Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 127

Thread: The Mall

  1. #106
    That is true. http://valleyreporter.com/index.php/...act-250-permit

    They have plenty of time to put the lift in. I was surprised when that they took the valley chair out before they had the act 250. I thought win was more conservative than that.

    But all the permits seem to be in place. So all is good.

  2. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by teleo View Post
    That is true. http://valleyreporter.com/index.php/...act-250-permit

    They have plenty of time to put the lift in. I was surprised when that they took the valley chair out before they had the act 250. I thought win was more conservative than that.

    But all the permits seem to be in place. So all is good.
    Yes, the Mountainside thing is ridiculous. I'm all for caring about the environment, but sometimes they just go too far. To not let people rebuild after a fire is just insane. I haven't heard anything since this article, but I hope they manage to come up with some kind of solution or win an appeal.

    As for the valley chair, I'm thinking they started because they had tight timelines to get the blasting done and were either very confident they would get the act 250 permit or had some sort of plan B in mind.

  3. #108
    BTW if anyone is interested act 250 info is published at https://anrweb.vt.gov/ANR/ANR/Act250.aspx
    Takes a while for them to update it. But all the drawings are in there. Just search on town of warren and poke around to find them.

  4. #109
    Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Just ahead of you in the woods....
    Posts
    1,823
    It is very common that when something is non-compliant and needs to be rebuilt, they fix the issue going forward. This does not surprise me at all. Actually the architect that they hired did them no favors trying to make this fly. They should have know that they were going to face stiff resistance. The solution seems to be to shift the building away from the stream to move it further away form the buffer zone. If it was me I would have had some dialogue with the authorities to figure out what they would accept first before going in with a half baked plan. If it means that they loose some parking spaces then so be it. Not sure of all the details but they will have go back to the drawing board. The building was basically right on top of the stream. There is no way that this would fly in any town. I feel bad but this is not something that should have been a mystery to them when they started the process.
    Trouble with you is the trouble with me,
    Got two good eyes but we still don’t see!

  5. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    It is very common that when something is non-compliant and needs to be rebuilt, they fix the issue going forward. This does not surprise me at all. Actually the architect that they hired did them no favors trying to make this fly. They should have know that they were going to face stiff resistance. The solution seems to be to shift the building away from the stream to move it further away form the buffer zone. If it was me I would have had some dialogue with the authorities to figure out what they would accept first before going in with a half baked plan. If it means that they loose some parking spaces then so be it. Not sure of all the details but they will have go back to the drawing board. The building was basically right on top of the stream. There is no way that this would fly in any town. I feel bad but this is not something that should have been a mystery to them when they started the process.
    yeah, when I saw that the old building was only 3 feet from the stream and the proposal for the new building was only 4 feet from same, I wasnt surprised the approval was denied.

  6. #111
    The building existed there to begin with,... half the state of vt is most likely in violation of act 250 - why should they not be able to just go ahead and replace the building? This is completely whacked! i cant imagine how pissed off i would be if I owned a place in that building. New construction - I get it. But if the building was there and burned down - they should be able to just rebuild.


  7. #112
    Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Just ahead of you in the woods....
    Posts
    1,823
    No that's not how it works. They are building a new building. Excavation, framing, MEP systems, finishes, everything. It is a new building therefore it has to conform to current code. Sorry that is the way it is everywhere. I work in the industry and have been subject to this kind of thing in 3 different states. It may seem a little unfair but any architect that took this on should have known. Hell I worked on several projects where they kept crappy pieces of buildings so that they would not trigger this kind of thing. That way they could call it a renovation of existing instead of new construction. They just need to shift the building away form the stream and they can get this done. Otherwise they have no leg to stand on.
    Trouble with you is the trouble with me,
    Got two good eyes but we still don’t see!

  8. #113
    Hasn't Mountainside has been non-conforming from day 1 since they needed (and received) ACT 250 approval back in the 70s? At any rate, a 50 foot setback from Rice Brook means they would have to build the units where the driveway previously was. I fully understand needing to meet existing building codes for construction materials, safety, electrical, plumbing, heating, etc. However setbacks should be exempt in the case of a rebuild due to a disaster as long as the new structure does not increase the amount of non-compliance. If someone on their own decides to knock a building down to replace it, that's a different story. I'm sure ACT 250 approval has been granted in other cases where the required setbacks were not met. Could Mountainside have done more to reduce non-compliance and address erosion concerns, etc? Probably, and I hope they find a solution at some point.

    Curious, if they had left part of the foundation in place instead of knocking it all down, would that have made any difference?

  9. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by cdskier View Post
    Hasn't Mountainside has been non-conforming from day 1 since they needed (and received) ACT 250 approval back in the 70s? At any rate, a 50 foot setback from Rice Brook means they would have to build the units where the driveway previously was. I fully understand needing to meet existing building codes for construction materials, safety, electrical, plumbing, heating, etc. However setbacks should be exempt in the case of a rebuild due to a disaster as long as the new structure does not increase the amount of non-compliance. If someone on their own decides to knock a building down to replace it, that's a different story. I'm sure ACT 250 approval has been granted in other cases where the required setbacks were not met. Could Mountainside have done more to reduce non-compliance and address erosion concerns, etc? Probably, and I hope they find a solution at some point.

