Once part of Thomas Carvel’s ill-fated Sports City development, the property has been the subject of debates for decades.
This story was originally published in The New Pine Plains Herald.
In a move that could reshape the future of Pine Plains and its surrounding communities, The Durst Organization has listed its expansive property for $36 million. Put on the market on Oct. 14, the former Carvel estate spans 1,490 acres in Pine Plains and 456 acres in Milan, and has long been at the center of debates over land use and preservation.
“We have decided to list the property for sale as we are currently focused on our New York City portfolio, specifically the development of Halletts Point in Astoria, Queens,” Alexander Durst, principal and chief development officer at The Durst Organization, told the Herald. “Another property owner may be able to realize the full potential of this remarkable property. The Durst family has a longstanding appreciation for the Hudson Valley and we will continue to be a part of the community.”
The Durst Organization is one of the oldest family-run commercial and residential real estate companies in New York state. Established in 1915, its portfolio includes the New York City properties of One World Trade Center and The Bank of America Tower.
The company owns approximately 2,633 acres of land in Pine Plains, representing about 13% of the town’s total acreage, according to Dutchess County tax records.
The Dursts initially purchased the 1,900-acre core of the listed property from the estate of the late ice cream magnate Thomas Carvel, in 2002 for $7.78 million.
After the initial acquisition, The Durst Organization expanded its holdings in Pine Plains, purchasing an additional 711 acres between 2015 and 2019 for nearly $6 million. The property is owned by two limited liability companies: 1133 Taconic LLC and Stissing Mountain Properties LLC.
In the late 1960s, Thomas Carvel launched an ambitious development known as the All-American Sports City after acquiring several parcels of farmland in Pine Plains. His vision included a golf course, clubhouse, lake and 500 homes. While the lake, golf course, clubhouse and 16 homes were built, the broader project stalled and remained incomplete at the time of Carvel’s death in 1990. In the decades that followed, the property’s infrastructure — including roads, water, and wastewater systems — fell into disrepair due to neglect, ultimately leaving it in a deteriorated state by the time it was sold.
While the listed property encompasses the original Carvel property, it does not include 685 additional acres in Pine Plains that remain under Durst ownership. Separately, in early October, the company listed another property, featuring a historic 19th-century farmhouse on 65 acres at 115-133 Mount Ross Road, for $599,000.
The company touts the Carvel property as a “sanctuary offering endless possibilities,” with potential uses including a family compound, corporate retreat, or winery. The listing highlights the property’s views of the Catskills and Stissing Mountain, as well as its remaining structures — following the demolition of several houses and barns over the years — which include four single-family homes, a two-family residence, and an office and warehouse facility.
Over the past two decades, The Durst Organization has put forward three development proposals for the Carvel property and its expanded holdings. While each plan was scaled back in response to public concerns, the company worked to incorporate community feedback and adjust its vision accordingly. The final plan, submitted in 2020, envisioned a 2,700-acre “eco resort” including open space, farmland, outdoor recreation areas, and 237 residential lots in Pine Plains, along with 51 lots in Milan. While the project received preliminary approval from the Pine Plains Zoning Board, it went no further.
The first proposal, in 2003 was for a 951-unit residential development centered around Lake Carvel and prompted Pine Plains to impose a moratorium on development and, eventually, to implement zoning laws for the first time.
The new zoning code, passed in October 2009, included some of the strictest regulations in Dutchess County, limiting building sizes and preventing large-scale commercial projects. The Dursts returned in 2011 with a revised plan for 591 units, in compliance with the new zoning code, but in the face of public opposition, and the stock market collapse of 2011, that proposal lay dormant for nearly seven years.
In the first half of 2018, The Durst Organization tried to revive the project, hosting two public meetings at the Pine Plains Community Center to receive feedback from residents. In June 2018, the company presented a new proposal, a “conservation subdivision,” that included plans to restore the golf course Carvel had built in the 1960s and construct 281 homes, placed in small clusters, around a central “recreation-oriented resort.”
