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?
“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.” If that were so, he would take the sentiment of the community into consideration, working together. People that have visited the ADKs do so because of the seemingly unchanging nature of the park. They breathe easier when they cross the Blue Line and understand that this area really is a special spiritual place. Sadly, money can alter it and make it a special place for the few. Part I don’t understand is Mr. Skinner’s comment that the board “fairly” considered this “community project”. This doesn’t sound like a “community project” the community is in support of, just the board. And since when has building a home become a “community project”? Last I heard was when neighbors pitched in to erect it.
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?
It isn’t. The cabins are quaint and fit into the surroundings. My father and I stayed at Curry’s years ago as we were working on his Canoe Map for the Adirondack Maps series and it was just as quaint, charming, and unassuming as could be. I don’t care how well they design it, a 6000sf lakefront mansion in that location will be an eyesore and a detriment to surrounding properties.
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.
Mr. Heimerdinger raises an interesting point… but wielding the private property rights hammer? And writing the community “should have put its money where its mouth was” is a little hostile.
Did Blue Mt. Lake residents know the plan for those .66 acres — build a 6,000 sf “home” requiring the removal of umpteen trees — when the property was for sale? If so, maybe the community WOULD HAVE purchased the property.
I respect author Tim Rowland’s reporting, but where was (or is) the Indian Lake Planning Board in this project?
The Zoning Board of Appeals can’t act on questions of appropriate architecture or impacts on view-sheds — and other assets — caused by tree-cutting and new buildings.
It can sometimes discover the wants, needs, and motivations of property owners. But it can’t rule on whether house style and size fit within the existing community. Planning Boards are tasked with that, among other things.
Meanwhile, communities have important wants and needs also: they involve maintaining visual and historic character which, in large part, comes down to the look of its buildings and how and where they sit on the land — plus the land itself.
Are houses crowded or spaced apart? What size are they? These things reflect both history and beliefs, such as an historic need to be practical, efficient, honestly built, suiting its purpose — but also not overly fancy, and to not show off, both of which can reflect economic disparity. If you want to be community-sensitive, don’t look down upon your neighbors.
A 6,000 sf house is a real aberation in “downtown” Blue Mt. Lake and on the shoreline. So why would someone want to build it? There might be a good reason, and it IS in the community’s interest to find out. But the Zoning Board isn’t able to go that far.
It’s up to the Planning Board and the popular press to dig deeper.
Please, Adirondack Explorer, dig deeper. Don’t drop this story.
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….
There are places to get healthcare besides the govt
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!
Clearly your math skills weren’t the best
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.
Your first mistake was contacting the APA to cut down a tree on your property!!!
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 ?
You should have bought the property across the street to protect your interests. That is exactly what I did many years ago!
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.
These boards are protecting the area? There zoning rules are keeping development in hamlet areas and away from other areas that are more sensitive and you don’t want development.
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…
We are already at that point in time. The inevitable growth of the population, normal inflation and a great desire of folks from metro areas wanting to escape the chaos are the reasons. Do you really expect a family from metro NYC who earns well into 6 figures to build a “modest” dwelling?
Dan, all the average locals here are not w/o blame. I know many average income folks in my home town, Saranac Lake, who own a house and a camp. Or that own real estate over the years and are now cashing in. Or subdivided their land so multiple homes could be built. You can’t just blame this on some boogey man from NYC.
The “some boogey man from NYC” is willing to pay many times what the property is really worth because thay are used to getting gouged on real estate and taxes.
The taxes on this second or third home should be staggering, milk the opportunity if the project survives the likely appeals process.
Milking the opportunity to gouge someone on property taxes is against the law. In addition, the new property assessment on lakeshore property will affect all lakeshore properties the next time a re-assessment in done.
Indeed, how does one fairly assess the taxes on a bazillion-dollar structure balanced on a postage stamp — especially in a “natural” area, and not in a city where high-rises are the norm? If the house were situated on a large lot with a long shoreline with sufficient setback, taxes would likely seem a little more fair. But should we encourage turning traditional shorelines with small, modest camps on postage stamps, into shorelines with high-rises like we often see on coastal areas? And what about the septic sustem for such a large structure on a shoreline? Where will that go? Multiple, tiny lots on lake shores are not environmentally sound to begin with. Making new structures an order of magnitude larger is not a wise move.
They will be – it’s NYS. You gotta ‘milk’ the taxpayers as you say since areas like this have so much land locked up in forest preserve where the state is paying very little.
NYS is assessed at and pays the same rate on forests lands as a private landowner does. If that were not the case, many small towns would not exist.
About half the shoreline of lower saranac lake is assessed at the same amount as a single house in ampersand bay. The point is this property is locked up and will not appreciate in value like parcels with development potential. But yes these towns are hanging on, just barely. Places like Cranberry Lake have no way to grow surrounded by FP land. And we have an economy that needs to grow or we are in trouble. This is why everyone (even here) is worried about tariffs (taxes) and how it could slow growth. You can’t have it both ways.
As the saying goes”its all about the Benjamins”. The property taxes alone on this proposed home will probably bring in over $22,000. The Adirondacks are a fragile place. If we are allowed to keep building huge structures the Adirondacks will be forever scarred and changed.
In the web version of the headline it says the “zoning board dismissed concerns”. No they didn’t they considered them and applied the rules?
