Commentary: Uplands Need More Protection
by Phil Brown
Politicians often complain that the Adirondack Park is over-regulated, but a case can be made that in some respects the Park is under-regulated.
All it takes is one house on a mountaintop or ridge to spoil a wild vista, and yet the Adirondack Park Agency (APA), which was created to safeguard the region’s natural resources, has no regulations aimed at protecting the uplands from unsightly development.
The uplands are clearly at risk. Given that most of the Park’s private waterfront has been developed, people with money are turning to the next best thing: a big home on a hill with a commanding view.
An article by George Earl in the September/October issue of the Adirondack Explorer reveals that dozens of conspicuous homes—visible from roads and trails—have been built in the uplands of Keene over the past few decades. And that’s just one town. The same kind of development is occurring in other parts of the Park, most notably around Lake George.
The APA does have tools to protect uplands when it has jurisdiction over a project. For example, it can require that a house be screened by trees or situated to minimize its visual impact.
The problem is that the APA often lacks jurisdiction. The agency does have the authority to review projects above the 2,500-foot contour, but this is essentially meaningless. APA spokesman Keith McKeever could not think of a single house built above that elevation, not even in Keene (“The Home of the High Peaks”). Near Lake George, Black Mountain is the only summit that exceeds 2,500 feet, and it lies within the state-owned Forest Preserve. In short, all the development around Lake George and the rest of the Park takes place below the 2,500-foot contour.
The APA also has jurisdiction when a house is built on property classified as Resource Management—the strictest of the agency’s six zoning categories for private land. Much of the Park’s uplands fall within this classification, but many stick-out homes are built on less-regulated lands where the APA does not automatically have jurisdiction.
Finally, the APA lacks jurisdiction even in Resource Management lands (as well as other lands) if a home is built in a subdivision approved before the agency’s creation.
Most of the Park’s towns lack zoning rules or the expertise to deal with upland development. So it’s up to the APA to address the problem. It will be difficult politically and technically. Even the definition of “upland” is tricky in a region where the elevation ranges from 95 feet at Lake Champlain to 5,344 feet at the top of Mount Marcy.
If nothing is done, however, we’ll continue to see a degradation of the Park’s wild character. It’s said that you can’t eat the scenery, but this isn’t true. Natural beauty is an economic asset that has been drawing tourists to the region for well over a century. For this reason, too, the uplands should be protected.
Photo by George Earl: Upland home in Keene.
Phil Brown is the editor of the Adirondack Explorer newsmagazine.
28 Comments:
This is a circumstance where that otherwise ridiculous term "viewshed" carries weight for me. It would be nice for the APA to have some jurisdiction in this area.
Perhaps a good first step would be to encourage homeowners and builders to be good neighbors by not cutting every single tree that obscures their view, and choosing roof and siding colors that blend in with the landscape.
"Given that most of the Park’s private waterfront has been developed."
Phil, the vast majority of the lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams in private forestland tracts have no homes or development of any kind. There are few roads for that matter, and I think APA does regulate that type of development.
What is your point with the disinformation? Are you rallying for more state land?
Anonymous, 4:55 pm: The most recent building boom on Lake George's uplands, was, without question, fueled by the demand for resort-area property and by the lack of available, affordable lake front property. No disinformation there.
Anon. 4:55 ... are you alluding to waterfront on timberlands or large private estates? You may have a point, in which case I would amend my statement to restrict it to waterfront that is available and desirable for development. In any event, my main point stands, namely that a scarcity of waterfront is helping to drive the market for upland homes. As Tony noted, this is exactly what has happened around Lake George.
I believe that homes built above 2500' might not be able to perk properly and the rules of perking are certainly unique in these instances, due to the steep grades below the septic systems they use. So aside from being an asthetic issue it might be more health related.
Normally I wouldn't agree with you, but on this point, you do make a valid point. Protecting viewsheds is important, and APA can do it's job to limit the damage of upslope development, by requiring builders to somehow conceal or limit the appearance of their upland house, particularly in scenic vistas.
This doesn't mean banning people from building houses on property they own upslope. It means making sure that house blends in with the background, for example using dark colored material or otherwise camouflaged material so it's less visible, including putting trees up front. That doesn't necessarily mean obstructing the views from a house, but just keeping it so it's not super visible to causual viewer.
