Vermont Standard
7/14/2016
By Curt Peterson
Standard Correspondent
KILLINGTON — Ticket sales at Northeastern ski resorts have been on a steady decline for at least several years, and recent mild winters haven’t helped. Nevertheless, Killington Resort has some optimistic plans for the future. The resort wants to build 2,300 residential units and commercial space totaling 200,000 square feet on land off Killington Road.
Stephen Durkee, who lives in Mendon on 32 acres near the Killington line and Roaring Brook, filed an appeal of the Phase I approval on his own behalf and for “entities that he owns”— Mountainside Properties, Inc., Mountainside Development, Inc. and Fireside Properties, Inc. The litigation has been going on since at least April of 2010.
Durkee, his wife Karen and the related entities own at least eight properties in Killington including vacant land, a residence, a warehouse, a market, offices and retail space.
In his appeal Durkee cited increased traffic, spoiled aesthetics, threats to safety, water pollution and increased burden on municipal services as affects of the new development that would be hard on him and his group of businesses.
In his March 21, 2016 entry, Judge Thomas S. Durkin of the Vermont Supreme Court, Environmental Division, questioned the standing of the interests Durkee named in his appeal—whether each of Durkee’s entities would actually be harmed by the development project. In the end the judge rejected the standing of one or more of Durkee’s parties on some or all of the points cited in the appeal.
Durkee filed an appeal of Judge Durkin’s declarations regarding the interests of his entities, but that failed.
Regarding traffic, Durkin said that only Durkee himself might be affected adversely by additional vehicles attracted to the area by the development, ergo all of the other entities “lacked standing” regarding that criteria.
In Durkin’s June 21, 2016 decision the resort is required to fund a local traffic study and regional corridor traffic studies to determine if there would be a significant negative impact created by additional traffic that might be attracted to the new development.
“Estimating what additional traffic a proposed development may generate is both science and art,” Durkin wrote. Citing a historic decline in traffic in the area, particularly at the resort, he said, “We found traffic estimates presented by the resort experts to be more credible.”
He pointed out the plan adds no expanded skiing facilities that might draw more skiers, that nothing in the development would tend to increase day-skiers who might add to traffic, that there has been a general decline in skier visits, which has already relieved traffic congestion somewhat, and that the town is installing more pedestrian-friendly walkways, bike paths, crossings and sidewalks as well as increased shuttle service, so he could not envision the huge surge in automobile traffic that Durkee was predicting.
Durkin, after a site visit, described the current resort as aesthetically tuned to the times and to its place, and, since the development plans depict similar design and architecture, and since the changes to the already existing parking lot were improvements and not something to be introduced into a pristine environment, he thought the sight of the development after construction is complete would be at least as pleasant as before construction.
The Agency of Natural Resources had already deemed Roaring Brook an “impaired waterway,” polluted by runoff from the existing parking lot, some years ago. Part of Phase I of the resort plans includes replacing an aging storm water treatment system, adding an additional treatment system and improving landscaping of the lot with environmental sensitivity in mind. The court said rather than deteriorating, water quality in the drainage streams would probably improve as a result of the planned upgrades.
The current development plan isn’t the first issue Durkee has had with owners of the Resort.
He purchased a 32-parcel from SKI, Inc. previous owner of the Resort, along with a right-of-first refusal for a second, contiguous property. If SKI received an offer that included rights to “sufficient sewage capacity to accommodate development,” Durkee’s Mountainside Properties would have 30 days to match it or SKI could sell the 60-acre parcel to the offering buyer.
In 2007 SKI, which had already sold the property housing the sewage treatment system to the resort’s current owners, put the 60 acres, which they still owned, on the market. They approached Durkee with an offer from a third party that included the resort’s agreement to provide treatment facility to service up to eight single-family homes, but with the caveat that Durkee had to agree to never contest any attempt by the resort’s new owners to develop the 300-acre parcel where the treatment plant is situated.
Durkee turned down the offer based on his belief that the “no-contest” clause was not part of the original agreement. SKI contracted to sell the property to a third party for a higher price and with the no-contest clause.
Durkee took SKI to court over the issue and lost, but was successful with a subsequent appeal. The court said SKI’s offer with the no-contest clause included did not satisfy the terms of his right-of-first-refusal agreement with Durkee.
Durkee declined to comment on the June 21 rejection of his appeal regarding the Phase I development, and would not discuss the final outcome of his negotiations with SKI and the Resort over the 60-acre parcel.
Asked what they think of the plan, the Killington select board members unanimously said they thought having a village built there would be good for the town.
Judge Thomas S. Durkin of the Vermont Superior Court Environmental Division said in a decision relating to the Killington development proposal, which will include at least eight phases, that completion of the project might take up to 30 years.
In the first phase of development the resort plans 32 detached homes and 193 condominiums, two new base lodges and some commercial units, and a new parking lot configuration and storm water treatment system, as well as a new village green. Application for Act 250 permits was filed for the Master Plan and, after some negotiations with condominium association neighbors, the Agency of Natural Resources and the Killington Planning Commission, approval to begin phase I was granted.
The first phase includes two sections of the Master Plan: Village Core, and Ramshead Brook Subdivision.
Village Core will provide 193 housing units, 31,622 sq. ft. of commercial space, a 77,000 square foot “skier services building,” the two new base lodges, and will require adjusting the paths of Killington Road and East Mountain Road.
Ramshead Brook Subdivision, just below Village Core and comprising 44.69 acres, will provide either 32 single-family home lots or 23 duplex residential lots, and the new storm water treatment system.
Killington Volunteer Fire Department suggested any new structures should be fitted with water or dry chemical sprinkler systems to make up for increased traffic slowing down emergency response time, but Judge Durkin said the court lacked authority to require fire retardant systems and that there was no legal precedence on which he might rely in doing so.
Killington Resort’s optimistic plans are impressive. But not everyone is happy about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment