Lake George Park Commission

Meeting #362

  8 January 2008

Holiday Inn

Lake George, NY


Presiding: Bruce E. Young, Chair

Commission Members Present: Thomas K. Conerty Thomas J. Morhouse Kenneth W. Parker James T. Kneeshaw Roger H. Phinney Thomas W. Hall

Commission Members Absent: John C. McDonald, Jr. Shauna M. DeSantis John A. Pettica

Commission Staff Present: Michael P. White, Executive Director Lt. Thomas J. Caifa, Law Enforcement Director Roger R. Smith, Conservation Operations Supervisor II Molly Gallagher, Environmental Analyst II Michelle D. Way, Keyboard Specialist 1 Keith G. Fish, Operation’s Director

Commission Counsel Present: Martin Auffredou

Others Present:

Jeffrey Meyer Renee Jensen Tamara Chomiak Stewart Moore Barry Kincaid Kathy Bozony Melissa Lescault Brian Nearing Curtis Dybas Don Russell Jeff Provost Linda Lynch Stephen Lynch John Brody Joe Stanek Michael J. O’Connor Jack Gillette George Weinschenk Skip Horrigan Susan Millington Richard Baetens Joseph DeMauro Chris Girard Dawn Koncikowski Wayne Smith Robb Hickey Kamil Homsi Frank DeNardo Chris Navitsky Barbara Childress James Childress

Item #1 - Introductions, Roll Call, Minutes of Previous Meeting: Bruce E. Young

The 362nd meeting of the Lake George Park Commission was called to order by Chairman Young at 9:05 a.m. and the roll was taken.

Chairman Young said that the minutes of the previous two meetings (October 2007 and November 2007) were distributed in advance of this meeting to Commission members for their review. He asked if there were any corrections or submissions. There were none.

On the motion of Roger Phinney, seconded by Kenneth Parker, all Commission members present voted affirmatively to approve the minutes of the two previous meetings.

Item #2 — Fiscal Actions Report for October and November 2007: Peggy Stevens

Chairman Young said that the Fiscal Actions Reports for both October and November 2007 were submitted to the members for their review. He asked if any of the members had questions on the report. There were none.

On the motion of Roger Phinney, seconded by Kenneth Parker, all members present voting affirmatively, the October and November Fiscal Actions Report were approved as submitted.

Resolution 2007-75 — Purchase of Two Computer Systems

Thomas Conerty read and moved to approve Resolution 2007-75 which was seconded by Roger Phinney, all members present voting affirmatively.

WHEREAS the Commission has established a network of personal computers to integrate functions and achieve program goals, and

WHEREAS this equipment must be dependable and technologically adequate for the efficient administration of Commission programs, and

WHEREAS due to wear and tear associated with everyday use these personal computers must be periodically replaced, and

WHEREAS various personal computers in current use have performed well beyond their scheduled replacement period and are in need of replacement,

NOW THEREFORE be it resolved that the Chairman is hereby authorized to approve the expenditure not to exceed $2,500 for two computer systems purchased off state contract, consistent with State Finance Law and subject to pre-audit by the Office of the State Comptroller.

Resolution 2007-86 — Saratoga Associates

Thomas Conerty read and moved to approve Resolution 2007-86 which was seconded by James Kneeshaw, all members present voting affirmatively.

WHEREAS the Commission desires to withdraw from its agreement with Saratoga Associates Contract # C190318.

NOW BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Chair, Counsel and Executive Director are authorized to act on behalf of the Commission to withdraw from or modify the Commission’s agreement with Saratoga Associates or to enter into a new agreement for the conclusion of their work on terms favorable to the Commission.

Resolution 2007-87 — Purchase of User Fee Decals

Thomas Conerty read and moved to approve Resolution 2007-87 which was seconded by Thomas Morhouse, all members present voting affirmatively.

WHEREAS the Lake George Park Commission’s Internal Control Program sets forth the policy and procedures for Wharf, Mooring and Boat Registrations, and

WHEREAS the Internal Control Program procedures set forth that boat and wharf registration decals are important internal control documents necessary for the recording and audit of annual registration transactions, and

WHEREAS the Commission staff issued a request for quotation for the production and delivery cost of the 2008 annual boat and wharf decals, and

WHEREAS the purchase procedures for the 2008 annual boat and wharf decals have been conducted in accordance with the State Finance Law and the Commission’s Internal Control Program, and

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Commission approves the purchase of the 2008 boat and wharf decals not to exceed four thousand two hundred dollars ($4,200.), and

FURTHER RESOLVES that the Chair is authorized to execute a purchase order for such 2008 boat and wharf decals consistent with the State Finance Law and Office of Standards and Purchase of the Office of General Services procurement guidelines.

Resolution 2007-88 — Loftus Ross & Company

Thomas Conerty read and moved to approve Resolution 2007-88 which was seconded by Roger Phinney, all members present voting affirmatively.