Anonymous 10:15: I'm told it is possible to build a home in the uplands that remains invisible. So development can occur, but it should be done right.
I find some of the comments on this post to be a little disturbing. As a member of a family that owns lands on Lake George that stretch from the lake to around 1900 feet in elevation, I find it troubling that many people are so upset with private lands that have homes built on them that may be visible from certain views. If you are worried so much,you are not getting out into the wilderness enough. When I climb Bloomer Mt. or Deer Leep, I don,t fret over all the houses over in Hueletts Landing, or the fire tower on Black Mt. I turn ninety degrees to the south and admire the untouched Tongue Mt range. The state owns plenty of beatiful lands that you wont see any sign of man on. Does any body here think their own homes do not spoil somebody elses view. Sorry we have to share, but so goes life. I'm sure if you were given one of those homes with the commanding views up in Keene Valley you wouldn,t be complaining. I like some of the posts that have taken the more logical approach. Build it, get your view, but try to hide it if you can. Thats fair enough.
Thanks for sharing this, Phil. I just read the story by George Earl on the Adirondack Explorer website last night. I completely agree that this development is compromising the wilderness in the area. I don't live far from Lake George and I think it is a total eyesore to see the mansions springing up along the mountains. Definitely not what I want to see when I'm in the woods (even more so in the High Peaks).
As far as allowing development as long as it is inconspicuous, I'm guarded. More and more people building more and more homes... I won't lie. It makes me nervous.
ADKvegan what is your point? Are people supposed to live in cardboard boxes? I smell a little jealousy in your post. If you had the opportunity to have one of these houses, would you turn it down? No. Your views on the subject would turn on a dime.
I am in the Tri Lakes area. While it may be possible to build a house and make it substantially invisible, my experience with these type of homeowners is that they will do what they want and pay the consequences later. They tend to cut all the trees they want and put up lights all over the property. The people who are building these homes tend to be seasonal and have plenty of $$$ to pay any fines they may be subject to for violating any permit conditions. With the current diminished staff at the APA I'd hate to see what the landscape will look like aroung Tupper if this crazy ACR development gets approval.
Yes, TiSentinel65, humans should live in cardboard boxes, eat tree bark and communicate with grunts. hahaha Are you kidding me?
Everywhere I go, I see a ton of houses for sale. People should be buying these already existing houses instead of cutting down trees and encroaching more and more on the wilderness.
You know nothing about me, so why judge? Sounds like you just wish people were jealous of you. I would never cut down a bunch of trees to build a house. There is absolutely no way I would do that. Ever.
The human population has been exploding and is continuing to do so. We are creeping farther and farther into previously undeveloped lands. Where does it stop? Soon there will be nothing left of the wilderness.
Not to mention all the abandoned houses, and those that sit unsold.
Sounds like TiSentinel is one of those people who cares only about themselves. Maybe if he was more pleasant people would like him more and he wouldn't feel the need to be so judgmental or act like he was the only one who mattered in the world.
Ti,
It is great that you are not personally bothered by spoiled views in the Adirondacks. However, what we are hearing here, and what seemed clear in the Explorer article, is that many people are. Locals and visitors alike.
I'm local to the town that was mentioned in that article, for example, and I can tell you that I am disturbed by the trend of upland development here. It strikes me as a touch irresponsible and selfish to knowingly spoil something like an Adirondack mountaintop view for everyone else just so that you can have a view from your living room.
Owning land in the Adirondacks comes with a responsibility, whether you like it or not. The tired, old argument of "it is my private land, I'll do what I want, and you are jealous of me" just doesn't cut it in this case. If someone wants to build a dream home, there are plenty of amazing places to do so. Let them find a great plot in the valley that looks up at the mountains, preserving for everyone else those beautiful and unique mountaintops.
ADKVegan and Anonymous 10:22, I assume both of you live with a bunch of roommates in a tiny tenement apartment in a big city and don't own a car so as to minimize your impact on others and the environment. Otherwise you are being selfish and are thinking of no one but yourself.
I'm kidding of course. No one appreciates "holier than thou" arguments that ignore the complexity and compromises inherent in the world we live in (as opposed to the one we wished we lived in).
P.S. - Most of you are ignoring the conclusion of TISentinal65's first comment:
"I like some of the posts that have taken the more logical approach. Build it, get your view, but try to hide it if you can. Thats fair enough."
