Hotel on Mt Washington??!!

[jrbren]

Protect Mt Washington petition

FWIW, I signed the petition that was from the closed out thread that was locked out, a decision I disagree with. Here is a link to the petition again. It's a pretty significant topic, I do not agree it needs to be limited to 1 multi page thread where petitions like this would get buried, perhaps that is the reason for locking the other thread ?

If you haven't already, please visit our website: http://www.protectmountwashington.org and like the facebook page for news and updates.
Please sign the petition online if you agree the hotel should not be built: https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-co...ion-custom_msg

 

[peakbagger]

I think it was closed out as it was duplicate of the Cog thread. I prefer having one thread in place of multiple threads on the same topic.

 

[Stan]

I think it adds to and definitely should be part of the original thread. I assumed it would be moved but, if not, it can certainly be reposted there.

 

[Stan]

The position of the "big guns" is quite predictable. I think it boils down to legal rights, including environmental concerns. Would the owner be entitled to some compensation over loss of property rights if this project is not allowed? There is some precedent for that. Could any permits contain conditions that could make this more palatable, or less objectionable? ... and I'd like to see their menu before I make up my mind ...

 

[peakbagger]

I am not aware of where a owner has successfully received compensation for loss of a potential use for a broad based zoning law. This is admittedly a successful company that is trying to increase its profits but enforcement of the rules in place in no way impacts their primary business. They may be historical precedence for lodging at the summit but the proposed area is not the summit

Chris Magness one of the creators of the petition has stated elsewhere that he has possession of a copy of the deed for the land under the proposed Cog hotel and that it is a right of way not a deed. Unfortunately the coos country registry of deeds is only on line back to 1970 so getting a copy will require a visit.

As a former ZBA member, the actual legal standard based on NH case law sets pretty limited options for the Cog. The Cog is arguing that the hotel is covered by a "other complementary use" option in the outright development ban over a certain elevation. That's up to the planning board and given that the "big boys" are now involved they will have to stick to the rules or it ends up with the state supreme court. The setback limitations are far more restrictive. Unless NH case law has changed, variances to setbacks have pretty specific limitations. Generally the reasons are related to the property rather than the intended use. Economic hardship is not generally allowed as a reason to be granted a setback variance. One of the reasons I no longer am on ZBA is that many members elect to ignore the legal guidance and vote with their heart (or with possible future economic benefit). They rationalize that few folks are willing to spend the time and money to challenge a decision and therefore they put the hardship on someone who objects to the ignoring of guidance from the state and courts. In this case it will not happen as both parties will run it through the appeal process.

With that in mind lets look at where the project will be without a variance to setbacks. The setback in this general use district is 25 feet from the back and sideline. Given a 50 foot strip of land be it owned or under a right of way that allows this use, the effective area that can be developed without a variance is none as the two setbacks meet. The cog may have historically had a switch at this location but that prior use is not grandfathered. Thus a request for variance needs to be requested from the ZBA. Generally a variance is property related not an owner desire. Economic hardship is generally not allowable for a reason for a variance although its is frequently brought up before a ZBA. This is a expansion of use by a entity that is admittedly profitable, there is no real property related reason for the setback and no real economic hardship and thus if the ZBA elects to grant an easement I don't see it surviving an ultimate appeal to the supreme court.

The one out that was proposed by one of the influential long term political allies and planning board member which is have the county amend the planning and zoning laws to allow the project. That's pretty slippery ground as that type of zoning is referred to as "contract zoning" which is generally frowned upon in the least and declared illegal at best.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

FWIW, I signed the petition that was from the closed out thread that was locked out, a decision I disagree with. Here is a link to the petition again. It's a pretty significant topic, I do not agree it needs to be limited to 1 multi page thread where petitions like this would get buried, perhaps that is the reason for locking the other thread ?

The moderators chose to leave the other thread in place, albeit closed, to A) give it some additional visibility and B) redirect discussion to this thread. I'm sorry you don't like that decision. One can't be a moderator and please everyone all the time

Please keep the discussion about the hotel construction project in this thread. Future threads on the subject will likely find there way here anyway, so might as well save us the hassle.