WHEREAS the Lake George Park Commission has established an Internal Control Program, one component of which is an annual review that includes: an evaluation of internal controls; testing for adherence to those controls; and a review of the financial statements provided to management and the public, and

WHEREAS the Commission desires to complete the review for the twelve month period ending March 31, 2007, and

WHEREAS the Commission has examined the proposal by Loftus, Ross + Company, P.C. for price reasonableness and has acknowledged that retaining a provider with prior experience with the Commission provides continuity of the control program, cost savings and strengthens the quality of the review results, and

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Lake George Park Commission authorizes the Executive Director to retain Loftus, Ross + Company, P.C. to perform a review of financial statements and review of internal controls in accordance with the attached engagement letter for an amount not to exceed $3,280.

Resolution 2007-89 — Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes

Thomas Conerty read and moved to approve Resolution 2007-89 which was seconded by James Kneeshaw, all members present voting affirmatively.

WHEREAS resolution 2007-47 authorizes the Chair to execute an agreement to obtain general, special and enforcement related legal services from Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, P.C. in the amount of $183,000 for a period of three years beginning October 1, 2007, and

WHEREAS the contract executed by the Chair in accordance with the resolution has not been approved under the pre-audit approval procedures of the Office of the State Comptroller and additional procedures including a re-submission may be required, and

WHEREAS the Commission desires for the time being to continue legal representation by Martin Auffredou and the firm of Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, P.C. on the same terms and conditions of the agreement expiring on September 30, 2007, and

WHEREAS the Commission finds that the RFP process conducted in May of 2007 and the evaluation by the Commission’s Ad Hoc Committee of the proposals received after public notice, together, form the basis for a determination that the proposal of Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart and Rhodes represents the best value for obtaining legal services for an interim period after weighting costs and other essential considerations, and

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Commission authorizes the Chair to execute an agreement with Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, P.C. to provide general, enforcement and special legal services to the Commission on the terms specified in the attached proposal for a period of October 1, 2007 to September 30, 2008 for an amount not to exceed $47,000.

Item #3 — Project Review — Public Comments on Pending Applications and Project Review Resolutions: Molly Gallagher Molly Gallagher read from a prepared statement regarding Project Review Procedures (attached).

Resolution 2007-77 — Project Review Actions Report

Thomas Morhouse read and moved to approve Resolution 2007-77 which was seconded by Roger Phinney, all members present voting affirmatively.

WHEREAS the Commission has received and reviewed the Project Review Actions Report prepared by staff and dated December 4, 2007, and

WHEREAS the Project Review Committee recommends acceptance of this month’s Project Review Report.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Commission directs that the Project Review Report be incorporated in full in the minutes of the full Commission meeting.

Wharf Construction submitted by Irving & Marcia Metzger, Town of Bolton, County of Warren

Molly Gallagher introduced the project. She said that this project has been before the Commission members several times in the past. She said that the application meets all of the LGPC limits but there is a question regarding interpretation of the 20 ft. setback.

Molly Gallagher said that visual impact concerns have been expressed by the neighbors.

Chairman Young asked if anyone was present to represent the project.

Curt Dybas spoke on behalf of the Metzger’s. He said that he has already submitted documentation and is here to listen and to respond, if he may, to any unanswered questions or concerns.

Michael O’Connor spoke on behalf Steven Lynch, Linda Lynch and Brad and Kris Irvine. Mr. O’Connor spoke about the fact that the application was tabled at the June meeting with the understanding that a jurisdictional request would be submitted to the Adirondack Park Agency. He said that he has not heard anything regarding this from the applicants lawyer.

Mr. O’Connor said that actual survey numbers have not been mentioned in the application — just approximations. He said that he believes that a variance is clearly needed.

Mr. O’Connor discussed some of the issues confronting the small bay such as safety concerns, congestion and visual impacts. He also spoke about the report he submitted from a safety engineer.

A discussion continued regarding the history of this bay in regard to safety. Mr. O’Connor discussed an accident that occurred several years ago regarding the Irvine’s daughter.

Mr. O’Connor said that the big issue is safety, “I don’t know how you get past the issue of safety.”

Steven Lynch spoke against the application. He spoke about traffic in the bay and said that they are very confined in a congested area.

Mr. Lynch spoke about safety concerns in the bay regarding the large rocks and the many swimmers who use this area to bathe. He said that he has ten grandchildren who swim in this area.

Mr. Lynch also spoke about the Metzger’s Hacker Craft boat. He said that the bay is a very congested and highly used bay.

Linda Lynch spoke against the application. She said that her property is located next to the Irvine property and said that she has 3 children and 10 grandchildren that use this area to swim.

Mrs. Lynch said that one of the reasons the property was bought was because of the Bay. She said that it wasn’t for the wide open lake where you have to stay right next to your dock.

Mrs. Lynch discussed the view from her property as well as the view from the Metzger property. She asked if trees and brush are more important than our children.

