Still off limits to sleds

Article Photos

LAKE PLACID - After seven years of fighting the state over motorized access to Old Mountain Road, and winning just about every case, Lake Placid snowmobiler Jim McCulley still can't ride his snowmobile on the road, at least according to the towns of Keene and North Elba.

But McCulley, who settled his federal lawsuit against the state Department of Environmental Conservation last week, says he didn't take on the state just to prove he or anyone else can snowmobile on the road, which runs through the Sentinel Range Wilderness and is part of the Jackrabbit Cross-Country Ski Trail.

"I think a lot of people have missed the point with my entire case," McCulley said. "Many people said it was about snowmobiling. It was more about the principle of the state just taking something they do not own."

In May of last year, DEC Commissioner Pete Grannis dismissed a fine McCulley had been issued for driving his pickup truck on the road, which the state had argued was part of the Sentinel Range Wilderness and off limits to motorized vehicles. Grannis found the road is a town road and was never properly conveyed to the Forest Preserve.

The decision essentially left it up to the towns of Keene and North Elba to decide if the road should be opened to snowmobiles or ATVs. But at the moment, neither town is interested in allowing motorized access to the road.

The town of Keene, where most of the road is located, approved a local law in December designating its section of the Old Mountain Road as a "public recreational trail."

"It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motorized vehicle of any kind, including but not limited to all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles, on the Old Mountain Road," the law reads.

The only exception is for town of Keene residents and property owners, who can ride ATVs on a .9-mile stretch of the road beginning at the end of Alstead Hill Lane during hunting season, and only with a permit from the town. Violation of the law is punishable by a fine of $100 per incident.

Tony Goodwin, executive director of the Adirondack Ski Touring Council, which maintains the Jackrabbit ski trail, said the town's action has protected the road's status as a public recreational trail.

"I think the road is protected and we're unlikely to see any motorized use on it," he said. "The recognition of the Keene town board, some of whom are snowmobilers themselves, was that this was not a place that was appropriate for snowmobiles. It's too short and used by too many non-motorized users, and there are other places to snowmobile."

The town of North Elba hasn't formally taken up the issue of allowing motorized access to its end of the road since Grannis' ruling. But Supervisor Roby Politi says he believes the town's section of the road is closed to snowmobiles or ATVs, even though the road isn't posted as such.

"We don't intend to have any motorized vehicular use of the road," he said. "Nobody's asked, but I don't think it's our intention to open it up to vehicular access. My guess is it will continue to be a recreational pathway."

Ken Jubin, who owns property at the North Elba end of the road, said he's glad the towns now have the right to decide how to use the road. But he doesn't believe, in its current state, that the road would be safe for use by snowmobiles and ATVs while also being used by hikers, skiers and snowshoers.

"It's a recreational thoroughfare right now," Jubin said. "To change that just wouldn't make too much sense. It's just not practical to be a thoroughfare for snowmobiles."

But that hasn't stopped some snowmobilers from trying to use the Old Mountain Road. For several days in late February and early March, a snowmobile could be seen stuck in heavy, wet snow on the side of the trail, less than a mile from the North Elba end of the road. Goodwin said the sled is no longer there; its owner, whom the Enterprise could not determine, apparently was able to get it unstuck at some point in the past week.

McCulley admits he'd like to have the road open for snowmobiling, but he supports the towns having the final say in how they want the road to be used.

"It's their decision," he said. "It's been my stance all along that the people who own it should decide what happens to it. At least they have the choice."

If the current town boards don't want motorized access on the road, McCulley said a decision to change that "is just one election away."

He also questioned a provision in the Keene local law that only allows town residents to use ATVs on the road.

"I don't think that's legal," he said. "From a legal point of view, you can't choose who uses a public road. I have no desire to challenge that, but I think it's ridiculously silly."

After Grannis' decision, a DEC Region 6 attorney, Adirondack Council Executive Director Brian Houseal and state Adirondack Park Agency Chairman Curt Stiles urged the commissioner to revisit and clarify his ruling. Houseal and Stiles cited concerns about the precedent the Old Mountain Road case could set for other Forest Preserve roads and asked Grannis to use state Highway Law 212 to permanently close the road.

Asked this week if Grannis had decided to revisit the ruling or invoke the Highway Law, DEC spokesman Yancey Roy said in an e-mail that "there is still nothing to report at this moment." Roy also noted that by agreeing to settle McCulley's federal lawsuit and repay him for $58,000 in legal fees he incurred, DEC "makes no concessions about liability or the validity of his claims."

McCulley called the DEC Region 6 attorney's request to have Grannis revisit the ruling "a joke" and argued that Grannis can't legally close the road using state Highway Law 212.

"They know that's illegal, and they know they can't do that," he said. "They've never done it in the Adirondacks."

With the federal case now settled, this is the first time in seven years McCulley hasn't been involved in any active legal dispute surrounding the Old Mountain Road.

"It's a lot of relief," he said. "Nobody likes to fight all the time. I'm very disheartened by the fact that I had to go through all this. But I'm heartened by the fact that I was proven right and by the fact that it looks like finally the Adirondack people are standing up for their rights."

