Lake George Park Commission

Meeting #324

27 July 2004

Hague Town Center

Hague, NY


PRESIDING:                Bruce E. Young, Chair

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:    Margaret M. Stewart
                        Anthony P. Reale
                        Joan A. Robertson
                        Roger H. Phinney
                        John Pettica, Jr.
                        (Erin M. Crotty, DEC Commissioner)
                          Ron Montesi, representing

COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:    Shauna M. DeSantis
                        Thomas Conerty
                        John McDonald, Jr.

COMMISSION COUNSEL:        Martin D. Auffredou
                   
COMMISSION SPECIAL COUNSEL:    Robert Feller

COMMISSION STAFF PRESENT:    Michael P. White, Executive Director
                        Roger Smith, Conservation Operations Supervisor I   
                        J. Thomas Wardell, Senior Sanitary Engineer
                        Keith G. Fish, Operations Director
                        Molly Gallagher, Environmental Analyst I
                        Michelle Way, Assistant
                        Peggy Sturtevant, Principal Account Clerk


GUEST:                    Sandra Nierzwicki-Bauer, Director



OTHERS PRESENT:
Dorothy Henry                Richard Wray                Dick Glady
John Barber                    John Mero                David Gleason
Chuck Walsh                Stan Pritzker                Chris Navitsky
John Mason                    Joseph Walsh                John Dreps
Agnes Rosen                Joe Lizzi                Marvin Snyder
John Salvador                Phillip Gross                Cathy Casier
John Folino                    Rosalie Folino                Barbara Badalato
Marcia Snyder                Phyllis Hassard            Susan Barden
Ken Ermiger    `                and others

Item #1 - Introductions, Roll Call, Minutes of Meeting

The 324th  meeting of the Lake George Park Commission was called to order by
Chairman Young at 10:15 a.m. and the roll was taken.

Mr. Young said that meeting minutes #323 were distributed in advance of this meeting
to Commission members for their review.  He asked if there were any corrections or
discussion. 

Upon the motion of Roger Phinney, seconded by Joan Robertson, all Commission
members present voted affirmatively to approve the minutes of Meeting #323 as
submitted.


Special Report From Darrin Freshwater Institute:  Sandra Nierzwicki-Bauer

Chairman Young introduced and welcomed Dr. Sandra Nierzwicki-Bauer, Director,
Darrin Freshwater Institute (DFWI).  He said that Dr. Nierzwicki-Bauer will report on
zebra mussels.

Dr. Sandra Nierzwicki-Bauer reported on a recent zebra mussel finding in Lake George.
She said that last week a colony of mussels located on a concrete block was found off
of Cleverdale Point by a homeowner.  She said that the homeowner brought the
mussels to the LGA who notified the Darrin Freshwater Institute, the Lake George Park
Commission and other organizations.  She said that the DFWI surveyed the area in
which the mussels were found to determine the extent of the colony.

Dr. Nierzwicki-Bauer said that the good news is that this new finding is unlike the
situation in 1999 which occurred at the southern end of the lake.  She said that 21,000
zebra mussels were removed in 1999 which covered an area of about 20,000 square
feet.  She said that the zebra mussels in the Cleverdale location were contained in an
area of about 9' x 15'.  She said that the mussels were in a sandy area and were not
attached to any docks.  She said they were attached to rocks and sticks and were
removed.  “In total we removed close to 900.  We are not certain we have every last
one.  We will continue to go back to that location and remove any stragglers that have
been missed,” she said.

Dr. Nierzwicki-Bauer said that she is happy to report that there were no velligers or
larvae present in the water sampling that was taken.  She said that the calcium level
concentration will be analyzed to determine whether a micro-environment exists at that
location. 

Dr. Nierzwicki-Bauer explained that the age of the zebra mussels is determined by the
size of the mussel.  She said that if the mussels that were removed had a mixed
population of very small and larger ones, it would indicate that they had successfully
reproduced.  She said that the mussels removed were all very similar in size.  “I can
certainly say that within the last couple of years, they did not successfully reproduce
there,” she said.   She said that DFWI will continue to survey the area and that the
Commission has offered to help in any way possible.



Chairman Young asked how far the search for mussels extended from the Cleverdale
location.

Dr. Nierzwicki-Bauer said that the area searched was probably about 100 feet or so off
shore and that divers went in from that location into the shore.

Roger Phinney said that the information from the news media appeared to indicate that
the mussels were 4 to 5 years old and perhaps have been in that location for 4 or 5
years.

Dr. Nierzwicki-Bauer said that it is difficult to say for sure and that it is always
dangerous to speculate.  “It would seem to me that if the mussels were large, if they
were the size similar to the size they are now, it would have been noticed,” she said.
She said that it is more likely that they probably arrived when they were very small and
have grown up.  She said that she would like to clarify that it is known that adult zebra
mussels can grow in Lake George water.  She said that on the other hand, it has been
found that the larvae or velligers do not survive in Lake George water.  She said that
the exception to this would be elevated calcium levels.  “The hope is that the calcium
concentrations in Lake George as well as pH and a few other factors, don’t get changed
to a point where they actually are able to reproduce very successfully,” she said.

Tony Reale asked if the recent site has any unusual characteristics.

Ms. Nierzwicki-Bauer said that there is the possibility that the concrete blocks could be
a source of higher calcium levels.

Bruce Young asked if the southern end of the lake where mussels were found in 1999
has been revisited in terms of levels of calcium.

Ms. Nierzwicki-Bauer said that the site is re-checked every spring and fall.  She said
that there are spat traps at that location in case there are any reproduction of zebra
mussels.  She said that none have been seen and that water samples are collected to
look for velligers.  She said that the levels of calcium should be checked.

Ron Montesi asked if the mussels coming into Lake George are coming in as barnacles
or as larvae.

Ms. Nierzwicki-Bauer said that one would think that if the mussels were coming in as
barnacles, they would be much more noticeable when launching a vessel.

Joan Robertson said that she was quite impressed with the Lake George Association
for dropping off zebra mussel information to her neighbors in Cleverdale.  She said that
the literature included pictures of zebra mussels and information on what to do.

Susan Barden, representing the Lake George Association (LGA), addressed
Commission members.  She spoke about the LGA’s efforts in curbing zebra mussels in
Lake George.




Item #2 -  Project Review Committee Report:   Margaret M. Stewart

Bruce Young said that there is only one project on the agenda today.  He explained
Project Review procedures and said that the first portion of the Project Review is for
people either for or against the project to express their comments.  He said that the
second session is an open discussion and determination among Commission members
to arrive at a decision.  He said that normally the only time during the second portion
where there would be audience participation would be if there is a need for clarification
or additional information on an issue. 


Matter of Wharf Construction and Modification submitted by Kenneth Ermiger,
Town of Lake George, County of Warren - #5222-10-03, 5222-11-03, 5222-12-03,
5222-13-03 and 5222-28-03

                    Secretary’s Note:   Martin Auffredou, Counsel for the Commission, has recused
                    himself.  Robert H. Feller of Bond, Schoeneck & King is
                    representing the Commission in this matter.

Chairman Young addressed the Commission members and the public.  “I have received
some disparaging letters about our handling of this (application).  I think we’ve been
extremely patient, open-minded and have given both sides -  and it may seem like we’re
delaying it, but we’re trying to give everyone a chance to make your points and to
delineate the actual legal issues here,” he said.

