Any development for Whitney Park would require approval of master plan by Adirondack Park Agency
By James M. Odato
The developer planning to purchase the 36,600-acre Adirondack expanse called Whitney Park faces potential hurdles based on state conditions written into permits affecting the property.
According to permission granted in the 1990s, Whitney Park’s owners were authorized to do some limited development, but with strings attached going forward. The projects included subdividing three lots to build seven single-family dwellings and another to subdivide four lots, considered minimal.
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
The permits from the Adirondack Park Agency spelled out that the APA reserves the right to require a master plan for any future development to guard the “unique resources” of Whitney Park.
Master plan requirement could slow development
The agency, the permit language said, was concerned about the cumulative impact that further development could have on the vast private holding of wetlands, lakes, ponds and forests, located in the town of Long Lake.
The APA, which regulates development in the 6-million acre Adirondack Park, included the master plan condition in three permits issued for projects that the owners, Whitney Industries, proposed in the decade of the 1990s.
According to those permits, the master plan condition is in play for any owner of the property.
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
The condition would confront Todd Interests, which intends to acquire the property to build a resort. The Dallas, Texas-based development company entered into a purchase deal this spring with the estate of John Hendrickson, who headed Whitney Industries. The estate listed the property at $125 million with the net proceeds going to Long Lake for its unrestricted use.
The master plan requirement, if triggered by the APA, would not be a fatal blow to Todd Interests’ plans for the acreage, such as a golf course, lodging and potential hotel and subdivisions. But it would add to the planning costs and timeline, said Robert Glennon, the APA’s executive director at the time the conditions were established.
The key condition, first raised in a 1992 permit filed in the Hamilton County clerk’s office, says that the APA reserves “the right to require a master plan prior to approving any future jurisdictional activities.”
The justification was “so that overall and cumulative impacts can be considered and addressed.”
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
The provision described a master plan as providing “sufficient detail to allow the agency to assess the impacts of all new land use, development and subdivision proposed.” Whitney Industries, or its successor, is bound by the term, the permit states.
The requirement is in effect should any project involving adding “principal buildings” or any hunting or fishing cabins exceeding 500 square feet in size.
Glennon, in an interview, said he would hold the APA to requiring the master plan should Todd Interests pursue the development its chairman, Shawn Todd, has described.
“The greenie meanies would sue the APA if they didn’t enforce it,” said Glennon, who is a board member of Protect the Adirondacks.
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
Shawn Todd said the company could, for instance, subdivide property to construct 40-acre residences along roads already on the property. Indeed, APA law allows for subdivisions on about 42 acres in areas such as Whitney Park.
Todd said he is aware of APA oversight of private development and that he has architects, planners and consultants working on ideas. He noted that if his company opts for a “compact” development with amenities, such as a high-end golf course, perhaps 1,000 to 2,000 acres would be used. Even if Todd Interests developed 5,000 acres, he said, the amount of acreage used would be “de minimis” compared to the size of Whitney Park. He did not respond to an inquiry about the APA permit conditions.
Environmental groups keeping watch over Whitney’s future
Claudia Braymer, executive director of Protect the Adirondacks, said she hopes that the provision in the APA permits isn’t an issue and that the group doesn’t need to argue about it, adding that Protect will be on watch for “the long haul” as plans unfold.
Instead, she hopes that Todd Interests will protect a great deal of the property through conservation easements.
Shawn Todd has said he is open to considering easements.
David Gibson, managing partner of Adirondack Wild: Friends of the Forest Preserve, said his group will also be pushing for preservation and conservation. He said there is plenty of developable land around the great camp at Whitney Park, the 17-room Deerlands, but the northern and western portions of the property are wetlands unsuitable for construction.
One of the largest contiguous privately-owned landholdings in the Adirondacks, Whitney Park is home to “exceptional” geological and aesthetic features, several critical habitats for rare plants species and various wildlife, some of which are protected or threatened, including osprey, loons and spruce grouse, according to the 1996 permit.
“The open space and ecological values of properties of this size and containing these resources diminishes rapidly as they are subdivided,” the permit states.
John Sheehan, a spokesman for the Adirondack Council, said the master plan provision came up when Whitney Industries proposed subdividing and selling part of Whitney Park in the late 1990s. But the potential requirement was put aside because the state purchased the 15,000 acres for sale at the time to add to the Adirondack Forest Preserve
The provision gives the APA “a tool … if they want to use it,” Sheehan said.
Photo at top courtesy of Gustav Schmiege
Put on the popcorn!
Hopefully various conservation organizations will lock this up into litigation, hearings, EIS and all manner of legal means to make Todd’s plans moot. Let the billionaires have playgrounds elsewhere. Or better year seize them with eminent domain.
