PROVIDED IMAGE
Killington Village Ski Plaza is shown at dusk in this architect’s rendering which shows the contemporary style for the village.
KILLINGTON — The future of a long-awaited
ski village is now in the hands of an Environmental Court judge, who is
considering several appeals of Act 250 permits for the $130 million
project and an associated parking lot.
But one of the parties appealing the permits, Pinnacle Condominium Association, filed a motion this month with Judge Thomas Durkin asking him to stay his decision until a lawsuit related to parking issues can be resolved.
Pinnacle’s owners filed a lawsuit in December against SP Land Company, the developer, and Killington Resort objecting to the configuration of the proposed day-skier parking lot.
If built, the parking lot “would interfere with the deeded easements that benefit the Pinnacle Condominium (Association) in Killington, Vermont,” according to the lawsuit filed by Carl Lisman, a Burlington lawyer representing the owners.
Killington Resort President Michael Solimano said the lawsuit should not stop Durkin from rendering a decision.
“We believe the matters are unrelated and hope the Environment Court judge declines Pinnacle’s request,” Solimano said in an email.
In October 2013, SP Land Company received its Act 250 permit for the first phase of a ski village at the base of Killington Resort.
The estimated $130 million village includes a 77,000-square-foot base lodge, 31,622 square feet of retail space,193 residential units and a 32-unit subdivision.
The new base lodge would replace the aging Ramshead and Snowshed base lodges.
In a related project, Killington Resort received an Act 250 permit for a 1,276-vehicle parking lot for day skiers.
Both permits came with conditions that didn’t please either the developers or parties to the case, who appealed to the state Environmental Court.
In issuing an Act 250 permit for the parking lot, the District 1 Environmental Commission required Killington Resort “at all times manage the parking facility in a manner sufficient to prevent intrusion of visitors parking onto adjoining or neighboring condominium owners property.”
Pinnacle’s owners filed appeals over parking issues related to the resort’s 1,270-vehicle parking lot and SP Land’s parking design within the village core.
Jon Readnour, the condo association’s lawyer, filed a motion with the Environmental Court seeking a stay of the judge’s decision until the lawsuit over easements and parking can be resolved.
In his March 3 motion to the court, Readnour stated that … “SP Land does not have adequate real estate rights because Parking Lot B (village core) would illegally obstruct and trespass upon the Association’s paramount deeded access easements.”
Readnour continued that Killington Resort’s plans for the day skier parking lot, which includes a new road, would be an “illegal overburden of the deeded access rights of the Association and its members and guests.”
In October, Durkin held two days of merit hearings on the parking lot permit. That was followed in December by five days of consecutive hearings on the appeal of the ski village permit.
Parties had until Feb. 12 to file additional information on the parking lot permit appeal and March 4 on the ski village.
Durkin has now taken appeals on both permits under advisement.
In issuing a permit for the ski village, the District 1 Environmental Commission imposed conditions on SP Land, several of which the development company took issue with.
SP Land is required to pay half the cost of a post-construction traffic study, up to $25,000. The state and the regional commissions would pay the other half.
The analysis would encompass regional traffic impacts along Killington Road, and the Route 4 and 103 corridors from Killington to I-91 and I-89.
Another condition required SP Land to install sprinkler systems in the residential units.
The company doesn’t have a problem participating in a future traffic study, said SP Land President Steve Selbo.
“I don’t have any problem participating but why is one party responsible for 100 percent of the private portion of that study,” Selbo said.
He suggested that in fairness the commission should have asked other entities that have an impact on traffic in the region to share the cost.
“It’s not appropriate for one party to be responsible for a three region-wide study,” Selbo said.
SP Land also took issue with the sprinkler requirement for the 32, single-family home Ramshead development, which Selbo said is not “consistent with the state code.”
He also objected to a condition that requires a buyer of a residential lot to obtain approval from the District 1 Environmental Commission before construction.
Condition 19 requires an administrative amendment to ensure homes in the Ramshead 32-lot subdivision meet the design standards set out by SP Land.
Steve Durkee, another adjacent property owner, also filed an appeal over several issues. During the Act 250 proceedings, Durkee raised several issues, including aesthetics, water and traffic.
Selbo said the longer the permit process drags out, so does the cost.
“It’s not like we get this permit and a spade goes in the ground,” he said. “We have some other work to do before that happens.”
SP Land’s long-range village master plan calls for construction of an additional 2,107 housing units and 169,000-square-feet of additional retail development.
