Zoning board approves building controversial vacation home on historic shoreline
By Tim Rowland
The Indian Lake Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously approved a variance Monday evening that will allow a family to build a 6,290-square-foot vacation home on Blue Mountain Lake, over the concerns of neighbors worried that it will environmentally and spiritually damage a prominent, wooded point on the small hamlet’s rustic lakeshore.
About 30 people attended the hearing and listened quietly as the decision was read.
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
“Naturally, we believe the correct decision was made,” said Matthew Skinner, attorney for the applicant Bryan Weiss. “Mr. Weiss has been coming up here every year for many, many years, and he cares about the lake just as much as everybody else.”
Skinner praised the zoning board for following the law over public sentiment — which was overwhelmingly on the side of the opponents — and said it reflects well on its ability to fairly consider community projects.
Historic family business leads community dismay over project
Opponents had the exact opposite take. “We rely on this publicly appointed body not to act solely in our interest, but in the interests of the entire community and the local economy,” said Reed Curry, a member of the family that for generations has operated a collection of cabins on a sandy beach that is iconic for a row of sunset-facing Adirondack chairs, and as a stage of the 90 Miler canoe competition. “And through this year-and-a-half-long process, I see that it has failed, and I suspect that it’s failed in other cases besides just ours.”
Opponents of the project indicated they may appeal the decision in court, an outcome some town officials said was a likely outcome no matter which side won.
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
Skinner said the applicants were notified by the Adirondack Park Agency that it had no authority to consider the project, which is in the hamlet of Blue Mountain Lake. Hamlets are generally outside the purview of the agency.
Building plans spark size concerns, require substantial tree cutting
Legally, the matter before the zoning board boiled down to a variance sought by applicants to build within 20 feet of the shoreline on the footprint of an old, 960-square-foot camp that will be torn down. The standard shoreline setback is 75 feet.
Weiss’ proposed home is on a 0.66-acre lot and would require substantial tree cutting, actions that the Currys said would “tower” over their property and disrupt the scenic shoreline and change the complexion of the hamlet. The Currys said they did not object to a reasonably sized home, but that the one being proposed is simply too big. Skinner said the owners had originally proposed a 9,000-foot structure, but had scaled it back in light of community concerns.
Residents fear development precedent, board defends controversial decision
Opponents formed a Blue Mountain Lake friends group and sent a letter with 120 signatures in opposition to the zoning board. In the letter, their attorneys argued that the board had authority to consider the precedent projects have on future development, and that such a large home could be the first domino in the wholesale replacement of the typically small cottages that dot the shoreline with outsized vacation homes. “This would change Blue Mountain Lake from its current low development, largely forested, quintessentially Adirondack shoreline, to one dominated by McMansions,” the letter states.
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
But the zoning board wasn’t sold. In a lengthy resolution it contended that the opposition had little to do with the variance under consideration.
“This variance application provides a unique situation in which the vast majority of opposition was not focused on the actual variance sought, but rather the overall size of the otherwise lawful proposed structure,” it stated.
The board also wrote that a full 75-foot setback would result in a worse outcome, putting the home closer to neighbors and the road.
“(The board) does not find that there will be any significant impacts upon the lake or any lakeside neighbors or to the general public,” the resolution stated. “On the other hand, (were) the structure to be placed within 10 feet of the roadway and adjacent lands to the south, now used as cabin rental business, the magnitude of the impacts on adjacent properties would be far greater.”
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
The board also dismissed concerns raised over tree-cutting, storm water runoff and the septic system, saying either that the applicant’s engineers had adequately addressed concerns, or the issues fell outside the board’s purview.
Bob Curry said the rental-cain property has been in his family since the 1800s, and that part of Blue Mountain Lake’s charm is that it has not succumbed to large, modern development that has come to ring so many other lakes.
“I’ve got postcards, and (the view of the peninsula) hasn’t changed since the turn of the last century,” said Bob’s wife Carrie Moodie. “And essentially, that’s all going to be gone.”
Photo at top: The peninsula in the middle of the photo is where the new home would be built.
Never understood the lack of sensitivity to neighbors, community, and preservation.
If building a home or any structure for that matter, alters the landscape in such a way that it upsets a large percentage of the community, why build there?
Won’t it diminish the experience of ownership?
Sometimes you have to accept that often neighbors don’t want change, especially if it alters the essential character of the region. Why upset so many?
This story is better than others – it at least notes that the “footprint” will just be the same? In the hamlet is where the development belongs, end of story.
I read that but hoe do you build something 6x the size on the same footprint?
$$$$$$$ big money says you can do anything… this is prime example. PERIOD.
From a visual perspective a bunch of cabins seems worse as far as the “spirituality” of the shoreline than a single family dwelling? As far as water quality – what sort of septic system do the cabins have?
The Domino’s continue to fall as aristocratic privilege again rules.
Equally embarrassing is the board’s lack of concern over the ” tree-cutting, storm water runoff and the septic system, saying either that the applicant’s engineers had adequately addressed concerns, or the issues fell outside the board’s purview.” Please reference the Jefferson project of Lake George.
