For Immediate Release: April 3, 2007
Contact:
Keith P. McKeever | Public Relations | Adirondack Park Agency
contact@apa.ny.gov | (518) 891-4050
In the Matter of a Proposal by PRESERVE ASSOCIATES, LLC Subject to Section 809 of the Adirondack Park Agency Act, and 9 NYCRR Parts 577 and 578
INTRODUCTION On April 19, 2005, the Adirondack Park Agency received an application to undertake a Class A Regional Project, known as the Adirondack Club and Resort, located in the Town of Tupper Lake, Franklin County. The project site is approximately 6,236± acres of property and includes lands of the former Big Tupper Ski Area (445± acres), the surrounding Oval Wood Dish landholdings (5,740.5± acres), the Cranberry Pond landholding (49.5± acres) and the former McDonalds Marina (1± acre). The applicant proposes to undertake the project in phases over thirteen years. Most of the site is located east of NYS Route 30, except for the marina and two other small parcels that are located west of Route 30. The site includes about 1,800± feet of frontage on Simond Pond and about 235± feet on Big Tupper Lake at the marina. The applicant proposes to develop a planned resort development with a ski center, marina, shooting school, 60-unit inn, 675 single-family and multiple-family residential dwelling units, and 24 great camp lots. The project will be serviced by the Village of Tupper Lake municipal water system and two on-site wastewater treatment plants. The Village municipal electric system would provide power to the site and the roads servicing the site would become Town roads. Funding for the infrastructure (i.e., water, wastewater, electric and roads) is proposed to be financed by bonds issued by the Franklin County Industrial Development Agency. A payment-in-lieu of taxes (PILOT) arrangement with local taxing jurisdictions has been proposed.
Start-Up and Phase I will be undertaken in years 1 through 5 and includes, among other things, water, sewer, electric and road infrastructure components including the West Access Road, the By-Pass Road, two wastewater treatment plants, water supply infrastructure and new utility lines. Phase I also involves major improvements to the Big Tupper Ski Area including new lifts, improved snowmaking and a new base lodge complex. Phase I will also include the new marina and the Orvis Shooting School (i.e., lodge and sporting clays course). Phase I residential development will include the West Slopeside residential development (75 buildings, 169 units), all but two of the great camp lots, two single-family dwellings in the Sugarloaf North development and a large portion of the Simond Pond View subdivision (25 single-family dwellings).
Phase II, to be undertaken in project years 6, 7 and 8, will include continued installation of road, water, sewer and utility line infrastructure, the rest of the Pond View subdivision (19 single-family dwellings), one of the two remaining great camp lots, the East Ridge subdivision (36 single-family dwellings), the West Face Expansion development (66 buildings, 126 units), the 60-room West Face Inn and continued improvements to the ski center. The West Face Expansion development includes a new ski lift and trails to service that development and the East Ridge subdivision will include a new ski trail from that subdivision.
Phase III, to be undertaken in project years 9 and 10, includes the Cranberry Village (31 buildings, 124 units) and East Village (17 buildings, 68 units) developments, as well as the infrastructure associated with those two developments.
Phase IV, to be undertaken in project years 11, 12 and 13, includes the Tupper Lake View North (25 single-family dwellings) and Tupper Lake View South (18 single-family dwellings) subdivisions and the main portion of the Sugarloaf North (19 buildings, 31 units) and the Sugarloaf East (8 buildings, 32 units) developments, as well as the last great camp lot.
After receipt of additional information from the applicant on February 21, 2006 and October 30, 2006, and an extension of the deadline for project completion by agreement, the project application was determined complete on December 20, 2006. The matter comes to the Agency for a determination pursuant to 9 NYCRR 580.2 with respect to a project hearing as directed by §809 of the Adirondack Park Agency Act (APA Act). The Agency herein directs the matter to a formal project hearing pursuant to APA Act §809.
FINDINGS
I. In addressing the criteria of 9 NYCRR 580.2 the record before the Agency supports the following conclusions with the respect to the eight criteria from the regulation:
(1) “The size and/or complexity of the project, whether measured by cost, area, effect upon municipalities, or uniqueness of resources likely to be affected.”
a. The project is one of the largest, if not the largest project ever to come before the Adirondack Park Agency based on a combination of project costs ($45 million for wastewater, water, roads and electric infrastructure; $600 million in projected value of residential units), number of residential units (387 buildings and 759 units), and area (6,236 acres). The project will add 30% to the number of housing units in the immediate Tupper Lake community, has substantial public service requirements, has the potential for significant and far reaching effects on the Town, the Village of Tupper Lake and surrounding communities as it relates to economic stimulus, community character, quality of life and need for local government services, and public vulnerability should the project fail or not proceed at its projected pace. b. The project has the potential to affect water, land and visual resources. It is bordered by or includes the Raquette River, Tupper Lake, Simond Pond, Cranberry Pond, Moody Pond and several permanent and intermittent streams. The water resources on and adjoining the site will be used for recreation, drinking water, snowmaking and treating wastewater effluent discharges. The project also has the potential to affect the water quality and quantity of those water resources on and around the site as a result of stormwater runoff, sedimentation, effluent discharges, increased recreational usage, the introduction of exotic species, blasting and the manipulation of both ground and surface water sources. Some of the proposed buildings may be visible from off-site locations including NYS Route 30, Tupper Lake and Simond Pond. c. There are natural resource features on the site that pose severe difficulty for proposed development. As proposed, certain roads, utility lines (including electric, water and sewer) and foundations would be constructed on exposed bedrock, rock ledges, steep slopes and shallow soils. Existing vegetation in these areas is already limited and successful planting of new vegetation could be very difficult.
(2) “The degree of public interest in the project, as evidenced by communication from the general public, governmental officials or private organizations.”
a. The level of public interest in this project is evidenced by the receipt of hundreds of letters, extensive media coverage, and participation by numerous members of the public and elected officials in legislative-type hearings (i.e., public comment sessions). In the history of the Agency, this project has generated one of the highest levels of public interest. Many individuals, organizations and municipal officials have expressed interest in the project, including a large number of adjoining landowners, local business people, public interest groups, industrial and economic development organizations, environmental advocacy organizations and the Town and Village of Tupper Lake. b. Since receipt of the initial application on April 19, 2005, the Agency has received several hundred comment letters and a petition with 376 signatures. The petition, received at the Agency on January 17, 2007 states: "I am in favor of the development of the Adirondack Club and Resort and the Big Tupper Ski Area. I urge you to initiate the necessary steps to make this project a reality while ensuring the economic and environmental well being of the area." Over 100 letters were received prior to determining the application complete and 250 additional comment letters between December 20, 2006, the application completion date, and January 19, 2007, the end of the comment period from the legislative-type hearing. About 25 of those letters supported the project. The rest raised concerns and requested that the Agency conduct an adjudicatory hearing. c. The Agency's Regulatory Programs Committee, in the presence of the full Board of Commissioners, held a Conceptual Review public comment session on the project application on December 9, 2004 at the Tupper Lake High School. About 350 people attended. On January 10, 2007 the Agency's Regulatory Programs Committee conducted a legislative-type hearing/public comment session. About 500 people attended and nearly 70 people addressed the Board, speaking both in support of and raising concerns about the project. d. The Town of Tupper Lake Supervisor and other Town officials, a County Legislator, and several representatives of area chambers of commerce voiced strong support for the project. e. Correspondence was received from the Adirondack North Country Association expressing support for the project if properly developed and identifying a range of issues that they feel require close scrutiny by involved local governments and the Adirondack Park Agency. f. Correspondence was also received from Plattsburgh/North Country Chamber of Commerce and the Tupper Lake Chamber of Commerce in support of the project. g. Correspondence was received from the Mayor of the Village of Tupper Lake recommending an adjudicatory hearing. h. The Agency also received one letter from eleven environmental advocacy organizations and individual letters from the Residents' Committee to Protect the Adirondacks, the Adirondack Council, the Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks, the Adirondack Mountain Club, Audubon New York and the Natural Resources Defense Council, all raising concerns about the project and requesting the Agency to hold an adjudicatory hearing on the project. i. The project has also received significant coverage in regional newspapers and local television and radio stations.
(3) “The presence of significant issues relating to the criteria for approval of the project.”
