PDA

View Full Version : Sugarbush Village



dustyroads
12-08-2014, 11:07 AM
What is the deal with Sugarbush Village? Why is the common area so poorly maintained? I know there is a lot of private owners but I would assume the Mountain owns much of the Village and I would be surprised if the Mountain was not one of the trustees who could encourage improvements. If I was considering one of the new condos next door I would be very concerned how the Mountain has turned it back on this area. I worry about the same kind of attention be given to the new buildings in the future, once all units have been sold.

Tin Woodsman
12-08-2014, 02:31 PM
SB/Summit Ventures has no ownership interest in the Village and therefore no influence/ability to clean it up as you suggest. It would certainly be ideal if there was some mechanism to ensure a consistent level of loo/feel and polish, but it's not like you can clean up your neighbor's house even if it's decreasing your property values.

dustyroads
12-08-2014, 04:20 PM
SB/Summit Ventures has no ownership interest in the Village and therefore no influence/ability to clean it up as you suggest. It would certainly be ideal if there was some mechanism to ensure a consistent level of loo/feel and polish, but it's not like you can clean up your neighbor's house even if it's decreasing your property values.

I am a little confused, I thought SB at least owned the reality office and the day care center. If so, then they do have interest in the common areas. The common area is what i'm referring to not the individual units.

win
12-08-2014, 04:38 PM
Let me correct this post. Sugarbush owns a few condos in the Brook Building., whre we have the Day School and the three apartments above that. Others own the rest.

Benski
12-08-2014, 05:14 PM
Also what is going to happen to the destroyed mountainside building.

HowieT2
12-08-2014, 05:51 PM
I am a little confused, I thought SB at least owned the reality office and the day care center. If so, then they do have interest in the common areas. The common area is what i'm referring to not the individual units.

Sugarbush the resort doesn't own the trademark to "sugarbush" and that's why sugarbush village is so named, not because the resort owns the village. It's a problem, obviously since many reasonably assume as you did, that it was owned by the resort.
I think the hope is, that with the new development adjacent to the village, more traffic (and money) will flow into the village warranting a refresh. It does need it badly but I think it has good bones. It's really a good setup and prime location. A modest amount of money would go a long way.

Tin Woodsman
12-08-2014, 05:54 PM
I am a little confused, I thought SB at least owned the reality office and the day care center. If so, then they do have interest in the common areas. The common area is what i'm referring to not the individual units.


Let me correct this post. Sugarbush owns a few condos in the Brook Building., whre we have the Day School and the three apartments above that. Others own the rest.

Win's explanation should suffice. While SB can and probably is working to improve things as a stakeholder in the SB Village, it's not a charity and can't be expected to fund or dictate what the common areas look like. When I lived in my apartment in NYC, I had an opinion on what improvements the building should make to the hallway, but I wasn't going to drop a check to make that improvements happen, nor was I eligible to do so. There's not much difference here.

Hawk
12-09-2014, 08:01 AM
What areas are you concerned with? What exactly are the issues? There are several owners that are involved when you talk about the little plaza between the covered bridge, Chez Heri, Mother Stuffers and the Pine Tree. I have no idea who actually controls the walkways, stairs and patio areas. I would bet the owners have an association that shares the maintenance costs. In my experience it is usually painful to get multiple owners to agree to capital spending.

The area above that I highlighted is older but it is not that run down. Just older looking. What would you suggest?

win
12-09-2014, 10:48 AM
When we permitted Rice Brook, we agreed at our expense to build a dedicated parking lot for those businesses in the first two buidlings across from the bridge. This is all mapped out in the permitting documents. When finished this will be deeded to an association owned by those businesses. That Village Parking Lot has been owned by Sugarbush and there was never any deeded rights for anyone to park there. This ensures that the occupants of those two condos have adequate parking in the future. The Bridge is structurally sound, but we will be replacing the roof at some point as it is getting tired. The Stucco on the building was been redone and looks good. The rest of the space up there is part of other condo associations. it the past there has been some attempts to work on those areas, but I am not aware of anything now.

As I understand it Mountainside is in the process of attempting to permit the reconstruction of the building that burned. They have had there Act 250 hearing.