Killington development project hits setback

Killington development project hits setback

By Josh O’Gorman
STAFF WRITER | June 04,2013

 

A suggestion from the Rutland Regional Planning Commission would — if supported by Act 250 officials — force the designers of a proposed $125 million development on Killington Mountain to return to their drawing boards.

The commission has sent a letter to the District 1 Environmental Commission suggesting that SP Land Co. incorporate 495 units of affordable workforce housing into its planned development, a suggestion that caught the president of the company by surprise.

“It’s not going to happen,” said Steven P. Selbo, president of SP Land. “This came out of nowhere. We’ve spent millions on this. We have architectural designs, sewer designs and engineering designs. This came as a shock and a real disappointment.”

SP Land has applied for an Act 250 permit to build 198 residential units, 32,000 square feet of retail space and 32 subdivision lots on Killington Mountain. The Agency of Natural Resources has granted party status to the Rutland, Southern Windsor County and Two Rivers-Ottauquechee regional planning commissions.

It’s up to the Environmental Commission to decide what conditions will be required of SP Land to receive a permit. However, the Environmental Commission solicited suggestions from the three regional planning commissions. The commissions together drafted a letter suggesting SP Land be required to pay as much as $25,000 for a transportation improvement plan for routes 4, 100 and 103 as they connect Killington Resort to interstates 89 and 91. Under the proposal, the plan — which is estimated to cost upward of $70,000 — would be a public-private project funded by SP Land, the Agency of Transportation and the three planning commissions.

That plan encompasses 133 miles of road — including Route 100 all the way to Waterbury — and 17 major intersections. A completed traffic study has shown the first phase of the project — the only phase for which SP Land has applied for a permit — would not have any major traffic impacts.

Last month, the Rutland Regional Planning Commission voted to withdraw its support of the joint three-commission letter and instead write one of its own. The revised letter softens the language around the transportation improvement plan, and it instead suggests SP Land be strongly encouraged to participate in the plan.

The transportation plan had been a sticking point for SP Land, which doesn’t want to be required to participate in the study as a permit condition and balked at being the only developer required to participate. The letter suggests SP Land be joined in funding the study by “all major traffic generators.”

The other two planning commissions have submitted a revised joint letter which still suggests SP Land be required to participate in the study.

SP Land got what it wanted from the Rutland Regional Planning Commission regarding the traffic study — its participation is suggested instead of required — and got a letter solely from the Rutland commission as requested. But the affordable housing suggestion — a remnant from an Act 250 permit issued in 1998 to a different developer trying to do the same project that never broke ground — didn’t sit well with SP Land.

“This has been a biased and disrespectful process,” said Stephanie Hainley, a consultant working with SP Land. “This has not been a collaborative process.”

A decision on what Act 250 conditions will be required of SP Land is expected by the end of June.