Timing of Killington Forward

[newpylong1]

I'm not asking to replace Mike or saying I know better. I'm only arguing your ridiculous claim that it takes 2 calendar years (3 off-seasons) to renovate a lodge.

I am not sure why you're being combative or are just being obtuse.

https://www.mynbc5.com/article/julys-he ... g/44812063

"“We had water flow coming down in one area. I think Skyeship base lodge saw about 4 feet of water in the basement,” Laramie said. “That lodge is completely stripped out right now. We are talking about all of the new things that we'll be putting in there for seasons to come.”"

Amy Laramie of Killington/Pico - go complain to her. I am just relaying what I heard and as I said, it was extremely vague.

[KingsFourMan]

They're building the same number of units as in the original plan, only one lodge, and not filling in the pond anymore. 75% of voters are already in favor of it. I think the risk of permitting hold ups is very low. I don't think there were any permitting delays at all for the new K1 Lodge.

I know that the new architect stated that but all that means is that they don't expect much local public opposition. This is VT, opposition to development, especially large development, is all but guaranteed and it's not just open to the residents of Killington like the TIF vote was. Regardless, the ACT 250 permit is not based on public opinion, it's based on adhering to extremely strict environmental criteria. The risk of it getting hung up is a very real and costly possibility.

I question what the real reason was for the complete redesign. Developers notoriously care about one thing, making money, that's what they are there to do. Unless the new design is going to make more money for the Developer, or there was some kind of previously unknown fundamental flaw, the Developer is not going to be interested in going through a complete redesign and another ACT 250 application process. The architect, who works for the Developer, isn't going to go to the Developer and say "gee wiz, the old design is a very good design, but we want and excellent design so we're going to redesign the entire project and re-submit for ACT 250 permitting". Any developer would respond, "OK great, then you can pay for that." and then throw them out of their office. They are not going to be interested if it is going to cost them money, again unless there was some sort of previously unknown fundamental flaw. Redesigning costs money, the ACT 250 permit application costs money, and time is money. There is another reason that they are not disclosing as to why they are doing this. One possibility being new storm water/flooding concerns as a result of these most recent storms but who knows. Adding parking under the buildings raises them up to reduce the risk on buildings but gain who knows what the reason is but its almost certainly something more than what has been stated.

[GMCrra]

It may be the "higher for longer" interest rate position of the fed and the economic risks. Lets face it, taking a big gamble on the 2024 economy is risky.
Buying down interest rates for buyers costs money too, 2nd home markets slow before the primary markets.

[Mister Moose]

^ Aside from the above, it also is important to have a design that is marketable, both in terms of costs, price point and sales appeal. Irene happened before the purchase, and flooding was likely known to the developer. The plan changes may have been baked in some time ago, pre purchase. I'm guessing in the big picture SP produced a feasible plan, a proof of concept. SP never planned on building it themselves. Now for a plan GG is going to put real money into, they want a saleable, phaseable, financeable plan.

[Bubba]

SP Land had this plan from the beginning

IMG_4603.jpeg (35.97 KiB) Viewed 2520 times

[snoloco]

Ever since the TIF vote went through, Great Gulf is on the hook for the water system and road improvements, so they have to build and sell the units. Given the severe lack of nearby lodging, there should be plenty of demand. I think the new village plan offers more revenue opportunities than the original one, which is why they're switching it. The old plan had nothing for those not staying in it. There isn't enough foot traffic to support the retail and dining tenants if only lodging guests are passing through there. That's why Great Gulf keeps pushing the fact that there has to be something in it for day trippers. They have to benefit from it in some way.

[KingsFourMan]

^ Aside from the above, it also is important to have a design that is marketable, both in terms of costs, price point and sales appeal. Irene happened before the purchase, and flooding was likely known to the developer. The plan changes may have been baked in some time ago, pre purchase. I'm guessing in the big picture SP produced a feasible plan, a proof of concept. SP never planned on building it themselves. Now for a plan GG is going to put real money into, they want a saleable, phaseable, financeable plan.

That’s a very real possibility and makes a lot of sense but why not just speak the truth instead of the obvious ridiculous spin that they put on it.

Why not “The original design done by SP Land and their Architect was done more or less to prove that an ACT 250 permit could be obtained. When Great Gulf purchased the property from SP, they fully anticipated that they would redesign the concept design. Additionally, the real estate market is changing now as a result of interest rate and we felt that we could now take the time to do it better” or something similar.

I guess the answer is simple, marketing spin, but it just sounded like such BS...which is was.