Stop spouting this nonsense about eminent domain, it is the most destructive tool the government has and it should not be encouraged simply because someone does not like their new neighbors financial status. It’s all fun and games when talking about using it on one rich guys property, but if a precedent is set that the state can forcibly take any land that they find desirable it will surely be turned on lesser folks without a legal department backing them up. There are few, if any, examples of eminent domain being used without massive consequence for the people standing in the way, who are almost always the poor and less financially able to fight back. Today it’s Whitney Estate, tomorrow it’s a life long residents house because it was decided they have a nice view
The public has access to vasts amounts of the Adirondack Park. I don’t have a problem with a private party using a small portion of their private parcels for development. It will probably put all the rest into a conservation easement where I hope the public is not given access so it can be truly conserved and preserved. Wealthy individuals (and many not so wealthy) have been responsible for lots of land preservation in the Adirondacks over the years. Read Barbara McMartin’s book “The Privately Held Adirondacks” for the true story. If a conservationist like Barbara understands the value of privately held land in the Adirondacks we should be able to as well.
I’ll need to read that book, sounds interesting. I fully agree with everything you said. With an abundance of recreational options already available, I’m a very strong advocate for conservation easements without public access attached. The absolute most important thing is to protect the natural resources of the park and I worry that this constant demand that all land must be made available for public recreation is beginning to lose sight of this. Whitney Park could become a true wildlife sanctuary if the owner is able to do what they want (within reason) in one small corner of the property while protecting the vast majority of the land. Imagine the ponds as a loon habitat, not the newest paddling hotspot for everyone from miles away to splash around in
Good reply, Nick. I couldn’t agree more.
Thanks Paul, For your COMMON SENSE comments !!
Only someone involved on one end or the other of such profiteering could make such a comment. Along with said development come gas stations, schools, hair salons, medical facilities, markets, traffic, as well as encroachment of people, pets, ATVs, and all manner of noise, polluted runoff and invasive species on neighboring lands And then there is the “need” for an expanded airport somewhere. The US population has doubled in my lifetime, which means there is a need for twice the amount of open space. I seem to remember talk of wanting to re-introduce wolves and big cats in to the area. Good luck with that.
“The master plan requirement, if triggered by the APA, would not be a fatal blow to Todd Interests’ plans for the acreage”. Why? Their plans looks like it would impact just a small portion of the acerage. It sounds like they want to protect the rest from development. That is the whole point of then setting up a MP.
Nothing being done to help the Hamlet of Newton falls West Star lake area with all money going to cranberry lake by what I think is the CD Town council of fine and the Town council of cranberry lake and the whole area of the all white Old Town council. Governor hogle has done nothing the town has declined since the closing of the paper mill and they refused to put anything else into the area. People here are harassed by younger people who should be these at the windows for rocks at them and harass them. The Town council just taxes the older people in the area to death and does nothing for the community to park has not been updated in 30 years there are no dog runs they’re basically is nothing no police protection so I guess any talk about elderly abuses a bunch of bullcrap because this elderly abuse every week and nobody cares about it not even the highway patrol. They don’t even know where the anti-Semitism is I asked them and they looked puzzled. They refuse to make a rest unless you push it and then nothing more than a misdemeanor
What does this even have to do with the story aside from the fact that it is unreadable.
If the Environmetal lobby wants the property so badly, then make an offer and buy it. You have plenty of billionaires, millionaires and NGOs supporting your cause. Time to pass the hat and put your money where your mouth is.
NGOs? No liberals don’t have any NGOs! They want to control everything and would love it if the gov’t took control of our lives.
I find (some, not all) people who own homes in the Adirondacks consider themselves native “stewards” or “protectors” of nature, and view anyone else who would like to also own a home in the Adirondacks as interloper “developers” and “spoilers” of nature. Of course, the word for such people is “hypocrite.” Do as I say, and not as I do. As if the land where their house sits was not once pristine nature. I guess they are l lucky they were not their own neighbor at the time their home was built. They are full of ideas what others should do, but expect no scrutiny of their own actions. Well, I think the public is getting tired of hypocrites. I sure hope so.
Exactly!
So are you saying because development/overdevelopment occured in the past (within the Park), it should continue unchecked? Your argument makes little sense. Isn’t that the idea of the FP and the APA – to make wiser decisions in the future?
I live in a house built during the Depression – well BEFORE the APA. Because of its proximity to a wetland/wet forest, it likely would NOT be approved today. Does this mean I should be amenable to unrestricted future development in sensitive places? If I do not, does it make me a hypocrit? Should I voluntarily raze/condemn/rewild my property so I can speak out against poorly envisioned development within the Park?
Boreas, I don’t see anything in the comments suggesting totally unchecked development?
Any development is a slippery slope.
This will never stop ! This class warfare where there should be none at all. Does Bay Pond offend anyone, thousands of acres with a few houses ? Does Brandon Park, thousands of acres, owned by Jack Ma, offend anyone ? Does my neighbor, the Point, offend me ? Everyone should have neighbors like the Point ! A golf course, a resort hotel, some residences and the rest kept protected. This is not going to look like Levittown ! And the public never had access anyway !
I would just like any public use development to be affordable to many people so they can enjoy otherwise natural surroundings in this area. And I object to the insulting comments aimed at others here and elsewhere. Among those who truly care about the Adirondacks, our common interests are greater than our differences.
Imagine the mosquito, black fly and horsefly mitigation needed to make a golf course enjoyable by less hardy people in that area.
I would have to guess a fancy golf club would use some kind of insecticide which could have negitive effects on the area. Maybe not.
Just like the movies….its always the land developer, his golf courses and his lawyers moving in on nature. Its never enough. More, more, MORE!!!!!!!