The Adirondack Club and Resort Project   Don't look for negatives here     I'm for it.....!!!

The Adirondack Council is out to Destroy Tupper Lake's Future

The Adirondack Club and Resort Web Page

The Threat of Forest Fragmentation in the Adirondacks  Is it Real?

The Dynamic Adirondack Forest / What the Real Scientist are Saying

Regarding the Adirondack Council’s John Sheehan’s article “Tupper Development Spells Disaster”

Town of Altamont vetoes the State purchase of OWD forest lands "the 1999 lawsuit"

Private Land Classification Definitions

The Decline of Tupper Lake's Accommodation Industry

Tupper Lake's 5 year Revitalization Strategy

Adirondack Park Land Use Area Statistics

Adirondack Park Land Classification Acreage Statistics for Tupper Lake

Forest Fragmentation 

The concept of forest fragmentation is being used today by preservationist as a scare tactic to prevent development in the Adirondacks. Forest fragmentation occurs when large, continuous forests are divided into smaller blocks, either by roads, clearing for agriculture, urbanization, or other human development. It’s obvious that changes in the land will mean changes to wildlife populations.   

Wildlife managers and land managers have traditionally considered edges as beneficial to wildlife because species diversity generally increases near habitat edges. Openings in the forest will create greater vegetative complexity along the edge. The edge effect can have consequences for wildlife by modifying species distribution and dispersal. Given all of that, changes in wildlife communities associated with habitat edges are not easily assessed because defining edge species and measuring edge dimensions can be difficult in field studies. There is no general consensus as to how edge effect is best measured. How do we effectively quantify edge effect and thereby develop management recommendations to improve the quality of edges for wildlife?  

There are volumes of photographic and aerial evidence that document the loss of open field habitat and edge. As the agricultural habitat of rural Adirondacks declines, open field species like the brown headed cow bird, crows, meadowlarks, night hawks, foxes and raccoons can be expected to decline.  There is a general consensus among mainstream biologists, foresters and even preservationist that the Adirondack forests are coming back. The old agricultural fields of a century ago are growing back to trees and a major shift in Adirondack mammal and bird species has been occurring. 

So where is the real threat....that the Adirondacks will change?

12,000 years ago the Adirondacks were under glacial ice. In light of that; every plant and animal species in the Adirondacks is invasive. The Adirondacks are dynamic and will continue to change regardless of human intervention and because of it.  We should all have a voice in deciding the Adirondacks we live in. Science should not be misrepresented and be used as a fear tactic or a weapon to support an ideology by powerful self interest groups.  It should be used for illumination to make wise decisions. The Adirondacks are more than just an ideology, it’s where live and play, the store down the street, our friends house and the hopes and best wishes for our children. It’s everyone’s dream and not for one group or ideology to decide.

                                                                  *

Regarding the Adirondack Council’s John Sheehan’s article “Tupper Development Spells Disaster”.

Where is Mr. Sheehan coming from? On one hand Mr. Sheehan is concerned that the project will be a disaster to the Tupper Lake resident that will bankrupt the community if the project fails and on the other hand, a disaster to open space and natural beauty if the project succeeds. 

He believes that the State should purchase and re-open Big Tupper. This idea has been floating around for years and discarded because of the burden it would put on private ski areas such as Titus Mountain to compete with a another State operation who’s survival is not dependant on making a profit.  

Mr. Sheehan asks, “Who is taking the risk?” and states that the developer wants the Town to build and maintain a similar number of roads and waterlines. The truth is that the developer, Preserve Associates, and future owners of the resort properties solely will be responsible for paying for the cost of extending the necessary municipal services to the site, i.e., sewer, water, electricity and roads. Special assessment districts are being set up to make sure  that only the  owners of the resort and the future residents of the development pay for new roads and the new utilities, and plant upgrades needed to serve the project, not the residents of the Town. 

Since the adoption of the Tupper Lake Strategic plan six years ago, we have not seen the Adirondack Council participate in any of our community revitalization meetings. I believe that Mr. Sheehan is not concerned with the well being of Tupper Lake residents. He is concerned the project succeed and if that happens, a threat to open space and his idealized view of what the Adirondacks should be.

