Resort’s appeal of parking lot denial in state court

Lawyers for the resort argue, in their appeal, that the town development review board was not consistent with its denial, after approving several other developments at the resort, including a similar parking lot expansion at the Nordic center, just across the road from the proposed lot it denied.

The appeal argues that the resort’s master plan, developed nearly two decades ago by the resort, the town and other interested parties, forewarned the eventual expansion of the Harlow Hill parking area, and “was anticipated and approved by the Town to support the Resort’s growth.” The development review board adopted that plan in March 2004, and the appeal refers to language in the plan calling for the creation of an overflow satellite parking lot as well as a map showing the two Harlow Hill parking areas.

Altogether, according to the appeal, the master plan called for 725 additional satellite parking spaces, and only 427 were formed with the Nordic center lot.

“The necessity of that expansion has only grown with time, and it is increasingly clear that it is necessary to alleviate traffic and parking issues that affect both the Resort and the Town,” the appeal reads.

It later adds that the expansion is good for everyone: “Accordingly, expansion of the Harlow Hill parking area is necessary not only to facilitate Resort operations and improve the guest experience, but also to reduce unnecessary traffic and parking issues affecting the Town itself, both along the Mountain Road and in downtown Stowe.”

Traffic along Mountain Road has been a hot-button issue, and arguably hotter than ever this past winter, when several weekends and holidays featured hours-long wait times for resort-bound guests and locals trying to get to work or simply from point A to point B.

As evidence to support its case, the resort has offered several previous review board decisions that approved applications for other significant developments at the resort.

They were all approved as elements of larger resort developments approved under the resort’s 2004 master plan and they were all approved prior to Vail taking over ski operations, when AIG ran all operations at both Mount Mansfield and Spruce Peak.

The applications the resort submitted as evidence were all approved in 2004 under that master plan.

• The Spruce Peak Performing Arts Center, regarded by some as a major cultural draw for the town.

• A snowmaking pond with a 75-million-gallon capacity.

• A 7,300-square-foot expansion of the so-called AIG dorm near the lodge condominiums.

• The replacement of six chairlifts, most of them upgrades to detachable quads. Also included in that upgrade was what would become the Over Easy gondola, which shuttles people over Route 108 between the Mansfield and Spruce areas.

• Two new ski trails at Spruce Peak.

The appeal deems the review board’s decision last year to deny the parking lot “arbitrary and capricious.”

At the same time, a third-party filing with the Environmental Court does the opposite, calling it “well-reasoned, factually supported, and legally accurate.” That argument, filed by Joshua Slen and Chris Robin — they each own property near the proposed lot — states the land proposed for the parking lot had little to do with the resort master plan.

“This argument is offensive,” Slen and Robin argue. “For two years, while before the DRB, Vail expressly stated that this land and the project was to be considered as independent from the Master Plan permit and process, as nothing like it was included in that permit process.”

Lawyers representing the town of Stowe’s answer also defend the review board’s decision, referring to it as “well-reasoned and amply supported.” For one, it states the proposed parking lot is more than double the size of what was “originally contemplated” in the master plan.

The town’s lawyers accuse the resort of “cherry picking” evidence to support its case, while ignoring “substantial conflicting evidence” the review board relied on in its denial.