ADIRONDACK COUNCIL
CALLS ON PRESERVE ASSOCIATES TO DROP
PLAN FOR 700-UNIT RESORT IN TUPPER LAKE IN WAKE OF APA RULING
Park Agency Ruling
Signals Intent to Require Major Modifications
Or Even Deny Permit for Massive Slope-side Subdivision
For more information:
John F. Sheehan
518-432-1770 (ofc)
518-441-1340 (cell)
518-456-4512 (home)
Released: Tuesday, February 13,
2007
TUPPER LAKE, N.Y. – The Adirondack Park’s largest environmental
advocacy organization today praised the Adirondack Park Agency
for its decision to require a complex, formal hearing on the
700-unit residential resort subdivision proposed for the slopes
of the defunct Big Tupper Ski Center. The Council also called
on the developer to withdraw the proposal, noting that the Park
Agency has now taken the steps necessary to officially deny the
permit.
“The Park Agency’s
decision to call for a full-blown, adjudicatory public hearing
on the proposed resort development should be recognized as the
death-knell for this project as it is currently proposed,”
said Adirondack Council Executive Director Brian L. Houseal.
“The APA listed 10 separate issues that are not adequately
addressed in the application, all of which must be fully explored
through attorneys, expert witnesses, sworn testimony and cross-examination,
all overseen by a state administrative law judge. The project
has far too many flaws to withstand such careful scrutiny. Meanwhile,
the developers refused to scale-back the plan to something more
reasonable.”
Houseal explained that the Park
Agency must first call an adjudicatory public hearing before
it is allowed to formally deny or substantially modify any development
permit request. The Agency only calls public hearings on very
large projects, where the applicant has refused to modify the
permit request despite compelling evidence that the project would
violate the APA’s statutory prohibition against “undue
adverse impacts” to the environment and/or local economy.
“Our goal here is to see
that Tupper Lake’s ski hill is reopened for local residents
and that its downtown is rejuvenated in an environmentally sound
way,” Houseal said. “This project doesn’t promise
any of those things. The developers are treating the ski hill
as a secondary amenity, after the sprawling, speculative, residential
subdivision is constructed. All of that depends on a $54 million
loan from the Franklin County Industrial Development Agency,
which has not yet been secured. Further, the development is
so far away from the village, it is more likely to compete with
it than to enhance it. Even the developers’ own consultants
said the plan was risky for local taxpayers.”
The Hudson Group (an Albany-based
consulting firm hired by the developers to assist town officials
in reviewing the development plan) said the plan was financially
risky for Franklin County and Tupper Lake taxpayers, with few
assurances the project will even be a success. For example:
- IDA Financing: “IDA purposes would seem to be
limited to industrial and commercial development…The legal
issue of the Franklin County IDA using its financing powers to
support residential development is not discussed and needs to
be. An IDA to protect itself generally takes title to a project’s
real property until the bonds have been paid off. Presumably,
it would be necessary for the Franklin County IDA to take title
to the residential homes and associated land. The payments back
to the IDA for the principal and interest on the bonds do not
distinguish between improvements and land. There is no discussion
in the Project of how Franklin County IDA would secure its interest
in the property and there needs to be.”
- “All infrastructure costs
of the residential portion of the Project are to be financed
by Franklin County IDA Bonds. The mechanism for paying off the
bonds is coming from what would otherwise be property revenues
received by the town, school district, and county. From each
tax levy on Property homeowners will be taken sufficient revenues
to pay the principal and interest on the bonds, with the remainder
of the tax levy becoming a variable PILOT to the town, school
district, and county. In effect, this procedure creates a ‘backdoor’
way of getting municipal financing for the capital costs.
- Conclusion on Residential
Demand Analysis: “…market
research…prepared for this Application, does not in any
meaningful manner demonstrate sufficient support that the upscale
ACR project located in the heart of the Adirondacks can be successfully
marketed given the number of units and prices being proposed.”
In addition, serious environmental
problems identified by the APA include:
- “Potential to affect water,
land and visual resources;
- “Natural resource features
that pose severe difficulty for the proposed development (e.g.,
exposed bedrock, rock ledges, steep slopes and shallow soils);
- “Undue adverse impacts
upon the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, historic, recreational
and open space resources of the Park, including: adverse fragmentation
of wildlife habitat by Great Camp lots, lack of information to
assess potential impacts on localized changes in species composition,
diversity, functional organization, or changes to the biotic
integrity of the site and adjacent properties, visual impacts
from development at higher elevations, intrusion of the Orvis
Shooting School on rural residential uses and open space recreation,
increased traffic, “valet service quick boat launch”,
downstream impacts from stormwater runoff, and nighttime visual
impacts.”
The APA Act gives the developers
15 days from the Feb. 9 meeting to decide whether to withdraw
or modify the permit request, rather than face a hearing.
The Adirondack Council’s
mission is to ensure the ecological integrity and wild character
of the Adirondack Park. Founded in 1975, the Council is a privately
funded not-for-profit organization with 18,000 members in all
50 United States. The Council carries out its missions through
research, education, advocacy and legal action.
|
