In a letter to mayor Carol Waller last week, Kent Sanders, Deputy Regional Permit Administrator for DEC Region 4, said the lead agency will be the one to determine if an environmental impact statement will be required for the project.

The boat owners, Paula and Terry Wikoff, obtained a permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation in 2004 to change the existing dock to a two-sided structure and to dredge the lake bottom for the tour boat. At the time, Paula Wikoff had come to the village with their plan and the planning board and board of trustees agreed to relinquish lead agency status for the project to the DEC.

The permit issued by the DEC, however, does not mention the installation of a hoist to lift the boat out of the water, which has already been installed, or the planned covered structure to house the boat.

Last month, the issue came before the zoning board of appeals which tried to sort out what had been permitted and what required a permit.

ZBA chairwoman Susan Snell said that one of the basic questions is ``exactly what was and what wasn’t approved and how the zoning law speaks to what they are requesting.’’

Snell said it was likely the proposal would have to go to the planning board, zoning board of appeals and the board of trustees for approval and that some sort of logical sequence would have to be worked out.

But before that could occur, Paula and Terry Wikoff’s attorney Robert Birch informed the village that his clients were withdrawing any pending applications with the zoning board of appeals or planning board in regard to the roof covering for their tour boat in the belief the village has no jurisdiction over their proposal.

According to a letter from Birch, the village had ``no regulatory authority over the original installation of the tour boat dock and has no continuing jurisdiction over the completion of the installation of the roof at this time.’’

Birch said his research of statutory and case law has led him to conclude the State of New York has exclusive jurisdiction under Navigation Law over any dock, building or structure located in the navigable waters in the state.

Since the original permit issued by the DEC expired, the Wikoff’s submited a new permit application for the completion of the roof project, he said.

Now the DEC has asked the village if it wants lead agency status for the review of the Wikoff’s recent permit application.

``I’m very pleased,’’ she said last week, adding that the village will accept the agency’s offer.

Village attorney John Lambert said last week that to be an involved agency a municipality must be funding a project, undertaking a project or be empowered to issue a discretionary permit. In this case, the village’s involvement is through its ability to issue a permit for the project.

Lambert said there is a very recent court decision which contradicts the case law Birch cited. In the new case, the court ruled that the local municipality should be the one to regulate a project like the dock for the Glimmerglass Queen.

He said he expects there will be a legal battle over the village’s jurisdiction which he believes includes a requirement for a zoning variance from the ZBA for a structure within 100 feet of the lake; approval of the project’s site plan by the planning board and a special permit from the board of trustees.

The village’s primary concerns about the project are its impact on the viewshed and the potential for pollution, Lambert said.

Birch said Tuesday that he had seen a copy of the DEC’s letter to the village on Friday and that he has a call into Kent Sanders. In the meantime, he says it remains their firm belief the village has no jurisdiction in the matter.