Curt Dybas said that he tries to avoid all rhetoric. He spoke about the accident that was brought up by Mr. O’Connor and the Lynch family. Mr. Dybas also spoke about the survey lines that were in question and said that they do no have a certified survey but they are willing to do so.

Mr. Dybas said that the loft has been removed from the application - he said that the height is 8' above the watermark. He said that the Metzger’s have no desire to build on the open water side of the property (referred to issues of ice damage).

Mr. Dybas said two boats will be two boats. He said that he respects the neighbors comments and has never been aware of any erratic backing up.

Chairman Young asked if there were any further comments. There were none.

The Commission members had a discussion with Martin Auffredou regarding a 100 ft. staff determination. It was noted that this type of situation only comes up when dealing with peninsula’s in the lake.

Thomas Morhouse asked if Martin Auffredou had any comments.

Martin Auffredou said that Commission staff’s decision makes sense and nothing in the regulations are specific about this as long as the decision is not arbitrary or capricious.

Martin Auffredou said that he would have to agree with staff and say that there is not enough evidence for a variance.

Thomas Morhouse asked if the configuration of the boat house would allow for four boats. He said that he could see approving this application if the sides were not enclosed and dock usage was limited.

Kenneth Parker said that he has experienced the LGPC asking other applicants to utilize property on another side. He said that he has the same views as Thomas Morhouse.

Roger Phinney said that the congestion is already there and will not change. He added that he is also opposed to an enclosed boat house.

Thomas Conerty said that he agrees that the congestion is a problem but said that it is already present.

James Kneeshaw said that valid concerns/issues have been raised. He also said that congestion is not caused by only one person but all the owners in the bay.

Mr. Kneeshaw said that he does not think that this addition would change the bay too much.

A discussion continued regarding the use of a roll up canvas for the sides of the boathouse.

Thomas Hall said that he is in harmony with the members. Mr. Hall also said that he agrees with staff decision regarding the 100' rule.

Chairman Young said that he agrees with staff regarding the 100' rule and agrees that a restriction should be placed on the sides of the boat house.

Commission members spoke with Curt Dybas regarding the possible approval of the application with the mentioned modifications regarding the boathouse.

Thomas Morhouse read and moved to approve Resolution 2007-78, seconded by Roger Phinney, all Commission members present voting affirmatively.

WHEREAS the applicant has applied for a permit for the construction of a 40' long, 19' 8" wide, L-shaped, crib- supported wharf and a boatcover/sundeck; and

WHEREAS the Lake George Park Commission has reviewed the application, supporting documents, comments received and other information which appears in the record; and

WHEREAS the Commission has made a determination pursuant to 6NYCRR 645-3.6 and the State Environmental Quality Review Act 6NYCRR 617.5 that the project is a Type II action and does not require further review of potential environmental impacts pursuant to this act; and

WHEREAS the action is considered to be a Minor project pursuant to 6NYCRR 645-5.3 and public notice has been published and distributed; and

WHEREAS the proposed construction intrudes into the setback area at a distance greater than 100' from the mean high water mark; and

WHEREAS the Commission has confronted similar situations wherein the property line extension is at an acute angle to the lakefront such that the 20' setback imposes a restricted area that is disproportionately large relative to the typical scenario; and

WHEREAS staff has applied a “rule of reason” interpretation that the extension of the property line is not indefinite but rather ends at about 100';

WHEREAS the Commission finds that the proposed project is reasonable and necessary and will not cause unreasonable, uncontrolled, or unnecessary damage to the natural resources of the state, including soils, forests, water, fish, shellfish, crustaceans and aquatic and land-related environment; and

WHEREAS the Commission finds that the project will have no adverse impact on the health, safety or welfare of the public, the environment or the resources of the Park; will not alter the essential character of the area in which it is proposed; will not lead to congestion in the Park and will not have an undue visual, cultural or audible impact on the neighborhood or the Park.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED The Lake George Park Commission hereby makes the determination that a variance is not required for the proposed construction and approves the above application, with the following modifications:

1. There shall be no more than two motorized vessels berthed at the dock. This does not restrict non-motorized vessels or prohibit temporary guest berthing.

2. The sides of the boatcover shall be open-sided.

Modification of an Existing Class A Marina submitted by McNulty, Sprague and Russell, Town of Bolton, County of Warren

Molly Gallagher introduced this project. She said that the Point Motel is looking to increase berthing to 9.

Melissa Lescault spoke on behalf of the applicant. She said that the application is in full compliance and said that the applicant has 600' of water frontage to place 4 docks and 3 moorings. She also said that no variances are required.

Ms. Lescault said that this is a completely new application and said that the planning board met in October and approved this project. The board was led through a complete SEQRA and EIS process and the unanimous vote was that no negative impacts were found.

Ms. Lescault referred to the Water-based Recreation Study that was done. She noted that Huddle Bay has 0% to 4% congestion and there were no reports of any “close calls.” She also said that are no concerns for public safety in this area. She said that this area is commercially zoned and adding 7 additional vessels will not change the public view of the area. She said that the purpose is to promote tourism to boost the area’s economy.

