Balsams Update - Go Big or Go home

[peakbagger]

Lots of new attachments to the site plan documents including renderings of the gondolas and lifts as well as renderings of the crossings of RT26. The public hearing posting is not on the website yet but was in the paper last week. Incidentally the show the existing parking lot as "overflow and employee parking" so the intent is that the main access to the resort s from the north side of RT 26. The ski back bridge is a bit different than I had envisioned.

 

[peakbagger]

Public Hearing on the ski area project tomorrow evening during the Coos County Planning board meeting. If the board approves the permit its big step towards start of construction of the ski area upgrades Note the main development on the north side of RT 2 is not yet submitted to the board.

The Cog is also on the agenda for a concept discussion on further improvements at Waumbek Station (this is not a formal request for permit so nothing will be voted on and did not require formal posting). As usual nothing posted on the website so only those at the meeting will get to see at least some of what is being proposed. Waumbek station recently had a large platform built for guests loading and unloading. It is outside of the resource protection zone above treeline so it just requires regular permitting unless they need special exceptions to build in setback (a frequent occurrence due to the track being roughly in the center of the strip of land.

 

[NHClimber]

Who is going to go to the ski area without a hotel? The north side is a ruin in its current state.

 

[peakbagger]

As noted previously, the permit is for the ski area only with no public accommodations Opening it to the public would require a permit for the resort complex on the north side of RT 26 which is not yet on the agenda. On the other hand, a billionaire, private group or Eric Cartman could buy it for a private ski resort

 

[NHClimber]

Need a billionaire to run it at a loss by using sufficient investment income to keep it afloat.

 

[peakbagger]

I went to the meeting, the info on the website is lot better than what was discussed. Lots of discussion on debris from wind turbines hitting skiers. They brought in very experienced wind turbine expert who did a statistical analysis of the potential of skier getting hit by something. Compared to a individual being struck by lightning the odds of a skier getting hit is considerably lower by a factor of thousands. Interestingly, the Balsams is the owner of the land that the turbines in question are located and they claim to have legal binding agreement with the original wind farm that the turbines would be shut down during icing conditions, but the new owners refuse to engage. Therefore, out of an abundance of caution they are assuming they do not shut down. The planning board could not vote as there are some pending issues mostly things that the Balsams owes them to review. The board voted to delay the vote to a future meeting.

The issue of the ski area being permitted prior to hotel was brought up. Its a financing thing and included with a permit approval is set of conditions not yet written and I expect that will be addressed.

 

[NHClimber]

Funny since no one seems to care about the significant volume of snowmobilers that travel almost directly under some of the turbines, as the trail down to the Balsams goes right under a few of them.

 

[peakbagger]

BTW , Jamie Sayen made a long commentary against the entire project being inappropriate given climate change. He lost credibility when he brought up the impact of all the chemicals that would be introduced into the water used for snowmaking. Les Otten later pointed out that there are no chemicals used for snowmaking. Interesting despite the plan to pump millions of gallons of water from the Androscoggin River for snowmaking, the consultants studies predict no substantial additional impacts to stormwater runoff claiming that it is within the range of error of modeling as the ski area acreage is only a very small part of very large watershed.

 

[JoshandBaron]

Funny since no one seems to care about the significant volume of snowmobilers that travel almost directly under some of the turbines, as the trail down to the Balsams goes right under a few of them.

Last time I was up there some UTVers had cut open the gate, providing access to everything. One of the turbine blades had recently suffered a catastrophic failure and the aftermath was pretty impressive. There are ice throw warning signs all over the place.

 

[NHClimber]

BTW , Jamie Sayen made a long commentary against the entire project being inappropriate given climate change. He lost credibility when he brought up the impact of all the chemicals that would be introduced into the water used for snowmaking. Les Otten later pointed out that there are no chemicals used for snowmaking. Interesting despite the plan to pump millions of gallons of water from the Androscoggin River for snowmaking, the consultants studies predict no substantial additional impacts to stormwater runoff claiming that it is within the range of error of modeling as the ski area acreage is only a very small part of very large watershed.

Makes sense. Thx.

 

[NHClimber]

Last time I was up there some UTVers had cut open the gate, providing access to everything. One of the turbine blades had recently suffered a catastrophic failure and the aftermath was pretty impressive. There are ice throw warning signs all over the place.

Interesting. Years ago that gate wasn't there. And at Jericho they permit ATVers (and presumably snowmobilers) to go right to the turbines -- you can stand directly under them. We did it a few times just to see what it was like and it is pretty interesting. Kind of surprised they permit that level of access.

 

[peakbagger]

The legal notice was posted in the Berlin Daily Sun for a meeting on March 8th, this was intended to clear up last minute issues prior to the vote by the members of the planning board on the March 15th.

The agenda has not yet been posted on the website.