Mr. Young said that he asked staff at the last Commission meeting to perform a site
inspection of the facilities and to prepare a report.

Molly Gallagher said that she inspected the facilities with Mr. White and found that all
the required services were available.  She said that this included parking, waste
disposal and restrooms.  “There are no fuel sales and no sales of marine products or
services,” she said.

Mr. Young said that he wanted a clarification concerning an unauthorized dock which
had been found during the inspection of the facilities. 

Ms. Gallagher verified that the dock in question has been removed.

Mr. Young opened the floor for public comments.

After a brief discussion, it was decided to discuss the dock applications and marina
application separately.

Dock Applications:

Mr. Pritzker referred to his letter dated July 26, 2004 (attached).  He said that the
application is to construct two docks on one lot with 404 feet of lakefrontage and
another lot with 312 feet of lakefrontage.  He said that he would like to review the
issues that he feels are very relevant.

Mr. Pritzker referred to page 5 of his July 26th correspondence.  He said that the dock
reconfiguration should be approved.  He noted the conditions recommended by Mr.
Feller and said that those conditions are completely acceptable to the applicant.  He
said that the docks should be seen as u-shaped docks.  “We would be glad to connect
them and leave a small space between the i-docks,” he said.  He said that the Town of
Lake George has approved the project’s site plan review in its entirety.  “Town issues,
site plan issues, SEQRA issues – done,” he said. 

Mr. Pritzker said that the construction of the two docks will have no impact on the
homeowners.  He said that the docks are located on the lakeside and that Mr. Dreps
reluctantly admitted as much at the last Commission meeting.  He said that there are no
septic issues and referred to a statement made by Judge Sheridan:  “. . . the offering
plan plainly reserves to the co-sponsors the right to connect the island mansion and up
to seven additional units without such conditions.”  He said that the majority of the
Homeowner’s Association do not oppose the application.  He said that 27 units signed
the petition of objection which is less than one third.  He said that the cases proffered
by Attorney Walsh, in his opinion, do not stand for the proposition that the Commission
cannot reconsider the application.  He said that Mr. Ermiger owns in fee the dock strip
and that since Mr. Ermiger owns the strip, he has the right as an owner to place a
connector between the docks.   He said that he believes there is no basis to deny the
application.

Mr. Joseph Walsh representing the Green Harbour Homeowners Association
addressed Commission members.  He said that the entire board of directors is in
attendance today as a body representing all of the homeowners.  He specifically
referred to his letter dated July 21, 2004 (attached) emphasizing the 108 boat slip
limitation that was imposed by the Planning Board in 1987 and reconfirmed in 1988 as
part of the approval of the subdivision for the Green Harbour development which
included Cooper Point.  He said that the Town of Lake George Planning Board
exercised an incredible amount of common sense and reviewed every aspect of this
project including the community sewer system.  “I don’t want to deal with the sewer
system issues.  I do point out, however that it’s part of your Legislature mandate, but we
don’t have to go into that today.  That’s going to be dealt with somewhere else,” he
said.  He discussed Judge Sheridan’s decision and said that the septic system field is
undersized.  “There was never any design approval to accommodate a commercial
marina,” he said.  He further discussed the sewer system.

Mr. Walsh said that the existing docks accommodate 108 boats, a combination of dock
spaces and 8 moorings.  He said that the number is never going to increase and that 91
of these are going to the Association.  He said that the remaining 17 spaces are going
to stay with Cooper Point Island.  He said that the Town did in fact impose this
condition.  He said that it was reaffirmed by the Planning Board in May of 1988.  “They
said that there would be no further expansion of the docks and moorings.  They
exercised common sense.  The congestion in the harbor was an overriding concern to
that Board back in 1987.  They had the authority over what to approve or not to
approve,” he said.   He discussed the original conditions imposed by the Town of Lake
George, litigation that is pending, and the Commission’s reconsideration of this
application.

Mr. Walsh said that his letter focused primarily on the 108 boat space limitation.  “It’s a
matter of common sense – please don’t second guess the Planning Board,” he said.
He referred to a comment letter submitted by Mr. Salvador.  He said that he feels Mr.
Salvador has a very compelling argument of a declaration that is a recorded document
in the Warren County Clerk’s office signed by each of the original applicants, Black and
Micheli.  He said that the document conveyed all the land underneath the docks to the
Homeowners Association.  “I think that issue of how much frontage Mr. Ermiger has
should be revisited by this body,” he said.

Mr. John Dreps, President of the Homeowner’s Association, said that he has been
before the Commission many times in opposition to the application.  “I am here today to
continue opposing this application.  He rebutted Mr. Pritzker’s comment that he does
not object to having boathouses on the lakeside.  He said that there are several issues
that have been brought to the Commission’s attention.  “We’ve articulated them.  We
certainly have given you enough evidence in writing in your files to substantiate what
we’ve said,” he said.

Mr. Dreps referred to the comment made about one-third of the homeowners signing
the letter of objection.  “It’s pretty difficult to contact 83 homeowners in a month’s time
to try to get them all to sign a letter submitted to you,” he said.  He referred to a
comment about the dock strip that Judge Sheridan decided belonged to Mr. Ermiger.
He said that this is being appealed at the Appellate division.  “We still feel that we have
the credible evidence that certainly justifies the fact that we own this land,” he said.  He
asked how the Commission could make a decision on this application knowing that this
is in litigation.

Mr. Dreps said that the Lake George Planning Board placed two conditions on this
application:  1) that the Commission would approve it as well and 2) that the docks
would have to be connected.  He said that he has made it clear that the Association
does not want these docks connected.  “It’s our property and we don’t feel anyone
should touch our property,” he said. 

Mr. Dreps referred to Mr. Walsh’s comment on the 108 boats.  He said that he wants to
emphasize the concern of the Homeowner’s Association.  “There are 18 more boats
there which attracts 18 more cars across our private road.  We have a serious issue
regarding safety and it is the Commission’s responsibility to look at those areas and
address those areas, especially when it’s been brought to your attention,” he said.  He
asked the Commission to look at this application regarding the safety and congestion
aspects which are a big concern to the Association.  He referred to his recent letter to
the Commission as well as one from the Homeowner’s Association (attached).

John Salvador said that he is a member of the Green Harbour Homeowner’s
Association.  He referred to Mr. Walsh’s comment on the submission he (Mr. Salvador)
made in his July 22, 2004 letter.  “I would reserve any other comment I have this
morning for the marina application,” he said.

Marina Application:

Mr. Pritzker said that he was requested to clarify several issues by staff regarding the
marina permit renewal and transfer.  He said that 100 boats and 8 moorings do relate to
the marina and would like to address this first.  He said that this number was derived
from a Town Planning Board review of site plan in 1982 and an environmental impact
statement from thereabouts 1986-87.  “I would submit that at the time when that review
was made, the notation of 100 was an estimate.  I don’t believe they did a count at that
time and there was no one from the Commission around at that time.  More importantly,
the Lake George Park Commission’s permit in 1998 was for 35 slips and 8 moorings.”
he said.  He said that there has been no change to the docks except perhaps on the
Homeowner’s side.  He said that there has been no substantial change to the docks on
the marina side.

