×

Make right decision on resort, APA

There is considerable history and documentation of public dissatisfaction with the proposed project in the village, and with the Adirondack Park Agency. It would be unproductive to restate all of those comments here. However, it should be pointed out that the overwhelming majority of speakers at the “public information session” and the variance hearing held at the Harrietstown Town Hall on Jan. 6 expressed their clear and unequivocal dissatisfaction with the project and process.

Additionally, there is sufficient documentation that the Planned Unite Development District process was improperly constructed and implemented, clearly demonstrating “spot zoning,” contributing to the existing problem regarding a variance request.

Upon reasonable belief and counsel, an adjudicatory hearing is required for a regional Class A project with a variance request of this nature and magnitude.

It can be argued conclusively that none of the six variance requirements referenced in APA regulations 576.1c can be met. The APA Act and Regulations are quite clear on the necessity for an adjudicatory hearing.

1. Minimum relief necessary is not achieved with this variance request: to wit, 900 square feet of restaurant space and the 2,000 square feet of parking spaces, which should be included in the variance request due to the elevation change and construction process required to construct them.

2. Detriment to adjoining properties — The applicant fails to recognize the aesthetic and sheer bulk of this structure when viewed from the entry to Saranac Lake from Lake Placid, from any point on the opposite shore or the base of the lake near the dam, and driving to the site from the village. In all of the viewsheds, sheer height and mass do not comport to the village and lakefront areas.

3. Feasibility of another method — The only acceptable solution, entirely feasible, is the reduction in size of the structure, which has minimal impact on the cost of development.

4. Manner in which difficulty arose — Totally self-created. Investors and Jacob Wright clearly knew what the property consisted of when they began their proposal. To argue hardship is disingenuous at best.

5. Adverse effect — Clearly the acceptance of the variance would negatively impact the viewshed looking at the hotel from a range of 270 degrees from the shoreline side of the hotel. No steps or protections have been identified for snow removal and mitigation of the impact of construction of the parking spaces within the set back. Mitigation of stormwater is not convincing and subject to further examination.

6. The only way to apply conditions that would ameliorate the impact would be two-fold: Reduce the size, and eliminate any parking within the 50-foot setback.

Further, in case the foregoing has not been clear enough: There will be significant environmental impact on the 2,000-plus-square-foot parking area within the setback. Parking lots cannot be sloped toward the water and must be raised, creating additional excavation and fill within 2 to 3 feet of the water. Extensive excavation and fill with stone to support the porous surface are required for the other spots as well. There is no mention or plan to prevent this from being a snow removal site. The elevation change requirement of up to 2 feet should make this clearly a structure (under APA definitions), requiring a variance, if common sense alone doesn’t.

The requirement for shoreline setback variances has been a critical element of the APA process to protect all Adirondack water bodies from pollution: due to run-off, drainage, erosion, invasive species and viewshed. Historically, these variances have been difficult to achieve without significant mitigation and/or alternative design. To ignore these principles is the ultimate inequity to all Adirondack landowners but mostly to those who have been through or will go through the permitting process or enforcement process with the agency. And there would be a serious perception and questions raised as to how the agency treats developers vs. individual landowners. A variance of this size, scope and rationale would set an unwanted and unnecessary precedent that would erode the confidence and purpose of the agency and severely diminish environmental protection in the Adirondacks.

It would be unprecedented and unconscionable for the APA to approve the proposed variance this project proposes. The sheer size of the project and rejection of environmental principles, a huge, precedent-setting shoreline variance with multiple components, ignoring the APA Act and Regulations regarding an adjudicatory hearing, leaves the agency no other choice: Conduct an adjudicatory hearing, or deny the variance now.

Curt Stiles is a former APA chairman who lives on Upper Saranac Lake in the town of Harrietstown.

NEWSLETTER

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *

Starting at $4.75/week.

Subscribe Today