Melissa Lescault said that they are proposing to remove two (2) straight docks, add two (2) E docks and add three (3) additional moorings.

She said that the application was originally to add 4 additional moorings but they have altered this based on comments from the Marcella Sembrich Museum.

Melissa Lescault said that she is requesting that the application be approved based on the information provided.

Jeffrey Meyer, of Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, Firth, spoke against the project. He said that he is representing Twin Bay Village and would like to point out the numerous deficiencies in this application.

Mr. Meyer said that the application should be looked at thoroughly. He said that the SEQRA analysis with the Town of Bolton did go through the long process but they did not even recognize that Lake George is a critical environmental area.

Mr. Meyer spoke about congestion concerns as well as traffic concerns being a major impact on cars and boats on the streets and in the lake. He said that a greater concern for the Commission is the view from the lake to the shoreline.

Jeffrey Meyer said that the modification is significantly expanding the use of the property. He said that this is over-development and the parking area is already insufficient — parking would require removing too many trees.

Melissa Lesault rebutted the congestion concerns and spoke about the additional dockage. She added that Huddle Bay is already a commercial property area with many hotels, marinas, museums and stores.

A discussion followed.

Thomas Hall said that he does not see the basis for this application go to a public hearing. He said that he would be in favor of approving the project.

James Kneeshaw said that he would also be in favor of approving the project.

Thomas Conerty agreed with the other members and is in favor of approving the project.

Roger Phinney asked about the number of cottages compared to the number of docking spaces.

Kenneth Parker said that he would be in favor of supporting the project.

Thomas Morhouse said that this would not be a significant obstruction and also said that in fairness to the applicant the neighboring facility, Twin Bay Village, is not the most beautiful place either.

Thomas Morhouse said that he is in favor if the Western E is removed. He also asked about a justification for the moorings. It was noted that the family is using 4 slips at the boathouse and the additional slips would be used for rentals.

A discussion followed regarding adverse visual impacts.

James Kneeshaw said that it seems to him that we are over-regulating because this project has already been approved by the Town of Bolton.

Thomas Morhouse read and moved to approve Resolution 2007-79 which was seconded by James Kneeshaw.

A roll call vote was taken. The following are the results:

Ayes: B. Young, T. Conerty, J. Kneeshaw, T. Morhouse, T. Hall and K. Parker (6) Nays: R. Phinney (1)

WHEREAS the applicant has applied for a permit to modify an existing Class A Marina by increasing the number of customer berthing spaces offered to nine, constructing two new E-shaped crib wharfs, removing two straight piers and installing 3 new moorings; and

WHEREAS the Lake George Park Commission has reviewed the application, supporting documents, comments received and other information which appears in the record; and

WHEREAS review of the project under the State Environmental Quality Review Act 6NYCRR 617.5 (SEQRA) has been coordinated and the Town of Bolton Planning Board has made a determination that the project is an Unlisted action and, as Lead Agency for the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, has made a determination that the project will have no significant impact on the environment; and

WHEREAS the action is considered to be a Major project pursuant to 6 NYCRR 645-5.3 and public notice has been published and distributed as required; and

WHEREAS the applicant has demonstrated that the facility complies with the Class A Marina requirements of 6 NYCRR 646-1.2; and

WHEREAS the Commission finds that the proposed project is reasonable and necessary and will not cause unreasonable, uncontrolled, or unnecessary damage to the natural resources of the state, including soils, forests, water, fish, shellfish, crustaceans and aquatic and land-related environment; and

WHEREAS the Commission finds that the project will have no adverse impact on the health, safety or welfare of the public, the environment or the resources of the Park; will not alter the essential character of the area in which it is proposed; will not lead to congestion in the Park and will not have an undue visual, cultural or audible impact on the neighborhood or the Park.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED The Lake George Park Commission hereby approves the above application, with the following condition(s):

The composting toilet shall be installed prior to the issuance of the permit.

Wharf Modification submitted by Donald Fuchs, Town of Putnam, County of Washington

Molly Gallagher introduced the project. She said that this application has been looked at in the past. She said that the applicant is looking to make a non conforming dock conforming.

Skip Horrigan spoke for the project and said that he is the agent for the Fuchs and would be happy to answer any questions.

Molly Gallagher said that she has been to the site and did not see any real visual impacts.

Thomas Morhouse spoke about the fact that the canopy and boat lift are low profile. He also spoke about the removal of some trees.

Thomas Morhouse said that he was also at the site and feels that the application should be approved.

Kenneth Parker said that he agrees with Thomas Morhouse. He said that he would vote to approve the application.

Roger Phinney said that he has no issues with the application and would vote to approve.

Thomas Conerty said that he also has no issues with the application and would vote to approve.

James Kneeshaw and Chairman Young were agreed with all of the members and said that they too would vote to approve the application.

