Loading...
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 facilitÅ“es 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 plannÅ“d 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 ~. ~ =~ ~~ ~ "".