                                                                    *

What is the Adirondack Club and Resort Project?

An investment/development firm headed by Michael D. Foxman, entitled Preserve Associates, LLC,  plans to develop 773 principle buildings affording 753 new residential units on property fronting on Tupper Lake and Simon Pond, overlooking the nearby Village of Tupper Lake. The proposed multi-million development includes upgrading of the Big Tupper Ski area and a nearby marina, as well as new amenities including a sportsmen/shooting complex, an inn for the traveling public and recreational facilities such as cross country ski trails, trail heads and canoe launches. The resort will bolster Tupper Lake's economy and provide a destination to sustain Tupper Lake's declining tourism industry.

Approximately twelve miles of new, mostly public roads will be constructed throughout the property, while two new waste water treatment plants will service most of the development. Water and electricity will be provided by the Village via distribution systems constructed by the developer. Funding for the infrastructure is proposed to be financed through bonds issued by the Franklin County Industrial Development Agency. Also, a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) agreement will be sought with local taxing jurisdictions, while a Home Owners Association will be formed to generate revenue and otherwise oversee the development as it comes into being.

The development will involve 906 acres of predominantly forested lands within a total 6,261 acre tract. The undeveloped lands will be retained under a conservation umbrella involving distinct open space, recreational and forestry management plans restricting residential development and incorporating existing trails/logging roads where possible.

The project is the most feasible plan to fulfill  Tupper Lake's Revitalization goal of re-opening the Big Tupper Ski Area.

Phase      Description

I              McDonalds Marina—New marina and retail building to replace existing structures on NYS Route 30 and Tupper Lake

I              West Slope side—75 townhouses and detached single family dwellings, maximum of 169 residential units

I              Ski Mountain Base Area and Lodge—New ski lodge (with restaurant) and accessory buildings to replace existing complex in support of program elements including, ice rink, supporting shops/kiosks, artist display and education spaces, ski learning center, spa services, recreational center and informal bandstand/amphitheater

I              Big Tupper Ski Area—Improved snowmaking, trail lighting, renovation or replacement of existing chairlifts and construction of new lift, and construction of new trails to service ski in/out homes

I              Outdoor Recreational Shooting Course—Sporting Clays Course, Shooting School and Lodge/Cabin

I-II             Lake Simond View—44 detached single family dwellings

I-IV            Great Camp Lots—twenty-four residential building lots averaging 90 acres in size, with buildings restricted to a development envelop; buildings to include main house, guest house 2 garages, wood sheds and a lean-to; lot area outside the development envelop will be subject to open space, recreation, and forestry management plans

II              West Face Expansion—66 townhouses and detached single family dwellings, maximum of 126 residential units

II              East Ridge—36 detached single family dwellings

II              West Face Inn—60 rooms or transient units, open to the public

III             East Village—seventeen townhouse buildings, maximum of 68 residential units

III             Cranberry Village—thirty-one townhouse buildings, maximum of 124 residential units

IV             Sugarloaf East—eight townhouse buildings, maximum of 32 residential units

IV             Sugarloaf North—twenty-one townhouses and detached single family dwellings, maximum of 33 residential units

IV             Tupper Lake View North—25 detached single family dwellings

IV             Tupper Lake View South—18 detached single family dwellings

                     

* 

TOWN OF ALTAMONT VETOES STATE PURCHASE OF FOREST LAND

1999 Lawsuit Against DEC Acquisition of Champion International Lands Sparks Reform

By Carol W. LaGrasse

At a special meeting on May 21 called by the Altamont Town Board, townspeople came out in unity to oppose the State’s purchase of an additional 2,800 acres of land toward the Forest Preserve. All five members of the town board also expressed their opposition to the acquisition, which would have added land owned by Oval Wood Dish Corporation in the town to the “Forever Wild” preserve lands in the Adirondack Mountains.

At the meeting, which was held in the town court room at Tupper Lake, the Town Board unanimously passed a resolution in opposition to the State land acquisition. Under special clauses to protect the economy and culture of local towns in the two major New York State laws that were enacted several years ago that set up the funding for such purchases, the Altamont Town Board’s resolution acts as a veto of the purchase.

