STATE OF NEW YORK
S. 2705 , : ; A. 3456
1975-1976 Regular Sessions _
SENATE—ASSEMBLY |
\ ’
February 12, 1975
1
IN SENATE—Initroduced by Sen. STAFFORD—tead twice and
ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Com-
mnrites on Finance
)
IN ASSEMBLY~-Introdueed by Mr. RYAN—Multi- Sponsored
by—Messrs. DOKUCHITZ, HARRIS, SOLOMON—read' once
and referred to the Committee on Governmental Operations
AN ACT
ig amend the executive law, in relation to local land use pro-
, grams jn the Adirondack park
The People, of the State of New York, teprasshted in Senate and
Assembly, do enact as follows:
Section 1. Paragraph e¢ of subdivision two of scotion eight
r i - .
hundred five of the executive law is hereby amended by adding
thereto a new subparagraph, to be subparagraph (6), to read as
follows: '
(6) Any amendment to be made pursuant to subdivision five of
section eight hundred seven of this article,
EXpLaNation — Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ Jis old law to bo omitted.
1
2 .
} 3°
4
\ 5
6
|
\ §, 2705—A, 3456 2.
§ 2. Section eight hundred seven of such law is hereby amended
_ by adding thereto a new subdivision, to be subdivision five, to read as
' he
follows:
5. Notwithstanding any other provision of this article or any other
general or special law, rule or regulation to the,contrary, the agency
shall amend the land use and development plan and plan map to
conform to-any land use program adopted by a local government for
the territory contained within its jurisdiction which is based ‘upon a
finding: by said lida government that the land is capable of sup-
porting the-uses and densities of use permitted therein and said local
land use program shall be aeempt from review or approval by the
agency. ‘
§ 3, Section eight hundred nine of such law is hereby amended by
adding thereto a new subdivision, to be subdivision sixteen, to read as
follows:
16. Notwithstanding any other provision of this article or any ,
other general or special law, rule or regulation to the contrary, the
agency shall not have jurisdiction to review or approve any project
in an area subject to a land use program adopted by a local
et . i
government in the manner set forth in subdivision five of section
eight hundred seven of this article.
§ 4. This act shall take effect immediately.
MEMORANDUM
ASSEMBLY BILL #3 456 BY: ANDREW W. RYAN, JR.
- or .
SENATE BILL # A7e z* BY: RONALD STAFFORD
AN ACT to amend the executive law,
in relation to local land use
programs in the Adirondack Park
PURPOSE: This bill will return to local governments in the
Rdirondacks the right to zone their own communities.
PROVISION: Bill provides that if local governments adopt a local
Tand usé program projects in conformance with such land use
plan’ are not reviewable by the Adirondack Park Agency.
JUSTIFICATION: Every local government in the state has the power
to adopt local zoning and land use planning except the local
governments within the Adirondack Park. There is no reason wh
the people of the Adirondacks should be discriminated against
.by removing this power from their elected representatives.
FISCAL IMPLICATION: It will save the state money by reducing
the work load of the Adirondack Park Agency.
RE: Senate 2705 - Assembly 3456
Amendment of Article 27 of the Executive Law
The bill referred to above is intended to eliminate a conflict be-
tween state and local governments by restoring the power of zoning
and master planning to the Towns located within the Blue Line of
the Adirondack Park Area — the only area in our state in which
these local powers have been suspended. The bill would also per-
mit a substantial saving to the state in terms of a reduction of
the annual budget of the Adirondack Park Agency by relieving the
Agency of this burden and permitting it to concentrate on ecologi-
cal research and technical assistance. The existing protections
contained in the Official Adirondack Land Use Map and Plan would
continue to apply to those Towns which elect not to adopt a local
land use plan which is based upon a finding that the land is cap-
able of supporting the uses and densities permitted in such local
plan.
An additional purpose of the proposed legislation is to stop a
steadily deteriorating economic situation and loss of tax base in
an area of our state which includes twelve (12) counties, eighty-
six towns, and has a population in excess of 130,000 persons in an
expanse of over 3.7 million acres of privately owned land.
The enclosed brief outlines the purposes, needs and benefits to
be derived from the proposed legislation.