 

[peakbagger]

And now a source of funding. This was discussed early on, The Balsams wanted the county to spend the money in advance of the project being built. It was to fund mostly roads and infrastructure improvements inside the resort. I think this is separate from the non recourse economic development bonds that the resort had requested but never approved for as the resort was unwilling or unable to supply sufficient financial details to the state.

The theory is the property in the district goes up in value substantially if the resort rebuilds, expands and reopens, the increased property values means more property taxes to the county which are applied to making the bond payments. I think something similar was tried previously but the county was unwilling to spend money on future project before there was clear evidence that the project was moving forward.

Its a lousy date for a hearing as the next night is NH town Meeting night and many of the people involved with county poilitics are also heavily involved with town positions and elections the next day.

 

[Andrew]

I just finished reading an account of Thursday's meeting in the Caledonia Record. A discussion came up where the developer is trying to remove a condition of the permit with the county, to keep the hiking trails to Table Rock open. Developer is concerned about liability. The county folks pushed back hard against this and pointed out they really have no liability concerns due to the public access liability laws that have been put in place over the years.

Early on in this project I had expressed some concerns to the then commissioner of DRED, that NH State Parks needed to identify and protect aspects of public recreation from the adjacent Dixville Notch State Park, as the Balsam planning moved forward. My supervisor and I were shortly thereafter invited into a meeting where we were handed all sorts of documents and maps marked "Confidential". I knew prior to this meeting that the hiking trails weaved in and out of the state and Balsams property boundaries, and actually had concerns in the past that there was a lot of recreational activity that was the result of good old fashioned handshake cooperation between the landowners, and no documented legal agreements.
When the "Confidential" maps came out in the meeting, my boss and I were quite shocked to discover that some of the entrance roadways into the parking areas were not even on state land, and in fact one of the areas we mowed and had a large "Dixville Notch" Gallows type sign on, was also on Balsams land. Go figure!

So the county is trying to do the right thing as far as public access to the traditional hiking trails. I would say that the developer might think this is not a big deal, but I would think that is a grave mistake. I don't think at this point the public in the North Country is all that warm anymore on this project, it's been a long time now, we found other jobs. Now you want to take away our beloved hiking trail?

 

[peakbagger]

Sorry I missed the meeting, that had never been mentioned before. Thats pure BS to not allow reasonable recreation public recreation on a ski area off season (only the state does that (RE Cannon) )

 

[Andrew]

Sorry I missed the meeting, that had never been mentioned before. Thats pure BS to not allow reasonable recreation public recreation on a ski area off season (only the state does that (RE Cannon) )

Go Figure!

Different management philosophy.

 

[BillyGr]

Who is going to go to the ski area without a hotel? The north side is a ruin in its current state.

Why not? People go skiing and don't always stay at a hotel, or not always at one that is connected to the ski area itself.

 

[peakbagger]

The current permitting approach is strictly get permits to build/expand the ski area only but it cannot be operated for public use. So unless an ultra wealthy individual purchases it for his/her private use, it cannot be operated. The board was quite specific to make sure that it was understood (and on the record) by the applicant. The way the process works is that the county will not issue any building permits for any part of the project until the entire application is approved. The applicant claims to need to get going with the construction of the ski area quickly, if they had waited to get approval for the entire project including the resort hotel it would delay getting started on the ski area. In the planning board game that is generally referred to as "at risk" in that the applicant is going to start to build the ski area "at risk" of not being able to open to the public. Investors normally steer clear of a project "at risk" or demand much higher rates of return for a project "at risk" if it can even be located, so the developer has a good behind the scenes story. On the other hand, that would not be an issue for private individual funding the project.

This is such a large project that impacts many towns, so special rules apply that require the project look at impacts to the entire region and have plans in place to deal with them. A closed ski area despite being brand new, does not have much regional impact. Add in hundreds of members of the public visiting an open ski area and things like road upgrades, law enforcement and EMS services need to be factored in.

Sunday River (not that far away and previously owned by Les Otten the lead Balsam's director) invested significant dollars last year for a major lift replacement/upgrade and has announced plans for another expansion/upgrade next winter so that may have given the Balsams project the reason to make the current push once they hooked a investor to build the resort building (not yet permitted).

 

[peakbagger]

I got confirmation from a reliable source today that the bonds that the Balsams are asking Coos County to issue are "non recourse" bonds. That means that should the Balsams not make the payments on the bonds the county is in theory not responsible to pay them. Previously when the state was involved with a similar effort, it did not happen as the state required the Balsams to supply details of the financing of the entire project. Even though the state would keep the documents confidential the Balsams never would supply them despite this issue going back and fourth for months.

The problem with these bonds is that there is an implied stamp of legitimacy as they are issued by a government entity, despite no recourse, this have not been tested in court and should there be a default, there could be legal exposure to the county.

 

[Spiny Norman]

I mistakenly clicked on Page 1 of this thread. First post was March 1, 2014.