitoring the impact of this project so that we aren t
cought up somewhere down the road finding that what was considered
~o
P a<1],e 8 '-'
Special Public Hearing
Planning Board
January 18, 1983
to be aotaylorèd design is in fact showing that the stream is
showing up certain pollution levels or in fact a ground water pool
is developing. We would suggest here that the planning board
consider some type of recently developed monitoring program so that
we don't get into a situation where there might be a malfunction of
the system that would go undetected. In that sence the monitoring
program could ee implemented to require periodic sampling of the
stream water and testing so as to be sure there are no adverse
impacts on the stream water. They also suggested a ground water
monitoring program.
A question of who would he (Mr. West) propose to make these tests
and who would make any decision.
Mr. Wese said that at the suggestion stage a plan could be worked
out where the project sponsor and the Town propose something sugject
to the approval of the Planning Board. The actual functioning
of a plan such as this is not new.
Mr. DeSantis said his concern about something like this is who
would be doing all the samples and who gets the results. The
developer has no problem with doing it.
Chairman asked if anyone was present who knew if the Queensbury
Water Plant lab could handle this type of testing.
It was decided that the Queensbury plant was sophisticated enought
to handle it.
Mr. West then said that this could be discussed at a later time
more fully but everyone should be aware of the problems involved.
Chairman added that maybe Mike White and the Lake George Park
Commission could help.
Chairman commented on the tree cutting. He asked if more than was
needed to be cut was cut. Why can't this be kept to a minimum to
start with and after the buildings are built cut what you have to.
Couldn't a few more be left this way, it is easier to leave them
than to replant them.
Mr. Boyce said that this was precisely why the operation of cutting
the trees was stopped. He pointed out where trees had been removed.
Charles Adamson asked who the individual who will take responsibility
for s~ying what is being done here will not adversely affect the
streams, etc. Who is going to sign off on that, some one person.
Mrs. Mann interjected that DEC will be reviewing, they have a
sanitary engineer, we have an engineer.
'--
Chairman added that one person could be Mr. Låmy.
C/
Page 9
Special Public Hearing
Planning Board
January 18, 1983
Mr. Adamson's main concern is the water problem, the septic
sewage problem, someone has to take the responsibility for
this.
Mr. DeSantis said that Mr. West made reference to different
monitoring programs, landfills, industrial waste disposal etc.
and included with the permits are a listing of all the criteria
which says that the permit governs that the discharge, concentrations
of, particular the elements in concern here will not exceed X-level.
There are three agencies empowered to move against anyone who
causes a health hazzard. The Department of Conservation, the
Department of Health and the local entity can all move to fine a
violator. The enforcing tools are in place and Mr. Boyce has no
problem with a monitoring program because it is in his best in-
terest to also know what is happening.
Mr. Wese said that the Lake George Association would provide the
project sponsor and the Town by letter what they feel should be
monitored after an opportunity to discuss this with one of their
experts.
Chairman suggested taking a short break.
Meeting called back to order.
Mr. Roberts said there was another item of cencern that hadn't
been discussed yet, that being the access on and off the mountain.
There has been some talk of trying to discourage people from
using the steeper road directly down to 9L.
Mr. Boyce explained the proposed use of the Lockhart Mountain
Road. Most of the people corning to the project will be coming
up the Northway and will enter 149, up Bay Road and up the back
side of Lockhart Mountain Road. Currently, somewhere between
100 and 150 cars a day go to the top of the world to view the
area and then hack down. The triffic impact study does show that
this will be increased slightly but not a lot more. We will be
encouraging our people to use the back entranee both corning and
going.
Mr. Sorlin asked if there wouldn't be more winter traffic than
what the current operation has wtth Mr. Boyce answering that there
was no question about it.
Chairman asked if there was any consideration at the moment for
trying to use another access, for instance the old road around
the back side.
Mr. Boyce said that would be another mile of additional road which
would be economically prohibitive. It was seriously considered.
trJ
Page 10
Special Piliblic Hearing
Planning Board
January 18, 1983
Attorney West asked if there had been any disQussion with the
Department of Transportation regarding traffic control at the
intersection. It is a relatively blind intersection.