Thomas Morhouse read and moved to approve Resolution 2007- 80, seconded by Kenneth Parker, all members present voted affirmatively to approve the resolution.

WHEREAS the applicant has applied for a permit for wharf modification; and

WHEREAS the Lake George Park Commission has reviewed the application, supporting documents, comments received and other information which appears in the record; and

WHEREAS the Commission has made a determination pursuant to 6NYCRR 645-3.6 and the State Environmental Quality Review Act 6NYCRR 617.5 that the project is a Type II action and does not require further review of potential environmental impacts pursuant to this act; and

WHEREAS the action is considered to be a Minor project pursuant to 6NYCRR 645-5.3 and public notice has been published and distributed; and

WHEREAS the Commission finds that the application complies with regulatory limits and requirements; and

WHEREAS the Commission finds that the proposed project is reasonable and necessary and will not cause unreasonable, uncontrolled, or unnecessary damage to the natural resources of the state, including soils, forests, water, fish, shellfish, crustaceans and aquatic and land-related environment; and

WHEREAS the Commission finds that the project will have no adverse impact on the health, safety or welfare of the public, the environment or the resources of the Park; will not alter the essential character of the area in which it is proposed; will not lead to congestion in the Park and will not have an undue visual, cultural or audible impact on the neighborhood or the Park.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED The Lake George Park Commission hereby approves the above application as proposed.

Variance Request for Wharf Modification submitted by Robert Hill, Town of Fort Ann, County of Washington

Molly Gallagher introduced the application. She said that the applicant would like to extend an existing “U” shaped wharf by 8 feet. She said that a variance is required.

Frank DeNardo, representative for the applicant, said that the applicant is looking for an extension with a sun deck. He said that the property is unique and is in a large rock area where a lot of excavation would be needed. He said that almost every dock in the bay is non-conforming.

Richard Baetens spoke against the project. He said that the docking complex already extends into his water line and anything further would create navigational issues.

Mr. Baetens spoke about the intake valves at this camp, large boats that are docked directly in front of his camp, and navigational issues.

A discussion continued regarding the application for a variance.

Thomas Hall said that he feels the application is unsupported and would vote against a variance.

James Kneeshaw said that he agrees with Tom Hall and would also vote against a variance. He said it would be taking a tough situation and making it worse.

Thomas Conerty said that he would vote against a variance.

Kenneth Parker said that he has concerns with all aspects of the project and would vote against a variance.

Thomas Morhouse said that he has many concerns too and would vote against the variance.

Thomas Morhouse read and moved to deny the application which was seconded by Kenneth Parker and all Commission members present voted affirmatively.

WHEREAS the applicant has applied for a permit to extend a U-shaped dock by 8 feet, construct a new open-sided boatcover/sundeck and install two boat lifts; and

WHEREAS the Lake George Park Commission has reviewed the application, supporting documents, comments received and other information which appears in the record; and

WHEREAS the Commission has made a determination pursuant to 6NYCRR 645-3.6 and the State Environmental Quality Review Act 6NYCRR 617.5 that the project is a Type II action and does not require further review of potential environmental impacts pursuant to this act; and

WHEREAS the action is considered to be a Minor project pursuant to 6NYCRR 645-5.3 and public notice has been published and distributed; and

WHEREAS the applicant has requested variance from 6 NYCRR 646-1.1(c): (11) Every dock or wharf constructed shall have a minimum setback of twenty feet from the adjacent property line extended into the lake on the same axis as the property line runs onshore where it meets the lake, or at a right angle to the mean high-water mark, whichever results in the greater setback. This provision shall control over the provisions of section 646-1.6 (k) of this Subpart.; and

WHEREAS the applicant has not demonstrated that strict conformance with the regulations will cause unnecessary hardship due to unique and peculiar circumstances which impose substantial financial, technical and safety burdens.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED The Lake George Park Commission hereby denies the request for variance and directs staff to offer the applicant an opportunity to request a public hearing.

Variance Request for Wharf Modification submitted by Lagoon Manor Home Owners Association, Town of Bolton, County of Warren

Jeff Provost presented the application. He said that the Lagoon Manor Home Owners Association’s main goal is to provide 35 equal dock spaces to their members. He said that currently the docks are made up of three (3) different dock systems consisting of 12 shapes.

Mr. Provost said that they are seeking a variance and the biggest concern that he has is the hardship issue.

Martin Auffredou said that the fundamental questions needed to be answered. He said that a variance was obtained in 1990 and asked what has changed since then.

Martin Auffredou asked if all of the slips have been sold and how a slip is obtained.

Martin Auffredou, Molly Gallagher and Jeff Provost discussed the Bolton zoning application and the APA application. Martin Auffredou said that staff will have to have some communication with the Adirondack Park Agency and the Town of Bolton.

Molly Gallagher said that this application will be deemed incomplete because a copy of the application to the Town of Bolton is needed.

Kenneth Parker asked if all of the units have been sold and if they all have a dock.

