Local resident urges residential reuse in Clinton Community College redevelopment, warns of lake safety risks

Thomas Metz, a Cliffhaven-area resident, told the Clinton County Legislature on Sept. 17 that redevelopment plans for Clinton Community College property should preserve lots north of Woodcliff Drive for residential use and avoid creating commercial lake access or paddlecraft rental operations. “They’re gonna get caught, and we do not our county does not need to have multiple rescues and attendant accident reports,” Metz said during public comment.

Metz said the college-area parcels were originally zoned residential and were transferred to the college to provide acreage for the campus; he asked the legislature and staff to steer redevelopment toward housing that could merge with the neighboring Cliffhaven and Wickliffe communities. He described an access road and an overgrown trail to the lake and said the narrow county access at the lake is “a small shallow area” bounded on the north by Cliffhaven Water and on the east by private property lines, arguing that the space cannot support a commercial operation with rentals and chase boats.

Metz said there is an existing kayak and paddleboard rental south of the Au Sable River Bridge that serves a relatively protected river launch, and contrasted that with Lake Champlain conditions. He recounted an August 28 outing in which winds “were 16 knots sustained with gusts above that,” and said even experienced visitors unfamiliar with the lake can be caught in sudden rough conditions. Metz said that risk makes commercial paddlecraft rentals from the college lakeshore undesirable.

He also noted that all three initial redevelopment concepts show housing west of Route 9 and urged staff to ensure housing would be affordable for the workforce of any nearby manufacturing, research, or resort employers mentioned in the proposals so employees could live near work. Metz said he brought photos of beach lines and access points to illustrate his concerns.

This statement was made during the legislature’s public comment period; no committee action or vote on the redevelopment plan occurred during the meeting. Metz’s remarks were recorded by the clerk and will be part of the meeting record available with the minutes.

Less-critical details from Metz’s remarks — including references to specific map lines and photographs he offered to the legislature — were provided to illustrate access constraints and shoreline configuration.

The legislature’s agenda that night included committee reports and many resolutions; Metz’s comments were a public-comment appeal and did not carry an immediate directive or formal vote.

Looking ahead, any formal change to land use or the college’s redevelopment proposal would require staff-level planning work, potential zoning or site-plan approvals, and committee hearings before the legislature could adopt policy or authorize projects.