The State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) had been disregarding the town veto power until the Property Rights Foundation of America organized a lawsuit in 1999 challenging the State’s giant acquisition of the 139,000-acre Champion International tracts in Franklin, St. Lawrence, Lewis and Hamilton Counties. One of the important points in the lawsuit is that the State violated the law by failing to obtain approval from the local towns in which the land is located. This violation was one of several illegalities in the land deal, the State’s largest acquisition in history. Many of the violations pointed out in the lawsuit relate to features of State law that would protect local communities, their culture and economies. The multi-plaintiff lawsuit, known as Aubin v. New York State, etal., is now in its third year in State court, on appeal from the State’s, Conservation Fund’s and forest industry companies’ combined motions to dismiss.

Lloyd Moore, who is the Chairman of the Adirondack Park Local Government Review Board, is a member of the St. Lawrence County Legislature, one of the petitioners in the Champion International lawsuit. Presiding over the Review Board’s May 31 monthly meeting at Baxter Mountain Lodge in Keene, he applauded this spin-off from the lawsuit

Holding up a copy of the article that appeared in the Adirondack Daily Enterprise soon after the Altamont meeting, Mr. Moore said that, as far as he is concerned, the veto of the land purchase means, “St. Lawrence County has already gotten back the $10,000 we spent on the lawsuit.”

At the Altamont town board meeting, several hunters spoke out in opposition to the purchase, saying that they would lose their clubhouses on the land where they hunt and take their families. The State has already dictated that this would happen in a few short years to the 298 hunting camps that have been used for generations on the Champion International lands. If the clubs are demolished, a slice of hunting culture will be gone forever, because it is impossible to create the same camaraderie, year-round family recreation, stewardship of wildlife, and practical use or the land for hunting when people have to hike into the land without the clubs as their base of operation. The economic impact on the towns from the loss of the patronage of local stores and business by the hunters would also be great.

According to the account of the meeting in the Enterprise, Paul Chartier, one of the hunters whose camp is on the Oval Wood Dish land, voiced his opinion, saying, “I have been hunting for 47 years, my father was a charter member of the Spring Hill Club…I hate to give it up.”

At the meeting, town resident Jack Delehanty said, “I was in favor of some state purchases in the past…but I’m getting a real education.”

The official Altamont Town Board resolution, which was signed and sealed by Dean D. Lefebvre, the town supervisor, on May 31, pointed out, “(T)he proposed acquisition if approved and consummated would also result in the displacement of more than forty hunting camp lease members of the two local hunting and fishing club lease holders knows an ‘Spring Hill’ and ‘Big Simond,’ with the attendant negative economic impact the loss of these outdoorsmen and women and their guests would have upon the Town.”

The newspaper also pointed out a statement by Altamont Supervisor Den Lefebvre:

“Under the Open Space Law the town has veto power,” he said. “From an economic standpoint the State would probably pay more per acre than anyone else; that could be considered added tax revenue. However, there is a loss from a cultural standpoint. We have to draw a line in the snow or the sand and we may find that other towns will follow suit.”

“I see two kids in the room tonight and I am thinking about the future, Mr. Lefebvre said, according to the Enterprise.

The town board’s resolution pointed out that “the proposed acquisition now and for more than the past fifty years has provided a source of timber for local woodsmen for supply to local mills and consumers of firewood, alike, which has in turn supported the economy of the Town.”

The resolution also pointed out the harm to the timber industry caused by the excessive prices that the State pays for land in the Adirondacks. The resolution stated, “(T)he proposed acquisition would have further negative effects on the price and valuation of open forest lands not only within the Town but regionally within the Adirondack Park, which negative effects (have) already placed an undue burden on timber companies in the retention of open space timber lands and (have) threatened their continued existence within the Adirondack Park.”

The final point of the three-page resolution summed up an oft-repeated grievance that the people of the Adirondack region have against the pack rat mentality of the State of New York: “(T)he State of New York already owns too much land otherwise capable of economic use to supply forest products and for open space recreational uses such as biking, snowmobiling, 4-wheeling and other motorized uses, which such open space recreational uses represent a beneficial economic use which would become severely restricted or prohibited all together whenever the state acquires such lands.”