Bryan Harrison ex?lained there appears to be a hazzard as a
result of the des~gn of the road now. Anyone who enters that
intersection is entering something where there may be some
potential hazzards because of the curve and grade. DOT has
nothing to say about that, the Town wishes to see that inter-
section made safer for one reason or another they need to make
a formal application to DOT to have them make a formal study of
the area. TheEe certainly is a problem there.
Mrs. Mann commented on the operations of DOT.
Peter Brown, a resident neaErthe bottom of the hill in question
was quite concerened about the increase of traffic up the mountain
road.
Betty Hedges, a summer resident of the area, concerned about the
adverse affect on the area. Referred to the development in
question as "Utopia". Mentioned that the activity up until now
at the lakefront area has not been busy. Now we are told that there
could be 150 persons using that site at anyone time. Historically,
this is a residential area. With increased development up until
now in the area, the Lockhart loop has become more and more dangerous
imagine what it would be like with more people coming down to use
the lake front site. It is a treacherous road, mountain roads
usually are, imagine what it could be like. I know this, I live
there. Her feelings were that the lake should be protected against
abuse and run-a-way development. The responsibility here should
lie also with the people who are already here. Concerned that
most variance requests are granted, most permits requested are
granted. There should be stronger control and we should protect
our treasure-Lake George. Most zoning ordinances she has worked
with state that in any change you must consider the general safety,
health, pease, comfort and general welfare of the community at large.
If this is approved, it is neither in the best interests of the
residents nor of the lake.
Chairman pointed out that in redoing the master plan recently,
it was in the wisdom of the Town and other people to see the Top
of the World as a valuable natural resource to be developed in
just this manner. It was rezoned so that this very thing could
happen. Maybe we wron~, probably you would not have agreed but
this development dosen t shock us all that much because it is zoned
very closely for this very thing. When we talk about benefits and
disadvantages to the area, it is true we need to talk about economics
as well and the facatthat owners of the property do have a right to
make a reasonable use of their property. These people are operating
¿?_)
Page 11
Special Public Hearing
Planning Board
January 18, 1983
very, very closely within the framework of our new ordinance.
Mrs. Mann added that after many public hearings were held after
many years before that was changed and it was accepted by the
Town Board and the public with the welfare of all the citizens.
This is exactly what it was zoned for with everybodies protection
in mind.
'--
Michael Bishop, another resident, said he has no objection to the
use of the top of the mountain but he is concerned however, that
if this first stage is given approval, will those people in phase I
be permitted to use the lake shore property.
Mss. Mann said that automatically 13 units of that development can
use the lakefront. If this is approved, they have access to that
lake, it is within the ordinance. Because of the number of feet
that there is on the lake he has access for the 13 families, with
docks, boats and everything else if it goes through. What we are
trying to do is negotiate something else. The reason this wasn't
on for tonight is the that the Public Hearing was on the PUD and
this lake front is not technically part of it. We know he owns
the land and we would like to know what he is planning on doing
with it. We are trying to protect the lake in the best possible
manner knowing what he has the right to use it for.
Mr. Bishop said that this might very well have been a commercial
property but he had fished there many years and very rarely saw
anyone there. For a long time this land has been used in a
residential manner, 150 people there would change what has been
used as residential into something entirely different.
Mrs. Mann mentioned that one of lthe options before them was that
13 families can use that lake with docks etc. what we are trying to
find is an option where we can keep the power boats off and use
it as a swimming facility, perhaps sunfish or for canoeing. That
is one of the negotiating points we are trying to work with is to
try and prevent 13 families coming in with 26 donzi's if that is
what they choose and they have the right to, parking cars etc.
as opposed to negotiating if you keep off these things maybe we
will be able to let you uàe it for a beach and expand the numbers
that you would have. We are also very interested in the quality
of that lake and in my opinion, keeping power boats off is a lot
better than just keeping people out of the water.
Mr. Desantis said he had no problems with discussing this particular
aspect. He just wants to close officially the public hearing be-
cause both items have been treated separately in the application
process and should be treated separately. If there is to be a
public hearing on the lake front parcel, this is not the proper
form nor the proper board. This would be before the Zoning Board
of Appeals. This is a public hearing on the plannœd unit design,
if you are ready to close it, then we are ready to discuss anything
the Planning Board wants to discuss.
(Pf
Page 12
Special Public Hearing
Planning Board
January 18, 1983
Attorney West wanted to go on record on behalf of the Lake George
Association saying that unless there is full consideration of the
lake shore property that it would be improper, in his opinion, to
have any of those lots whether it is 10 of the units or 13 depending
on whether you take into account the residential units that already
exist on the property to have any type of deeded or contractural
access by considering that as part of phase I. It is important
that either the lake shore property be considered tonight along with
Phase I or a desision on record that clearly states there is no
related use to the shoreline property.
Mr. DeSantis read portions of the ordinance relating to lakefront
property.
Mr. West spoke about contractural access to the property..
Mr. Montessi asked Mr. DeSantis for a sumation of his opening
statement which might be relevant here.
Mr. DeSantis said that it was his understanding, based on the
resolution that was passed by the Town Board on the 26th of
October that this matter was referred to the Planning Board for
its review and for the Board to hold a Public Hearing based upon
the developer's submission meeting the standaràs set forth for
a major sub-division in Queensbury. Language to that effect was
discussed with Joseph Brennan, Town Attorney and with the Supervisors
and with Steve Lynn, Building Inspector. By law, the Town of
Queensbury, no parcel that is in a Lake shore residential zone can
part of a Planned Unit Development. This parcel was ~ot part of the
application, it is not contiguous to the other parcel, for those
reasons it cannot be subject of a public hearing at this stage of
the proceedings. The fact that there is a lot of public interest
in this is not the determining factor. The determining facàoÐ is
what the developor (applicant) asking for, what is he allowed to
proceed under, what has been advised by the Town Board that the
preliminary plan approved for. This is not a proper subject to be
in the public hearing.
Chairman added that the public hearing probably should be closed
and if they are willing to discuss, we can then proceed. He then
asked if there w8øeany new information to be brought out.
Mr. Montessi interjected that the Town of Queensbury owns l~ miles
of lakefront on lake George, none of the tax payers have access in
terms of a public beach. A Town beach, wouldnlt it be nice if the
Town had some of those 12 miles as a Town beach. I am sure that
would be opposed by the Lake George Association or anyone who lived
there but we do not have a Town Beach, it is somewhat of a drawback
to our community. Why shouldn't the rest have access.
'--
0S
Page 13
Special Public Hearing
Planning Board
January 18, 1983
Mr. West added that they(LGA) believe it is properly within the
jurisdiction of the Town of Queensbury as referred here tonight
to consider all the impacts (related impacts) included within those
impacts are schmatic impacts, dangerous intersection impact,
environmental impacts, etc. the emotional impact here tonight is
the impact on the lakeshore property. That is the reason we feel
it would be improper to close the record without full consideration
of that potential impact.
Chairman said he would go on advice of the Town Attorney and disagree
and go ahead and close the meeting.
Mr. Prime, Town Attorney, said his position would be that the
applicant applied for the PUD at the top of the mountain only and
it wouldn't do any violance to the public hearing to close it and
as long as the applicant is willing to continue to discuss the
use of the lake shore property, then you can go ahead on that basis.
A question was asked from a member of the audience as to who would
be responsible for any pollution from the top of the mountain.
Mr. DeSantis said that there will be an association formed by the
owners of the units, there is a legal entity that will be responsible
for the maintenance and conduct of everyone in the development.
Mr. Montessi addressed a question to the Town Attorney. Do we call
for a motion to close the public hearing with the understanding
that the Planning Board has 45 days to render its decision?
Mr. Prime said you could close it or keep it open you would and
adjourn the proceedings if you wanted more time to render your
decision. You can adjourn this particular hearing if you need
more input from any source.
