Planning Board Continues Review of Adventure Zone Site Plan Application

The Waterville Valley Planning Board held a continued public hearing on the site plan application submitted by Tyrell Development Company for the proposed adventure zone development. The discussion focused on town easements, updated site plans, 3D renderings, and concerns over parking and traffic impacts.

The meeting addressed a conflict of interest regarding town easements related to the ice arena. The select board ex officio member recused himself, citing advice from counsel that the proposed development could interfere with four town easements: access, parking, maintenance, and ice/snow storage. Town counsel requested that these easements be delineated on the plans, with appropriate notes added, and incorporated into any development agreement. They suggested revising plans prior to approval or making revisions a condition precedent if approval is granted (link).

The applicant acknowledged the easements and committed to revising the plans to show and note them appropriately. They stated that potential interference with easement rights is a private matter between the applicant and the town, outside the board’s jurisdiction, and emphasized that the project complies with site plan review regulations (link).

Updates to the site plan were reviewed, including protections for existing vegetation, an updated sky trail footprint, wider walkway paths, a prefab wooden bridge in the golf course layout, proposed directional and handicap signage, a new fire hydrant, additional infiltration ponds, and enhanced buffering with more white pine and spruce trees. The plans also detailed lighting, stone dust paths, fencing, benches, and bike racks (link).

The board examined 3D renderings provided by the applicant, which depicted views from various angles along Valley Road and within the site. These illustrated the building’s orientation, vegetation buffering, and elements like the sky trail and miniature golf course. Discussions clarified that most trees shown are existing, with new plantings to enhance screening, and noted that renderings are representative rather than exact (link).

A site visit was scheduled for August 20 to further evaluate the proposal. The board discussed options for proceeding, including continuing the public hearing and gathering questions for the applicant (link).

Significant debate centered on parking sufficiency. The applicant provided schematics showing approximately 293 spaces within shared parking areas, arguing that existing capacity is adequate, particularly during summer months when usage is low. Concerns were raised about potential overburdening during peak events like hockey tournaments or festivals, and inconsistencies in historical parking counts. The board noted uncertainties in easement impacts and peak demand (link).

To address these issues, a motion was made and seconded to request a qualified third-party expert to conduct a traffic and parking study. This would determine capacity needs to satisfy regulations and assess demands, considering pedestrian access and historical usage patterns. The study aims to provide objective data on potential impacts without financial details specified (link).

The public hearing remains open, with further deliberations expected at the next meeting.