There are several issues that do not appear to comply with Agency approval criteria set forth in APA Act §805(4), “Development Considerations”, and 9 NYCRR 574.5, “Further definitions of the development considerations”; for example:
a. Does the project as proposed comply with APA Act §805 (3)(g) which requires “residential development on substantial acreage or in small clusters on carefully selected and well designed sites.” b. There are natural resource considerations relating to the existing water quality and proposed sewage and stormwater treatment. [§805(4)(a)(1)] c. The project as proposed will affect the existing topography, forest and open space resources. [§805(4)(a)(2)] d. The noise levels associated with the proposed Orvis Shooting School. [§805(4)(a)(4)] e. The presence of, and effect upon, fish and wildlife on the project site. [§805(4)(a)(6)] f. The visibility of the project as proposed during daytime and nighttime. [§805(4)(a)(7)] g. The effect upon nearby land, both private, such as the housing inventory, and public, such as nearby Wilderness Units. [§805(4)(c)(2)] h. The adequacy of provisions for the restoration of existing site facilities, the Big Tupper ski facility. [§805(4)(c)(2)] i. Governmental considerations of the impacts on taxpayers and the ability to provide facilities and services. [§805(4)(d)(1)(a)&(b)]
(4) “The possibility that the project can only be approved if major modifications are made or substantial conditions are imposed.”
a. The Orvis Shooting School may not be consistent with the objectives of the Act; modifications or substantial conditions may be required to reach a no undue adverse impact finding. b. The East Ridge development may be severely conditioned or eliminated to reach the no undue adverse impact finding. c. The upper portions of the West Slopeside development may also require substantial conditions to reach the required no undue adverse impacts finding.
(5) “The possibility that information presented at a public hearing would be of assistance to the agency in its review.”
The Agency is required to consider “any burden on the public in providing facilities and services made necessary...as well as any commercial, industrial, residential, recreational or other benefits...." Therefore, it would be appropriate to receive additional information on the financial assumptions, projections and guarantees and the ability to complete the project and the outcomes if the project does not develop as projected. Further information could be developed or updated about the availability of residential housing and the effect of the project on it. A hearing could also develop information regarding the future use of the Big Tupper ski area.
(6) “The extent of public involvement achieved by other means.”
The public will have some opportunity to participate in both Town of Tupper Lake Planning Board review of the project and in the Franklin County IDA’s review of the proposed bonding and PILOT agreements, as public hearings are required in both processes. However, those public hearing opportunities will not commence until after the Agency has made a decision on whether to send this project to an adjudicatory hearing, and none of those processes substitute for an Agency hearing or give the Agency authority to amend or deny all or portions of the project. Information gained through the Agency’s adjudicatory hearing will likely also facilitate decision making at the Town, Village and County levels. (7) “Whether an environmental impact statement will be prepared pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act.”
The Agency determined not to require preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). The project is subject to review pursuant to §809 of the Adirondack Park Agency Act as a Class A and B regional project and as such substitutes for a formal SEQRA process. The Agency recognized, during its Conceptual Review process, that EIS-type issues would be adequately covered by having the project sponsor submit required information on the Agency’s application forms: “General Information Request” and “Supplemental Information Request – Large Scale Residential Development Projects and Other Residential Development Projects to be Undertaken in Sections.”
(8) “The statutory finding required by section 814(2) of the Adirondack Park Agency Act in the case of State agency projects reviewed thereunder.”
The project does not require approval pursuant to §814(2) of the Adirondack Park Agency Act.
II. 9 NYCRR 580.3 provides that “the Agency may determine to limit the issues to be considered at the hearing, in which case it will advise the project sponsor of its determination and the notice of hearing will specify the issues to be considered.
III. 9 NYCRR 580.9 provides “the hearing officer may direct the parties to appear for a conference to simplify, define, limit or resolve issues. The hearing officer shall summarize for the record the action taken at the conference and any admissions, stipulations or agreements which were made by the parties”.
ORDER
The agency hereby orders this matter to public hearing and pursuant to 9 NYCRR 580.3 directs the following issues be considered at hearing:
Issue #1. Is the natural resource protection (including visual, forest resource, habitat and other natural resource considerations) implicit in Resource Management land use area adequately protected [§805(3)(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 [Development Consideration §805(4)(a)(4), hereafter, DC #); are there alternatives or conditions which would address Shooting School impacts; are there any associated effects on water quality or traffic on Lake Simond Road [DC (a)(1)]?
Issue #3. What are the impacts of the proposed East Ridge, upper portions of the West Slopeside, and the Westface developments on the existing land topography, vegetation and soils [DC (a)(2),(c)(1), (e)]; will the development as proposed cause excessive stormwater run-off, erosion and slippage in these areas [DC (a)(2)]; what will be the visual impacts during the day and night of these proposed sections [DC (a)(7)]?
Issue #4. What impacts does the proposed on-site sewage treatment facility at Lake Simond have on neighboring water bodies [DC (a)(1)]?
Issue #5. [DC (d)(1)] 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 impacts of the project (including fiscal impacts) to the governmental units? What are the impacts of the project on the municipalities' electric system’s 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 [DC (c)(2)(a)]?