Mr. Pritzker referred to a footnote on page 9 of Judge Sheridan’s decision (attached)
which reads:  “. . . The Court’s own review of Planning Board minutes discloses an
overriding concern with boat congestion in the harbor.  Hence the Board sought
assurance that existing marina operations would be reduced proportionally by transfer
of existing docks and moorings to plaintiff and its condition of approval that there be no
expansion of docks and/or moorings”.  He said that is exactly what has happened and
that every time that someone has purchased a unit from the Homeowner’s Association,
a dock has been transferred.  He said that is exactly what the Court said and exactly
what the Planning Board thought was going to happen.  “There’s never been an
expansion of the marina – it’s always been the same,” he said.  He said that the reason
that there are moorings left is that they are still owned by Mr. Ermiger. 

Mr. Pritzker said that Mr. Ermiger has the right to rent out the moorings until his retained
lots are sold and a house is completed on each lot.  He said that this right of use and
rental is based on the fact that Mr. Ermiger stands in the shoes of the co-sponsor, and
as provided in the offering plans, the co-sponsor retains the right to rent the moorings.
He said that once a townhouse is built on each of the seven remaining lots, it will go to
the Homeowner’s Association. 

Mr. Pritzker said that the other issue that staff has asked him to address is parking.   He
said that he has provided plans showing 43 parking spaces.  He said that the dock
finger issue has been taken care of.  “We’ve already removed that,” he said.

Mr. Pritzker said that there is no expansion of the marina; no condition other than the
Commission permits which limit the number of boat slips which are permitted to exist in
the harbor; and no reconstruction of any of the docks.  He said that the claim by the
Homeowner’s that the marina was supposed to disappear in its entirely was completely
dismissed by the court.  He read from page 4, item 4 of his submission:  “Rather the
Court’s review of Planning Board minutes discloses that dockage at the marina was to
be reduced as the common property, slips and moorings were conveyed to plaintiff and
that the existing boat club/marina would cease to exist,” he said.  He then referred to
page 4, fact 5 (attached).  Referring to fact 6, he said that the Appellate Division also
said in 1989 that there is no explicit indication in the record that further development of
the island would be problematic or that any adverse effects from such development
could not be satisfactorily overcome.  “As far as the marina permit goes, in general
we’ve met all the requirements.  We’re seeking not a new application, but we’re just
seeking to renew what was already granted years ago under the same facts – we
haven’t increased it,” he said.  He said that he has submitted a revised parking plan,
explained what will happen with the bathrooms, and removed the dock that was asked
to be removed.  “In all regards I believe my client has done every single thing he’s
supposed to do,” he said.

Mr. Pritzker noted that the litigation has been terminated in lower court.  He said that
there is an Appellant Division case that will perhaps be perfected and then appealed.
He said that this should not stop the Commission from acting on applications that could
be tied up for years which would not be fair. 

Ron Montesi asked Mr. Pritzker to clarify the terms moorings, docks and slips. 

Mr. Pritzker said that the 8 moorings are located out in the water and are retained by
Mr. Ermiger until the 7 lots are sold.  He said that 84 slips on the docks have already
been assigned to the homeowners.  He said that the moorings will go to the Association
as soon as the homes are built.

Mr. Young said that the Commission issues a specific number of boat slips to marinas,
specifically, which are more restrictive.  He said that homeowners are issued docks. 

Joseph Walsh spoke again.  He referred to Judge Sheridan’s footnote number 7 of the
decision and order which he said is compelling and underlines the commonsense
element and process that the Planning Board went through in dealing with congestion in
the harbor.  “We’re playing some slight of hand here when statements are being made
to you that nothing has changed as far as no further expansion of the marina,” he said.
He said that documents have been submitted in the form of three surveys performed by
licensed surveyors.  He referred to a letter written by John Michaels dated January
14,1998 in which he itemizes his reconstruction of the docks and admits that he never
got any permits for the complete reconstruction of docks.  He said that the letter gives
the resulting length of each and every dock that he reconstructed.  He said that the
docks are primarily north of the boathouse.  He said that the reason for the
reconstruction was to make the docks longer for the Association to dock 83 of the 100
existing boat spaces and the docks, not counting the 8 moorings, that were in
existence.  “There clearly was an expansion – it’s admitted to by three surveys,” he
said.

Mr. Walsh referred to a one page summary chart which shows the difference in length
between the docks as they existed in the period of 1985 through 1989.  He said that
some of the docks were extended by as much as 60 percent.  He said that it is about a
20% increase in lineal footage.  He further discussed Planning Board minutes,  a no
further expansion condition, and the number of dock slips.

Mr. Walsh referred to the project synopsis which states that there are 100 slips and as
a result of a conveyance and approval of Green Harbour projects, 57 of the 100 went to
the Association, leaving 43 from the original 100.  “The math doesn’t work out.  There
was supposed to be 83 spaces and 8 moorings.  Somehow that number grew physically
after 1989 with the reconstruction of docks which allowed for 83 slips being shoved in to
the area north of the boathouse,” he said.

Mr. Walsh said that the offering plan and condition #10 of the Planning Board approvals
said that the existing marina operation was to cease completely as of October 15, 1989.
“As you can see, it was alive and well long after that,” he said.  He said that the offering
plan was amended in 1994 and not approved by the Homeowner’s Association as a
whole.  “At that time, based upon the ‘89 declaration, the initial property as defined in
that document included the moorings and the docks.  That initial property under that
very same declaration was required to be conveyed to the Association,” he said.

Mr. Walsh said that the Association was created and controlled by the sponsor for the
first five years of its existence.  He said that the sponsor is allowed under the Attorney
General’s regulations to basically take control of that entity.  He said that the deed
which Mr. Pritzker refers to is dated in 1989.  “Guess what?  It was given by the sponsor
and accepted by the sponsor on behalf of the Association.  The Association never had
that document and had nothing to say about it at the time,” he said.  He said to keep in
mind that the conditions of approval were never included in the offering.  He referred to
very small circles in the declaration map and said that each circle represents a dock
space.  He said that there are actually 92 dock spaces. 

Mr. Walsh said that the mooring issue is very clear in the declaration that was filed.  He
said that no homeowner can use a mooring or a boat space for commercial purposes.
“We have no objection to the 17.  They can do whatever they want with 17 provided
they address the septic issue.  Our system was never designed to handle the marina
bathrooms let alone the mansion or anything else on the island,” he said. 

Mr. Young said that he wants to be clear that Mr. Walsh is saying that there are illegal
docks and that these are in fact the docks that are occupied by the homeowners.

Mr. Walsh said that in a large part, it is a proper statement. 

Mr. Young again asked if the alleged illegal docks were occupied by the homeowners or
the marina.

Mr. Walsh said that there are two ways to interpret that. “Right now those reconstructed
docks are occupied by the owners.  Under the approvals as granted, as represented by
the original sponsors, the Association should be occupying the boathouse and several
docks south of the boathouse or alternatively leave the boathouse to the mansion which
would make a lot of sense – but then increase the number of piers south of boathouse,
then rightfully, and was the intention of the Planning Board and the applicants, to go to
the Association - because that’s the only way you can fill up for assigning three of the
existing 100 boat spaces as they existed in 85 and 88,” he said.