A discussion continued regarding the initial design of the dock, whether dock slips are sold to the public and boat size limitations.

Jeff Provost said that a variance was received in 1989 from the Commission. He said that they are trying to improve and correct a situation that has not seemed to work for years.

Thomas Hall asked Mr. Provost to investigate and see if there is another option so that a variance is not required. He also asked about moving the beach area.

Mr. Provost said that he has come up with a plan to straighten things out but said that he has not brought this plan to his clients yet. He also said that the Adirondack Park Agency regulations would not allow for the beach to be moved. He said that the area is “off limits.”

Mr. Provost explained that the new plan he came up with is almost identical to what was done with Cannon Point HOA. He said that the big difference is that the original approval restricted 6 slips as no larger than 20' boats. They are asking to have this restriction lifted.

A discussion followed regarding the current units available in the HOA, dock construction, and variance requirements. Mr. Provost said that there are currently 24 units and 6 new units have been built.

Martin Auffredou spoke about the application. He said that it is unlike any application the Commission has seen before. He also spoke about the variance requirements and referred to a letter from December 10, 2007.

Mr. Auffredou said that from the original plans inception it just never worked. He said that the association would benefit from the dock reconfiguration.

A discussion followed regarding association rules and what the new dock reconfiguration would mean to the association.

Roger Phinney said that he has some concerns about the safety issue of backing into shallow swimming areas.

Thomas Morhouse said that he thinks the reconfiguration makes sense but he does not want to set a bad precedent.

Thomas Hall said that he has been thinking a lot about what Martin Auffredou said about the applicant owing us a better shot. He said that this circumstance is not a creation of the Commission. He said that he would vote to table the application but he would deny the application if he had to vote today.

James Kneeshaw said that he can see a semantic problem with this and spoke about some safety concerns. He also said that the reconfiguration makes sense and is a decent solution.

Roger Phinney said that it is certainly an improvement.

Thomas Conerty said that he finds the hardship requirement a little sketchy but he would vote to approve. He said that he would rather see it tabled than denied.

Chairman Young said that he would vote to approve the project.

Kenneth Parker made a motion to approve the application, which was seconded by James Kneeshaw.

A roll call vote was taken. The following are the results:

Ayes: K. Parker, J. Kneeshaw, T. Conerty, B. Young and R. Phinney (5) Nays: T. Hall and T. Morhouse (2)

The motion to approve was denied. Jeff Provost then asked the Commission members where he goes from this point on. He said that he feels that he has already supplied all of the needed information.

Chairman Young said that the floor was open to other motions. Thomas Hall elected to make a motion to table the application so as to provide additional information with respect to conditions that make the variance approvable. The motion was seconded by Thomas Conerty and all members present voted affirmatively.

A 10 minute recess was called so as to allow Commissioner’s Thomas Hall and Thomas Morhouse opportunity to speak with Jeff Provost about the submitted materials in question.

Thomas Hall made a motion to reconvene discussion.

Thomas Morhouse read and moved to approve Resolution 2007-81 which was seconded by Roger Phinney and all members present voted affirmatively.

WHEREAS the applicant has applied for a permit for wharf modification; and

WHEREAS the Lake George Park Commission has reviewed the application, supporting documents, comments received and other information which appears in the record; and

WHEREAS the Commission has made a determination pursuant to 6NYCRR 645-3.6 and the State Environmental Quality Review Act 6NYCRR 617.5 that the project is a Type II action and does not require further review of potential environmental impacts pursuant to this act; and

WHEREAS the action is considered to be a Minor project pursuant to 6NYCRR 645-5.3 and public notice has been published and distributed; and

WHEREAS the applicant has requested variance from 6 NYCRR 646-1.1(c)

(2) No dock or wharf shall be constructed so as to exceed the following offshore distance criteria: (i) No dock or wharf may extend offshore for more than forty feet beyond the mean low-water mark where the wharf intersects the mean low-water mark;... (iii) No dock, wharf or mooring shall be constructed or placed so as to extend offshore more than 100 feet from the mean high water mark.; and

(7) The maximum number of docks, wharfs or moorings permitted per lakefront lot or parcel shall be limited as follows:... (v) Five hundred and one or more feet of lakefront - four docks or wharfs constructed as a straight pier, T, F, E, L or U- shaped wharf, plus four moorings, and one additional dock or wharf plus one additional mooring for each additional one hundred and fifty feet of lakefront; and

WHEREAS the applicant has demonstrated that strict conformance with the regulations will cause unnecessary hardship due to unique and peculiar circumstances which impose substantial financial, technical and safety burdens; and

WHEREAS the Commission finds that there is no reasonable possibility that the applicant's property will bring a reasonable return following conformance with the regulations; and

WHEREAS the Commission finds that the project represents the minimum necessary variance required to alleviate the hardship; and

WHEREAS the Commission finds that the project will have no adverse impact on the health, safety or welfare of the public, the environment or the resources of the Park; will not alter the essential character of the area in which it is proposed; will not lead to congestion in the Park and will not have an undue visual, cultural or audible impact on the neighborhood or the Park.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Lake George Park Commission hereby approves the request for variance and approves the above application as proposed.