But one of the parties appealing the permits, Pinnacle Condominium Association, filed a motion this month with Judge Thomas Durkin asking him to stay his decision until a lawsuit related to parking issues can be resolved.
Pinnacle’s owners filed a lawsuit in December against SP Land Company, the developer, and Killington Resort objecting to the configuration of the proposed day-skier parking lot.
If built, the parking lot “would interfere with the deeded easements that benefit the Pinnacle Condominium (Association) in Killington, Vermont,” according to the lawsuit filed by Carl Lisman, a Burlington lawyer representing the owners.
Killington Resort President Michael Solimano said the lawsuit should not stop Durkin from rendering a decision.
“We believe the matters are unrelated and hope the Environment Court judge declines Pinnacle’s request,” Solimano said in an email.
In October 2013, SP Land Company received its Act 250 permit for the first phase of a ski village at the base of Killington Resort.
The estimated $130 million village includes a 77,000-square-foot base lodge, 31,622 square feet of retail space,193 residential units and a 32-unit subdivision.
The new base lodge would replace the aging Ramshead and Snowshed base lodges.
In a related project, Killington Resort received an Act 250 permit for a 1,276-vehicle parking lot for day skiers.
Both permits came with conditions that didn’t please either the developers or parties to the case, who appealed to the state Environmental Court.
In issuing an Act 250 permit for the parking lot, the District 1 Environmental Commission required Killington Resort “at all times manage the parking facility in a manner sufficient to prevent intrusion of visitors parking onto adjoining or neighboring condominium owners property.”
Pinnacle’s owners filed appeals over parking issues related to the resort’s 1,270-vehicle parking lot and SP Land’s parking design within the village core.
Jon Readnour, the condo association’s lawyer, filed a motion with the Environmental Court seeking a stay of the judge’s decision until the lawsuit over easements and parking can be resolved.
In his March 3 motion to the court, Readnour stated that … “SP Land does not have adequate real estate rights because Parking Lot B (village core) would illegally obstruct and trespass upon the Association’s paramount deeded access easements.”
Readnour continued that Killington Resort’s plans for the day skier parking lot, which includes a new road, would be an “illegal overburden of the deeded access rights of the Association and its members and guests.”
In October, Durkin held two days of merit hearings on the parking lot permit. That was followed in December by five days of consecutive hearings on the appeal of the ski village permit.
Parties had until Feb. 12 to file additional information on the parking lot permit appeal and March 4 on the ski village.
Durkin has now taken appeals on both permits under advisement.
In issuing a permit for the ski village, the District 1 Environmental Commission imposed conditions on SP Land, several of which the development company took issue with.
SP Land is required to pay half the cost of a post-construction traffic study, up to $25,000. The state and the regional commissions would pay the other half.
The analysis would encompass regional traffic impacts along Killington Road, and the Route 4 and 103 corridors from Killington to I-91 and I-89.
Another condition required SP Land to install sprinkler systems in the residential units.
The company doesn’t have a problem participating in a future traffic study, said SP Land President Steve Selbo.
“I don’t have any problem participating but why is one party responsible for 100 percent of the private portion of that study,” Selbo said.
He suggested that in fairness the commission should have asked other entities that have an impact on traffic in the region to share the cost.
“It’s not appropriate for one party to be responsible for a three region-wide study,” Selbo said.
SP Land also took issue with the sprinkler requirement for the 32, single-family home Ramshead development, which Selbo said is not “consistent with the state code.”
He also objected to a condition that requires a buyer of a residential lot to obtain approval from the District 1 Environmental Commission before construction.
Condition 19 requires an administrative amendment to ensure homes in the Ramshead 32-lot subdivision meet the design standards set out by SP Land.
Steve Durkee, another adjacent property owner, also filed an appeal over several issues. During the Act 250 proceedings, Durkee raised several issues, including aesthetics, water and traffic.
Selbo said the longer the permit process drags out, so does the cost.
“It’s not like we get this permit and a spade goes in the ground,” he said. “We have some other work to do before that happens.”
SP Land’s long-range village master plan calls for construction of an additional 2,107 housing units and 169,000-square-feet of additional retail development.
Comment: I sure hope the parties tying up this development aren't whining for the town of Killington to spend money on Economic Development. Here we have a private entity interested in pouring millions of dollars into economic development while other parties are more interested in getting their businesses subsidized with taxpayer dollars and creating obstacles to private development.
Vito
No comments:
Post a Comment