Rutland Herald
By Josh O’Gorman
STAFF WRITER | November 25,2013
By Josh O’Gorman
STAFF WRITER | November 25,2013
KILLINGTON — One of the developers of the
proposed Killington Village must take steps to contain skier parking,
according to a recently released decision.
The District 1 Environmental Commission last week denied a motion to alter a permit issued in October to Killington/Pico Ski Resort Partners to build a 1,276-space parking lot, reconfigure the parking lot of the Killington Grand Resort and to build a stormwater detention pond and related utilities.
The permit came with a host of conditions, including condition 19, which states “(t)he Permittee shall at all times manage the parking facility in a manner sufficient to prevent intrusion of visitors parking onto adjoining or neighboring condominium owners property.”
The neighboring property in question is Pinnacle Condominium Association, a development located on Old Mill Road that contains 150 units of one to three bedrooms each.
Peter Van Oot, an attorney representing KPSRP, filed a motion with the District 1 Environmental Commission to alter the permit by removing condition 19.
In the motion to alter, Van Oot argued “there is no evidentiary basis for the condition” and that “there is no reasonable basis for a condition preventing the intrusion of visitors parking onto adjoining or neighboring condominium owners’ property” under the Act 250 criteria that addresses traffic congestion and safety.
Van Oot also argued the condition was “vague, ambiguous and unenforceable.”
The commission disagreed.
“Undue encroachment can lead to undue congestion or parking deficiencies in those condominium developments,” the ruling states. “The Commission concludes … that the condition is sufficiently specific to obligate the permittee to prevent such encroachment utilizing such measures as the permittee deems reasonable, and which achieve the required result: prevention of encroachment by Killington visiting skiers upon the parking lots owned by the neighboring condominium associations.”
Van Oot could not be reached for comment, but Jon Readnour, an attorney representing the Pinnacle Condominium Association, expressed satisfaction with the decision.
“I read the commission’s response to the motion to alter and I’m pleased that they agreed with us, in terms of the one point we were concerned about,” Readnour said.
josh.ogorman @rutlandherald.com
The District 1 Environmental Commission last week denied a motion to alter a permit issued in October to Killington/Pico Ski Resort Partners to build a 1,276-space parking lot, reconfigure the parking lot of the Killington Grand Resort and to build a stormwater detention pond and related utilities.
The permit came with a host of conditions, including condition 19, which states “(t)he Permittee shall at all times manage the parking facility in a manner sufficient to prevent intrusion of visitors parking onto adjoining or neighboring condominium owners property.”
The neighboring property in question is Pinnacle Condominium Association, a development located on Old Mill Road that contains 150 units of one to three bedrooms each.
Peter Van Oot, an attorney representing KPSRP, filed a motion with the District 1 Environmental Commission to alter the permit by removing condition 19.
In the motion to alter, Van Oot argued “there is no evidentiary basis for the condition” and that “there is no reasonable basis for a condition preventing the intrusion of visitors parking onto adjoining or neighboring condominium owners’ property” under the Act 250 criteria that addresses traffic congestion and safety.
Van Oot also argued the condition was “vague, ambiguous and unenforceable.”
The commission disagreed.
“Undue encroachment can lead to undue congestion or parking deficiencies in those condominium developments,” the ruling states. “The Commission concludes … that the condition is sufficiently specific to obligate the permittee to prevent such encroachment utilizing such measures as the permittee deems reasonable, and which achieve the required result: prevention of encroachment by Killington visiting skiers upon the parking lots owned by the neighboring condominium associations.”
Van Oot could not be reached for comment, but Jon Readnour, an attorney representing the Pinnacle Condominium Association, expressed satisfaction with the decision.
“I read the commission’s response to the motion to alter and I’m pleased that they agreed with us, in terms of the one point we were concerned about,” Readnour said.
josh.ogorman @rutlandherald.com
Comment: This condition seems reasonable until you start thinking about how to enforce it. The only way I see to do this is to require permits for Pinnacle's parking. Is the village developer supposed to pay for that? What about visitors to Pinnacle, they're more than likely skiers too.
It's easy for the commission to write up the requirement. Too bad they didn't come up with the solution as well.
Vito
No comments:
Post a Comment