Act 250: Parties spar over ski village traffic study
By Bruce Edwards
STAFF WRITER | February 04,2013
More than seven months after holding hearings on the Killington ski village plan, the District 1 Environmental Commission is still gathering information before issuing a decision on the project’s Act 250 permit application.
One sticking point is the scope of traffic-monitoring studies following construction of Phase 1 of the village.
The Rutland Regional Planning Commission, Southern Windsor County Regional Planning Commission and the Two Rivers Ottauquechee Regional Commission are seeking four permit conditions that require developer SP Land Co. to undertake traffic impact studies along Killington Road, Route 4, Route 100 and Route 103 arteries from Killington to I-91 and I-89.
Those studies should “include the impact of traffic generated in each phase as well as the total (i.e. cumulative) traffic impact for all phases of the SP Lands development,” the commissions wrote in their Jan. 15 joint letter.
In its response, SP Land Co. said through its consultant that although it “is generally supportive of further study” of existing traffic in collaboration with the regional commissions, it believes the regional commissions’ proposed permit conditions “as a whole are well outside the scope of what is permissible and practical under Act 250.”
As proposed by the regional commissions, the Act 250 permit would require SP Land to participate in a “transportation improvement plan” in collaboration with the state Agency of Transportation and the three planning commissions.
That plan will serve as the basis for allocating costs among land developers, municipalities and the state “for the transportation infrastructure necessary to accommodate growth.”
The commissions propose that SP Land pay 50 percent of the cost to prepare the plan, with the remainder shared by the AOT, the three regional commissions and other major traffic generators along the highway corridors.
SP Land would then be responsible for a proportional share of improvements deemed necessary under the plan.
One year ago, SP Land filed an Act 250 permit application for the first phase of its master plan development. Phase 1 includes 193 condominiums, nine single-family lots and 23 duplex lots, 31,000 square feet of retail space and a 77,000-square-foot base lodge that would replace the Snowshed and Ramshead base lodges.
SP Land also filed a land-use application for a 1,276-vehicle parking lot just north of the Mountain Inn.
Killington Road at the base of the ski area would be rerouted to accommodate the village core.
SP Land owns the land around the Snowshed and Ramshead base lodges; Killington Resort owns and operates the ski area.
Peter Gregory, executive director of the Two Rivers-Ottuaquechee Regional Commission, said asking SP Land to pay 50 percent of the cost of the study is reasonable.
“Philosophically, from the regional planning commissions’ perspective the taxpayers ought not be required to investigate and document the traffic impact when the private-sector development is the engine for the need of the study in the first place,” Gregory said. “In fact, I think the 50-50 cost share is very reasonable ...”
He added it’s only fair that the “proportional share of any impact, whether Phase 1 or future phases, be borne by the developer.”
But in its Jan. 28 letter to the District 1 Environmental Commission, SP Land argued that “there is no statutory authority or methodology under Act 250 to impose impact fees now for future, undetermined impacts of speculative developments as the RPCs have proposed.”
The company pointed out that during last year’s hearings the AOT and the regional commissions agreed with the findings of the Phase I traffic impact study that no mitigation measures were required.
“Furthermore, the RPCs have offered NO evidence that Phase I or even the full build out of the Village Master Plan will ‘cause unreasonable congestion or unsafe conditions’ on area highways; much less the approximately 133 miles and 17 major intersections that comprise the three-county corridor,” SP Land stated in its six-page reply.
SP Land proposed it’s own permit conditions regarding future traffic studies. It agreed with the regional commissions that it would undertake traffic monitoring following completion of Phase 1. In any future phases, SP Land said it would consider the cumulative impact of previous phases that took place “within the previous 10 years” to determine the scope of the study.
As far as cost-sharing for the study, instead of SP Land picking up 50 percent of the cost as proposed by the RPCs, the company proposed that the cost be shared jointly by AOT, the three regional commissions and SP Land.
The major disagreement concerns Condition 4 — the cost sharing for future road improvements.
In its response, SP Land said “the condition should be struck altogether.”
The company said there was no legal basis to require mitigation of existing adverse traffic and safety conditions. In addition, SP Land argued that it’s too far in the future to know what its fair proportional share might be for road improvements.
“The District Commission will have ample opportunity to require traffic mitigation if and when SPLC comes before it to seek approval of future phases,” the company said.
bruce.edwards@rutlandherald.com