By Gwendolyn Craig
Saying he’s built among mangroves and citing landowner rights, a Miami entrepreneur proposing one of the largest luxury resorts envisioned in the Adirondacks is defending his plans against critics.
In a recent letter to the Adirondack Park Agency, Eric Stackman emphasized his experience building in sensitive Florida habitats and of developing on private property.
Stackman, based in Miami, submitted his subdivision application this fall to the APA. He proposes to build a 72-room hotel, multiple mansions, villas, and townhome lodgings on 350 acres in the Town of Jay along the Ausable River. The APA collected nearly 200 comments through Dec. 3 on the application. Several influential nonprofit organizations also criticized the APA for releasing Stackman’s application for public comment, noting that it lacked critical maps, species studies and other criteria.
Application link: https://apa.ny.gov/Projects/P2021-0248/20211019-FromApplicant.pdf
Keith McKeever, spokesperson for the APA, said Tuesday that the application process includes two public comment opportunities. According to the application, APA staff may require more information from the applicant before it is deemed complete and the agency’s regulatory timeclock kicks in. McKeever said staff will now identify and request all the required application materials. Once the application is complete, the second comment period will begin.
This is the second project to go through the APA’s new large-scale subdivision application. Legislation stalled last year in the state Legislature that environmental groups argue would bolster conservation protections when reviewing subdivision proposals.
Many of the public comments referenced keeping lands in the park “forever wild,” a clause in the state constitution protecting the Adirondack Park’s roughly 2.6 million acres of forest preserve from development. The constitutional protection does not cover private lands in the park, though the APA regulates land use and development on private property.
“These parcels are privately owned and already approved buildable lands zoned for moderate housing development,” Stackman wrote. “Landowner rights are very important to residents, and I am no exception.”
Stackman said he has built high-rise boutique hotels, residential and commercial buildings as well as historic preservation projects “to some of the strictest building codes in the country, dealing with issues such as rising sea levels, mangroves, turtle habitat protection and more.”
He added that multi-use trails proposed in Jay would be open to residents and visitors, and that the lodge, hotel, restaurant and spa would also be open to the public. Stackman also anticipates providing housing for employees. Some commenters had raised concerned about the lack of affordable housing in the area.
Reached by phone on Monday, Stackman declined to comment beyond what he wrote to the APA.
The APA also received recent comments from the Adirondack Mountain Club, Protect the Adirondacks, the Adirondack Council and the Sierra Club’s Atlantic Chapter. Those groups echoed Adirondack Wild: Friend’s of the Forest Preserve’s comments delivered weeks ago which pointed out missing information in the application. The groups also questioned whether Stackman’s designs would protect natural resources.
Kate Bartholomew, chair of the Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter, said even if the application’s “deficiencies were corrected” the chapter would call on the APA “to reject this application as inimical” to the state’s carbon emissions goals.
Wilbur Rice, president of the Adirondack Landowners’ Association, wrote the APA that it was premature to make a comment on Stackman’s specific proposal and also encouraged the agency to provide more review and information. The Adirondack Landowners’ Association is made up of 5,000 individuals owning about 200,000 acres in the park.
“We hope that you will take this opportunity to follow your existing regulations,” Rice wrote. “Everyone may not agree on the final recommendation by staff or the decision by the Agency but if you follow a robust review process using all these tools, your decision should demonstrate that the APA has a credible process.”
“Stackman also anticipates providing housing for employees, a criticism from some commenters concerned about the lack of affordable housing in the area.”
Stackman is missing the point. Many are not as concerned about where the employees will live, but are more concerned about what effects property tax changes and real estate values have on current residents historically struggling to get by. Some may profit from the development, but in the long run, I fear many locals will be chased out of their homes by taxes and rental prices will rise chasing others away.
As we get more information, it seems that it cannot be emphasized enough how expansive this project is: over 100 housing units surrounding a huge luxury resort. In Stackman’s letter he says that the land is “zoned for moderate housing development” and then admits the contrary: “We are following all current APA guidelines on the site, classified for low intensity use designation.” It seems that a reasonable reader of APA Act § 805.3(e) (Low intensity use areas) will not be able to find “moderate housing development” nor “large-scale luxury housing subdivision” in the guidelines. Stackman says: “we are planning less than one home per 3.2 acres of land – lower than the allowed density”; but 355 acres divided by 104 housing units gives greater than 3.4 units per acre. This all leaves me wondering: where is the scrutiny of APA? And, if the majority of more than 200 public comments were against the project, where is the Town of Jay in all of this? Have town governments forgotten that they, too, have the authority to pass ordinances to stop development that has met widespread opposition? There are towns all over the state that are listening to their residents and stopping similar, albeit much smaller, subdivisions from going forward. It is strange that an Adirondack town would be behind the curve on land-use planning. But, of course, the APA Act predicted this very phenomenon: “This fruitful relationship [between public and private land] is now jeopardized by the threat of unregulated development on such private lands. Local governments in the Adirondack park find it increasingly difficult to cope with the unrelenting pressures for development being brought to bear on the area, and to exercise their discretionary powers to create an effective land use and development control framework.” The “forever wild” status of public lands is not–as some would have it–a justification for free license to develop adjacent private lands. As we are seeing now, It necessitates the opposite: the only way for Adirondack communities to survive the exclusivity and induced demand that undeveloped forest preserve engenders is through the counterbalance of regional private land use planning.
Sorry, the math up there was definite wrong. It is 0.3 acres/unit. That specific calculation is a red herring anyway (density on a per-parcel basis). The focus should be upon the entire constellation of criteria that goes into the land use restrictions (especially for Class A projects).
Two of the town council are for this development. One is the son of the original land owner and is also a real estate agent. The other two councilmen I don’t know where they stand. If the Apa approves this it then goes to our zoning board which is 3 people. All who were appointed by said town council members and are all contractors or former contractors. The 2 town councilmen keep saying all the people who committed against this development are from outside the town or are an that most locals are for it. I am local and have spoken to many people an they are against it.
This will always be opposed by the C.A.V.E. people.
(Citizens Against Virtually Everything)
It does no good to label anyone with an opinion. But if that is all ya got, I guess we know how much weight to give your opinions.
The blackflies will probably crush this project…
This plan is likely to evolve over time, changes will be made throughout the approval process. As a resident of the Town of Jay, I support it in concept.
Jay could use a hotel, at present, there is one small motel and a few B&Bs in the Town. Our Town and school district could most certainly use the enhanced tax revenue. Ausable Vally School District taxes are quite high compare to surrounding districts.