The new procedure that the DEC has instituted includes sending a letter to the local town board requesting a response within 90 days of receipt of the letter if the town resolves to oppose the acquisition.

*

The Tupper Lake Chamber of Commerce's

Position on the Adirondack Club and Resort Project 

The mission of the Tupper Lake Chamber of Commerce is to promote the commercial, recreational, industrial and civic interests of the Village of Tupper Lake, the Town of Tupper Lake and its membership and to provide a forum for communications among the business community, civic leaders and government agencies.

 The Tupper Lake Chamber of Commerce Board supports the Adirondack Club and Resort Project. We feel strongly that the project is in line with the Tupper Lake Chamber of Commerce’s mission statement and the vision stated in the Tupper Lake Revitalization Plan of which the Chamber was an active participant.

 “Tupper Lake is the home of the Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks.  The community is a friendly, clean and attractive all-season outdoor family recreation destination that has maintained its small town character capitalized on its crossroads location and preserved its scenic beauty while creating ample employment opportunities for its residents.  These qualities have made Tupper Lake a desirable place to live, work, raise a family or retire.”

 The reopening to the public of the “Big Tupper Ski Slope” is a primary goal of the community’s revitalization strategy.  Attempts in the past to make the slope a profitable enterprise have not materialized.  Recognizing the unpredictability of the ski industry we feel that the Adirondack Club and Resort’s strategic plan has great merit, and the Chamber board has faith that the Adirondack Park Agency will represent the integrity of our natural environment by not compromising the natural resources that make our community a desirable place to live, work, recreate and visit.

 The Adirondack Club and Resort will be a valuable asset for the local business economy by providing a larger customer base and creating jobs.  We believe the Resort Project will have favorable impact on the tourism economy and the community’s tax base. The project will stabilize tax rates as property values increase through the coming years making Tupper Lake a more affordable place to live.

 Comments can be made to the Chamber by emailing us at tuppercc@adelphia.net or writing to Tupper Lake Chamber of Commerce, 60 Park Street, Tupper Lake, NY 12986.

 Tupper Lake Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors 

President: Don Dew Jr.                         Stephanie Ratcliffe

Vice President: Zoe Smith                     Nancy Howard

Secretary: Sally Strasser                        Dean Scoble

Treasurer: Mary A. Cassagrain             Greg Spengler

*

Adirondack Park Agency Board votes unanimously to provide comprehensive review of the proposed Adirondack Club and Resort Project.

RAY BROOK, NY - Adirondack Park Agency Board votes unanimously to provide comprehensive review of the proposed Adirondack Club and Resort Project.

At Thursday's Adirondack Park Agency meeting the Regulatory Programs Committee accepted Park Agency staff's recommendation to hold an adjudicatory hearing for the proposed resort - residential project, "Adirondack Club and Resort."

The Regulatory Programs Committee accepted the recommendation after two days of presentations and discussion. Issues identified as reasons to proceed to an adjudicatory public hearing were based on the following criteria:

• Size and complexity of the project;

• Degree of public interest in the project;

• Presence of significant issues relating to the criteria for approval of the project;

• Possibility that the project can only be approved if major modifications are made or substantial conditions are imposed;

• Possibility that information presented at a public hearing would be of assistance to the agency in its review; and

• Extent of public involvement achieved by other means.

The proposal involves 6,236 acres and would result in the construction of 387 buildings and 759 residential units. Infrastructure costs were estimated at $45 million for wastewater, water, roads and electric infrastructure and $600 million in value of residential units. The board indicated the scale of the project could have potential impacts to community character, quality of life, need for local government services and create possible public vulnerability.

The committee vote was unanimous and the recommendation was forwarded to the Full Agency for deliberation at Friday's meeting.

On Friday, February 9, the Full Agency voted unanimously, after careful deliberation, to send the Adirondack Club and Resort project to an adjudicatory hearing. The agency hereby orders this matter to public hearing pursuant to Section 580.3 and directed the following issues be considered at the adjudicatory hearing:

Issue #1. Is the natural resource protection (including visual, forest resources, habitat and other natural resource considerations) implicit in Resource Management land use area adequately protected (section (805(g)(2)); are the proposed Great Camp lots “substantial acreage...on carefully and well designed sites.” Are there alternatives, and if so, what are the relative impacts on these resources.