Member Comments

View Comments: | 1-20 | Post a comment

Robert
03-12-10 6:58 PM »Report Abuse	Chris- you're an EXCELLENT reporter. Thanks for what you do.
contrary1
03-12-10 9:00 AM »Report Abuse	It cost a heckuva lot more than $58,000. I bet the State spent twice as much as that defending itself after these questionable decisions were made. This case paves the way for other elected officials to determine the fate of their own stretch of the woods too. If the anti-scenic railroad people to use their money and influence to elect town and village officials who can keep the tracks from expanding, TL won't be a danger to LP's eco-tourism and second home monopoly. If Jim had cemented in stone the civil rights protections of any individual property owner along the way, it might impact a future desire to declare eminent domain over the tracks that are within their property boundaries. After they buy/elect the politicians, they can do as they wish without fear of rogue citizens impeding them. The fight took place between LP and Keene, but it might have a bigger impact in TL. Roads...tracks...are they the same thing?
Walker
03-11-10 7:27 AM »Report Abuse	I didn't say the state was right. Highway Law 212 is an entirely separate matter. McCulley claims it can't be used in the Adirondacks because of Article 14. I think he's misreading it, and I'd still like to hear, from anyone, why it couldn't be used to close the road. And, incidentally, his great victory has changed exactly nothing, except to cost taxpayers $58,000.
snakepliskin
03-10-10 10:34 PM »Report Abuse	walker, you obviously have sour grapes over the states' loss. If you don't think that the state did not try everything in its arsenal to win, you are naive at the very least. The state AGREED to pay this clown $58000. They do not pay your legal bills if you are wrong. With your apparent vast knowledge of law, perhaps you could enlighten us with an example of a case in which the state agreed to pay someones' legal bills when the state was right? Didn't think so!
namaycush
03-10-10 9:59 PM »Report Abuse	To sum up, Jim was right. Photo is funny. Also, Chris is a solid and fair reporter. It's his brand.
Hopefull
03-10-10 7:36 PM »Report Abuse	So, Jim what you are saying is the dec or encon is violating the NYS constitution by banning snow mobiles from waterways? So then what about banning motorboats from certain bodies of water?
MommiePatriot
03-10-10 6:46 PM »Report Abuse	Mr. McCulley, Thank you for fighting the battle against the Thugs in this state! I appreciate your efforts & success.
Walker
03-10-10 5:30 PM »Report Abuse	Vendor, what do you think the "in this act" means in the statement "Nothing IN THIS ACT shall prevent or operate to prevent the free use of any road stream or water way." Highway Law 212 is not in the Act that established Article 14.
northcountrynell
03-10-10 5:16 PM »Report Abuse	Vendair...keep hittn those river crossings....love to see what your sled looks like underwater.It's many sledders' stupidity that people dont like....not the sport itself.
cknight27
03-10-10 4:53 PM »Report Abuse	We reported that no one can snowmobile on the trail, at least according to what the towns of Keene and North Elba are saying. That refers to the law Keene passed in December and what Roby told us. There is a 1971 North Elba ordinance (which your laywer sent us today) that basically says snowmobiles are allowed on "the shoulder" of most town roads, with some exceptions. Matt said he's not aware that its ever been rescinded. I'm sure you may have more ordinances and old resolutions you can cite, some of which may be relevant, but all the story was depicting is the current motorized access situation on the road, according to what two towns who own the road have said and believe. If you want to challenge that, go for it. I'll be happy to report on it. As for the newspaper's personal agenda, why don't you be more specific because I'm not sure what my personal agenda is so I can respond. It was my story after all.
Vendair
03-10-10 4:31 PM »Report Abuse	Im going to get over and ride it this week. They try and shut down river crosses and are against sleds.
vendor
03-10-10 4:27 PM »Report Abuse	The state spent $58,000 on my lawyer to be proven wrong.
vendor
03-10-10 4:26 PM »Report Abuse	Walker, it means 212 dose not supersede the Constitution. My god think.
BlackIce
03-10-10 4:01 PM »Report Abuse	PEOPLE HAVE BEEN RIDING THE OMR FOR TWO YEARS AND NEVER GETTING TICKETED. SRY FOR THE CAPS AGAIN.
Walker
03-10-10 4:00 PM »Report Abuse	"Nothing IN THIS ACT shall prevent or operate to prevent the free use of any road stream or water way." That doesn't mean that ANOTHER act or law can't prevent the free use of a road. You spent $58,000 on lawyers-- get them to explain it to you.
vendor
03-10-10 3:21 PM »Report Abuse	Still off limits to sleds. By the way you may want to read the North Elba ordance that Chris didn't report on. If it's off limits was any one ticketed for that sled in the picture. I love how this paper push it's personal agenda.
vendor
03-10-10 3:17 PM »Report Abuse	Article 14. Nothing in this act shall prevent or operate to prevent the free use of any road stream or water way. That from the constitution of NYS. I know you only want to follow that when it comes to tree cutting right. By the way every road in the Adirondacks would be close with that definition. That's why DEC own interpretation says it has to terminate on state land. But ask your self why they have never used it in the park Walker. There would be a Federal Constitutional challenge immediately. There by ending illegal road closure.
LoveTheCold
03-10-10 2:25 PM »Report Abuse	Some Eco propaganda picture :)
Walker
03-10-10 12:41 PM »Report Abuse	Highway Law section 212: "If a highway passes over or through lands wholly owned and occupied by the state, the location of such portion of such highway as passes through such lands may be altered and changed, or the same may be abandoned or the use thereof as a highway discontinued with the consent and approval of the state authority having jurisdiction or control over such lands by an order directing such change in location, abandonment or discontinuance."
jackkk
03-10-10 10:16 AM »Report Abuse	You deserve a lot of credit, Jim

You must first login before you can comment.

Existing Member Login
Not a Member?	Create a Member Account
*Your email address:		<--Email REQUIRED!
*Password:	Forgot Password?	<--Password REQUIRED!
	Remember my email address.