AMENDMENT OF ARTICLE 27 OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW
(ADIRONDACK PARK ACT)
SENATE 2705 (February 12, 1975)
ASSEMBLY 3456 (February 12, 1975)
Adding Section 805.2.c(b), Section 807.5 and
Section 810.3
Amendment of the Adirondack Park Act to direct the amendment
of the official Adirondack park land use and development plan
map to conform to any land use plan adopted by a local govern-
ment for the territory contained within its jurisdiction which
is based upon a finding by said local government that the land
is capable of supporting the uses and densities of use permit—
ted therein, and exempting said local land use plan, or any
project complying with same from review or approval by the Adir-
ondack Park Agency.
This amendment adopts the following recommended amendment to
the Act as set forth in the 1974 Annual Report of the Adirondack
Park Local Government Review Board:
“that the Park Agency be instructed to grant color changes
to the Official Land Use Map at the request of landowners and of
local government, and in connection with the approval of a local
land use plan, where such changes conform to the capability of
land to support the corresponding level of use and without regard
to any predetermined level of future population density. (Over-
all Intensity of Development) ."
I. The Purposes of the Proposed Changes Are:
1. To restore a reasonable measure of self determination to
the twelve counties and eighty-six towns located wholly
or partially within the Blue Line of the Adirondack Park
and encourage these local governments to adopt local land
use plans.
2. To remove the existing conflict between Article 27 of the
Executive Law (Adirondack Park Act) and Article IX of the
N.Y. State Constitution and the Statute of Local Govern-
ments (Laws of 1964, Chapter 205) which grants to counties,
cities, towns and villages the powers to adopt ordinances,
adopt zoning regulations, and perform comprehensive plan-
ning work.
Tr.
TIt.
3. To facilitate that purpose of the Adirondack Park Act
which is to "... recognize the needs ... of the park's
permanent, seasonal and transient poplations for growth
and service areas, employment, and a strong economic
base, as well." (Sec.807, 7th Par.) and to reverse the
present trend of population loss and destruction of real
estate tax base.
4. To eliminate duplication of administrative effort and
shift the financial burdens of zoning and planning, and
zoning administration, to those local governments which
have created the administrative structure for this effort.
The Existing Stuation
The Adirondack Park Act, and the jurisdiction of the Adiron-
dack Park Agency, covers approximately 6,000,000 acres.
Privately owned land constitutes 3,700,000 acres of this
area. Under the provisions of the Act and its official Land
Use Plan and Map, 53% of the privately owned land, or 3,021
squaremiles, has been zoned requiring 42.7 acres per princi-
pal building (Resource Management), 32% of the privately
owned land, or 1,824 square miles, has been zoned requiring
8.5 acres per principal building (Rural), and 10% of the
privately owned land has been zoned requiring 3.2 acres per
principal building (Low Intensity). It is the Official Land
Use Map which applies these density restrictions to the pri-
vately owned lands. The population within the Blue Line ex-
ceeds 130,000 persons. Twelve (12) Counties and eighty six
(86) Towns are wholly or partially within the Blue Line (See
Tables II and III).
Adirondack Park Agency Administration
Basically all real estate development of privately owned lands
outside the 1% of such lands presently designated as "Hamlet"
require approval by the Adirondack Park Agency at the present
time. The actual record of the Agency's administration indi-
cates an inability to cope with the Adirondack communities'
development needs or an intentional program to eliminate all
significant real estate development within the Blue Line. An
audit of the Agency's Official Docket of Applications for Pro-
ject Approvals indicated that as of January 23, 1975 only
55% of the 536 Applications For Project Approval filed between
August 13, 1973 and December 31, 1974 had been approved. 83%
of these Applications were for subdivision approvals. 95%
of the Applications For Subdivision Approval were for twenty
-2-
or less subdivisions, 84% being for four or less subdivisions.
57% of Applications for twenty or less subdivisions were
approved, while only 19% of Applications for more than twenty
subdivisions were approved. No subdivisions of over 71 lots
were finally approved or permits issued (Table I). Of the
four applications filed for over 100 subdivisions, one con-
ceptual approval was issued for Loon Lake Estates which pur-
ported to control not only land use, but all forms of utility,
water and sewage installation initially and into future times,
all of which are variable at the discretion of the Agency,
and one conceptual approval was issued to the Adirondack
Mountain Club to divide an acre of land into 10,600 square
inch lots to be sold at a suggested price of $5.00 per lot
as a fund raising promotional. The statistics cited in Table I
do not reflect applications which have been discouraged by the
Agency's "Preliminary Conference" system. One Application for
Conceptual Project Approval in excess of 100 Subdivision lots
was presented by the Agency with a Demand for macrobiological
and macrogeological material which was set forth in thirty-
eight (38) pages of single spaced typewritten material on
8% x 14 inch paper and was categorized into thirtyseven (37)
Primary Topic Headings, One hundred and forty (140) first level
subdivision headings, One hundred and twenty one (121) second
level subdivision headings, eighty two (82) third level sub-
division headings, sixtcen (16) fourth level subdivision head—
ings and nine (9) fifth level subdivision headings, much of
the requested data on the 2,224 acre tract in question to be
presented on a five acre basis, despite the fact that less
than half of the acres were to be affected by any kind of de-
velopment. (Application of Wambat Realty Corp.).