    Curious, if they had left part of the foundation in place instead of knocking it all down, would that have made any difference?
    Completely agree. I get the set back + act 250 - but when someone's house is destroyed due to a disaster - they should be able to rebuild exactly what they had before the disaster.

  10. #115
    Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Just ahead of you in the woods....
    Posts
    1,823
    I think that if they had moved it back 15 or 20 feet and asked for a variance and provided good erosion control and maybe a wall or revised earth work to mitigate the flood and erosion potential they would have had a better chance as getting it through. It will be interesting to see what they do. I can not comment on an act of god policy change like that. One thing I do know is that city's and Towns and the state do not like liability. If they allow them to rebuild on that foot print and there is a flood, they will be on the hook for some kind of damages. I am sure that is something they consider. I can see your point about not being fair but that is the policy across most of the country. I guess the moral of the story is be proactive when it comes to fire safety.
    Trouble with you is the trouble with me,
    Got two good eyes but we still don’t see!

  11. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by djd66 View Post
    Completely agree. I get the set back + act 250 - but when someone's house is destroyed due to a disaster - they should be able to rebuild exactly what they had before the disaster.
    should they? why? I mean these rules are in place for a reason. The setback is required to prevent damage to the waterway, among other things. We can argue about the merits of the rules, but once they are enacted, shouldnt they apply to everyone? If they didnt apply to structures destroyed by fire, wouldnt that incentivize owners to burn existing structures down?

  12. #117
    Latest round of pictures of the valley house lift. https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...1863383&type=1
    I guess it does not take long to remove the terminal.

  13. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by HowieT2 View Post
    should they? why? I mean these rules are in place for a reason. The setback is required to prevent damage to the waterway, among other things. We can argue about the merits of the rules, but once they are enacted, shouldnt they apply to everyone? If they didnt apply to structures destroyed by fire, wouldnt that incentivize owners to burn existing structures down?
    I understand why the rules are in place and i am not saying NEW Construction should be able to build with out regard to setback. What I am saying - this structure existed before any setback. A lot of families paid money for the property and due to some bad luck the whole building burned down. It will not effect anyone if the structure is rebuilt exactly how it was before. It certainly will not have any impact on the environment. If you use your logic - maybe the tree hugging environmentalists are incentivised to burn buildings down that they wont be rebuilt.

    I just found this great article, written by an attorney on this exact subject - I could not agree more. http://www.mskvt.com/page.php?id=54 Like he points out - how can a bank lend money to someone for a home that may not be able to be rebuilt after a fire? Does this now mean that if i live in a home that is not in compliance with act 250 i will not be able to borrow money? I hope the association lawyers up and sues for all kinds of damages.

  14. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by HowieT2 View Post
    should they? why? I mean these rules are in place for a reason. The setback is required to prevent damage to the waterway, among other things. We can argue about the merits of the rules, but once they are enacted, shouldnt they apply to everyone? If they didnt apply to structures destroyed by fire, wouldnt that incentivize owners to burn existing structures down?
    That's part of one of the points I was getting at...that the rules don't apply to everyone and enforcement seems to vary over time. ACT 250 existed prior to Mountainside being built in the first place, yet back in the late 70s Mountainside was granted ACT 250 approval even though at the time it was already in non-compliance with ACT 250.

  15. #120
    Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Just ahead of you in the woods....
    Posts
    1,823
    Couple of things. I don't think you can lawyer up and sue the state for the inability to build because they told you your are non-compliant. I am not a lawyer but I think I remember that there are provisions holding the government harmless in lawsuits of this nature. Also you can always hunt around and get a lone. There will be a bank that will not dig into the past to find out if the building is compliant. You may just have to pay a higher interest rate. Also Act 250 has evolved over the years with amendments I believe and the enforcement standards have gotten more strict with time. Another thing is that Sugarbush has been working with the state to get the brooks around the resort off that list of polluted waterways. Win mention that one of them just came off. it might be this very one so the reviewers are going to be aware of that rating and won't want to do anything to degrade that.

    Lastly I am not going to lump this whole thing and throw it up as a "Treehugger" issue. These are State laws brought on by years of development abuse to the lands and waterways. For the record the condo owners and their association at mountainside knew there were serious issues with the fire places, fire alarm systems and the flues in the buildings. They have chose for years to put off any repairs because they did not want to spend the money. I have friends that sold and moved because of this very reason. I feel sorry for the individual owners but this should have been address years ago. For the record all the other buildings in that complex have the same issues and can not run any fireplaces until the issues are fixed. That association is the main reason that Town of Warren wanted the crazy ordinance for fireplaces and fire alarm.

    My association and it's owners paid thousands to replace flues, fireplaces, fire alarm and get all the inspections and approvals associated. If they had been on top of all this, we would not be having this conversation.
    Trouble with you is the trouble with me,
    Got two good eyes but we still don’t see!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Ski Gear | Snowboard Gear | Cycling Gear | Camping/Hiking Gear | Ski & Snowboard Racks | Gear Outlet | Men's Clothing | Women's Clothing | Kids' Clothing

Ski Vermont | Whiteface / Gore Message Boards