Issue #2. What are the impacts of the Orvis Shooting School activities on the noise levels, existing and as proposed; are there alternatives or conditions which would address those impacts; are there any associated effects on water quality or traffic on Lake Simond Road.

Issue #3. What are the impacts of the proposed East Ridge, upper portions of the West Slope side, and the West face developments on the existing land topography, vegetation and soils; will the development as proposed cause excessive storm water run off, erosion and slippage in these areas; what will be the visual impacts during the day and night of these proposed sections.

Issue #4. What impacts does the proposed on site sewage treatment facility at Lake Simond have on neighboring water bodies.

Issue #5. What are the fiscal impacts of the project to the governmental units should any phase or section of the project not be completed as proposed; what is the public vulnerability should the project either fail or not proceed at its projected pace relating to on and off-site infrastructure for which cost-sharing has been proposed between the developer and local governments (e.g. drinking water plant improvements, road maintenance) or on-site private infrastructure that may be subject to eventual operation by the Town; what is the ability to provide municipal and emergency services to any section in light of the road design or the elevation (e.g., East Ridge booster pump station).

Issue #6. Section 805 (4) requires the consideration of the burden on and benefits to the public. What are the positive and negative fiscal impacts of the project to the governmental units? What are the impacts of the project on the municipalities’ electric system ability to meet future demand? To what extent will energy conservation mitigate demand impacts? What are the assumptions and guarantees that the Big Tupper ski area can be renovated and retained as a community resource; what are the current and expected market conditions relating to available housing for the project’s workforce; what are the impacts of the proposed project on the local housing market?

Issue #7. What are the impacts, alternatives and appropriate conditions on the use of Forest Preserve such as State facilities in Intensive Use areas?

Issue #8. Are there alternatives to minimize interference with wetland values and functions including ground water infiltration, wildlife habitat, stormwater control and other values, and the need for mitigation in the areas of Cranberry Pond wetland complex, the marina, and the base lodge footprint?

Issue #9. Are there undue adverse downstream stormwater impacts associated with the base lodge sub-catchment area? Specifically, the water quantity components (i.e., over-bank flood and extreme flood) included in the stormwater pond designs.

Issue #10. What are the appropriate mechanisms to coordinate and ensure project compliance with application commitments and permit conditions as the project is undertaken over time?

The Adirondack Park Agency will now begin the process of scheduling the adjudicatory hearing. It is anticipated the hearing will begin before March 20.

This type of hearing provides the permit applicant; the public, neighbors, local government, other involved state agencies and Agency staff an opportunity to present evidence and to argue contested issues before an impartial hearing officer. The resulting record, including the permit application, public comment, exhibits, testimony and written submissions from participants in the hearing, provides the sole basis for the Adirondack Park Agency Board's final determination on this proposed project.

The adjudicatory hearing includes four components:

1) pre-hearing conference which initiates the hearing;

2) an informal session for un sworn public comment on the record;

3) the formal hearing at which evidence is advanced and testimony accepted for the record and

4) the closing argument and/or briefs.

The pre-hearing conference provides an opportunity to identify “parties” to the hearing, issues to be adjudicated and other procedural matters. At the informal session, any member of the public is invited to speak or ask questions of the applicant.

The length of the adjudicatory proceeding depends upon the number and complexity of the environmental and legal issues, the number of witnesses, the result of the pre-hearing direction of the Agency and the deliberation before the hearing officer at the issues conference.

An independent hearing officer will be assigned to oversee the adjudicatory proceedings. The role of the hearing officer is to do everything necessary to assure that the hearing is fair and impartial, as well as efficient and orderly. Specifically, the hearing officer is responsible for the following:

• Initiate the hearing with a conference to establish parties, issues and initial hearing schedule

• Administer oaths or affirmations

• Set/adjourn hearing dates and schedule for testimony and argument

• Rule on all motions and requests until the close of the hearing

• Issue, quash or modify subpoenas for the appearance of persons or the production of documents

• Admit or exclude evidence offered for the record

• Limit the number of witnesses and cross-examination

The Adirondack Park Agency Board will ultimately render final decision on whether or not to approve the proposed Adirondack Club and Resort project. Their decision will be based solely on the hearing record. The hearing record will include the transcripts of the hearing, the application, all exhibits as admitted to the record by the hearing officer, any letter, petitions or comments, stipulations and the briefs filed by parties and the Agency hearing staff during the hearing and any determinations of the hearing officer. The hearing record is closed upon the receipt at the Agency of the full transcript, and briefs or any documents the parties agreed to submit at the hearing, whichever occurs later.