Mr. Walsh said that the Association is constrained by the current state of decision to
some degree.  “As that decision sits here today, I don’t think it has much impact at all
on the decision before you and the arguments that we put forth,” he said.

Mr. Young said that Mr. Walsh made a statement that the Planning Board said the
marina was to crease to exist in 1989.  Did not the court decisions say that is not
exactly what they said?  “What is does is cease to exist in its present configuration and
you continue to give dock spaces as needed for homeowners,” he said.

Mr. Walsh said that the court decision basically said that it was not reasonable to
require the developer to convey all of the docks all at once because there was no
guarantee they would all be sold when they were sold.  “What the court missed, and is
one of the reasons we’re appealing – is that this subdivision was approved not as a
phased subdivision.  The offering plan is phased to allow the developer the opportunity
to escape and run because things weren’t going as hoped.  But the Planning Board
approved all 19 single family lots and all 72 town homes and the community lot, lot 20,
and lot 21, and the remainder of Cooper Point Island,” he said.  He said that as of 1998,
the last town home was sold.  He said that it was an issue up until that time as far as
continued renting of Association spaces.  He said that under the declaration that the
applicants put together and the co-sponsors signed in the offering plan, the initial
property included the 83 docks, 8 moorings and all the lands under it.

Mr. Walsh said that the only thing left is that there may be 7 town homes, yet to be built
by Mr. Ermiger.  He said that there is a question as to whether Mr. Ermiger can actually
build those as somewhere along the line the true location of the subdivision was
altered.  He said that he may be able to build only 4 or 5.  He said that there is an extra
mooring that is unassigned to a unit or lot.

Mr. Young asked if Mr. Walsh stands by his statement that the Town Planning Board
said that the marina cease to exist in 1989.

Mr. Walsh said that the only interpretation of that condition is related to any commercial
use of the 91 spaces that were to go to the Association.  “As condition #10 also says –
lot 20 is to be conveyed by the October 1989 date,” he said.

Mr. Young said that he does not feel convinced that the Planning Board said that the
marina should cease to exist after 1989.   He said that he feels that it starts to modify its
picture as people get their lots.  “Nowhere do I see where they said it ceases to exist
because if that’s a fact of law, then we don’t have a discussion over the marina,” he
said.  Further discussion followed on the judge’s decision.

Mr. John Dreps spoke again and asked who could prove to the Association that 18
more boats should have been added to the harbor.  “I have never seen anything, the
documents that says it went from 108 to 126 boats.  There is nothing in the files except
an error that was made in arithmetic.  Other than that there is nothing in the files that
justifies a marina going from 17 boat slips to 35 boat slips,” he said. 

Mr. Dreps said that he would like to answer a question previously made by Mr. Montesi.
He said that the extended docks that were created in the Homeowner’s portion of the
harbor made an impact on the homeowners.  He said that several people have been
doubled up in their slips.  He said that the unfortunate part is that the people that are on
the inside of the dock can’t get out.  “These people have to hope and pray the boat
behind them goes out and that they can get out and hope and pray that they get back in
before that person gets back in,” he said.  He said that there are 18 homeowners in that
situation.  “We’re talking 18 additional slips being utilized by this marina when those 18
additional slips were supposed to have gone to us,” he said. 

Mr. Dreps made a comment on Mr. Pritzker’s comment on the moorings.  He said that
Mr. Stafford in November of 2003 sent a letter to the Commission stating that those
moorings were going to be turned back over to the Association.  He said that when Mr.
Ermiger develops whatever vacant lots he decides to develop, they would be assigned
to him at that point in time.  “Now it sounds like he wants to rent those out.  We’ve


already paid for those and I verified with Molly that those are our moorings,” he said.
He said that he can show the Commission in their offering plan that they own those 8
moorings. 

Mr. Dreps said that whatever decision the Commission makes today will certainly set
precedent for other marinas.  “If they’re going to be allowing someone to have 18 more
boats that never got permission for in the past, you’re setting a precedent, I think the
wrong message, to other marinas on the lake,” he said.  He said that he does not
understand  how the Commission can even decide this until the final decision is made
by the Appellate Division as to who owns this land.  “Because if it is our land, that’s a
substantial percentage of the shoreline that will be disappearing from Mr. Ermiger’s
ownership,” he said.

Mr. John Mason, representing the applicant, addressed the Board.  He said that he
designed the dock modifications that are before the Commission.  He said that he has
had the Commission files copied on all files relating to Cooper Point and everything
relating to the marina renewal permits, docks permits, and etc.  He said that no where
in any file could he find anyone making a representation to the Commission as to the
number of boat slips and moorings including Black-Micheli, John Michaels, and Ken
Ermiger. 

Mr. Mason said that he thinks that it is important that the Commission realize what the
Homeowners Association is doing.  He said that they are speaking to the Commission
about Town minutes, Town FEIS documents, DEC permits, but not the Lake George
Park Commission.  “The proper forum for these discussions should be the Town or
DEC.  As far as the Town is concerned – we went to the Town several weeks ago.  The
Town reviewed this site plan review and approved it,” he said.

Mr. Mason said that he reviewed every map and survey in the file.  He said that he is
not privy to all of the maps that the Homeowners Association speak of, but that his
study of the maps in the Commission’s file reveal that the Ermiger docks are
substantially the same length today as they were when they were registered in 1981.
“It’s very interesting that the Ermiger docks are all in the neighborhood of 28 and 32
feet long.  The other docks that are owned and operated by the Homeowners
Association have been increased to 40 feet in places.  But, the Ermiger docks are the
subject of the applications in front of you today.  They’re both the subject of your marina
renewal and they are the subject of your dock modification permit -- not the Homeowner
Association’s docks,” he said.  He said that if the Homeowner docks have been
increased in size at any time since 1981, he would tend to think that it would be a law
enforcement issue and not pertinent to what is being discussed today.

Mr. Mason said that the septic issue is similar to the number of slip issues.  “This is a
Town issue.  The Town set the conditions for this subdivision.  The Town had the site
plan review approval in front of them last month or two or three weeks ago.  The Town
approved it.  It’s not a Lake George Park Commission issue,” he said.  He said that he
believes that the Homeowners Association is trying to put anything in front of the
Commission to try and prevent this and that so much of this has absolutely nothing to
do with the applications before the Commission today.

Mr. Mason referred to a Michael Stafford letter.  He said that in that letter Mr. Stafford
was trying to avoid providing parking for the additional 8 moorings because he knew
that the moorings would ultimately be assigned to the Homeowners Association.  He
said that the moorings are no different than the dock slips.  “Mr. Ermiger retained the
use of the moorings and the dock slips until such time as a unit is built on the hill.  He
gets the rent from it.  The judge’s decision says that very very clearly,” he said.  
He said that every action that has reached a judge, or the Appellant Division or the
Supreme Court has been decided 100% in Mr. Ermiger’s favor. 

Mr. Montesi asked how the lengthening of the Homeowner’s docks happened.

Mr. Mason said that he does not know that the lengthening has happened.  A
discussion followed.

Mr. Feller asked how the arrangement with Mr. Ermiger’s moorings differs from the
docks that are currently assigned to homeowners.  He asked if the Homeowner
Association owns the dock and a particular homeowner has exclusive use of it.