Variance Request for Wharf Modification submitted by Bonnie View On Lake George, Town of Lake George, County of Warren

Molly Gallagher introduced the application. She said that the Bonnie View Resort would like to remove four (4) existing docks, repair one existing dock and construct three (3) new “U” shaped docks as well as remove three (3) moorings. She said that a variance is required.

Michael Stafford spoke in favor of the application. He said that the Bonnie View is a 50 room resort that has been around since the mid 60's.

Mr. Stafford spoke about a call that was made to the Park Commission office regarding the disrepair of the Bonnie View docks.

Michael Stafford spoke to the Commission members and referred to two different pictures. He said that the Bonnie View Resort would like to keep the northern dock in place in order to keep the swim area safe. He said that no boats would be kept at the northern dock — it would be used strictly as a safety feature.

Michael Stafford said that he believes that the variance requirements have been satisfied.

A discussion continued regarding the variance requirements and about the northern dock being identified as a swim platform.

James Childress spoke against approval of the application. He spoke about his usage of the dock at the Sunrise Shore Condominiums and said that he believes that all of their old docks should be removed.

Don Rossler of the Northward Ho Resort said that he was prepared to ask questions but has since received the answers he was looking for. He said that he thinks this project would be a great improvement to the property.

James Kneeshaw asked about the northern dock. He wondered if the dock stayed in place if it would be used as a dock.

Kenneth Parker said that he would like to see the dock go. He said that he would vote to approve the project as is with the exception of the northern dock.

Thomas Conerty said that he would vote to approve the project and thinks that a roped buoy system would work well.

Roger Phinney spoke about the dock being 59 ft. and asked if it had to stick out so far. He said this is a legitimate safety concern.

James Kneeshaw asked what would prevent this dock from being used.

A discussion followed about whether unique and peculiar circumstances actually exist.

James Childress spoke again and said that he can understand the safety concerns. He said that he can not find any justification for a variance.

Thomas Morhouse said that the fact is that if the dock is there people are going to use it.

Thomas Hall said that the dock that is there is essentially a fence.

Thomas Morhouse read and moved to approve the resolution which was seconded by Roger Phinney and all Commission members present voted affirmatively.

WHEREAS the applicant has applied for a permit to remove five existing docks, construct 3 U-shaped pile supported docks and delete 3 moorings; and

WHEREAS the Lake George Park Commission has reviewed the application, supporting documents, comments received and other information which appears in the record; and

WHEREAS the Commission has made a determination pursuant to 6NYCRR 645-3.6 and the State Environmental Quality Review Act 6NYCRR 617.5 that the project is a Type II action and does not require further review of potential environmental impacts pursuant to this act; and

WHEREAS the action is considered to be a Minor project pursuant to 6NYCRR 645-5.3 and public notice has been published and distributed; and

WHEREAS the Commission finds that the proposed project is reasonable and necessary and will not cause unreasonable, uncontrolled, or unnecessary damage to the natural resources of the state, including soils, forests, water, fish, shellfish, crustaceans and aquatic and land-related environment; and

WHEREAS the Commission finds that the project will have no adverse impact on the health, safety or welfare of the public, the environment or the resources of the Park; will not alter the essential character of the area in which it is proposed; will not lead to congestion in the Park and will not have an undue visual, cultural or audible impact on the neighborhood or the Park.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Lake George Park Commission hereby approves the request for variance and approves the above application as modified by the applicant this date.

New Class A Marina submitted by Wayne Smith, Town of Bolton, County of Warren

Molly Gallagher introduced the project and said that this application is for a new Class A Marina. She said that Mr. Smith has made many modifications and improvements to the property and has already gone through enforcement.

Susan Millington said that she would like to address the letter which was submitted by Mark Rehm. She said that there will be no quick launching at this property. In April/May boats will be taken down to the shorefront to Norowal Marina and where they will be launched into the lake and placed at their berthing location. She said that the boats will stay in the lake for the entire season.

Susan Millington said that the site will be most active in April and May when boats are being brought to the lake for launching. She also referred to two separate maps that were submitted; one showing the storage and the other showing the plantings on the property.

Renee Jensen spoke against the project. She spoke about concerns of the number of boats that will be present, hours of operation, noise ordinances and access to property.

Mrs. Jensen asked that the Commission be careful in their decisions because whatever decisions are made have an impact on her family as well.

A discussion followed regarding the hours of operation. The hours of operation discussed were 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. during the summer season and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. during the off season.

Thomas Conerty said that he would approve the project. He said that Mr. Smith has jumped through all of the loops and has been willing to comply.

Roger Phinney said that it is too bad that the neighbors can’t come to some type of an agreement and hopes that everything works out for the best.