*

Some Interesting Tupper Lake Ddemographics

New York -- Place and County Subdivision

GCT-H5. General Housing Characteristics:  2000   Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data

*

Adirondack Park Land Classification Acreage Statistics 

 Tupper Lake

*

The Decline of Tupper Lake's Accommodation Industry

For years there has been a decline in accommodation businesses. This lack of infrastructure has greatly prevented the success of past owners to make the ski slope successful. The Adirondack Club and Resort associates have came forward with a plan to make the slope economically feasible.

At present, there are about 138 (motel) rooms and 104 units or cabins available to rent during our summer season. Saranac Lake and Long Lake rooms are only a half hour away and there are over a 1000 campsites available between the three communities. For the most part, during the summer season, our motel owners do business within the industry standard occupancy rate of 55%-60%. When winter rolls along. The campsites close, the cabins shut down, leaving Tupper Lake with just over a 100 rooms available to the visitor.

There has been an overall decline of Tupper Lake’s accommodation industry. Table 1 depicts the current inventory of accommodation businesses in Tupper Lake for the current year 2006. Table 2 was taken from a Chamber brochure published in the sixties, about 40 years ago. The Asterisks note that the business was open all year.

Table 1. List of Local Accommodation Businesses in Tupper Lake / 2006.

Coccia Pines * Curtigay Cove * Faust Motel
Hauser’s Haven * Lakeview Motel * Northwood Cabins
Park Motel * Quinn Cottage * Red Top Inn *
Rock Bay Camps * Shaheens Motel * Sunset Park *
The Three Pillars Timber Lodge * Top Notch Motel *
Tupper Lake Motel * The Wawbeek * Mountain Gate Motel
Adirondack Lakeside Cabin * Camp Dancing Bears * Green Bay Camp
Little Wolf Cabin * Moody Cabin * Mt Arab Lodge
Tall Pines Cottage


Table 2. List of Local Accommodation Businesses in Tupper Lake / circa 1966.

Adam’s Guest House * Alpine Motor Court * Baileys Motel *
Bellevue Motor Court * Bliss Haven * Cambridge Cottage
Camp Kirk * Camp Lure * Camp Phyllis
Clear Vallee * Colonial Hotel * Country Cottages
Doll House * Dumoulin Cottage * Faust Motel
Greenway Terrace Motel * Halbigs Motel * Hillcrest Cabins *
Honeymoon Cottage * Hutts Cottages * Hutts Motel *
Iroquois Hotel * Jackman’s Imperial Motel * Lakecrest Cottages
LaRocque’s Cottage * Martins Cottage * Millstone Cottage *
Lake Shore Cabins * Lakeside Motor Court * Lake Simond Cabins
Lambie Cottage * Mt. Morris View * Oberland Cottage
Panther Point Cottage * Bull Point Motel Cottages * Daly’s Cottages
Foresters Lodge * Indian Spring Camp * Peace Haven Cottages
Pine Terrace Motor Court Plaza Hotel * Quinn Cottage
Red Top Cottages * Roland Richer Cottages * Sekon Lodge
Shore Acres Motor Court * Storm Cove * Sunset Park Motel
The Lumberjack * Three Pillars * Tope’s Motel
Tupper Lake Motel * “U” Motel * Upper Saranac Lodge
Waukesha Lodge * Wawbeek Hotel  Motel * Windsor Hotel *
Grand Union Hotel * Wood’s Guest House * Waverly House *

During the late sixties, about 40 years ago, there were 60 accommodation businesses. Currently, we have 25. 19 of them were open year round (we’re down to 9). Some of the businesses like the Plaza Hotel still exist but function differently.