Mr. Walsh replied yes to Mr. Feller’s question that the homeowner has exclusive use of
the dock.  Further discussion followed on dock and mooring ownership and Town
review of subdivisions, primary structures and accessory uses.

John Salvador spoke in opposition to the applications.  He referred to a subdivision
map that he said was filed at the County by the Chairman of the Lake George Town
Planning Board.  He said that there is absolutely no infrastructure detail on the two lots.
He said that it is most unfortunate the way the projects are reviewed at the local
government level.  “This is nothing more than classic segmentation on procedure,” he
said.  He said that the projects are looked at in a piecemeal fashion.

Mr. Salvador said that in the 1960's the Conservation Department mapped the
shoreline of Lake George and included all the structures along the shoreline in that
map.  He said that the mapping is on record.  He said that there was one boathouse in
the bay at Green Harbor with three boat slips and a pier in which a diving board was
constructed.  He said that after the Black-Micheli purchase in 1967, a series of “i”
shaped docks began to be constructed on State land without the appropriate permits.
He said that Town records show that 22 “i” shaped docks were constructed before 1972
and 17 after 1972 for a total of 39 “i” shaped docks.  “The unauthorized installation of
these structures was brought to the Town’s attention by several of the neighbors
resulting in an after the fact use variance being issued to allow the continued use of a
marina/yacht club in an otherwise residential zone,” he said.  He said that the use
variance never addressed the issue of the unauthorized “i” shaped docks and that there
never was a limitation on the number of boats that could be moored on the docks.  He
said that in 1981 the DEC required the registration of docks and the permitting of
marinas.  He made mention that the Planning Board condition of 1988 said the
‘commercial marina’ shall cease to exist.  He said that Gene Black registered his
existing wharfs in 1981 which included 41 docks, 8 moorings and 1 boathouse.  “He
certified that he had never obtained DEC Article 15 permit - the protection of waters
program and that an OGS grant of easement had never been issued for permission to
occupy the State land,” he said.  He said that at the same time, Black and Micheli filed
an application with the DEC to operate a marina on Lake George.  He said that their
application asked for 100 boat slips, 8 moorings and parking for 200 vehicles.  He said
that parking was put in for 200 because a boat slip had no definition on limitation, and
they probably figured that someday 200 boats could be docked there. 

Mr. Salvador said that the notification of review for the marina permit went to the Town
and that this was prepared by Mr. White when he was on staff for the DEC.  He said
that Mr. White converted, on his own initiative, their request for 100 boat slips to 100
boats.  He said that the Town had no objection to that and that there is nothing in the
record that the Town took a position of them being permitted to have 100 boats.  He
said that the permit came out to allow 100 dock slips although they asked for boat slips.

Mr. Salvador said that there is no question on how the docks got extended.  He referred
to a letter from Mr. Michaels which states that.  “I really think you should reject this
marina permit.  It was the intention of the Planning Board that the commercial marina
would cease to exist,” he said.  He said that 72 townhouses, 19 homes and 1 mansion
adds up to 91.  “Who would ever expect to sell a townhouse, a home, with a mooring.
That has absolutely no market value.  The moorings were pushed out to the end.  You
could never hope to do that,” he said.  He said that Mr. Ermiger is stuck with what he
thinks is the ability to build 7 townhouses and to sell those with a mooring. 

Mr. Montesi asked a question about sewer.  He said that there has been some
discussion about 600 gallons a day which is the maximum allowed for the island.  He
asked how that could happen with 2 homes and a mansion. 

Mr. Salvador said that there was never any provision in the calculations for the marina
because the marina was supposed to cease to exist.  He said that the marina is not part
of the 600 gallons.  He said that there is a sewer collection system on Cooper Island
that presently discharges into the Homeowner’s system.  He said that the whole
operation is without a permit. 

Tony Reale asked if Mr. Michaels had a bonafide permit to rebuild the docks.

Mr. Salvador said that it cannot be found if Mr. Michaels ever had a permit.  He said
that in 1989 Horace Baker was hired to rebuild the docks.

Mr. Reale said that the docks have been built without a permit.

Mr. Salvador said that the docks were dedicated to the Association by the project
sponsor.  “If anybody’s in violation of having built without a permit, it’s the project
sponsor, not the Association,” he said.

Mr. Salvador said that the wastewater is a serious problem.  “We’re experiencing
excessive discharge from our system now.  We’ve notified the DEC.  We’re non-
compliance,” he said.  Further discussion followed on the sewer system.  Mr. Salvador
said that currently there is a SPDES permit for the wastewater system.

Mr. Mason spoke about the sewerage.  He said that in the offering plan, it is up to the
Homeowners Association to take care of the outflow from the mansion and the seven
lots.  “To act like this was an unanticipated flow or to act like the community system
can’t handle it, will then become an issue on whether the community septic system and
the Homeowners Association will have to redesign or increase the capacity to
accommodate this,” he said.  He said that is a decision that was reaffirmed by the
judge. 

Mr. Walsh spoke again.  He said that Mr. Mason commented that the docks south of
the boathouse have always been the same.  He referred to exhibit 15 of his October 3rd
letter that shows the change in all the docks, including the docks south of the
boathouse.  He said that in 1988 and by John Michaels letter, those docks increased by
about 33 feet in length total.

Mr. Walsh made a comment about the moorings.  “What matters is not what’s said in
the offering plan.  What matters is what’s said in the offering plan is in contradiction to
the Town’s approvals.  He referred to the marina parcel and lot 20 and said that the
conveyance had to be all at once.  “The Association could not own that property while
there was any commercial activity still going on.  That’s why they said – you don’t have
to convey lot 20 until October 15, 1989 – it gives you three years to make your other
arrangements, extensively to get the renters the opportunity to find other
accommodations on the lake,” he said. 

Mr. Walsh said that the Association has recently received a deed for the balance of the
boat slips and the 8 moorings as shown on the declaration dock map to the
Association.  He said that the deed has not yet been recorded and that there may be
some other issues on whether it complies with Judge Sheridian’s decision.  He said that
there is no question that the Association owns the docks.  He said that there is nothing
in the declaration which allows the sponsor to continue renting nor is there anything in
the conditions that the Planning Board imposed which would allow any of the 91 spaces
to be commercially rented after October 1989.  He said that the moorings do not comply
with the Commission’s permit conditions, navigation law provisions and that the
locations of the moorings do not match where they actually are. 

Mr. Young asked Mr. Walsh if he was making an argument against moorings that were
deeded to the Association on May 13th. 

Mr. Walsh said that he did not believe the moorings should be there.  “They are not in
compliance, we do not want any liability.  We don’t want them,” he said. 

                    Secretary’s Note:   Ron Montesi left the room at this point.  He returned a few minutes
                    later.


Item #3 - Fiscal Actions Report

Mr. Young said that the report on fiscal affairs for the month of June 2004 prepared by
Peggy Sturtevant was distributed in advance of the meeting.  He asked if there were
any questions or additions from Commission members.

Upon the motion of Maggie Stewart, seconded by Joan Robertson, all Commission
members present voting affirmatively, the Fiscal Actions Report for the month of June
2004 was accepted as submitted.