In April 2020, The Durst Organization submitted pre-sketch plans for the conservation subdivision to the Planning Board. This stage focused on determining the maximum number of residential lots permitted under Pine Plains zoning laws, with the Dursts proposing 223 lots.
By June 2020, the Planning Board had unanimously endorsed the pre-sketch plan, which designated more than 50% of the land — about 1,397 acres — as open space. The designated areas included wetlands, steep slopes and buffer zones around water bodies. This approval allowed The Durst Organization to proceed with developing a formal subdivision plan, which would undergo a full environmental review before any final decisions were made.
However, after the property was listed Monday afternoon, Oct. 14, it seems as though the back and forth has come to an end — for now.
“The Pine Plains countryside is an oasis in the Hudson Valley,” Durst said. “With 1,946 acres of land in an ideal location and unmatched natural beauty, the property offers the opportunity to create something special.”
As for what kind of buyer would purchase a property of this size? “It’s going to range,” said listing agent Larry Havens. “I don’t want to set any limitations on that.”
State Sen. Stephen Harding
NEW MILFORD — State Sen. and Minority Leader Stephen Harding announced Jan. 20 the launch of his re-election campaign for the state’s 30th Senate District.
Harding was first elected to the State Senate in November 2022. He previously served in the House beginning in 2015. He is an attorney from New Milford.
In his campaign announcement, he said, “There is still important work to do to make Connecticut more affordable, government more accountable, and create economic opportunity. I’m running for reelection to continue standing up for our communities, listening to residents, and delivering real results.”
As of late January, no publicly listed challenger has filed to run against him.
The 30th District includes Bethlehem, Brookfield, Cornwall, Falls Village, Goshen, Kent, Litchfield, Morris, New Fairfield, New Milford, North Canaan, Salisbury, Sharon, Sherman, Warren, Washington, Winchester and part of Torrington.
MILLERTON — James (Jimmy) Cookingham, 51, a lifelong local resident, passed away on Jan. 19, 2026.
James was born on April 17, 1972 in Sharon, the son of Robert Cookingham and the late Joanne Cookingham.
He attended Webutuck Central School.
Jimmy was an avid farmer since a very young age at Daisey Hill and eventually had joint ownership of Daisey Hill Farm in Millerton with his wife Jessica.
He took great pride in growing pumpkins and sweet corn.
He was very outdoorsy and besides farming, loved to ride four wheelers, fish, and deer hunt. He also loved to make a roaring bonfire.
He was a farmer, friend, husband, father, son and brother. He will be missed by many.
He is survived by his father, Robert Cookingham, wife Jessica (Ball) Cookingham, daughters, Hailey Cookingham-Loiodice (Matt), Taylor Ellis-Tanner (Jimmy) and sister Brenda Valyou, as well as many cousins, nieces and nephews.
He is predeceased by his mother, Joanne (Palmer) Cookingham.
His daughter, Hailey, will always keep his legacy alive by their father-daughter antics, such as their handshake, nicknames and making “quacking noises” at each other.
Services/Memorials will be held at a later date.
The Kenny Funeral Home has care of arrangements.
Telecom Reg’s Best Kept On the Books
When Connecticut land-use commissions update their regulations, it seems like a no-brainer to jettison old telecommunications regulations adopted decades ago during a short-lived period when municipalities had authority to regulate second generation (2G) transmissions prior to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) being ordered by a state court in 2000 to regulate all cell tower infrastructure as “functionally equivalent” services.
It is far better to update those regs instead, especially for macro-towers given new technologies like small cells. Even though only ‘advisory’ to the CSC, the preferences of towns by law must be taken into consideration in CSC decision making. Detailed telecom regs – not just a general wish list -- are evidence that a town has put considerable thought into where they prefer such infrastructure be sited without prohibiting service that many – though not all – citizens want and that first responders rely on for public safety.
