Planning Board Continues Public Hearing on Outdoor Adventure Zone Parking

The Planning Board held a continuation of its public hearing on December 16, 2025, to further discuss the Outdoor Adventure Zone application submitted by the Tyrell Development Company. The primary focus of the hearing was to gather public comment on the submitted parking study and its peer review. The Board emphasized that public input is crucial for understanding community concerns and for potentially imposing conditions to mitigate identified impacts. A final decision on the Adventure Zone application is due by January 17, 2026. (link)

Applicant Proposes Parking Enhancements

The applicant’s attorney submitted a document outlining proposed conditions of approval to ensure adequate off-street parking within 1,000 feet of the site. These proposals include:

• Refreshing the striping of the west side parking lots.
• Updating the striping of the east side lot to reflect the current number of spaces, which now exceeds the original plan due to the removal of some islands.
• Paving and striping existing unpaved parking areas in the west side lots, which currently contain 21, 7, and 14 spaces.
• Relocating the loading/unloading zone on the east side lot to reclaim six parking spaces, or adding at least six spaces to the newly paved areas in the west side lots if relocation is impractical.
• Adding signage to direct vehicles to available parking areas.

These conditions are intended to be incorporated into a revised site plan and satisfied prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. (link)

The Town Planner provided context, explaining that these proposals arose from discussions about discrepancies between existing parking and what was shown on plans, as well as the need for clear striping. The applicant’s engineer clarified that the unpaved lots are currently used for dirt parking and the proposal is to pave and stripe them. They also stated that aerial photography confirms 72 existing spaces in the east side lot. (link)

Debate on Parking Adequacy and Calculations

A Board member noted observing only 65 vehicles in the east side lot during a hockey tournament, questioning the 72-space count. (link)

The Select Board’s attorney raised significant concerns, arguing that the proposed conditions should be reflected in a revised plan, not merely as conditions of approval. They presented calculations based on the town’s zoning ordinance for existing Town Square uses (restaurant, retail, office, lodging). Their analysis suggested that 320 parking spaces are required for current Town Square businesses, while only 226 are allocated, leaving a “net zero” for the Adventure Zone. The attorney stressed the importance of planning for the Adventure Zone’s success and the additional burden it would place on existing parking. (link)

The applicant’s traffic engineer responded by explaining the concept of “internal capture” in a resort community, where visitors park once for multiple activities. They clarified that their initial parking study did not include internal capture rates to provide a conservative, “worst-case scenario” estimate. The engineer stated that even during peak conditions, such as Columbus Day weekend with a hockey tournament, harvest festival, and full lodging, their studies showed over 200 available parking spaces within the overall study area. (link)

A Board member reiterated concerns about maximum load conditions and human behavior, noting that people tend to park as close as possible, potentially leading to overflow onto streets, a problem the town has experienced previously. (link) The Select Board Chairman further questioned the parking study’s methodology, arguing that calculations should focus solely on the 156 spaces within the 1,000-foot radius of the Adventure Zone, rather than the broader 468 spaces in the West side lots, which could artificially lower usage percentages. (link)

A resident expressed frustration with the prolonged parking discussion, suggesting it stemmed from the Select Board’s concerns about parking for the ice arena, rather than the applicant’s responsibility. The resident urged the Board to rely on the professional parking consultants’ findings, which indicated a 30-35% overage in parking even at peak times, and to avoid creating “Walmart parking lots” that detract from the town’s pedestrian-friendly character. (link) The Select Board Chairman clarified that their concern was for overall parking for a new use and the town’s past difficulties with on-street parking due to inadequate planning for expanded uses. (link)

The discussion also touched upon the origin of the 161-space requirement for the Adventure Zone, which came from the applicant’s visitation projections, using conservative assumptions for length of stay and vehicle occupancy, and excluding internal capture. A peer review by North Country Council arrived at a similar figure of 154 spaces. (link)

Brief discussions were held regarding the potential for EV charging spots, with the applicant indicating they are exploring partnerships to install a few strategically placed chargers. The Fire Chief confirmed that emergency vehicle access is a standard consideration in site plan review and building permits, and the applicant’s engineer noted that the proposed plan would enhance maneuverability for fire trucks around the ice arena. (link)

Next Steps

The Board, with input from Town Counsel, agreed that the applicant must submit a revised site plan that explicitly shows all proposed parking changes, including paving, striping, signage, and loading zone relocation. This revised plan will need to be submitted in advance of the next public hearing to allow for public review and comment. The Board seeks clear direction from the applicant on how they will address the parking concerns, including the potential for contingency spaces, to move the application forward. (link)