[rogman]

“The original design done by SP Land and their Architect was done more or less to prove that an ACT 250 permit could be obtained. When Great Gulf purchased the property from SP, they fully anticipated that they would redesign the concept design. Additionally, the real estate market is changing now as a result of interest rate and we felt that we could now take the time to do it better”

You've jumped the shark, here. Expecting two different entities, separated by a decade in time, and a different set of experiences to agree on the best way forward is ridiculous. Attributing it to interest rates is baloney. Great Gulf's upfront costs will increase due to these changes. That's the interest rate they're concerned with.

Act 250 encompasses 10 areas. To summarize, it must be determined that the project:
1. Will not result in undue water or air pollution.
2. Has sufficient water available for the needs of the subdivision or development.
3. Will not unreasonably burden any existing water supply.
4. Will not cause unreasonable soil erosion or affect the capacity of the land to hold water.
5. Will not cause unreasonably dangerous or congested traffic conditions
6. Will not create an unreasonable burden on the educational facilities of the municipality.
7. Will not create an unreasonable burden on the municipality in providing governmental services.
8. Will not have an undue adverse effect on aesthetics, scenic beauty, historic sites, wildlife, etc.
9. Conforms with the Capability and Development Plan
10. Is in conformance with any local or regional plan or capital facilities program.

They are not changing the number of people or square footage. Therefore, the impact of the development for most of these 10 items is unchanged. What has changed is #5 traffic evaluation (which is probably better due to the centralized bus station and the elimination of roads), and #8 aesthetics, which are also improved due to increased green space. In the Mountain Times, Sneyd stated,

“We had a decision to make: Do we change things ever so slightly, and then go for an administrative approval from Act 250?” Sneyd explained. “But as soon as we realized that we were changing traffic, we thought, ‘okay, it’s not going to be an administrative approval.’ So we’re going to have to go through this process — it’s the whole thing again,” he said

I believe he's being politically savvy. It's not a huge change for a project of this size; yet he is showing proper respect towards the approval process. It certainly isn't starting from zero.

[KingsFourMan]

“The original design done by SP Land and their Architect was done more or less to prove that an ACT 250 permit could be obtained. When Great Gulf purchased the property from SP, they fully anticipated that they would redesign the concept design. Additionally, the real estate market is changing now as a result of interest rate and we felt that we could now take the time to do it better”

You've jumped the shark, here. Expecting two different entities, separated by a decade in time, and a different set of experiences to agree on the best way forward is ridiculous. Attributing it to interest rates is baloney. Great Gulf's upfront costs will increase due to these changes. That's the interest rate they're concerned with.

Act 250 encompasses 10 areas. To summarize, it must be determined that the project:
1. Will not result in undue water or air pollution.
2. Has sufficient water available for the needs of the subdivision or development.
3. Will not unreasonably burden any existing water supply.
4. Will not cause unreasonable soil erosion or affect the capacity of the land to hold water.
5. Will not cause unreasonably dangerous or congested traffic conditions
6. Will not create an unreasonable burden on the educational facilities of the municipality.
7. Will not create an unreasonable burden on the municipality in providing governmental services.
8. Will not have an undue adverse effect on aesthetics, scenic beauty, historic sites, wildlife, etc.
9. Conforms with the Capability and Development Plan
10. Is in conformance with any local or regional plan or capital facilities program.

They are not changing the number of people or square footage. Therefore, the impact of the development for most of these 10 items is unchanged. What has changed is #5 traffic evaluation (which is probably better due to the centralized bus station and the elimination of roads), and #8 aesthetics, which are also improved due to increased green space. In the Mountain Times, Sneyd stated,

“We had a decision to make: Do we change things ever so slightly, and then go for an administrative approval from Act 250?” Sneyd explained. “But as soon as we realized that we were changing traffic, we thought, ‘okay, it’s not going to be an administrative approval.’ So we’re going to have to go through this process — it’s the whole thing again,” he said

I believe he's being politically savvy. It's not a huge change for a project of this size; yet he is showing proper respect towards the approval process. It certainly isn't starting from zero.

You are missing the point, my quote is simply stating Mister Moose's position in honest straight forward speak instead of the marketing BS spin they put out. You should be quoting Mister Moose's post and arguing your position with him.

As far as the ACT 250 permit resubmission goes, if I had to put my chips on black (no ACT 250 problems to speak of) or red (Significant ACT 250 problems), I'd put my chips on red all day long.

[Big Bob]

Wasn't one of the hang ups on getting approval on the initial plan traffic issues? I wonder if this will surface again... Chipping in money for local work force housing was a politically correct move along with a practicle one. Hopefully no one pushes that one or both of the lodges are a historic site. :)

[hillbangin]

They're building the same number of units as in the original plan, only one lodge, and not filling in the pond anymore. 75% of voters are already in favor of it. I think the risk of permitting hold ups is very low. I don't think there were any permitting delays at all for the new K1 Lodge.

