The Extreme Environmental Groups that originally filed the Article 78 Lawsuit trying to put a halt to the Adirondack Club and Resort Project in Tupper Lake report they’ve filed a motion seeking an appeal of the appellate’s unanimous decision striking down their law suit. According to papers from PROTECT and the Sierra Club, The return date for the motion is August 18th. and they say If the Appellate Division denies this motion, Protect the Adirondacks and Sierra Club plan to make a similar motion to the Court of Appeals, as provided for under the applicable rules of procedure. Protect the Adirondacks and Sierra Club say they strongly disagreed with the Appellate Court decision. And based on their comments, it appears they have no intention of allowing any court decision from allowing the project to move forward..
In a statement, the extrteme environmental groups say their original lawsuit primarily focused on the approval by the APA of 80 “Great Camp” lots spread widely throughout lands classified as Resource Management under the APA Act. The court’s decision did not examine the failure of the APA to uphold the APA Act for development of lands classified as Resource Management. If the Appellate Court decision is upheld, they say, it will create a ruinous precedent that will negatively impact hundreds of thousands of acres classified as Resource Management across the Adirondack Park.
The groups statement continues by saying “Another principal objection is that the Appellate Division erred when it held that the Adirondack Park Land Use and Development Plan of the APA Act is merely guidance to APA and is not binding on the APA, despite the plain language of the statute to the contrary. This reverses 40 years of legal practice at the APA and accords APA decision-makers with vast opportunities to issue permits with little justification.”
“The Appellate Division also erred,” PROTECT says, “When it held that APA’s reliance upon post-approval studies of adverse impacts to wetlands and wildlife, which have not yet been conducted, as grounds for approval of the project, was not arbitrary and capricious.”
According to their appeal they say “The Court also did not examine the APA’s reliance on materials that illegally supplemented the hearing record to make its decision. The Court also failed to examine ex parte communication issues.”
According to PROTECT’s statement, The timetable for such motions is relatively quick. Final resolution of this motion, and a potential similar motion to the NYS Court of Appeals, is expected within six months.