There are many reasons for this decline. The 1980 Olympics re-invigorated Lake Placid making them a major destination and allowed for the growth of their current infrastructure. The building of the Adirondack Northway changed the way people traveled through the Adirondacks and the tourist industry began to change as motels and cottages found themselves no longer on the main travel corridors. Lake cottages, that were once rentable, have become second homes and the low occupancy rates during the winter have caused many of our motels to close their doors. Visitor expectations have also changed; today they want indoor pools, internet connections, restaurants and other amenities provided by modern inns and hotels.

Our current hotel base in Tupper Lake consists of scattered motels and cabins and is inadequate to meet the expanding needs of our community. Our new museum expects to have a number of educational conferences, workshops and exhibits throughout the fall and winter, but how successful can we be with only a hundred rooms available during the winter, where road conditions constitute the willingness of a person to travel.

According to the Resort Associates, if the Adirondack Club and Resort becomes a reality it will eventually add an additional 400+ rental units and a 40 room hotel. Rental units in Tupper Lake are necessary to enable the success of the Big Tupper Ski Slope, the new Wild Center and main street businesses. If we accept the $50,000 per room number using the above mentioned statistics, when fully developed the Adirondack Resort Project will infuse $22,000,000 a year into the local economy.

Without a winter destination and adequate visitor accommodations, Tupper Lake will not be able to become a viable all season tourist economy and current trends will most likely continue. We will continue to lose accommodation businesses and increase the tax burden of our citizens as we lose our tax base and become out-competed by other tourist destinations.

*

*

*

Adirondack Park
Land Use Area Statistics -- Acreage by County and Land Use Classification - March 2003

State Land Classification Definitions

The following state land classification definitions are taken from the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan.

Wilderness

A wilderness area, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man--where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. A wilderness area is further defined to mean an area of state land or water having a primeval character, without significant improvement or permanent human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve, enhance and restore, where necessary, its natural conditions, and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least ten thousand acres of contiguous land and water or is of sufficient size and character as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological or other features of scientific, educational, scenic or historical value.

Primitive

A primitive area is an area of land or water that is either:

1. Essentially wilderness in character but, (a) contains structures, improvements, or uses that are inconsistent with wilderness, as defined, and whose removal, though a long term objective, cannot be provided for by a fixed deadline, and/or, (b) contains, or is contiguous to, private lands that are of a size and influence to prevent wilderness designation; or,

2. Of a size and character not meeting wilderness standards, but where the fragility of the resource or other factors require wilderness management.

Canoe

A canoe area is an area where the watercourses or the number and proximity of lakes and ponds make possible a remote and unconfined type of water-oriented recreation in an essentially wilderness setting.

Wild Forest

A wild forest area is an area where the resources permit a somewhat higher degree of human use than in wilderness, primitive or canoe areas, while retaining an essentially wild character. A wild forest area is further defined as an area that frequently lacks the sense of remoteness of wilderness, primitive or canoe areas and that permits a wide variety of outdoor recreation.

Intensive Use

An intensive use area is an area where the state provides facilities for intensive forms of outdoor recreation by the public. Two types of intensive use areas are defined by this plan: campground and day use areas.

Historic

Historic areas are locations of buildings, structures or sites owned by the state (other than the Adirondack Forest Preserve itself) that are significant in the history, architecture, archeology or culture of the Adirondack Park, the state or the nation; that fall into one of the following categories;
-- state historic sites;
-- properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places;
-- properties recommended for nomination by the Committee on Registers of the New York State Board For Historic Preservation; and that are of a scale, character and location appropriate for designation as an historic area under this master plan and the state has committed resources to manage such areas primarily for historic objectives.

State Administrative

State administrative areas are areas where the state provides facilities for a variety of specific state purposes that are not primarily designed to accommodate visitors to the Park.

*

Private Land Classification Definitions

The following are the land use area classifications of the APLUDP, and a general description of their purpose:

HAMLET

These are the growth and service centers of the Park where the Agency encourages development. Intentionally, the Agency has very limited permit requirements in hamlet areas. Activities there requiring an Agency permit are erecting buildings or structures over 40 feet in height, projects involving more than 100 lots, sites or units, projects involving wetlands, airports, watershed management projects, and certain expansions of buildings and uses. Hamlet boundaries usually go well beyond established settlements to provide room for future expansion.