Item #4 - Law Enforcement Committee Report

Lt. Schneider said that the Law Enforcement Committee met earlier this date.  He said
that the recently purchased new boat was discussed and that the boat is working very
well.  He said that Log Bay day which occurred yesterday was discussed and that a
total of 5 BWI arrests were made.  He said that the Patrol was on the lake from 7:30 am
to about 11:00 pm.  He said that it was a very long day with a lot of activity and that the
Patrol should be commended for the dedication they put into it.

Mr. Young asked how many law enforcement personnel were involved in monitoring
Log Bay.

Lt. Schneider said that the agencies included the Lake George Park Commission
Marine Patrol, the Department of Environmental Conservation Police, New York State
Police, Warren County Sheriff’s Office, and New York State Forest Rangers.  He said
that on land in Shelving Rock there were  4 ECO’s, 4 State Troopers, 4 Washington
County Deputies that were working out in the parking lot, 8 Forest Rangers walking
around in the woods and 6 boats on the water.  He said that there was a large
contingent of enforcement.  “This was mostly due to last year’s problems that we had.
It seems like it’s increased each year.  It’s becoming more and more of an enforcement
situation, whereas historically, it’s always been kind of a small party in the back of Log
Bay that nobody really noticed,” he said. 

Lt. Schneider said that assaults at this location occurred last year.  “We had a call at
one point for a young lady that was being dragged into the woods by two males and she
was in an obviously intoxicated condition,” he said.  He said that enforcement was
stepped up this year to make sure that no illegal activity was going on.  He said that
unfortunately this event is not a sanctioned event.  “There is no permit holder.  It’s just a
party on a barge with a band playing,” he said.  He said that it has been looked at to
see if there is some way to hold someone accountable if things get out of control.  “I will
say that there were plenty of people there just having a good time, just partying, and
just enjoying the day,” he said.

Joan Robertson asked how many boats were present in the bay.

Lt. Schneider said that there were probably 150 to 175 boats.  He said that some were
pontoon boats with 14 people on them.

Lt. Schneider said that the Committee was then adjourned to Executive Session where
active enforcement cases were discussed.  There were no votes taken in Executive
Session. 

Resolution 2004-44 - Law Enforcement Report

Tony Reale read and moved to adopt Resolution 2004-44 which accepts the report of
the Law Enforcement Committee.  The motion was seconded by Joan Robertson and
all Commission members present voted affirmatively.



                    Secretary’s Note:   The Chair announced a 10 minute break.  The meeting was
                    reconvened at 1:10 p.m.


Item #5 - Project Review Resolutions: Margaret M. Stewart

Project Review Report

Maggie Stewart said that the Project Review Actions Report contains applications that
are active.  She read and moved to approve Resolution 2004-42 which directs that the
Project Review Report be incorporated in full in the minutes of the full Commission
meeting.  The motion was seconded by Joan Robertson and all Commission members
present voted affirmatively.

Resolution 2004-43 - Kenneth Ermiger

Mr. Robert Feller said that with respect to the application for two additional docks, there
are two basic alternatives to analyzing the problem.  He said that the first alternative is
to look at the density issue with respect to just those parcels (the two subdivided
parcels) that are involved.  The other way of looking at this is to analyze it based upon
the entire lake frontage.  He said that there is authority in the rules to do it either way.

Mr. Feller said that if the lakefrontage of the two subdivided parcels was looked at,
there is no doubt that there is enough lakefrontage on the individual parcels to support
the “u” docks being proposed.  He said that if the lakefrontage before the parcels were
subdivided was looked at that there would be a much larger lakefrontage but
additionally, there are a great number of pre-existing docks that would have to be taken
into account.  “I think it’s fair to say that most of the focus has been on the latter way of
looking at this problem,” he said.  He said that everyone is arguing about how many
docks and how many slips.  “The reason that they’re doing that on an application
involving these two subdivided parcels is because they are assuming the analysis is
going to follow the second path that I just mentioned.  If you go in that direction, then
you also need to contend with a second application which is pending to configure the
pre-existing docks.  That’s the controversy  that you have heard about in terms of
connecting some of the pre-existing “i” docks, making them into “u” docks and counting
them differently for purposes of your density regulation,” he said. 

Mr. Feller said that the first basic decision is to decide whether the Commission wants
to look at the entire lakefrontage of the pre-existing parcel, principally Cooper Point or
look at the lakefrontage of just the two parcels after the subdivision.  He said that
generally speaking, the Commission had exercised that authority to look at the entire
parcel (prior to the subdivision).  He said that the Commission is not obligated to do so.
He said that in this particular case one of the factors that the Commission should
consider in determining to go that way is the fact that these density rules in large
measure are intended to address over use and congestion in the water.  “Just simply
based upon the physical layout of what is being proposed here, these two docks are not
going to add to that problem because these two new docks face the lake rather than the
bay,” he said.  He said that this would be a rationale reason in his mind to look at these
two parcels after the subdivision and make the decision based on that. 



Mr. Feller said that if the Commission chooses to look at the total lakefrontage prior to
the subdivision which would include all of the pre-existing docks and the two proposed
docks, a determination will have to be made on the density rules.  “Traditionally, the
Commission has interpreted this rule to allow for a combination of docks or sort of a
maximum build-out,” he said.  He said that the Commission would have to decide
whether to require a physical connection or not require a physical connection. 

Mr. Feller said that there are other issues that have been raised on these applications
and said that they are best not heard by this Commission.  “I do not think that the Lake
George Park Commission has the obligation or perhaps even the authority, to deal with
these conditions that were placed by other agencies.  The other agencies are the best
forums to support or enforce the conditions that they themselves imposed,” he said. 

Mr. Feller said that he feels very strongly that the Commission has the right to
reconsider their prior decision.  “The tentative decision to deny is not one that could
ever be appealed in court without first holding a hearing and coming to you for a final
decision,” he said.

Mr. Feller said that at the last Commission meeting, staff was asked to look into the
situation of the marina permit.  He said that the application is to renew the marina
permit and to transfer it to a new ownership to bring it up-to-date.  He said that this
issue is independent of the dock issue.  He said that in his mind the principal issue is
the status of the moorings and questioned whether the moorings should remain on the
existing marina permit.  He said that the moorings are in the name of the Homeowners
Association and not the sponsor, although the sponsor has exclusive use of the
moorings.  “I would see that situation in my mind as an analogous to the situation for
the homeowners, where the homeowners themselves have a situation where their
docks are literally owned by the Homeowners Association and through the assignment
of the Homeowners Association, they have exclusive use of those docks,” he said.  He
said that given that the title is now firmly in the hand of the Homeowners Association,
he does not see it as appropriate to continue the moorings in the hands of the
commercial permit.  He said that other than the transfer of the moorings, he does not
see any other change that would warrant a change in the renewal of the marina permit.

Mr. Young asked for an affirmation that there are three separate applications before the
Commission:  one for the two new docks, one for the reconfiguration of the existing
docks which may or may not be applicable and one that is an application for the
renewal of the marina permit. 

Michael White said that there are two applications:  one for the two docks and
reconfiguration of the existing docks and the other for the marina permit application.

Maggie Stewart asked if members should consider removing the 8 moorings. 