Mr. Montessi then asked how many days if the hearing were closed
would they have to render their decision, 45.
Mrs. Mann asked if it was adjourned and decide after getting the
reports to close it, must it be closed at a public hearing. How
does it officially get closed.
Mr. Prime answered that you fix a date to adjourn it to and that
is your adjourned date and if your information is in by that date
that is the end of the hearing. You have had your public hearing,
if you are satisfied and everyone has said what they want to say,
you can close the public hearing portion of your inquiry, adjourn
it to a fixed date for additional information if you so desire.
Motion by Mr. Montessi, seconded by Mr. Threw, all voting
affirmatively to close the public hearing as there is 45 days be-
fore a decision must be made. (Vote taken by roll call vote)
0b
Page 14
Special Public Hearing
Planning Board
January 18, 1983
The Public Hearing was closed.
Mr. DeSantis next mentioned that there is a review process going
on the the Adirondack Park Agency. He explained the procedures
involved.
DeSantis explained time sharing uses again. The land in the past
has been used by the top of the world guests, it was offered by
it's owner to them. Proposals were made to the board a few months
ago. We would be restricting access to this parcel. There would
be a reservation system just as would be used for any of the other
sports such as swimming or tennis. The people would not be allowed
to take their own private vehicles down to the lake, they would be
allowed to do this under the multiple family dwelling situation.
We propose access only by a shuttle bus from the top of the hill
down to the lake. We also propose there would be a limitation on
the activities taking place at the lake. For instance someone
could not operate a jet ski off of that dock, today they can do that
all they have to do is be a guest of Mr. Tuttle. There has been '
consideration that possibly one of the smaller charter boats would
be allowed to stop at the dock to allow the people to take a ride.
These restrictions would be made voluntarily. At this poin
Mr. DeSantis next began to multiply figures as to certain amounts
or numbers of people using areas of the development at certain
times.
Mr. DeSantis next had a statement from Mr. Tuttle regarding the
numbers of people he allowed to use the lake front area belonging
to him since he purchased the property.
-"
He next described the present structures on the lake property. They
will be upgraded with paint etc. The sewage consideration was also
discussed, it would be upgraded. This had been discussed with the
Lake George Association and agreed that a holding takk would be
installed. He also mentioned that the people will be informed that
this is a limited access facility, time would have to be reserved
and the only way to get to the la~e would be to walk or use the
shuttle bus. When the maximum number there was reached, no one
else would be allowed down there. Alarm systems were discussed
on the holding takk itself. You can make a lot more dollars in
other ways using that lake front than what we are proposing.
The developer needs to know for the record your position. Their
position is that there will be a continuation of the same type of
use that is there. That this is access property, that is what it
has been used for, it isn't single family, where one family has
owned it, although the one corporation has owned it. We also
feel that we are, by the nature of the development not anticipating
although this property was anticipated to be developed as a PUD.
He does not believe that that section of the ordinance that speaks
of mumtiple family dwellings and the section pertaining to tourist
accommodationsdid not anticipate something such as time sharing.
~7
Page 15
Special Public Hearing
Planning Board
January 18, 1983
Mrs. Burnett, member of the audience, asked if there was any
thought given to a restaurant or snack bar on the lakefron~ property.
Mr. DeSantis answered that there would be no food preparation on
the property. Risknmwich possibly could be taken down. Picnic
area might be furnished.
Another member of the audience asked once again about boat
traffic what size boat would be there.
Chairman said it had been clarified that what they mean is small
cBaft, windpowered, or human powered craft.
Mr. DeSantis asked to have a definition of the small craft.
Mrs. Mann said something with no motor, wind powered etc.
Chairman said that some type of small utility type inboard would
be needed to "ride heard" on the small boats for safety sake.
Mr. Adadman asked for a clarification of how many units would be
time sharing.
Mr. DeSantis said 150 of the proposed units will be time sharing.
Mr. Adamson also questioned 150 people using the lakefront area
from the start of the operation since all of the units won't be
complete, it dosen't seem fair to have that many people there yet.