The Local Government Review Board, organized pursuant to Sec-
tion 803-a.1. of the Act "For the purpose of advising and
assisting the Adirondack park agency in carrying out its func-
tions, powers and duties..." stated in its 1974 Annual Report
To The Governor and The Legislature of the State of New York:
“Performance of the Park Agency in stimulating local
land_use planning"
“To date, no local land use plan has been given approval
by the Agency and only one Town has applied for approval.
Two towns appear close to filing for approval, out of a
total of 115 Park towns and villages. Under present con-
tions, the Review Board believes that the vast majority
of local units will not file for approval."
"The reasons for slow Agency progress at the local level in-
clude: (1) the lack of incentives ...; (2) a lack of rapport
between the Agency and elected officials in the Park, which
has been aggravated by the attitudes of the Agency and its
almost exclusive reliance on a young, inexperienced staff
recruited from outside the Park; (3) the extreme complexity
of Agency requirements for local planning, which have even
discouraged professional planning consultants employed by Park
local units; (4) the failure of the Agency to complete and pub-
lish the model land use provisions called for "as soon as pos-
sible" by Section 807(4) of the Act. The absence of these
model provisions has justifiably encouraged local units to be
suspicious that new, unacceptable plannin requirements are in
process at the Agency level."
As regards "Economic Impact", the Review Board report stated:
"The Review Board finds that the over-all effect of Agency
control is to materially worsen the already depressed economic
condition of the Park. If present trends continue, we antici-
pate an economic slowdown of critical proportions." The Review
Board reported that:
"(1) large projects are being largely excluded from the Park,
and many of those proposed are subjected to expensive and
hostile application procedures which lead to delays, partial
abandonment or complete abandonment by the project sponsor;
(2) small projects in Resource Management and other critical
environment areas are subject to extended delays and to a
substantial, but unknown, number of abandonments by the pro-
ject sponsors; (3) small projects outside of critical en-
vironmental areas are being processed by the Agency satis-
factorily."
As regards "Agency efforts to aid the Park economy", the Review
Board stated: “While the Park Agency Act recognized the need
for “growth and service areas, employment and a strong economic
base (Sec.801)", it has done almost nothing of a practical na-
ture to aid the local economy of the Adirondack Park."
“The Review Board finds that the Park Agency has been preoccu-
pied with narrow environmental objectives and has, as a result,
neglected the human environment of Park residents. This lack
of balance in Agency policy and operations is probably the most
serious deficiency detected by the Review Board." (November 25,
1974)
The destructive impact of the Act and its administration is a reality
being faced by many of the Towrswithin the Blue Line. More than
one Town has acted in participating in a bona fide grass roots cit-
izens league which has the support of state and local legislators
and officials and responsible citizens (League for Adirondack Citi-
zens Rights, Inc.).
As the subscribing letter from the Town of Black Brook has indicated,
the imposition of the Park administration has negatively affected
the Town's ability to repair a weakened tax base, and is thus destroy—
ing the social fabric of this Adirondack Town as well as others.
(See Exhibit I). Lawsuits have already been commenced challenging
the Act as a violation of the Home Rule powers of local governments.
The Official Land Use Map produced by the Agency is the ultimate ex-
pression of the zoning controls imposed by the Act. Although the
Agency recognized that the Plan and the Map were regional in nature,
dealing with large land areas rather than specific blocks or parcels
of land with the map being hastily drawn and committed itself prior
to final enactment of the Plan and adoption of the Map to a policy
of flexible interpretation, once granted the reins. of authority, the
Agency staff has adopted a rigid and repressive posture. Regarding
the overall intensity guidelines, the Review Board Report stated:
"The Review Board continues to find the Official Land Use Map
of the Park Agency to have been inexpertly and crudely drawn.