MODERATE INTENSITY USE

Most uses are permitted; relatively concentrated residential development is most appropriate.

LOW INTENSITY USE

Most uses are permitted; residential development at a lower intensity than hamlet or moderate intensity is appropriate.

RURAL USE

Most uses are permitted; residential uses and reduced intensity development that preserves rural character is most suitable.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Most development activities in resource management areas will require an Agency permit; compatible uses include residential uses, agriculture, and forestry. Special care is taken to protect the natural open space character of these lands.

INDUSTRIAL USE

This is where industrial uses exist or have existed, and areas which may be suitable for future industrial development. Industrial and commercial uses are also allowed in other land use area classifications.

 

Overall Intensity Guidelines

The land classifications in the APA Act are designated to channel development into areas where it is best supported and to control the overall density of development. While very few types of activities are prohibited by the Act, some activities are prohibited in certain land use areas.

By setting limits on the amount of building—and accompanying roads, clearing, support services, etc.—the Act contemplates that the Park will retain its natural, open space character while communities in the Park continue to grow in an environmentally sensitive manner. Overall intensity guidelines are established by land use classification. While the intensity guidelines prescribe average lot sizes for building, they are not minimum lot sizes; different minimum lot sizes are also established by the Act. Only the lands owned by the project sponsor are considered when applying intensity guidelines. Existing or proposed buildings on neighbors’ land do not count.

*

The Adirondack Council Goes Hunting for Tupper Lake Dreams

What’s going on at the Adirondack Council? Why is an environmental organization backing away from protecting the Adirondacks? If the Adirondack Club and Resort obtains the Adirondack Park Agency permit it will safe guard 4,173 acres of resource management forest land through forest management plans that would insure a healthy forest and encourage biodiversity.

The council is blindsided by fear. They think that the Adirondack’s resource management land is all going to the developers while turning its back to years of clear-cutting, road building and unregulated camp building caused by poor logging practices in an unmanaged and unregulated forests.

It seems like the ultimate goal of the Council is to have resource management lands purchased by the State so they can be put in a severely restrictive, Forest Preserve land classification. By not supporting the project they have assigned the land a dismal future and created huge stumbling block for the future prosperity of Tupper Lake. The land will still be for sale. Logging will go on unabated and without plan and the chance for public good (re-opening the Big Tupper Ski resort) will vanish.

Half of the 5,821,183 acre Adirondack Park is owned by the State and 26.69% of private land is classified resource management (1,553,594 acres). In the Town of Tupper Lake there are 53,620 acres of resource management lands. The AC&R project encompasses about 6,262 acres with only 906 actually developed. Statistically the developed aspect of the project represents 1/66th of 1% of total Park development.

Of the projects 6,262 acres, 4,487 acres are classified as resource management. Only 314 acres (7%) of that is considered for development. This development will compose of 314 acres out of the total 1,553,594 acres of state classified, resource management lands. The bottom line is that the Adirondack Club and Resort development directly effects 1/50th of 1% of all the resource management land in the Adirondacks and 3/5ths of 1% of Franklin County’s resource management lands.

Here's another interesting statistic. The Adirondacks is 5,821,183 acres (the size of Vermont) . There are only 131,000 people who reside here or 1 person for every 45.8 acres of land. If Tupper Lake grows another 2,000 people over the next 10 years because of the resort project, then the there will be 45.11 acres per person. An even more interesting statistic would be a proximity study since most people are not scattered evenly throughout the Adirondacks, but live in close proximity in the Villages.

The Town fathers are doing the right thing by supporting a plan that protects the 6,000 acres of resource management lands while providing and economic stimulus to the local economy. The Tupper Lake Community has worked since 1998, developing community strategy, to protect and promote its natural resources. There has been numerous public meetings and chance for input. Except for Wildlife Conservation, there has never been a representative from the Council or any of the so called environmental groups at any of those meetings. They talk the talk of protecting the Adirondacks and working with communities, but in truth care very little for the average Joe who lives here.
 

Questionable tactics used to get Black Brook land