Mon, Dec 2, 2013 10:53 AM
An Act 250 permit was issued by the District # 1 Environmental
Commission on Oct. 7, 2013 to Killington/Pico Ski Resort Partners
(KPSRP) for a Resort Parking Project which 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
On Oct. 22, 2013, KPSRP's attorney filed a Motion to Alter the
permit with the Commission. Other parties were notified as
required, and on Nov. 1 a reply to the motion was filed by Pinnacle
Condominium Association, Inc.
No other motions or replies were filed.
Both the motion and the reply were timely, filed pursuant to Act
250 Rules, according to the Commission. In its Nov. 21 issuance of
an altered permit, the Commission granted most requests and denied
Killington/Pico Ski Resort Partners filed the Motion to Alter to
request changes due to their need to clarify some of the language
and correct a few errors. For the most part those requested
alterations concerned 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 future confusion.
In these cases, a suggested rewording was given and requests were
granted. The revised permit reflects those changes.
The most significant change in language clarifies the dates of
commencement and substantial completion of the project, as well as
a final completion date for the project. Condition #27 now reads:
"All site work and construction shall be completed in accordance
with the approved plans by October 7, 2020, unless an extension of
this date is approved in writing by the Commission. Such requests
to extend must be filed prior to the deadline and approval may be
granted without public hearing."
While a request to delete Conditions #21 - #25 in their entirety
for reasons of being substantially redundant with Conditions #4 -
#8 and unnecessarily confusing was granted, a few requests to
delete a finding of fact or condition were denied.
This included 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
In denying this request, the Commission wrote that it
"consolidated the reviews of both the Village (1R0980) project and
the Parking Lot (1R0981) project. The Commission expressly
incorporated our findings from the proceedings on 1R0980 under
criterion 9K into our findings for 1R0980 with respect to criterion
9K. During portions of the testimony, Mr. Durkee's expert testified
that the Phase 1 project, including the relocated parking
facilities, would involve undue impacts under Criterion 9K. The
Commission's finding will remain unchanged."
A request to modify FOF #47 for similar reasons was denied by the
Commission for "reasons cited" in finding #45.
Opponents request upheld, condition 19 request denied
The request for deletion that elicited the 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 was "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."
Jon S. Readnour, Esq. who filed a Response in Opposition to
Applicant's Motion to Alter on behalf of his client the Pinnacle
Condominium Association, wrote that the deletion would upset "the
balance contemplated" by the permit, and the Association was
therefore opposed to the request.
He argued 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" was a reasonable expectation and
therefore a basis to deny the Motion's request to delete the
The Commission agreed and denied KPSRP request for removal. In
part they noted the issue of potential encroachment on neighboring
parking lots was raised by the condominium parties in the
consolidated Act 250 proceedings that included Killington Village
The Commission added that "Undue encroachment can lead to undue
congestion or parking deficiencies in those condominium
developments. The Commission concludes, as suggested by the reply,
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
Any appeal of the Commission's decision must be filed with the
Superior Court, Environmental Division within 30 days of the date
the decision was issued.
It was not known at press time if there would be an appeal.