Lastly, was the variance sought by applicants to build within 20 feet of the shoreline on the footprint of an old, 960-square-foot camp that will be torn down. Privilege, again rears its angry head. If you want to keep the structure 20 ft from the lakeshore honor the replication of 960 square foot camp, not the original 9000 ft house, or the later downsized 6,290 square. The standard shoreline setback is 75 feet, but not for the privileged.
Often change is a wonderful thing, but then again, so is common sense. Once changed, added Domino’s will fall.
All throughout history big money has bought politicians .. judges .. presidents…this is just going to continue and get worse not better … but ii hope not….?????
Why does anyone “need” a 6290 sq. ft. vacation home?? Maybe we need to start teaching the concept of “enough” in our schools.
It’s not a question of need – there is no “Bill of Needs” in the US Constitution. It’s a question of private property rights. It’s none of your business whether or not the owner(s) need 6000 square feet of area. Provided that the prospective owner meets all of the legal requirements of a duly elected or appointed governing body then s/he gets the go-ahead. If the community didn’t want a 6000 square foot home built on a 0.66 acre piece of shorefront land then the community should have put it’s money where it’s mouth was and bought the property.
Flagstaff, Arizona is ravaged by huge vacation homes and developments. And, most of the owners do not live in the buildings. They are either short term rentals or just investments. My family rented a little cabin on a little island in Boyd’s Pond seventy years ago. The silence and the friendliness of the other renters and cabin owners were more than comfort. They were medicine. This story breaks my heart – and when my heart is broken, I get furious. Especially since there is no recourse any more.
Since Covid . The $ has been on a land grab. Terrible greed. I thought it was impossible back in the day to do what ever you wanted in the Adirondacks. Self serving $ will continue. Look at the Whitney estate. Then they “ can blame the algae blooms and high phosphorus on geese or dogs. The little guy would never get away with this. Sad and sold out.
As said in a popular song once ,…”Money Chages Everything ” ,. A 6000 sq ft home on ajust over 1/2 acre . Once the precident is set ,there’ll be others trying to build McMansions on their little pieces of land , Judgeing by what happened across from us , lived here for 25+ yrs with a couple of friendly neighbors ,and then some people built a fancy 2500 sq ft home across the street, in a little field , out fitted it with every kind of security lighting imaginable to be lit up all night long, At least they are decent people and year round residents ,but still ,changed the whole fabric of the area . Change happens ,but still it should be in keeping with the rest of the area ..especially in the Adirondacks
Thank you for adding ” especially in the Adirondacks.”. Regardless of laws……. There is something to be said about the untouched beauty of the ADK’s. I was born and raised in the park- truly heartbroken to see this stuff going on. It shouldn’t happen in any park but definitely not in one as unique the Blue Line.
I agree 100%
A 6,290-square-foot vacation home is arrogance and account bragging rights. Look what I have and you don’t. Zoning boards are political and enjoy your appointed / elected controlling your life.
Yep. You got it.
It appears that the home owner is sympathetic and responsive to the community. I have to laugh at the knee jerk oppositions. Have you been down State- let’s say Queens- and see neighborhoods with small old houses. They get knocked down and are replaced with obscenely huge, garish structures that just don’t belong in the undersized lot. They fit in the area as well as skinny jeans do for an obese over the hill slob. But no one protests these atrocities. They’re far worse than this beautiful lake house. These unsightly mansions put a strain on water, sewers and aesthetics.
Not sure if you want to compare Queens to the Adirondacks, not exactly apples to apples.
In either case however, these out of place monstrosities reflect a complete indifference to neighbors and community and have come to symbolize a certain level of selfishness that prevails today.
This isn’t NYC this is a pristine, quiet Adirondack town
No one needs that large of a house in the adk park, ridiculous. I’m sure the locals won’t be too welcoming
Always find it interesting when someone says what another individual doesn’t need. Thats not for you to decide
Yesh. Kind of like Republicans telling us the vulnerable among us don’t need health care….
Want to know what the shoreline will look like? Look at any decent sized lake or reservoir in Colorado, like Dillon Reservoir between Frisco and Silverthorne. I’m all for the owner building something, but how about the zonig board just says “nope, unless it meets all current setbacks”?
“knee jerk opposition” – way to undermine those who could be allies. We need to bond over these atrocities and support each other. What’s your reason for the undermine?
Let’s see. 6290 square feet “on the footprint of an old, 960-square-foot camp”. If that is actually true, it will be a 6 story building!