Joan Robertson said that she thinks that removing the moorings makes a lot of sense.

Maggie Stewart said that it would cut down on congestion in that part of the bay.




Commission members agreed that the dock issue should be dealt with first.

Ron Montesi was in favor of taking the moorings out and approval of the docks based
on the actual footage.

John Pettica said that he would vote for approval of the two docks due to the density
issue.   He said that there is enough space for the two docks.  He said that the Town
Planning Board should address the side issues that have come up.

Tony Reale said that he would be in favor of granting approval of the two docks.  He
said that there is more than enough lakefrontage there.  He said that he would approve
the marina permit without the moorings.

Roger Phinney said that he was in favor of considering approval of the two docks.  He
suggested that limitations be put on the permit concerning the use and expansion of the
docks.  He said that the septic and infra-structure are issues that the Town should deal
with.  He said that he gathers that the Homeowners Association cannot use the docks
for rental purposes and that it is the general consensus that the moorings come out as
they are the property of the homeowners.  He said that the marina appears to meet all
the requirements set forth in the regulations including parking, sanitary facilities,
garbage collection, and etc.  “We would just be transferring the same permit, minus the
8 moorings,” he said. 

Mr. Feller said that the applicant has previously agreed that there would be a condition
that there would be no further docks built on the two sub-divided parcels.  He said that
the applicant would agree to a condition in the deed reflecting this.  “The right to use the
new permit if such a permit were issued to build the two new docks would only come
into play if and when the Town of Lake George issued a building permit for the principal
structure,” he said.

Maggie Stewart said that the limit would probably be a “u” shaped dock.  Further
discussion followed on the number of boats that could fit within the dock structure and
the various lengths of vessels.

A discussion followed on whether a provision could be included in the permit, if granted,
which states that there will never be any commercial use of the docks.  A Class B
marina was discussed.

Michael White explained that a Class B marina is a registration.  He said that the
Commission may take up a review of that on its own volition or on a complaint of a
neighbor insofar as the owners providing the services of a marina.  He said that
whether it should be permitted (as a Class B marina) based on some assessment of
density would be strengthened if  the Commission’s intentions about the future use of
the docks is incorporated into their decision today.

Mr. Feller said that he does not think there is an adequate basis in the record for the
Commission to consider how it would deal with a future submission about dock use or
marina registrations.

Mr. Phinney asked and Mr. White responded that the side and shape of the docks
would be determined by the application that presently contains project plans.

Mr. Feller explained that the use of the docks would be residential unless the
Commission grants a future application for a Class B marina.

At this point there was a discussion about the possibility of amending the proposed
resolution to revise the deed restriction that the open-sided boathouses proposed to be
constructed remain forever open-sided.  There was no resolve with this at this point in
the meeting.

Bruce Young said that he feels that the conditions in Green Harbour are abominable.
He said that in his view the granting of the permit for the docks on the outer portion of
Cooper Point would not affect congestion in the harbor, but that he would be willing to
participate in efforts to reduce congestion there.  He also said that granting a marina
permit including moorings when the moorings are no longer owned by the marina is not
commonsense.  “I would be very reluctant to grant a marina permit including the
moorings and that in itself is a step in alleviating overcrowding in the harbor,” he said.

Mr. Feller clarified that the action was to remove the moorings from the Class A marina
permit but that was not the same as saying they could not stay.  Whether they can stay
would be a matter for the Homeowners Association, Mr. Ermiger and the Commission
or whatever, he said.

Roger Phinney asked about the status of the moorings and their use.

Mr. Feller explained that in this case the legal title to the moorings and the right to use
them have been separated.  The legal title is held by the Homeowners Association and
the right to use them is held by Mr. Ermiger.  He said that it is a matter between Mr.
Ermiger and the Homeowners Association as to what rights Mr. Ermiger has and the
use he may make of the moorings.  Maybe there is an immediate use to which the
moorings could be put, maybe not, however, for the Commission’s purpose, it is clear in
its action today that the moorings will not be part of a commercial Class A marina
permit, he said.  There was further discussion about the moorings. 

Mr. White asked whether the action being considered by the Commission included the
denial of the modification to the marina docks and the denial of the use of the moorings
as a Class A or Class B marina.

Mr. Feller responded that the action being considered was the denial of the modification
of the commercial docks and the denial of the moorings as part of a Class A marina.
An application for use of the moorings for Class B marinas is not pending.  He
explained that if it is the consensus of the Board, what would be issued is a Class A
marina permit as applied for by Mr. Ermiger with Mr. Ermiger as the new permittee
renewed for an additional term with all of the boxes checked except for the use of the
moorings as part of the marina.

Maggie Stewart read and made a motion to approve the following resolution which was
seconded by Joan Robertson:

Whereas, the applicant has requested approval to build two docks on parcels subdivided from a larger
parcel that previously encompassed all of Cooper Point; and

Whereas, there are existing docks on Cooper Point and the applicant has also requested a modification to
these existing docks in order to reduce the total number of docks and to expand/ improve the berthing
facilities south of the boathouse; and

Whereas, the Lake George Park Commission rules set the maximum number of docks permitted per
lakefront parcel based on the length of the lakefront of such lot; and

Whereas, in determining the maximum number of docks, wharfs or moorings, the Lake George Park
Commission  rules permit but do not require the Commission to base such determination upon the total
footage of the lakefront prior to the subdivision (6 NYCRR 646-1.1(c)(7)) so that the clustering of permitted
docks and subsequent subdivision of land is not used to circumvent the overall dock density established by
the regulations; and  

Whereas, a principal purpose of the regulations is to prevent congestion, over-crowding and safety
hazards and to prevent undue impacts on the neighborhood and the Park; and

Whereas, Green Harbour is an especially congested bay and the expansion of docking facilities in the bay
will result in congestion, over-crowding and safety hazards; and

Whereas, the two docks proposed to be located on the other side of Cooper Point that faces the lake
proper will not contribute to congestion, over-crowding or safety hazards in Green Harbour or on the Lake
overall; and

Whereas, the construction of multiple wharf complexes on the exposed eastern lakeshore of Cooper Point
would result in visual congestion and overcrowding of the lakeshore and thus cause undue impacts on
character of neighborhood and the Park; and

Whereas, the Commission has considered the overall number of docks which could be permitted under the
regulations on Cooper Point in the light of subdivisions of land made subsequent to the enaction of
6NYCRR 646-1 and also in the light of the addition of two proposed new docks; and

Whereas, there are outstanding questions regarding the applicant’s ability to develop those parcels that
must be decided by other jurisdictions; and

Whereas, the applicant is also applying for the transfer and renewal of an existing permit for a Class A
Marina on Cooper Point.

NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING, it is determined that:

     1.   The Commission declines to exercise its discretionary authority to base its determination of the
     maximum number of docks on the lake frontage prior to the subdivision of the two parcels.

2.    The two parcels have sufficient lake frontage to accommodate the proposed new docks.

     3.   In order to prevent over-crowding, congestion and undue impacts to the neighborhood and the
     Park, prior to issuance of a permit for the proposed docks, the applicant shall execute a restriction


          in the deeds for the two parcels in a form acceptable to the Lake George Park Commission which
     runs with the land and which prohibits the development of any further docks on these two parcels,
     either as currently constituted or as may be subdivided in the future.

