The Mountain Times

°F Wed, April 23, 2014

Central Vermont's Most Popular Weekly Newspaper

Motion to alter Resort parking project filed

On October 22, Killington/Pico Ski Resort Partners (KPSRP) filed a Motion to Alter requesting the District # 1 Environmental Commission to clarify and alter the Land Use Permit for a Resort Parking Project that was issued on October 7.
The Motion was filed by attorney Peter Van Oot of Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC on behalf of his client whom he had represented at Act 250 hearings in 2012.
The permit for the Resort Parking Project includes approvals for: a new day-skier parking lot for 1,276 vehicles; realignment of a portion of Killington Road; reconfiguration of the Grand Hotel Parking Lot; a stormwater detention pond, and associated utilities.
Unlike an appeal of a permit, which goes to the state's Superior Court Environmental Division and is based on issues that require a new hearing, a motion to alter is filed with the District Commission within 15 days from the date of a decision [permit's issuance] and deals with more technical concerns like clarifications or corrections of an error. It also provides that anyone granted party status may file a response to a Motion to Alter within 15 days of its filing (a copy of which is sent to all parties).
The Resort's Motion
For the most part KPSRP's requested alterations concern changes in language to various findings of fact (FOF), conclusions of law (COL), and conditions in an effort to clarify the meaning and prevent any confusion. In these cases, a suggested rewording is given such as in the case in Conditions 26 and 27 when times of commencement and substantial completion appear incongruous with a completion date of the project.
In others, there is a request to correct an error (typo) such as a date. For example, the Commission was in receipt of the final recess order filing in 2013 and not in 2012 as stated in the permit.
More significant are requests to delete a finding or condition such as the request to "delete finding of fact #45 in its entirety." This was based on the argument that  "neither petitioner Durkee or his expert Mr. Raphael submitted the referenced testimony in Application #1R0981 and therefore FOF and COL #45 has no factual or evidentiary basis under the Resort Parking Project Land Use Permit."
While there are several such requests for deletions, one which elicited an objection being filed was in regard to a condition imposed on the resort that "The 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."
In support of its request to delete this condition, KPSRP argued that: "there is no evidentiary basis for the condition in the record or under the Resort Parking Project Land Use Permit's FOF and COL;" that "Land Use Permit conditions must have a reasonable basis for a condition under one or more of the Act 250 criteria;" that there "is no reasonable basis for a condition preventing the intrusion of visitors parking onto adjoining or neighboring condominium owners property under Act 250 criterion 5" (Traffic Congestion and Safety); and that the "condition as written is vague, ambiguous and unenforceable."
On November 1, however, Jon S. Readnour, Esq. filed a Response in Opposition to Applicant's Motion to Alter on behalf of his client the Pinnacle Condominium Association. The Association, which was granted Party Status at the Act 250 hearings on several criteria, objected to the request of KPSRP to delete Permit Condition 19.
"The unit owners in the Association are concerned that they would be negatively affected by improper operation and maintenance of the parking lot in general and a failure to properly operate the parking lot as contemplated in Permit Condition 19," Readnour wrote, noting the deletion would upset "the balance contemplated" by the permit, and the Association was therefore opposed to the request.
In support of his argument, he wrote that, "Creating and operating a parking lot which facilitates a trespass on lands of another constitutes the creation of a public and/or private nuisance. The Act 250 Rules specifically provide that a permit condition may pertain to the 'proper operation and maintenance' of a facility or development [Rule 32(A)]."
He argues that "management of the facility to preclude creation of a trespass or nuisance arising from cars from the parking lot intruding onto the land of others" is a reasonable expectation and therefore is a basis to deny the Motion's request to delete the condition.
There were no other filings of Motions to Alter or responses to name as of November 4. The response deadline was November 6, according to Bill Burke, District 1 Coordinator.
It is not known how much time the commission might need to complete its review.