The map fails to reflect adequately the capability of the land
and, in most communities, places arbitrary and unnecessary re-
strictions of the very modest growth pattern on which Adiron-
dack towns and villages rely. This problem has been exacerbated
by the Agency policy of supporting the overall intensity guide-
lines in connection with local land use plans, even where these
guidelines prove inappropriate for a given land use area. This
policy has been expressed by both the Agency members and by the
staff (e.g., Town of Northhampton Meeting, July, 1974).
The Agency staff has since taken a more rigid approach than that crit-
icized by the Local Government Review Board. In a recent hearing in
connection with joint Applications for Map Amendment submitted by
the Town of Black Brook and a private sponsor, the Agency staff ob-
jected to the introduction into the hearing record in support of the
Application the facts that the sponsor proposed to create central
sewage treatment and central water facilities at the sponsor's own
expense. This position was upheld by the Hearing Examiner selected
by the Agency. As the law of our state, as a result of this deter-
mination, is that "new development considerations" cannot be con-
sidered in connection with map amendments, the Official Map and the
densities imposed by it are for all practical purposed fixed and im-
mutable. It made little difference to the Agency that the map amend-
ment and the project to which it related were formally endorsed and
supported at the hearing by the Clinton County Board of Legisla-
tors, the Clinton County Planning Board, the Clinton County In-
dustrial Development Corporation and the Superintendant and Board
of the Au Sable Valley Central School District (Application of
Wambat Realty Corp., Application of Town of Black Brook, January 28,
1975).
As a result of the determination referred to above, the Executive
Department of our State government appears to be in violation of
the recent New York Court of Appeals decision of Golden v. Planning
Board of Ramapo, 30 N.Y. 2d 359 (May 3, 1972) which sustained a
zoning plan which restricted development on the grounds that the
plan did have as its basis a rational plan for phased growth which
was of a limited duration, created interim relief in assessed valua-
tions, and permitted owners of property to accellerate the eligibil-
ity of their lands for development by installing at their own cost
utility, sewage and other services which qualified their property
for current development. The restrictions imposed by the Adirondack
Park Act as administered by the Adirondack Park Agency permits none
of these considerations. It would seem that the intentions of the
state legislature as well as the civil rights of the residents of
our state who reside within the Blue Line are being thwarted.
The tenuous legality of the Hearing Examiner's ruling referred to
above (Matter of Wambat Realty Corp.) seems to clearly violate the
rulings of the United States Supreme and District Courts which have
held that any zoning plan which has the effect of restricting the
growth or movement of population is unconstitutional as violating
the fundamental constitutional right to enter and live in any state
or municipality in the Union (Construction Industry Association of
Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma, 375 F.Supp. 574, 1974, and cases
cited therein).
Not only does the Agency's position contravene state and federal
law, but it also violates the intent of the legislature which stated
the purposes of the Adirondack Park Act to "... recognize the needs
...of the park's permanent, seasonal and transient populations for
growth and service areas, employment, and a strong economic base, as
well." (Section 807). The position the residents of the area within
the Blue Line find themselves in is exactly the opposite of the in-
tended position as stated in the Governor's message upon signing the
Official Adirondack Park land use plan into law on May 22, 1973:
"Implementation of the Plan will be vested in the Park's local
governments and the Adirondack Park Agency, working in partner~
ship. Properly, the measure assures a continuing and respon-
sible role for local governments. (Emphasis supplied). (Memo-
randum filed with Assembly Bill Number 7577-A, May 22, 1973,
No. 10, Chapter 348).
Iv.
The Needs For Revision
The facts of economic need within the Blue Line area of the
Adirondacks indicates a desperate need for economic stimula-
tion. In some areas within the Blue Line, unemployment levels
reach 25% — and this in an area which has no significant
minority ethnic groups. The most exhaustive impact study ever
performed on the impact of Leisure Homes on the economy of the
area with the "Blue Line" of the Adirondack Park, the Phd.
Thesis of Assistant Professor Dr. Charles Irwin Zinser, S.U.N.Y.
at Plattsburgh, unqualifiedly established that the leisure
home is a boon to the Adirondack communities (See Exhibit-IV);
that over 50% of realestate taxes collected on these residences
are surplus or “gravy” to the local communities; that only 3%
of the leisure home owners have children attending school within
the area of their leisure homes; and that each leisure home
generates approximately $2,500 per year in expenditures into
the local economies. In addition to these considerations are
an estimated $14,000 in direct local labor costs and $5,500 in
local material purchases for each new leisure home to be built.
