Rutland Herald
JOSH o’GORMAN
STAFF WRITER | November 08,2013
STAFF WRITER | November 08,2013
PROVIDED IMAGE
Killington’s proposed ski village is shown at dusk in this architect’s rendering.
The battle over the proposed multi-million-dollar development in Killington is moving to the state Environmental Court.
Thursday was the deadline for parties to file appeals on a pair of permits issued Oct. 7 for the Killington Village, a massive project that includes 2,300 residential units and 200,000 square feet of retail and commercial space.
The developer, SP Land Company, received a permit to go forward with the first phase of the project, estimated at around $100 million. That would include 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 Snowshed base lodges.
An attorney for SP Land filed a notice of appeal Oct. 30, with the Environmental Court in Barre. The notice is just that; it contains nothing about what prompted the appeal, but in an interview SP Land President Steven Selbo shared some details.
“We’re working on fine-tuning what that response will be,” said Selbo, whose company has until Nov. 20 to file a statement describing the perceived problems with the permit.
Selbo said a chief point of contention is a permit condition requiring SP Land to pay as much as 50 percent — with a maximum of $25,000 — for a traffic corridor study along Killington Road, Route 4, Route 100 and Route 103 from Killington to Interstates 89 and 91.
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.
“That’s not a scenario any developer could live with,” Selbo said. “It’s continued oversight by Act 250 that is not typical of Act 250.”
Selbo said SP Land also objects to a permit condition requiring sprinkler systems for the residential units, as well as other issues he declined to discuss.
“We came to the conclusion that we need to appeal,” Selbo said. “If there were one or two issues, we might have filed a motion to alter, like the resort did with the parking lot permit.”
Related to this project is a permit issued to Killington/Pico Ski Resort Partners, or KPSRP, to construct a 1,276-space parking lot, reconfigure the parking lot of the Killington Grand Resort and construct a stormwater detention pond and related utilities.
KPSRP filed a motion with the District 1 Environmental Commission to alter the permit, seeking to strike a condition requiring the resort to manage the parking facility “in a manner sufficient to prevent intrusion of visitors parking onto adjoining or neighboring condominium owners’ property.”
The Pinnacle Condominium Association, whose property is adjacent to the proposed parking lot, filed a response opposing the motion to alter.
There were no appeals filed in Environmental Court related to the parking lot permit, and no other appeals filed in relation to SP Land’s permit.
“We feel we were treated differently than other applicants seeking an Act 250 permit,” Selbo said. “We appreciate that we’ve gotten to this stage in the process, but this is a business and we cannot execute our business with the conditions of this permit.”
josh.ogorman@rutlandherald.com
Thursday was the deadline for parties to file appeals on a pair of permits issued Oct. 7 for the Killington Village, a massive project that includes 2,300 residential units and 200,000 square feet of retail and commercial space.
The developer, SP Land Company, received a permit to go forward with the first phase of the project, estimated at around $100 million. That would include 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 Snowshed base lodges.
An attorney for SP Land filed a notice of appeal Oct. 30, with the Environmental Court in Barre. The notice is just that; it contains nothing about what prompted the appeal, but in an interview SP Land President Steven Selbo shared some details.
“We’re working on fine-tuning what that response will be,” said Selbo, whose company has until Nov. 20 to file a statement describing the perceived problems with the permit.
Selbo said a chief point of contention is a permit condition requiring SP Land to pay as much as 50 percent — with a maximum of $25,000 — for a traffic corridor study along Killington Road, Route 4, Route 100 and Route 103 from Killington to Interstates 89 and 91.
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.
“That’s not a scenario any developer could live with,” Selbo said. “It’s continued oversight by Act 250 that is not typical of Act 250.”
Selbo said SP Land also objects to a permit condition requiring sprinkler systems for the residential units, as well as other issues he declined to discuss.
“We came to the conclusion that we need to appeal,” Selbo said. “If there were one or two issues, we might have filed a motion to alter, like the resort did with the parking lot permit.”
Related to this project is a permit issued to Killington/Pico Ski Resort Partners, or KPSRP, to construct a 1,276-space parking lot, reconfigure the parking lot of the Killington Grand Resort and construct a stormwater detention pond and related utilities.
KPSRP filed a motion with the District 1 Environmental Commission to alter the permit, seeking to strike a condition requiring the resort to manage the parking facility “in a manner sufficient to prevent intrusion of visitors parking onto adjoining or neighboring condominium owners’ property.”
The Pinnacle Condominium Association, whose property is adjacent to the proposed parking lot, filed a response opposing the motion to alter.
There were no appeals filed in Environmental Court related to the parking lot permit, and no other appeals filed in relation to SP Land’s permit.
“We feel we were treated differently than other applicants seeking an Act 250 permit,” Selbo said. “We appreciate that we’ve gotten to this stage in the process, but this is a business and we cannot execute our business with the conditions of this permit.”
josh.ogorman@rutlandherald.com
No comments:
Post a Comment