Thank you,
Tim

 

[Raven]

I'm not sure the paying clientele exists for this kind of thing in New England.

Yes, there are people with the money to spend $500/night in a hotel.

Yes, there are people who love outdoor/mountain adventures in a harsh environment.

But, how much overlap is there? Are there enough people within reasonable travel distance of Mount Washington (with no airport nearby), who have that kind of money to spend, who are going to choose this option over other available $500/night options?

Let's just say I'm not pulling my protesters away from the DAPL just yet. I'm not sure this idea is ever going to get traction to go anywhere. I just don't see this being economically viable even if all the exceptions/variances are made. Granted, I'm not "in the know" on this one and just an outside observer looking in. I would be very surprised if this moves forward much at all once people start looking into numbers. I'll admit, I may be surprised.

 

[Stan]

I am not aware of where a owner has successfully received compensation for loss of a potential use for a broad based zoning law.

There have been some cases out west, decided by the U. S. Supreme Court, that certain environmental restrictions were interpreted as "takings" and owners were entitled to compensation. This was a generation ago and I don't remember the details but I do know there was a combination of prospective euphoria among land owners (less about compensation and more about land use) and fear on the other side that it would open up a lot of undesireable use and/or compensation. Neither the windfall nor devastation materialized so I assume it pertained to a very narrow set of circumstances ... either that or the antagonists learned to live with each other.

I'm not sure the paying clientele exists for this kind of thing in New England.

This sort of thing has an international market ... a stay at the worst weather in the world has a certain appeal beyond those of us who hike it or ski it. The rates for facilities in Europe and the Canadian Rockies are apt comparables for something like this. If this were developed, I wouldn't be surprised to see a ski trail from the summit to the base station.

 

[TJsName]

FWIW, I signed the petition that was from the closed out thread that was locked out, a decision I disagree with. Here is a link to the petition again. It's a pretty significant topic, I do not agree it needs to be limited to 1 multi page thread where petitions like this would get buried, perhaps that is the reason for locking the other thread ?

If you haven't already, please visit our website: http://www.protectmountwashington.org and like the facebook page for news and updates.
Please sign the petition online if you agree the hotel should not be built: https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-co...ion-custom_msg

While I am also not a fan of the proposed hotel, I am a big fan of transparency. The moniker 'Protect Mt Washington' irks me as it appears to only be 'Anti-Hotel'. If the goals are broader (removal of the cog and auto road, other buildings etc.) then perhaps it would make more sense. I find disguising one's opposition to something as being a proponent of something else to be disingenuous and hurtful to one's cause in my eyes.

 

[Raven]

This sort of thing has an international market ... a stay at the worst weather in the world has a certain appeal beyond those of us who hike it or ski it. The rates for facilities in Europe and the Canadian Rockies are apt comparables for something like this. If this were developed, I wouldn't be surprised to see a ski trail from the summit to the base station.

Good point Stan.

I think a ski trail summit to base holds a lot of power. That idea is compelling and would draw a crowd.

I don't think Mount Washington, as much of a jewel as it is to us and as dangerous of a mountain we truly know it to be, has a large, non-Canadian, international appeal. I guess that's my point. If this is supposed to compete with huts in the Swiss Alps, I just don't see it. I could see this morphing into a ski adventure destination, but I don't see it tagged with those room rates.

 

[peakbagger]

Given what the Mt Washington B&B (aka the observatory) charges for a shared bath and that they sell out every slot far in advance there is market for these rooms. I don't expect it will be a typical thru hiker but there is pretty small but rabid rail fan clientele that lines up for the remaining steam train runs and this experience will be one to check off on their life lists. On the high end of this market are folks who own restored railcars and have them hauled around the country at considerable expense for extended vacations. There may not be enough rabid rail fans to keep them full but expect it will be consistent revenue stream.