Kenneth Parker said that he agrees with both Tom Conerty and Roger Phinney.

James Kneeshaw said that the Town of Bolton has voted to approve the project so he would vote to approve the project as well.

Thomas Hall said that he would vote to approve the project.

Thomas Morhouse said that he would vote to approve the project as well.

Bruce Young said that agrees with all of the members and would also vote to approve.

A discussion followed regarding the plantings and the maintenance of the trees. It was decided that as a condition of the permit the landscaping must be maintained as agreed to by staff and the applicant.

Thomas Morhouse read and moved to approve the resolution which was seconded by Thomas Conerty and all members present voted affirmatively.

WHEREAS the applicant has applied for a permit to operate a Class A Marina offering winter storage for up to 85 vessels; and

WHEREAS the Lake George Park Commission has reviewed the application, supporting documents, comments received and other information which appears in the record; and

WHEREAS the Commission has made a determination that the project is an Unlisted action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act 6NYCRR 617.5 and, as Lead Agency for the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, has made a determination that the project will have no significant impact on the environment; and

WHEREAS the action is considered to be a Major project pursuant to 6 NYCRR 645-5.3 and public notice has been published and distributed as required; and

WHEREAS the applicant has demonstrated that the facility complies with the Class A Marina requirements of 6 NYCRR 646-1.2; and

WHEREAS the Commission finds that the project will have no adverse impact on the health, safety or welfare of the public, the environment or the resources of the Park; will not alter the essential character of the area in which it is proposed; will not lead to congestion in the Park and will not have an undue visual, cultural or audible impact on the neighborhood or the Park.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED The Lake George Park Commission hereby resolves to approve the above application as proposed contingent upon a landscaping plan to be agreed upon by staff and the applicant after a Spring 2008 site inspection.

Item #4 — Law Enforcement Committee Report: Lt. Thomas J. Caifa

Thomas Conerty read and moved to approve the Law Enforcement Committee Report of November 27, 2007 which was seconded by James Kneeshaw and all Commission members present voted affirmatively to approve the resolution.

WHEREAS the Law Enforcement Committee met November 27, 2007 to review matters pertaining to the Lake George Park Commission’s Marine Patrol and the Commission's Law Enforcement Program, and

WHEREAS active Law Enforcement cases and their status were reviewed in Executive Session, and

WHEREAS the Law Enforcement Committee has reported on the results of that committee meeting at this full Commission meeting, and

WHEREAS the Law Enforcement Committee recommends acceptance of this month's Law Enforcement Report.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Commission accepts the report of the Law Enforcement Committee.

Thomas Conerty read and moved to approve Resolution 2007-90 which was seconded by James Kneeshaw and all Commission members present voted affirmatively to approve the resolution.

WHEREAS the primary mission of the Lake George Park Commission’s Marine Patrol is to ensure the safety of all users of Lake George and to protect the lake’s bountiful resources, and

WHEREAS the Director of Law Enforcement has submitted the Lake George Park Commission Annual Marine Patrol Report for the 2007 year, and

WHEREAS the Law Enforcement Committee recommends acceptance of this report.

NOW THEREFORE BE IS RESOLVED that the Commission accepts the report of the Annual Marine Patrol Report for 2007.

Lieutenant Thomas Caifa spoke about the Navigational Aid Reimbursement and about the 2007 Marine Patrol Report.

Item #5 — Public Comments

Lake George Association

Kathy Bozony spoke on behalf of the LGA. She said that she refrained from speaking during the Metzger application and said that she is concerned about the lake’s water quality.

Lake George Waterkeeper

Christopher Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper, spoke about several articles that were printed in the Albany Times Union that states that the local municipalities are doing well with regard to stream corridor protection. He said that he differs with what was printed and cautions that statement to be used.

Mr. Navitsky said that he was at the last meeting and appreciates the effort that the Commission has been taking with regard to the tree clearing and stream corridor protection plan. He said that he thinks that it is still too much information to take in at one time.

Lake George Watershed Conference

Dave Decker discussed grants received each for a million dollars, Stormwater Monitoring Project, Acoustic Mapping, 2008 public participation, Lake Awareness Day and the Water Matters Issue in the Lake George Mirror.

Public Comments

George Weinschenk spoke regarding the tree clearing and stream corridor protection initiative. He asked if the project was still going forward and if so what about a time table.

Barry Kincaid said that he is a part of the Lake George Property Owners Group. Mr. Kincaid suggested that the draft regulations be thrown away and the whole process started over again.

Mr. Kincaid said that in his mind the whole process has been flawed.

Dawn Konsikowski spoke about Environmental Conservation Law 43-0111, receiving a permit from any town and the American Planning Association.

Item #6 — Adjournment

There being no further business, on the motion of Thomas Conerty, seconded by Thomas Morhouse the meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle D. Way

Secretary’s Note: The next Commission meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 26, 2008, 10:00 a.m. at the Fort William Henry, Lake George, NY.