So what are you folks suggesting? That the APA ban anything that will diminish a "view shed"? Good luck with that. Obviously some sort of compromise between protecting the views and protecting property rights should be achieved, and I think TISentinal65 makes it clear he thinks that's reasonable.
"Obviously some sort of compromise between protecting the views and protecting property rights should be achieved"
And I would say... good luck with that.
For starters, how do you compromise on protecting a view? I'm not sure there is much grey area here. You either see a structure carved into the side of the mountaintop, and the view is spoiled, or you don't, and it isn't.
Anything that strays more than a little from complete invisibility would not be a compromise. Now, maybe you are suggesting we can restrict development in such a way so that the building of the house, and the final product, are substantially hidden to those enjoying the views... and I would agree that this could be a solution, but I'm very skeptical that this is possible. To begin with, is it really feasible to clear a lot on the side of a mountain and construct a dream home while remaining hidden from view.
More importantly, I don't think this is something that can be affectively enforced. As the town in the article found out, and as we've learned time and time again here in the Adirondacks, trying to restrict or regulate something so open to interpretation like this is a losing proposition. The people who want to get around the regulations, or bend them to fit their needs, will do so. And any attempt to stop them will usually result in cries of regulatory abuse.
I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but I just don't see a realistic compromise here.
Get your pocket book out and start buying these properties that you want to remain undeveloped. We live in a market economy with private property rights. If you owned it you can control it. You can only do so much with zoning before it's impossible to pay to enforce.
Join the Nature Conservancy and start identifying these parcels and buying them up. Stop whining about people doing what they want with their own property. The Nature Conservancy knows how to do this. Buy up sensitive property, sell off the developable parts and resell to the state.
Anonymous 12:15, am I correct in assuming that you think that building on prominent upland sites should be prohibited?
"We live in a market economy with private property rights."
What you are saying may be true in rural everywhere America, but we - and by "we", I mean those of us in the Adirondacks - actually live in a state park that has regulatory controls over development of private land.
I think a good argument could be made that building mountaintop structures that spoil Adirondack vistas is something that should not be allowed, and is well within the mandate of the park's regulatory agency. And unlike some issues involving the APA, I believe a majority of people, locals and visitors alike, will be able to agree with this one.
Phil,
You don't think that anyone should be allowed to build on the waterfront. You don't think that folks should be allowed to build near the wetlands. You don't think folks should be allowed to build on the high ground. This is the Adirondacks, what is left? There are millions of acres of land that you can look at without houses from many many views. Like one commenter said, if you want to stop a house from being built in a place that has no real environmental impact (as measured by the APA) than buy the land and protect the view that you are concerned with losing.
The free market economy says you can live where want provided you can afford it. All those blistering me because of what I said ask yourself the question. If you could have one of those types of houses, would you?, or would you stand by your convictions and say no? Besides these are the Adirondack Mountains. Not everybody can live at sea level. Also ask yourself this? Do you like looking at your neighbors house? I would dare say probably not. The article did say that the APA had not ever encountered any one with a plan to build above 2500 ft. It is completely unrealistic to tax the hell out of a landowner then tell them they can't do any thing with it. You people need to gather a little common sense. The rift growing in this country is because their are people like you that want TOTAL controll. Get out and enjoy the thousands of unblemished lands, that will stay that way providing the state can afford it, and leave the private land alone. If our lands are so desirable to your eyes and you beleive you should controll it , then your living in the wrong country pal. Move to one where collective interests, aka communism, total state controll, is the law of the land. Write back and tell me how its working for you.
Maybe the people up on the mts of Keene Valley should start complaining about the flat landers down in the valley along the Ausable. They surely should not have to look at all those houses down there. This arguement can cut both ways. It is so subjective to personal tastes. Find the middle ground people.(No Pun Intended) We can't all live in valleys or on tops of mountains.
Paul, I did not say people should not be allowed to build in the uplands. I am suggesting that houses built in the uplands should not stick out and detract from the region's wild character.
Right on, Phil - it only takes one house on a mountain to destroy a vista for everyone. The APA needs to strictly regulate building for "views" - i.e, upland development. One only has to drive through the Appalachians in NC or Virginia to see what a hands-off policy hath wrought, there. Nip it in the bud, now.
Post a Comment