Killington Village developer gets Act 250 permit
By Josh O’Gorman
STAFF WRITER | October 08,2013
STAFF WRITER | October 08,2013
Provided Photo
Killington Village Ski Plaza is shown at dusk in
this architect’s rendering in which the contemporary style for the
village is featured.
KILLINGTON — A local developer has received a
permit to begin a $100 million project, but the permit conditions might
prompt the developer to appeal.
On Monday, the District 1 Environmental Commission issued an Act 250 permit to SP Land Company to allow the developer to begin the first phase of Killington Village. The permit has been a long time coming, and SP Land President Steven Selbo expressed a reserved form of celebration Monday night.
“I’m excited to take this step, is the best way to put it,” Selbo said, noting SP Land filed the permit application in February 2012. “I’m happy we’ve gotten to this step.”
SP Land actually received two permits Monday.
The first was to construct a 1,276-car parking lot and to realign Killington Road and the parking lot of the Killington Grand Resort Hotel.
The second permit allows SP Land to construct 193 residential units; a 32-unit subdivision; 31,622 square feet of commercial and retail space; and a 77,000-square-foot skier services building to replace the Ramshead and Snowlodge base lodges.
The proposed conditions surrounding the second permit have proven the most contentious for SP Land and the three organizations with party status including: Rutland Regional Planning Commission, Southern Windsor County Regional Planning Commission and Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Commission.
In January, the three commissions sent a letter to the District 1 Environmental Commission, suggesting that after the completion of phase one, SP Land be compelled to conduct a traffic corridor study along Killington Road, Route 4, Route 100 and Route 103 arteries from Killington to Interstate 89 and I-91.
SP Land objected to this condition, asserting in a letter in January the proposed permit conditions “as a whole are well outside the scope of what is permissible under Act 250.”
During hearings in 2012, the Agency of Transportation, SP Land and the three planning commissions agreed with the findings of a traffic study showing no mitigation measures would be required for phase one.
The Rutland Regional Planning Commission withdrew its support of making the condition mandatory, but the other two planning commissions maintained their collective position.
In issuing the permit, the District 1 Environmental Commission decided to make the study mandatory. SP Land would be obligated to pay for as much as 50 percent of the study, with a cap of $25,000. The Agency of Transportation and the three regional planning commissions would fund the balance of the study.
The scope of the study is unclear; it refers to studying “traffic impacts from the Phase I development upon the Killington Road/US4/VT103 corridors from Killington to I-91 and I-89.” There is no reference to Route 100.
Selbo said he has not decided if he will appeal the decision.
“We’re just letting this sink in right now,” Selbo said. “I’m cautiously optimistic we will find a way to work with everyone.”
SP Land has 15 days from the date the permit was issued to file a motion to alter the permit.
A last-minute suggestion from the Rutland Regional Planning Commission to force SP Land to include 495 units of affordable housing was not included as a permit condition.
josh.ogorman
@rutlandherald.com
Comment:
This is good news on the economic development front. Now, as long as a certain party in town does not continue trying to extort millions from SP Land by litigating every imaginable issue and appealing the permit, our town and region can move forward and enjoy the fruits of this development.
It seems certain select board member(s) are sympathetic to this litigating extortionist. When Jim Haff brought up the question as to why the town is supporting, through contract awards, 1.) Someone who sues the town, and 2.) who stifles economic development. And this is someone who was actually on the original Economic Development and Tourism Commission. The hypocrisy and ludicrousness in this town is sometimes unbelievable. Anyway, Patty McGrath, in response to Jim Haff's uery stated, "What are we supposed to do black ball him? Well, no, but who in their right mind does business with somebody who sues them and stifles their efforts for growth and economic well being.
Vito
On Monday, the District 1 Environmental Commission issued an Act 250 permit to SP Land Company to allow the developer to begin the first phase of Killington Village. The permit has been a long time coming, and SP Land President Steven Selbo expressed a reserved form of celebration Monday night.
“I’m excited to take this step, is the best way to put it,” Selbo said, noting SP Land filed the permit application in February 2012. “I’m happy we’ve gotten to this step.”
SP Land actually received two permits Monday.
The first was to construct a 1,276-car parking lot and to realign Killington Road and the parking lot of the Killington Grand Resort Hotel.
The second permit allows SP Land to construct 193 residential units; a 32-unit subdivision; 31,622 square feet of commercial and retail space; and a 77,000-square-foot skier services building to replace the Ramshead and Snowlodge base lodges.
The proposed conditions surrounding the second permit have proven the most contentious for SP Land and the three organizations with party status including: Rutland Regional Planning Commission, Southern Windsor County Regional Planning Commission and Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Commission.
In January, the three commissions sent a letter to the District 1 Environmental Commission, suggesting that after the completion of phase one, SP Land be compelled to conduct a traffic corridor study along Killington Road, Route 4, Route 100 and Route 103 arteries from Killington to Interstate 89 and I-91.
SP Land objected to this condition, asserting in a letter in January the proposed permit conditions “as a whole are well outside the scope of what is permissible under Act 250.”
During hearings in 2012, the Agency of Transportation, SP Land and the three planning commissions agreed with the findings of a traffic study showing no mitigation measures would be required for phase one.
The Rutland Regional Planning Commission withdrew its support of making the condition mandatory, but the other two planning commissions maintained their collective position.
In issuing the permit, the District 1 Environmental Commission decided to make the study mandatory. SP Land would be obligated to pay for as much as 50 percent of the study, with a cap of $25,000. The Agency of Transportation and the three regional planning commissions would fund the balance of the study.
The scope of the study is unclear; it refers to studying “traffic impacts from the Phase I development upon the Killington Road/US4/VT103 corridors from Killington to I-91 and I-89.” There is no reference to Route 100.
Selbo said he has not decided if he will appeal the decision.
“We’re just letting this sink in right now,” Selbo said. “I’m cautiously optimistic we will find a way to work with everyone.”
SP Land has 15 days from the date the permit was issued to file a motion to alter the permit.
A last-minute suggestion from the Rutland Regional Planning Commission to force SP Land to include 495 units of affordable housing was not included as a permit condition.
josh.ogorman
@rutlandherald.com
Comment:
This is good news on the economic development front. Now, as long as a certain party in town does not continue trying to extort millions from SP Land by litigating every imaginable issue and appealing the permit, our town and region can move forward and enjoy the fruits of this development.
It seems certain select board member(s) are sympathetic to this litigating extortionist. When Jim Haff brought up the question as to why the town is supporting, through contract awards, 1.) Someone who sues the town, and 2.) who stifles economic development. And this is someone who was actually on the original Economic Development and Tourism Commission. The hypocrisy and ludicrousness in this town is sometimes unbelievable. Anyway, Patty McGrath, in response to Jim Haff's uery stated, "What are we supposed to do black ball him? Well, no, but who in their right mind does business with somebody who sues them and stifles their efforts for growth and economic well being.
Vito
No comments:
Post a Comment