Of the 63 towns wholly within the Blue Line, 40 have 20% or
more of their land areas owned by the state and 20 have 50% or
more of their land areas owned by the state. Inasmuch as an
abundance of land constituting approximately 2.3 million acres
of land within the Blue Line is state owned, the proper atti-
tude of the state should be to encourage desirable development
of privately owned lands, lands which the state has not paid
for.
In connection with the points set forth above, the original
Recommendations of the Temporary Study Commission on the Future
of the Adirondacks, the Progenitor of the Adirondack Park Agency
contained the following specific recommendations:
"4, Local governments should have a role in the planning
and zoning of private land that reflects their legitimate
interest in the private land."
"100. Within the Adirondack Park, programs for economic
development should emphasize the opportunities for expan-
sion of the private recreation industry."
“PRIVATE LAND"
"120. Private initiative should be relied on to provide
supporting services and intensive recreation facilities
complimentary to the public recreation opportunities in
the Park."
"The intermingling of public and private land in the Adiron-
dack Park lends itself to the development of a private recre-
ation industry. Recreation on private land not only supple-
ments the wild forest recreation provided by the forest pre-
serve but also provides the intensive recreation facilities
and supporting services that are unsuited to forest preserve
lands."
“Many users of the Park, while relishing the wild forest at-—
mosphere, demand such facilities. Historically, they have
been provided by the private sector. The Commission sees no
reason to reverse this tradition." (Emphasis supplied) (Report
of the Temporary Study Commission on the future of the Adiron-
dacks to the Governor of the State of New York, December 15,
1970).
Vv. Feasibility of Revision
The proposed revision would affect only those Towns and lands
within the Blue Line which have been made the subject of or
will be made the subject of a local government land use plan
which is based upon a finding by the local government that the
land is capable of supporting the uses and densities of use
permitted therein. This legislation achieves effect after im-
plementing local legislation is enacted, following a proper
zoning effort. It encourages the functioning of local Planning
Boards and places the responsibility upon local Town Boards and
Assessors to adequately plan for the character and economic
future of their community. Inasmuch as all present planning
efforts are being financed by the Towns themselves or in con-
nection with planning grants from the State Office of Planning
Services (0.P.S.), there will be no disruption of any ongoing
or future planning efforts.
VI. The Effect of the Proposed Amendment
1. Regarding the Local Communities
a. The amendment will encourage the Local Governments to
participate in a bona fide zoning and planning effort
or be faced with a potential permanent growth moratorium.
b. Local planning will encourage enhancement of the local
tax base.
c. The amendment will focus upon the more efficient utili-
zation of existing local capabilities in local zoning
and planning boards and Assessors, within the existing
local government financial structure.
-8-
Regarding the State
a.
The amendment will necessarily achieve a substantial
reduction of the $800,000 annual Adirondack Park Agency
budget by shifting the governmental functions back to
the local governments.
The amendment will achieve a reduction of local hostil-
ity to State Administration.
The amendment will redirect the Adirondack Park Agency's
activities into Research and Technical Assistance.
The amendment will eliminate a duplication and multipli-
city of State Administrative actions, with the mainten-
ance of health standards being continued under the able
administration of the Department of Environmental Conser-
vation, the State and County Departments of Health and
State, County and Local Road Departments.
Regarding Protection of the Adirondack Area.
a.
The existing limitations of the Official Adirondack Park
Land Use Plan and Map will apply to such areas as are not
protected by local land use plans.
The Agency expertise in matters of ecology will be avail-
able to local governments.
The ongoing local planning process will continue as funded
by the Towns acting alone or with the aid of grants from
the New York State Office of Planning Services.
Regarding Protection of the Individual.
a.
The amendment will encourage the citizen to participate
in the governmental process.
The individual will achieve a degree of control over his
or her own property more consistent with established con-—
cepts of civil liberty.
The individuals property will be relieved of unreasonable
burdens as to the free transfer of their property.
The amendment will encourage economic growth within the
Blue Line and improve the quality of life for residents
of this area.