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 subcatchment area; specifically, the water quantity components (i.e., overbank 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? [§809(13)(b)]
FURTHER ORDERED, the following are issues for which no testimony or evidence is necessary:
1. Compliance with the Adirondack Park Land Use and Development Plan (§805 of the APA Act) in certain land use areas
There are no issues of compliance of the project with the character description and the purposes, polices and objectives, compatible uses for Hamlet, Low Intensity Use and Moderate Intensity Use land use areas. [APA Act §805(3)(c), (d) and (e)]
2. Conformance with the overall intensity guidelines (OIG’s)
The proposed development complies with the overall intensity guidelines for a Moderate Intensity Use (MIU) land use area that allows a maximum of 500 principal buildings per square mile. However, a recalculation of the OIG’s in Resource Management (RM) may be necessary and a final permit, if any, conditioned accordingly. [APA Act §809(10)(c)]
3. Wetlands [DC (5)(e), (9 NYCRR 578.10)]
Other than the three wetland areas near the marina, the Cranberry Pond wetland complex and the ski area, all other wetland areas have been delineated and documented and satisfactory wetland compensatory mitigation sites are known and appropriate compensatory mitigation plans have been developed.
4. Natural heritage features and rare, threatened and endangered species [DC (a)(5)(c)]
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation confirmed, respectively, that no federal or state rare, threatened or endangered species have been identified on the project site. The NY Natural Heritage Program identified a deer wintering yard located on the proposed Type I lands located near Simond Pond and the Raquette River, but no building development is proposed on these lands proposed to be preserved and there would be no impacts to the deer wintering yard.
5. Visual analysis methodology and results [DC (a)(7)]
The visual analysis methodology and the selection of viewpoints were approved by Agency staff. Agency staff was present when many of the photographs used in the analysis and simulations were taken. The simulations are a fair representation of the proposed project.
6. Historic resources [DC (b)(1)])
A Phase I Literature Review and Archeology Assessment Study and a Phase I Archeology Field Reconnaissance were conducted. The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation issued a letter stating that the “project will have No Effect on cultural resources in or eligible for inclusion on the State and National Registers of Historic Places”. 7. Power capacity for Phase I [DC (d)(1)(a)]
At the present time, the Village of Tupper Lake has indicated that it has the capacity to provide electrical service for Phase 1 of the project.
8. Sign plan and conformance with Appendix Q-3 Agency Sign Standards
The preliminary sign plan conforms with Appendix Q-3. A final sign plan will be required by Agency permit condition based on approval of a final development plan.
9. Stormwater management/erosion and sediment control [DC (a)(1)]
Based upon the plans and reports submitted to date, stormwater and erosion and sediment control can be appropriately managed for the vast majority of the project site except for Issues #3 and #9 identified herein above.
10. Wastewater treatment [DC (a)(1), (c)(2)(b)]
The community wastewater treatment plant associated with Cranberry Pond has been evaluated by staff in coordination with the New York State Departments of Environmental Conservation and Health and, provided appropriate permits and approvals are obtained, will not have an undue adverse impact on the water resources nor present a public health hazard.
11. Traffic
Traffic impacts have been adequately addressed except for Issue #2. [DC (a)(2),(a)(3),(a)(4),(c)(2)(b)]
FURTHER ORDERED, the hearing officer shall have all the authority provided in 9 NYCRR 580.9, and the hearing notice shall direct potential parties to address the issues stated above in any petition for party status. The hearing officer may in his/her sole discretion simplify, define, limit or resolve the scope of issues or add an issue if not expressly excluded and for which a party makes an offer of proof to ensure that the record covers substantive and significant issues relating to the findings or determinations required of the Agency under APA Act §805(4) and §809(10). The determinations of the hearing officer on party status, issues and the conduct of the hearing shall be reported for the record prior to beginning the hearing as provided in 9 NYCRR 580.9.
FURTHER ORDERED, that the applicant be notified of the Agency’s intent to hold a public hearing on the project before the Agency renders its decision to approve or disapprove the project, or to approve it subject to conditions.
FURTHER ORDERED, that the applicant be given, upon fifteen days’ written notice by certified mail, an opportunity to submit a new application. NOW, THEREFORE, upon all of the foregoing and under authority of the Agency’s action of February 9, 2007,
ORDER issued this day of , 2007.
E N T E R
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY
BY: Richard H. Lefebvre Executive Director