Judge tosses ski trail suit
Case by group that made filing lacked meric, says court
By NICK REISMAN
[email protected]
Friday, July 17, 2009 11:06 AM EDT
NORTH CREEK -- A lawsuit filed by an environmental group over proposed construction at Gore Mountain was rejected by a state Supreme Court judge, according to a decision announced this week.
The suit, filed in December by the Saranac Lake-based Residents’ Committee to Protect the Adirondacks, challenged the state-owned ski resort’s plans to build eight ski trails and four gondolas that it will connect it to the Historic North Creek Ski Bowl.
The suit named the Adirondack Park Agency, the state Department of Environmental Conservation and the Olympic Regional Development Authority as defendants.
The group claimed the approval of the construction was "arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion," according to court documents.
But in a decision dated July 13, state Supreme Court Judge Michael C. Lynch wrote that those charges lacked merit.
Despite arguments from the group, Lynch wrote that " ... the improvements to state-owned lands are within the constitutional limitations. Contrary to petitioners’ thesis, the impact of such improvements on the surrounding non-state-owned land is not an unconstitutional ‘commercialization’ of forest preserve lands simply because a positive economic impact is expected from the result."
John Caffry, a Glens Falls attorney who represented the environmental group, was not available for comment Thursday afternoon.
Calls to the Residents’ Committee to Protect the Adirondacks were not returned.
Gore Mountain Ski Resort General Manager Mike Pratt said he was pleased with the decision.
"We felt that this decision by the judge was the right decision because the planning process was very open," Pratt said. "We weren’t seeking variances to our land-use classifications, and the developments were within the scope of what we were allowed and actually asked to do."
Pratt said the project was supported by local officials with the hope it would increase tourism revenue in the area.
"Certainly, if some of the side benefits of this are economic development, we feel those are good things also," Pratt said.
Case by group that made filing lacked meric, says court
By NICK REISMAN
[email protected]
Friday, July 17, 2009 11:06 AM EDT
NORTH CREEK -- A lawsuit filed by an environmental group over proposed construction at Gore Mountain was rejected by a state Supreme Court judge, according to a decision announced this week.
The suit, filed in December by the Saranac Lake-based Residents’ Committee to Protect the Adirondacks, challenged the state-owned ski resort’s plans to build eight ski trails and four gondolas that it will connect it to the Historic North Creek Ski Bowl.
The suit named the Adirondack Park Agency, the state Department of Environmental Conservation and the Olympic Regional Development Authority as defendants.
The group claimed the approval of the construction was "arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion," according to court documents.
But in a decision dated July 13, state Supreme Court Judge Michael C. Lynch wrote that those charges lacked merit.
Despite arguments from the group, Lynch wrote that " ... the improvements to state-owned lands are within the constitutional limitations. Contrary to petitioners’ thesis, the impact of such improvements on the surrounding non-state-owned land is not an unconstitutional ‘commercialization’ of forest preserve lands simply because a positive economic impact is expected from the result."
John Caffry, a Glens Falls attorney who represented the environmental group, was not available for comment Thursday afternoon.
Calls to the Residents’ Committee to Protect the Adirondacks were not returned.
Gore Mountain Ski Resort General Manager Mike Pratt said he was pleased with the decision.
"We felt that this decision by the judge was the right decision because the planning process was very open," Pratt said. "We weren’t seeking variances to our land-use classifications, and the developments were within the scope of what we were allowed and actually asked to do."
Pratt said the project was supported by local officials with the hope it would increase tourism revenue in the area.
"Certainly, if some of the side benefits of this are economic development, we feel those are good things also," Pratt said.
