Developers submit Sunapee condo plans They hope to receive okay before any density changes
| D |
The complex, which would include a lodge built next to the top of a chairlift that juts into the land, would be the largest residential development to date in Goshen, a rural town of about 800 people. The land, previously owned by George and Olive Dorr, is the only private property that shares a boundary with the resort.
The project would set other precedents. The Mountain Reach Development Group, made up of Richard Reeves of New London, Mark Loehr of Sutton and Pam Perkins, owner of the New London Agency Realty, has asked that the state grant it permission to allow residents to cross the state park boundary for ski-on access to the resort, an unprecedented request in New Hampshire, according to Amy Bassett, a spokeswoman for the Division of Parks and Recreation.
The project is also the first to use the town's open space ordinance.
Planning board member Jim Carrick said the board members want to take their time with this application, which was submitted Dec. 27.
"Everything that we do here is certainly being watched by other projects and other developers," he said.Tim and Diane Mueller, owners of Mount Sunapee Resort have tried unsuccessfully to build up to 250 condominiums of their own with ski-in ski-out access on private property they own in Goshen. But about 175 acres of public park sit between that land and the resort. Governor John Lynch has blocked the Mueller's proposal to extend trails across the buffer.
The resort's general manager, Jay Gamble, said he met with the Mountain Reach developers this fall and welcomes the "high-quality"addition to the region.
"We need accommodations in the area," he said. "They are very much in demand from our guests."
But the success of the project depends on getting the approval process moving before the town has the chance to make changes to its ordinance in March.
Density requirements now allow for one residential building to be built on every three acres. However, that building can contain up to three dwelling units. The planning board wants to change that to allow one dwelling unit per three acres. The change failed during last year's vote, but the board wants to try again.
The planning board agreed to postpone hearings on the change to later in the month in order to have a hearing on the Mountain Reach proposal Jan. 10 and, in doing so, grandfather the proposal. The board will be deciding whether the group's application is complete. If it is not, the developers will lose their grandfathered status and the plan will be subject to the stricter density requirement.
Carrick said the board wanted to be accommodating to the applicants.
"Basically, we could do it because the schedule allowed us to do it, and we were willing to give them the opportunity to make their pitch."
The pitch, as outlined in the application, looks like this: Each of the proposed condominiums would sell for about $800,000, targeted to second-home buyers from Massachusetts, Connecticut or New York. They would have three bedrooms, about 2,700 square feet of living space, a one-car garage, access to a community center and views of Vermont's Green Mountains.
According to the application, the complex would generate about $356,000 in yearly tax revenue, a net gain of about $224,282, accounting for the cost of increased municipal services and the addition of up to six students to the school system. The condominiums would be billed as seasonal homes, but there would be no restriction against full-time residents.
Loehr said the development could reduce the amount of education money Goshen receives from the state because it will increase the town's property value, which is one of the factors that determine that funding. But, he said, the added tax revenue would offset that. Loehr predicts a reduction of the local school portion of the tax rate from $8.32 per $1,000 dollars in value to between $6.43 and $7.45.
One of the biggest challenges for the developers could be proving that there is enough land to qualify the complex as an open-space development. Otherwise, the group would have to go through a traditional subdivision process, dividing the land into nine separate parcels. That could prove difficult given the location of wetlands and the slope of the land.
Under the town's open space ordinance, 65 percent of the land must be left undeveloped. At conceptual hearings held this summer, board members questioned whether the proposal fit.
Maps included with the application show that islands of land located between buildings and inside loops in the access road would be considered part of the 19.3 acres left open. Reeves said he considers open space to be any land that does not have buildings or roads on it.
Carrick said he sees the matter differently. "I'd like to see open space be really open space," he said. "If you have 100 acres, I'd like to see 30 acres developed in one corner of it, in the best of circumstances, and have the other 70 or 60 acres open in a plot of continuance."
Another question will be whether the developers will receive the access to the ski area they hope for. That would require the state to grant limited access from a private development to a public park. Critics say that's a dangerous precedent to set at a time when real estate development is encroaching on public access.
Director of the Division of Parks and Recreation Allison McLean sent the developers a letter in September after receiving their request, asking for more information about the project. Bassett said she hasn't heard back.
Reeves said the project will go on with or without the ski-on access, because residents could simply walk down to the trails. He said he does not have a backup plan if the application is found incomplete.
"We absolutely believe that we have a completed application, so our thoughts don't even go there,"he said.
Carrick said the developers will also have an opportunity at the Jan. 10 meeting to give the public an overview of the project.
posted by James Haft at 4:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home