So what doesn’t seem to be brought into conversation is you people who are stating how bad you want to protect your lake from large new structures is your lack of “protecting” started way before these law abiding owners even thought about their project. The laws are not in place to control the size of new structures around the lake obviously. If you were so concerned that’s what you should have been concerned about way before now! Get active get involved get on the village boards change zoning laws or dont complain. Since I’ve been on our local boards we’ve changed and put more laws in place to protect so its not to late.. You have yourselves to blame not your local board they can’t even control the size because you people didnt care before it was too late and tied their hands…
Human greed, the desire to be best, better, bigger. Look at me, look at what I have. There is a total
lack of respect and love for nature and what she gives to our lives. But as the population explodes and with it the human misconception that we “own” it and will do as we wish to it, life as we wish it to be will disappear. Along with it will go much of what was desired. In the end an over built, over used, waste land where the haves will gloat and the have-nots will mourn. I’ve been living in the Adirondacks for over 4 generations, 3 of those on or near Lake George. The last time I went out on the lake for an evening of donuts and coffee under the stars I ended up crying. There were so many artificial lights that I could barely see the shoreline and the “glare” ruined the night sky. Man makes rules and then twists or changes them to benefit the ones with bigger pockets. In my 70 years, this storyline has raised its’ ugly head time and again. It will continue.
So is the Bryan Weiss looking to build this home the same Dr Bryan Weiss?? Neurologist and author who is 80 years old.
You people make me laugh. I fully agree its no place for it. But unfortunately none of cared. If people are allowed without laws in place you can’t stop the.. this the Lawyer became a definition to choke on. The only thing the board could stop was how far away from the lake and it sounds as if they took the sides of the people not wanting it to place it in the best place possible or they were going to build anyways.. always makes it easier to blame someone else . Board meetings are every month show start discussing size limits for structures around the lake amd stop it at one or complain every time.
The new house owners will likely only be there part time since it’s considered a “vacation home”. It sounds as if this house will be an obtrusive irritant to neighbors and a blight on the optics of Blue Lake. This is a very sad sign of the times. Why would they want to squeeze into a lot knowing their vacation getaway will be very disturbing to so many?
Didn’t I recently read that the administration wants to allow new development in and around our national parks? Well, we can take an educated guess it wouldn’t be “affordable housing” for the majority.
If the proper regulations were in place, this would be a non issue.
If the rules are followed the Adirondack Park Assoc will not issue a permit or not allow the mansion to be built. What say you APA?
The hamlet of Blue Mountain Lake is in the Town of Indian Lake. The town’s zoning laws have been accepted by the APA so the full authority of what is allowed belongs with the town not the APA. As long as the septic system is 100 feet from the lake/stream/wetland and designed by licensed septic system designer it’s a go.
I had to apply for a permit to take down a dead hemlock about 8” in diameter and they’ll be able to bypass APA rules and take down multiple live trees and build very close to the water? My neighbors new house (about 2,500 square feet) is practically on top of the road because they had to be 75’ from the lake, no exception, even after getting a lawyer involved.
None of it makes sense, except to think the owner paid someone off or donated something to the community or a Board member to get what they wanted.
Shame on you APA and Board for not protecting our precious land.
One can smell the lawsuits a brewing.
Was the light pollution addressed , as with so many of the part timers building new residences in the darkness of the Adirondacks ,one of the things they do is put up lights all over the place and all over the house because they’re afraid of the darkness , So even when they aren’t there the place gets lit up like a stadium parking lot , Also was there any architectural drawings, showing the house and surrounding areas like garages or boathouses etc ? , We had neighbors build acrosss the street from us in a little field and they installed security lights on every corner of the house and garage ,On all night and now our peaceful night time that we enjoyed for years is all lit up. And if they’re allowed all this building ,How long before the next person decides they to need a huge part time house on the lake ?
What is the purpose of having agencies and review boards (supposedly) meant to protect the land within the park boundaries if they don’t actually intend to protect the land? If I wanted to carve my cat’s face into Whiteface Mountain, I wouldn’t be allowed to because it would forever alter the character of the natural features. So why are they allowing someone to forever alter the shape and look the shoreline of the lake? IMO it should be they can either keep the original 960sq ft footprint and stay at 20′ from shore and can go no higher than 2 stories. Or you can go back 75ft and have a limitation on height and sq footage so as to remain within boundaries. When I built my house, I could only build in ONE spot due to proper distancing from wetland, river, well, septic/leach field etc. Size of the house was limited by how big the septic/leach field could be. If we’re all out here having to follow rules to preserve the park (which I’m happy to do btw), where are the rules for these folks? This is an example of the board and APA following “the letter of the law but not the spirit”… and even still I’m sure there was some extra money/favors involved.
I suspect the only money that changed hands was the money paid by the prospective home builder to the permitting authorities and his lawyer, all aboveboard.
Well said. Something stinks here. At least 19th century Gilded Age industrialists bought an entire lake for their Great Camps. This will likely be on Air B&B before I am laid to rest. A great Camp on a postage stamp.
We are slowly approaching a time where an average family will not be able to purchase any land in Adirondack’s. We already have the cost of simply renting a room for a few days being so high priced young families can’t afford to visit. What ever happened to having a modest “camp”. As a person who has worked in and visited the Adirondack for 40 plus years the trend is disturbing. Build a modest camp, be considerate of the neighbors around you and don’t be excessive because you can be. Do better…
The taxes on this second or third home should be staggering, milk the opportunity if the project survives the likely appeals process.