“+
OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR
TOWN OF BLACK BROOK
CLINTON COUNTY
AU SABLE FORKS. N. Y. 12912
February 15, 1975
Col. verald sdwards
Mrs.C, t, Newberry
Co-Chairmen
League for Adirondack Citizens' Kirhts, ine
Dear Col. Edwards & irs Newberry,
I am forwarding with this letter the application of
the Town of Black Brook for Membership in the League for
Adirondack Citizens' Rights, Inc.
I wish to state on behalf ‘of my Lown the reasons why
we’are supporting the League end its objectives: "The
League will address itself to the loss cf bisic human rizhts
by Adirondack residents because of the Adirondack Park Agency
Laws and administretion. And the League will endeavor to act
in the favoring of the Legislature, the Courts and Public
Opinion to have these onpressive laws modified."
The fown of Black Brook has been urying to improve its
economic health, broaden its Tax Base and reverse the tide
of unemployment that has existed since the closing of the
Paper Mill in 4971.
Our town Planning Soard is well aware that our sreatest
opportunity lies in making use of the unusual and beautiful
Adirondack setting to aturact wellSplanned and ecologically
acceptable leisure home developments to our area.
In the sians for Valmont Village submitted by the Wambat
fealty Co. we founda such a develdpment. We studied a/l aspects
of tne plen end found them excellent. A wide 400 foot strip
of green belt desi,ned to protect the lake shore. Highly
fireproof building blocks and molded roofs for the houses
specially designed for our Adirondack forest setting with its
ever present danger of fire. The central sewage plant and
the central water s’stem were planned to protect the lake.
All these and many other aspects convinced us that Valmont
Village would not only be a tremendous asset to our town but
it would also bekn attractive addition to our lovely landscape.
Because the land on which Valmont Village would de built
was classified in the ara Land Use Map as "Resource Management"
on which they allow only one house every 43 acres, the Town of
Black Brook ma:e an Application to the APA for a Map Uhange to
allow one house for about every 2 aeres.
” EXHIBIT I
fo
1
The APA held a Public Hearing in our Town Hall on Jan.
28th to consider the Map’ Change we requested. At the hearing
we were shocked to find that despite the promises made by the
APA Representatives before the adoption of their official Land
Use Plan and Map thst the interests of the local governments
would be respected and that the Flen and Map would be inter-
preted and amended in a flexible way, we found instead that
the APA has placed the dead hand of fixed land regulations
on our Town.
. The APA Laws and Asdministration have placed our citizens
in the position of living in an occupied country in which our
traditional civil rights have been suspended.
We, therefore, feel it is time for our Town to participate
in any activity which seeks to lawfully obtain:elbef from this
inequitable end unjust situation. And. so we are ayplying for
Membership . in the League for Adirondeck Citizens’ ghts, Inc.
2
4nd we urge all other towns within the Adirondack Blue
Line to consider seriously their position und the nositions of
sheir respective citizens and to join w.th and support the pur-
poses and objectives of the League for Adircndack Citizens'
aights, Inc.
Very truly yours,
James J. George
Supervisor, town of Elack Brook
A.P.A. APPLICATIONS FOR PROJECT APPROVAL
August 1, 1973 thru December 31, 1974
(Status as at January 23, 1975)
CONDITIONAL
% OF TOTAL % OF TOTAL NON JURIS- OR CONCEPTUAL
SUBDIVISIONS SUBMISSIONS APPROVED SUBMISSIONS DICTIONAL % APPROVAL
4 or less 376 70% 211 39 58 2
5 = 10 32 6% 23: 4 2 (0)
ll - 20 18 3% 8 1.5 1, 2
21 - 30 5 ) 1) 1 (0)
31 - 40 5 ) 1) (e) 1
Al - 50 2) A% 1) 3/4 ie} 0
51 - 100 5 ) 1) 0 2
101 + _ 4) 0.) _O _2_(Concept only) *
AT 83% 246 * 46% 62 12% 9
*NOTE - Not a single permit issued for projects over 71 Subdivision lots.
**Agency gave Adirondack Mountain Club 10,600 sq.inch lots to be sold @ $5.00 each.
OTHER
Campground 16 3 1
Motel 6 1 1
Mobile Home 6 1 ie)
Commercial 22 12 4
Industrial 5 5 0
Other 34 24 2.
89 17% 46 -9% 8 1.5%
55%
536 Total Submissions ***
*** This does not account for Applicants who may have been discouraged from filing in the
"Preliminary Conference" stage.