     4.   The construction of the docks will not be permitted unless and until the applicant has received
     building permits to develop a one-family residence on the respective parcels.

     5.   The Lake George Park Commission finds that, with the above conditions, the two docks meet the
     standards contained in the rules and  permits can be issued accordingly.

     6.   The application in so far as it pertains to modify existing docks on Cooper Point is denied because
     such modifications are not in conformance with 6 NYCRR 645-1.1 (c) (7) and also because
     additional docking facilities in Green Harbour will lead to congestion, overcrowding and safety
     impacts in Green Harbour and in the Park.

     7.   The application approval is also conditioned on removal of an illegal dock as set forth in the
     revised permit for the class A marina being issued in response to the permit transfer and renewal
     application.

     8.   The Chairman or his representative is given the authority to take any measures necessary to
     implement the terms of this resolution.

9.    This resolution shall take effect immediately.

A discussion followed.  The following additional provisions were incorporated into the
read resolution.

          The use of the eight moorings previously part of the Class A marina permit is denied as part of the
     Class A marina permit.

          The Lake George Park Commission reserves the right to revisit the Marina permit should a Court
     decision finally resolve ownership of some or all of the marina docks to the Green Harbour
     Homeowners Association.

          The transfer of the marina permit to Mr. Ermiger is granted with the exceptions noted above.  The
     five-year term to commence upon the expiration date of the previous marina permit.


Commission members voted as follows:

AYES:    Young, Stewart, Robertson, Reale, Phinney, Pettica, Montesi,
NAYS:    None
ABSTENTIONS:  None

                    Secretary’s Note:   The secretary assigned number 2004-43 to the above resolution.


Item #6 - Ad Hoc Committee for the Preparation of an Assessment of Water-
based Recreation Trends and Impacts:  Michael P. White

Michael White said that he had prepared Resolution 2004-41 consistent with the
recommendations of he Ad Hoc Committee following their review of proposals to
prepare a water-based recreation plan.

John Pettica read and moved to approve Resolution 2004-41:


          WHEREAS   the Lake George Park Commission is established by Article 43 of the Environmental Conservation law to
          preserve and protect the unique natural and scenic resources of Lake George and to promote the safe and
          enjoyable use of the lake by developing regulations governing a range of recreational activities, and

          WHEREAS   the Commission has promulgated rules and regulations governing boats, speed, engine noise, anchoring,
          special use areas, PWC and other activities, and

          WHEREAS   the Commission wants to perform an assessment of water-based recreation trends and impacts in order to
          assemble relevant data, to evaluate the current conditions on the lake in regard to congestion, overcrowding,
          and safety hazards, and to frame recommendations for future actions, and

          WHEREAS   the Commission prepared and distributed a detailed Request for Proposals for consulting services to prepare
          a Water-Based Recreation Management Plan, and

          WHEREAS   this Request for Proposals was distributed to twenty-three firms and published in the State Contract Reporter
          and included a detailed methodology as to how the proposals would be evaluated, and 

          WHEREAS   in response to the request, five proposals were received and distributed to members of a Ad Hoc Committee
          of the Commission, and

          WHEREAS   on July 12, 2004 the Ad Hoc Committee members met and reviewed the proposals in accordance with the
          methodology, and

          WHEREAS   the team of Holmes and Associates and Tommy L. Brown, Human Dimensions Research Unit, Cornell
          University was the top rated firm based on cost and other essential considerations and was recommended by
          the Ad Hoc Committee.

NOW THEREFORE BE IS RESOLVED
  that the Commission authorizes the Chair and Executive Director to retain the services of  the team of Holmes and
 Associates and Tommy L. Brown, Human Dimensions Research Unit, Cornell University in accordance with the Request
 for Proposals attached hereto; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED 
  that the Commission authorizes expenses up to ninety-two thousand, two hundred dollars ($92,200) for preparation of a
 Water-Based Recreation  Plan and also authorizes expenses of an additional five thousand, eight hundred ($5,800) for
 preparation of an assessment of off-season recreational activities, and
 
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED 
  the Chairman is authorized to execute an agreement with the firm and submit it for State approvals and take those steps
 necessary to put the agreement in place.

The resolution was seconded by Ron Montesi and all Commission members present
voted affirmatively.


Item #6 - Water Quality Programs Report:   J. Thomas Wardell

Tom Wardell reported on the stormwater program report which was previously sent to
Commission  members.  He said that he had met with the Putnam Stormwater
Committee and that a windshield inspection of stormwater related problems in the Town
was largely completed.  He also said that he has been working with Lake George
Waterkeeper Chris Navitsky on a potential landslide site in Ticonderoga on Black Point
Road and established a method to monitor slope movement.  He said that the Coliform
Monitoring Program reports have been quiet.  There was one high count on the Lake
Avenue Beach in the Village of Lake George which the Commission re-sampled that
had returned to normal levels, he said.

Commission members discussed stormwater related issues at the Lake George Forum.


Item #8 - Public Comments

●    The FUND for Lake George, Inc.

Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper, referred to his earlier letter to the
Commission and recommended that additional controls be placed into permits issued
by DEC, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Commission to identify materials that
might have increased levels of calcium and thereby support micro-environments in
which zebra mussels may proliferate.

A discussion followed about alternatives for shoreline stabilization projects including
sheet piles, concrete, rip-rap and others. 

Mr. White explained that environmental regulators had gone to the requirement to place
pea gravel in lieu of sand since sand obtained locally invariably contains organic
material and plant nutrients and pea gravel forms a substrate more readily utilized for
fish spawning.   Do we know if pea gravel leaches calcium into the water at rates higher
than other materials and should therefore be discontinued? he asked.

Mr. Navitsky responded that he did not know. 

The reason that we have not moved something forward for the Commission to consider
about source material, Mr. White said, is because we would need to be able to advise
people where to obtain materials lower in propensity to leach calcium.

Mr. Navitsky indicated that he did not have such information.

Mr. Wray of Baldwin Road, Ticonderoga spoke at length about extending the 5 mile per
hour zone in the vicinity of his home to reduce impacts to private property and the
environment.  He referred to his outline and elaborated on the points of discussion
presented therein (attached).  A discussion among the Commission followed.  Mr.
White suggested that it would be helpful if he were to circulate a petition among his
neighbors as to their consent to extending the 5 mile per hour zone and agreed that the
Commission would take up the matter for consideration at some future point.

Executive Session

On the motion of Joan Robertson, seconded by Ron Montesi, the Commission
adjourned to Executive Session at 3:10 p.m. to discuss litigation, the matter of the Lake
George Park Commission vs. Salvador, et al, Index #37573.  On the motion of Maggie
Stewart, seconded by Joan Robertson, the Commission adjourned from Executive
Session and announced that no action had been taken in Executive Session.


Item #19 – Adjournment

On the motion of Roger Phinney, seconded by Joan Robertson, the Commission
adjourned at 3:20 p.m.




                        Respectfully submitted,
                        (via tape recordings)




                                                  Kathleen Ledingham
                        Commission Secretary


                      Secretary’s Note:     The next Commission meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August
                      23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. at the Ticonderoga Town Center, 117 East
                      Montcalm Street, Ticonderoga, NY.