Such regs come in handy when egregious tower sites are proposed in sensitive areas, typically on private land. The regs are a town’s first line of defense, especially when cross referenced to plans of conservation and development, P&Z regulations, and wetlands setbacks. They identify how/where the town plans to intersect with the CSC process. They are also a roadmap for service providers regarding preferred sites and sometimes less neighborhood contention. In fact, to have no telecom regs can weaken a town’s rights to protect environmental, scenic, and historic assets, and serve up whole neighborhoods to unnecessary overlapping coverage and corporate overreach. Such regs are unique to every town and should not follow anyone else’s boiler plate, especially industry’s.
Connecticut is the only state that has a centralized siting entity for cell towers. The good news is that applicants must prove need for new tower sites in an evidentiary proceeding and any decisions have the weight of the state behind them. The bad news is that the CSC used to be far less industry-friendly and rote in their reviews, which now resemble a check list. There is an operative assumption at CSC that if an applicant wants a tower, they must need it, otherwise why spend significant money to run the approval gauntlet? This reflects a subtle shift over the years at CSC from sincere willingness to protect the environment toward minimal tweaking of bad applications with minor changes. The bottom line is that towns really cannot rely on the CSC to do all the work for them.
What CSC issues telecom providers is a “certificate of environmental compatibility” after an evidentiary proceeding (not unlike a court case) with intervenors, parties, expert witnesses, and the service provider’s technical pro’s sworn in and subject to cross examination. Service providers get to do the same with any opposition from intervenor/party participants – like towns and citizens -- and their experts. It’s an impressive process whose ultimate goal is the fine balancing between allowing adequate/reliable public services and protecting state ecology with minimal damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values. They unfortunately often fall short of their mandate – like approving cell towers with diesel generators over town aquifers -- evidenced by CSC only rejecting about five cell towers in the past 15-20 years.
The CSC was founded in 1972 and clarified its mission in the 1980’s to prevent the state from being carved up willy-nilly by gas pipelines, high tension corridors, and broadcast towers. With the sudden proliferation of cell towers beginning in late 1990’s, it became the most sued agency in Connecticut by both an arrogant upstart industry if applications were denied and by towns/citizens when bad sites were forced on them. CSC gradually formed a defensive posture that drives their decisions toward industry with deeper pockets and attorneys on retainer.
For citizens, nothing can wreck one’s day like the CSC. It behooves towns to protect what little toolkit they have, and understand the legal parameters of the CSC’s playing field. The CSC is not a “normal” government agency where municipal/citizen redress is based on logic and local support. Their process is largely immune to everything but specific kinds of evidence – like town regs with setbacks/fall zones, radio frequency transmission signal strengths, sensitive areas identified, and detailed wildlife inventory, among others.
There is a current cell tower fight involving two intervening towns -- Washington and Warren; both with good cell tower regs – over a tower site within 1200’ of a Montessori School, near Steep Rock’s nature preserves with comprehensive geology/wildlife databases that include endangered, threatened and special concern flora and fauna, on established federal/state migratory bird flyways, within throwing distance to a historic site capable of being listed on the Underground Railroad, and with an access road on a blind curve entering a state highway that will permanently damage wetlands, vernal pools, and core forests. There are well credentialed environmental experts, including Dr. Michael Klemens, former chair of Salisbury’s P&Z, as well as the former director of migratory bird management at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and an RF engineer testifying to alternative approaches, plus three attorneys representing intervenors. It is the most professional challenge I have seen at CSC since Falls Village successfully mounted one that protected Robbins Swamps several years ago.
The hearing is ongoing, with uncertain results. To see what it takes today to stop an inappropriate tower siting, see Docket #543 under “Pending Matters” at https://portal.ct.gov/csc before removing local cell tower regs – the lowest hanging fruit that any town can possess in case it’s needed.
B, Blake Levitt is the Communications Director at The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council. She writes about how technology affects biology.