Within Blue Line: 3.7 million acres Privately Owned
2.3 million acres State Owned
TABLE I
80°
n
i}
»—>=
Scale of Miles
20 40 60
44°!
449
New York
LOCATION OF THE
ADIRONDACK PARK
80°
T
78° 76°
TABLE II
ADIRONDACK PARK
Counties and Towns
1973
—————— Town boundaries
— — ——— County boundaries
a Park boundary aus
DANNEMORA
FRANKLIN
‘
cLiFTON
Newcoma
SCHROON
THURMAN
©. Z. 11/73
ADIRONDACK PARK
% of Town Taxes Paid by Leisure Homeowners
1970
50.0% and over
35.0- 49.99 %
20.0- 34.99 %
10.0- 19.99 %
5.0 - 9.99 %
under 5.0 %
Calculated from:
S.B.E.A. data, 1970
Survey Roll.
C.Z. 12/73
STATE OF NEW YORK
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY
P.O. BOX 99
RAY BROOK, NEW YORK 12977
(518) 891-4050
May 7, 1975
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
S. 2705 Mr. Stafford et al
A. 3456 Mr. Ryan et al
This bill requires the Adirondack Park Agency to amend the Land
Use and Development Plan Map to conform to a local land use
program adopted by a local government. Further, the bill exempts
from Agency jurisdiction all development in an area subject to a
local land use plan.
The Adirondack Park Agency OPPOSES this bill.
The bill would allow a local government, by enactment of local
zoning, to nullify the comprehensive regional land use plan which
is part of the Adirondack Park Agency Act insofar as the regional
plan applies to the land of the local government. Thus, the bill
undercuts the entire principle of development intensity planned at
a regional scale predicated upon state-wide policy objectives.
Although local governments ‘have an important interest and an
important role to play, that role is quite adequately manifested
in the law as it presently appears.
Moreover, fundamental to the Adirondack Park Agency Act is the
conviction that a legitimate State interest exists in projects
of regional significance, and that such projects are appropriately
reviewed by the Adirondack Park Agency. The Act requires that
lesser regional projects receive Park Agency review until a local
government adopts an Agency-approved land use plan at which time
the review of these projects returns to the locality. At present,
more than 50 of the 107 Adirondack towns and villages are working
with the Agency in preparing local land use plans. It is antici-
pated that as the local plans are developed the information to
refine the Land Use and Development Plan Map will also be developed
and.supply the basis for amendments to the Map.
This bill recognizes neither the State interest in Park develop-
ment, nor the impressive commitment of local governments to working
within the present law, nor the fruitful and deepening partnership
between State and Adirondack local governments.
e
a o™ o — =— AV
(914) EL 2-2378 _— é ait
[LS Racer
Robert Rosenthal & >a
Attorney at Law 7 ay
21 Cannan Road S ae C.
Monsey, New York 10952
March 6, 1975
Mr. Ronald B. Stafford
Senate Chamber
State Capitol
Albany, N.Y.
RE: Senate 2705 - Assembly 3456
Amendment of Article 27 of the Executive Law
(Adirondack Park Act)
Dear Mr. Stafford:
Enclosed is the Summary Statement and Legislative Brief
on the matter referred to above.
Sincerely,
ef 5
Robert Rosenthal ““@+““~
RR:sa
Enc.
RE: Senate 2705 - Assembly 3456
Amendment of Article 27 of the Executive Law
The bill referred to above is intended to eliminate a conflict be-
tween state and local governments by restoring the power of zoning
and master planning to the Towns located within the Blue Line of
the Adirondack Park Area — the only area in our state in which
these local powers have been suspended. The bill would also per-
mit a substantial saving to the state in terms of a reduction of
the annual budget of the Adirondack Park Agency by relieving the
Agency of this burden and permitting it to concentrate on ecologi-
cal research and technical assistance. The existing protections
contained in the Official Adirondack Land Use Map and Plan would
continue to apply to those Towns which elect not to adopt a local
land use plan which is based upon a finding that the land is cap-
able of supporting the uses and densities permitted in such local
plan.
An additional purpose of the proposed legislation is to stop a
steadily deteriorating economic situation and loss of tax base in
an area of our state which includes twelve (12) counties, eighty-
six towns, and has a population in excess of 130,000 persons in an
expanse of over 3.7 million acres of privately owned land.
The enclosed brief outlines the purposes, needs and benefits to
be derived from the proposed legislation.
