Waterville Valley Planning Board Denies Tyrell Site Plan Without Prejudice Over Parking Concerns

The Waterville Valley Planning Board held a continued public hearing on August 22, 2025, to review the site plan application from Tyrell Development Company for a proposed adventure facility. The discussion centered on parking adequacy, with the board ultimately denying the application without prejudice due to insufficient information.

The meeting began with the planning consultant recommending a professionally prepared parking demand study to evaluate the adequacy of existing and proposed parking spaces relative to the project. The consultant noted that the board has the authority to request such studies under state regulations and site plan review rules. The applicant had previously indicated willingness to provide a study if requested (link).

Board members debated the need for the study. Some favored relying on post-construction experience and actual usage data, while others argued that a professional analysis was necessary to avoid assumptions and ensure compliance with zoning requirements. The board voted 3-2 in favor of requiring the parking study before proceeding with deliberations (link).

The applicant opposed the pre-approval study, describing it as speculative and based on unverified assumptions about visitor numbers, parking duration, and transportation modes. Instead, they proposed a condition for post-construction parking counts on peak days and the addition of up to 48 or more overflow spaces if needed, emphasizing flexibility under the zoning ordinance (link).

Public comments highlighted concerns about parking impacts on the town, with some speakers urging the board to prioritize business stimulation amid low occupancy rates. Others stressed the need for an unbiased professional assessment to resolve uncertainties (link).

The board requested an extension of the 65-day review period to allow time for the study, estimated at up to eight weeks, plus additional time for public review and potential plan adjustments. The applicant initially agreed to an extension but sought clarification on whether parking was the only outstanding issue. Discussions touched on other conditions, including landscaping buffers, tree replacement, and water quality monitoring, though these were not resolved (link).

In the continuation of the meeting, the applicant reiterated that the submitted plans complied with all requirements and declined to grant a further extension for the parking study. They argued that their proposed conditions provided a practical, fact-based approach to parking after project completion (link).

The board adopted findings of fact outlining the application’s history, including initial submissions lacking parking details, evolving plans, and the absence of sourced estimates for visitor numbers and parking needs. The findings emphasized the zoning ordinance’s allowance for flexible parking but noted the lack of guidance for this specific use, necessitating a study (link).

Citing insufficient evidence to make a fully informed decision on parking demand and capacity, the board voted to deny the application without prejudice. The applicant may resubmit with additional documentation, including the requested parking study. The denial aims to ensure compliance without permanently barring the project (link).

No specific financial impacts were discussed, though the decision could delay potential economic benefits from the facility. The board appreciated the applicant’s efforts and public input throughout the process.