I know that the new architect stated that but all that means is that they don't expect much local public opposition. This is VT, opposition to development, especially large development, is all but guaranteed and it's not just open to the residents of Killington like the TIF vote was. Regardless, the ACT 250 permit is not based on public opinion, it's based on adhering to extremely strict environmental criteria. The risk of it getting hung up is a very real and costly possibility.

I question what the real reason was for the complete redesign. Developers notoriously care about one thing, making money, that's what they are there to do. Unless the new design is going to make more money for the Developer, or there was some kind of previously unknown fundamental flaw, the Developer is not going to be interested in going through a complete redesign and another ACT 250 application process. The architect, who works for the Developer, isn't going to go to the Developer and say "gee wiz, the old design is a very good design, but we want and excellent design so we're going to redesign the entire project and re-submit for ACT 250 permitting". Any developer would respond, "OK great, then you can pay for that." and then throw them out of their office. They are not going to be interested if it is going to cost them money, again unless there was some sort of previously unknown fundamental flaw. Redesigning costs money, the ACT 250 permit application costs money, and time is money. There is another reason that they are not disclosing as to why they are doing this. One possibility being new storm water/flooding concerns as a result of these most recent storms but who knows. Adding parking under the buildings raises them up to reduce the risk on buildings but gain who knows what the reason is but its almost certainly something more than what has been stated.

If the design is better - they'll get more money for the real estate.

And this version looks like a lot less road work.

That other design was horrible.

Sent from my SM-S906U1 using Tapatalk

[KingsFourMan]

According to this article, Phase 1 of the Access Rd work has been awarded. No mention of a start date which was previously stated to be this Fall.

https://mountaintimes.info/qa-with-town ... -timeline/

[Big Bob]

So it looks like the have gotton almost $20 million of essentially free money. Will Great Gulf still have to repay that $20 million through the TIF and those dollars be used to reduce the rest of Killington's property owners property tax? So another words the tax dollars raised by the new real estate will go into the towns general fund rather than be used to repay the loan and hopefully reducing the mill rate. Or will the Sate of VT find a way to confiscate it?.

[Big Bob]

Casalla has an excavator working next to the Bear Lodge as seen on the webcam. Any one know what they are working on? Snowmaking pipe repair?

[Stormchaser]

They're building the same number of units as in the original plan, only one lodge, and not filling in the pond anymore. 75% of voters are already in favor of it. I think the risk of permitting hold ups is very low. I don't think there were any permitting delays at all for the new K1 Lodge.

I know that the new architect stated that but all that means is that they don't expect much local public opposition. This is VT, opposition to development, especially large development, is all but guaranteed and it's not just open to the residents of Killington like the TIF vote was. Regardless, the ACT 250 permit is not based on public opinion, it's based on adhering to extremely strict environmental criteria. The risk of it getting hung up is a very real and costly possibility.

I question what the real reason was for the complete redesign. Developers notoriously care about one thing, making money, that's what they are there to do. Unless the new design is going to make more money for the Developer, or there was some kind of previously unknown fundamental flaw, the Developer is not going to be interested in going through a complete redesign and another ACT 250 application process. The architect, who works for the Developer, isn't going to go to the Developer and say "gee wiz, the old design is a very good design, but we want and excellent design so we're going to redesign the entire project and re-submit for ACT 250 permitting". Any developer would respond, "OK great, then you can pay for that." and then throw them out of their office. They are not going to be interested if it is going to cost them money, again unless there was some sort of previously unknown fundamental flaw. Redesigning costs money, the ACT 250 permit application costs money, and time is money. There is another reason that they are not disclosing as to why they are doing this. One possibility being new storm water/flooding concerns as a result of these most recent storms but who knows. Adding parking under the buildings raises them up to reduce the risk on buildings but gain who knows what the reason is but its almost certainly something more than what has been stated.

If the design is better - they'll get more money for the real estate.

And this version looks like a lot less road work.

That other design was horrible.

Sent from my SM-S906U1 using Tapatalk

The preliminary architectural layout was a cartoon intended to depict a general concept in order to secure preliminary permitting to make the project a sellable venture. No detailed engineering was involved short some rough work on infrastructure. Now that the project has been sold to a developer, detailed design plans for the entire project still need to be completed and approved by regulators. How strictly or loosely the developer follows the preliminary drawings are up to them. They are the responsible party for final permitting which is all yet to be addressed. Straying from the preliminary design could require the developer to modify preliminary permitting, but knowing they already have a permit in hand means changing the layout within the same general footprint won't cost them their permit, just another meeting or two and some additional review.