If you look at the vehicles parked at the any of the AMC hut trailheads in the evening as the day hikers clear out, I see a lot of high end SUVs in the 40 to 60 K range. They may have started out as "dirt bag" hikers long ago but now they can afford to spend more for "experiences". I expect the pricing is also a snob factor to keep out the riff raff. Folks don't realize that a room at the Mt Washington Hotel at peak season can be more than $400 a night. I expect someone staying at the Mt Washington would be quite interested in adding in night in on the top of Mt Washington.

 

[skiguy]

http://backcountrymagazine.com/stor...ands-highest-peak-affect-east-coast-bc-mecca/

 

[peakbagger]

FYI http://www.pressherald.com/2017/03/17/opposition-grows-to-hotel-on-mount-washington/

No Application for the project yet in front of Coos County planning board or Zoning board. Both have meetings this week. The Zoning board is just forming. Fred King in one the Zoning board members, he appears to be a major proponent of the project from his statements at prior planning board meeting.

 

[TJsName]

The idea that the hotel would 'destroy the view' is hyperbole. It would add another scar, but the antennae and tower are the most noticeable, followed by the cog tracks IMO. To me, the most relevant argument is the environmental impact. Will the hotel impact any of the sensitive species of flora and fauna specific to that location? Can those impacts be mitigated? Who is accountable if anything goes awry?

The next question I have is how much public 'day use' will be allowed? The huts attract people and increase the use of the area, but they also consolidate the inevitable damage to a smaller area. Trail work to improve corridors is a big part of that too. Will the hotel be hospitable to people seeking water or quick shelter? Will they build and maintain (or provide funding for) trails to help consolidate use? This is an area where the AMC huts gain some points with the community that a strictly for profit enterprise may not.

I can easily imagine a bit of irony in that if this hotel was built 80 years ago and people wanted to tear it down, the opposition would be just as fierce to keep it. A lot of people (dare I say most) don't like change, for better or for worse.

 

[Sematary]

Petition at change.org to try and stop the Mt. Washington Motel project

I hope this has enough clout to actually stop this thing.
https://www.change.org/u/1833329

 

[peakbagger]

Feel free to sign but if you really want to stop the project, write a check any one of a number of organizations that will be fighting the proposal locally at the county level. Like it or not, there are currently no state or federal roadblocks to the project, it all comes down the local jurisdiction and generally input from non residents does not really factor in on those decisions. Alternatively plenty of properties for sale in the region so move on up and become a resident of Coos county

 

[Sematary]

Feel free to sign but if you really want to stop the project, write a check any one of a number of organizations that will be fighting the proposal locally at the county level. Like it or not, there are currently no state or federal roadblocks to the project, it all comes down the local jurisdiction and generally input from non residents does not really factor in on those decisions. Alternatively plenty of properties for sale in the region so move on up and become a resident of Coos county

I wish. Maybe someday

 

[sierra]

I live in Newtown Ct and all the years I've been here I have never seen a billboard advertising for NH vacation spots. Never say never!! Recently, I saw two billboards in the town next to ours advertising for the Cog Railway . Any thoughts?

Yeah, the cog would like your business.

 

[peakbagger]

The cog's goal is to triple the ridership in the next few years by putting in a second track. Presby recently bought out his partner and now is the majority partner and I expect has more aggressive expansion plans now that he had full control. In order to get people up there they need to advertise and locally they have been ramping up advertising. Their costs per rider has dropped considerably since the conversion of most of the fleet to biodiesel. I expect that he has plenty of cash coming in and the hotel is the next logical way to expand the investment.

I checked the Coos County planning board agenda and the application hasn't shown up yet. I am curious if he is waiting for one of his supporters to introduce changes to the planning regulations so they don't need to go for a variance.

 

[Greenmountaingoat]

Not sure how things would work in NH (Live free or die!!) but the permitting of this project would seem to be a pretty big uphill climb. I would be pretty stunned if this ever got built. Might just be a publicity stunt.