Mrs. Mann reminded him that Mr. Tuttle, in his note, states that
164 had access at anyone given time. She also added that noone
knows that 150 people will use it at one time.
It was interjected here that as each phase gets completed the
numbers increase to the total of 150 people.
Chairman said that the total will be 150 when the project is
complete. He then said several things had to be decided and
maybe none could be done here. The Planning board is asked for
comments on this. We can recommend approval or di~approval to the
Zoning Board. It seems in talking to APA nhwtthat they have made
the determination that this density needs to be predicated en
single family units, multiple units, and that we need to be con-
sistant and that we can't use a different factor when we want to
figure the density of the shoreline. The variance really needs
to be a varianc to contractural access part of the ordinance.
Mr. West made some general comments regarding the effort which
has gone into the planned phases of the development. He mentioned
that he personally said that the project sponsor wasssincere.
0Ý
Page 16
Special Public Hearing
Planning Board
January 18, 1983
Mr. West mentioned that he had been to a meeting here a few
weeks ago where he thought it was agreed where the project sponsor
would put together a statement of facts as he saw them relative
to the prior uses of the lakeshore property. He asked for a copy
of the letter provided by Mr. Tuttle regarding the prior uses of
the property. He mentioned that they LGA had made a few inquiries
on their own one being with the Department of Health.. Their
records disclose that there was no Dept. of Health approval for
this facility to operate in 1982. Therefore, there is a question
as to whether or not there was a cessation of the use of lthe Lake
shore property. He also mentioned that the records of the Dept.
of Health indicate the maximum occupa~cy at the top of the hill is
60 persons, 60 individual persons. His concern revolves around
the existing buildings on the lakefront property as they have been
used in the past and how they are planning to use them in the
future. It will be something other than residential use and is
not in comformity with the zoning ordinance. He added that there
are at least three (3) separate variances required, one fo utilize
the shoreline, one to withstand the non-comforning use beyond the
burden that may have been established and finally the fact that
because the property will be changed from single family residential
with one dock, utilized periodically by hotel patrons to a situation
where 150 owners will have the right to corne down, have a party,
gather there, snack etc. is certainly a dramatic change from the
pre-existing residential use. We would commend the Planning Board
to recommend as part of this informal process that variance
procedures be implemented so that all issues can be fully addressed.
Mr. DeSantis added that they have put through their proposal and
we don't see a great deal of merit in continuing to argue whether
the proposal is based upon any of the various points brought forth
or whether or not this board should believe a neighbor, owner etc.
We have put through the proposal, the Board has indicated contact
with APA, the Lake George Association has made it's position claar.
Chairman added that the vaeiance, if deemed necessary, will have
to go to the Zoning Board by the developer, not by us.
Mr. DeSantis added that he feels hhat a decision as to whether or
not the planning board, as part of this process, which has been
ongoing for some time feels that a variance on any question in-
cluding the lake front portion is necessary. He then agreed that
the developer would have to go to the zoning board and the other
boards involved.
More discussion regarding people, boats, etc. which was mentioned
by Mrs. Mann as getting a little out of hand with what was to be
before them tonight.
Chairman said he would like to make a recommendation to the Town
Board but maybe we had better get advice from our attorney.
b9
~,
Page 17
Special Public Hearing
Planning Board
January 18, 1983
Mr. Prime added that if you want to make a recommendation he
thinks you can but it would require some legal input, maybe
some additional legal sources from the conncels who are here
with respect to the zoning ordinance then we can properly make
a recommendation as to whether a variance is needed or not and
then the applicant can go. He then added he wouldn't want to make
an opinion right now.
Motion by Mr. Montessi, seconded by Mr. Threw, all voting
affirmatively that the meeting adjourn.
!J'~) ~ / ,{/'./¡;~'J~i~~Jt;--
. 'C¿,jvP'-é
/,-,
J
/
/«¿,?..{' ,
,__ç¿;f;~~,&jC",/ ~~~.
~~
~
I
~.
~
=~
~~
~
"".