We fixed this, thanks!
Issues like this and the Debar Lodge demolition are just another sign of the fall of our democracy ~ the will of the people is totally ignored by those in power! I grieve for our beautiful Adirondacks.
Good grief, this is in no way similar to the demolition of Debar Lodge. Not yet anyway, wait fifty years for this mansion to become “historic!”
People want to remove Debar lodge from the area, they were heard.
So sad!! Can you see this mega mansion sitting there? It does remind me of the mega mansion over on Little Tupper Lake. Doesn’t work there either!! So sad!!
Here is a little info, this is a classic representation of “I got mine, now you shouldn’t have yours.” The poor Currys who’s little cabins basically are putting there sewer directly into the lake, there the ones who ” got there’s”. No not the little cabins. They already have there McMansion on the other side of the lake. Equally as large as whats proposed by Weiss. Classic hypocrites. Shameful that Adirondack Explorer didn’t do there research, only rushing to publish an article, that smells like favoritism. Currys got there McMansion now nobody else should get one. These are the adk rich folks, they been here from the beginning. Currys have already spent thousands to try to stop there neighbors from doing what’s completely legal and made the Weiss family delay there project for over a year, because of a now greedy “Karren” who will now have to look at an equal or better McMansion then her’s.
Would Curry’s Cottages receive approval to build their facility now from the The Indian Lake Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) in this new regulatory environment? I doubt it. This proposed new home ” mega mansion ” etc, will be built following all current construction and environmental standards. Does anyone believe that the Curry Cottages were built that way?
Currys Cottages septic system leach field is across SR 28, at least 100 feet from the lake.
The Adirondack Park is too special and unique to spoil with homes that don’t fit the landscape. What draws people to the area is it’s unspoiled nature. If these huge homes are allowed to be built on tiny lots with no trees, the specialness is no longer present. Wish the new owners would reconsider their decision and build an appropriate sized lovely charming home.
“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,” get it, the lawful proposed structure. The law allows for any size structure to be built, don’t like it, get the law changed for your town/hamlet. Just look at the “Curry” cabins, right on the water. Not much of a setback. I wonder where the rental cabins’ septic system is? Would it meet today’s regulations?
Truly a case of ““I got mine, now you shouldn’t have yours.”
The size of the new home, the stormwater controls, and even the tree cutting are all (generally) irrelevant. The issue here is, what exactly is/was the actual “Hardship” in granting the Variance?
“In New York State, a zoning variance is permission to deviate from local zoning regulations. To obtain a variance, an applicant must demonstrate either “unnecessary hardship” (use variance) or that the benefit of the variance outweighs any potential detriment to the community (area variance). The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) considers various factors when reviewing a variance request.”
If the ZHB really found an actual “Hardship”, and not just an “I want to have this” in the testimony and evidence provided, then great. But, there doesn’t really seem to be any actual Hardship to this except wanting a new 2nd Home at the Lake front. I’d suspect there is/may be grounds for a good Real Estate Attorney (even the Towns own Solicitor) to take this to Court and overturn it.
This is pretty much correct, although Indian Lake has its own zoning ordinance in place of the state’s. The stated hardship in this case was a ‘growing family.’ So the board needed to figure out the minimum course of action necessary to relieve to this hardship.
Thanks for explaining this. I wonder if the applicant knows where babies come from? or that babies grow? As if a growing family somehow happened and they couldn’t do anything about it.
The Adirondack Park has lots of beautiful lakes and vacation homes. Perhaps they could have looked for an already-existing larger property to purchase?
How many people buy houses in a community whose character they really like, then tear down a house, cut trees, and build bigger?
Personallly, I don’t think “growing family” should be a qualifying hardship.
The “hardship” is that it’s so hard to have a vacation home that isn’t a bloated McMansion.
The people running this smear campaign have a house on the other side of the lake with a footprint double the size of the proposed structure. Embarassing that this paper didn’t look into history of the Curry’s or Bryan Weiss.
I’m quite certain that this paper is not the least bit embarassed by that omission. Like CNN or the New York Times this paper is very left leaning as are many of it’s readers. If you can only tell the part of a story that fits the environmental, anti development, climate change, anti President Trump narrative that is by design, not chance, and that is how you keep readers happy and your doors open.
You hit the nail on the head.
Generalize much?? Have you polled the readers or something?
Do you generalize much when you blame just about everything on climate change or President Trump?
Why did the board grant a variance? A variance is an exception to the rules, right? They could have just said “no, no exceptions.”
The fact that there was an old camp within 20 feet of the water that will be torn down… the rule is 75 foot setback. You can’t build within 20 feet just because there used to be something there. So why not just stick to that rule? If that means the new owners can’t fit a bloated McMansion into their .66 acre property, well then they just can’t have a bloated McMansion on Blue Mountain Lake.
Mayby because the “bloated McMansion” will have little or no environmental impact on the lake by following updated waste & stormwater standards. I don’t think that the viewshed impacts scan be taken into consideration, just look at the ugly wind turbines that dot the landsape. I do not hear many complaints from the green energy environmental crowd regarding that issue. Bottom line is that the new proposed “bloated McMansion” does not fit the Adirondack anti development narrative.
If the Curry’s truly care about the health of Blue Mountain Lake, they should fix their old septic system so it stops polluting the lake instead of worrying about a brand new septic system.