Burke Announces Plans for Development

[thetrailboss]

In a nutshell, 850 units for real estate. They've bought most of the land. Just need approval. They hired a former Wachusett manager to help plan.

http://www.caledonianrecord.com/pages/top_news/story/f93129155

Comment.

 

[AdironRider]

I dont really know the terrain layout or size of Burke as Ive never been there but that sounds like ALOT of new property to construct. Loons a madhouse with all the condos homes right next to it and they are pretty spread out. Cant imagine what 850 more units would bring in.

 

[riverc0il]

Adiron, burke doesn't have hardly any development right now. there are three or four slope side condo developments but the area for development around the mountain is substantial. ginn resorts has been buying up land for some time now and this comes as no surprise. they will also be building a golf course and resortifying the area, so the real estate doesn't have to be on the hill. look for lifts being moved around and what not to access the new developments.

the interesting thing about the number of units they plan to develop is that it is more than the current number of houses in burke

 

[RIDEr]

My first thought is there goes the small town I loved to visit in the summer. Next, I thought of how many mountain biking trails will they be eliminating. HOWEVER, I always think positive so I'll hold my final opinion on the development once it is finalized.

Thanks for the info TB.

 

[riverc0il]

i doubt they will eliminate a lot of the mountain bike trails. the kingdom trails network is a huge draw and integral to a four season resort. i doubt east burke or lyndonville will lose much of their currect character, it is the area around the mountain that ginn is buying up, not the towns themselves.

 

[thetrailboss]

i doubt east burke or lyndonville will lose much of their currect character, it is the area around the mountain that ginn is buying up, not the towns themselves.

WHOA! So adding 800 or so homes to a 683 home town is NOT going to change it? Beg to differ...

The changes are already happening...homes valued at $75,000 or so are selling for like $200,000 due to speculation related to the ski area. How is this not change?

 

[RIDEr]

True, the kingdom trails are all over the town. But, the trails next to the camping area are a great warmup and I'm thinking they would begin there.

 

[riverc0il]

it certainly will change the valuation of the land. but from what i understand, that real estate is not being built in the town proper but rather at the resort. i was speaking more to the character of the town itself, not the area in which the resort is going to be built. fair enough the prices are going to change, a lot of people are grumbling about taxes. i just don't foresee the place becoming a ludlow or stowe or killington access road, that was the spirit i meant my comment in, in reference to RIDEr's comment about the small town feel of the area. the resort itself will of course not have a small town feel.

 

[thetrailboss]

I think it is hard to argue that the town surrounding the ski area will not change. There will be a lot of spin off development, etc. in the town, as well as much more traffic. Much more. Some good things, some challenges.

 

[RIDEr]

Riv - I loved heading into the town and riding my bike around, riding back to the campgrounds and didn't worry about getting hit by a car. I can't forsee Burke turning into a Killington access road or Stowe Route 100, but thinking about the future will push all locals out of town (eventually), shut down the local general store \ gas station in town and sell the highest CORP. WHERE DOES IT STOP?

 

[nek_crumudgeon]

I find it interesting that everyone is getting all worked up over 850 units when Northern Star was approved to build 1500 in 1999. Additionally, the fear of the town changing is inevitable, and started long before Ginn was even mentioned. Bailey's and the Pub are owned by Jerseyites as of last summer. I'm not sure I agree that the sky is falling, just because something appears quaint doesn't mean it actually is. What is this? The Vermont version of the Dubai ports deal? Out-of-state ownership IS Burke's history, going all the way back to Darling Ridge, lumber interests, etc.

Additionally, there's not really any place that Burke CAN grow as far as retail goes to make it look anything like Stowe. Perhaps Boss will disagree, but the 114 corridor north is either park or leachfield and the 114 corridor south is a log yard or too close to the Passumpsic to build. It's my understanding that that log yard, while a great retail location, is so soaked with creosote that it would take a Superfund effort to clean it up. The land behind Bailey's / Pub is a leachfield. Also, I'm not sure the town will support the purchase and conversion of residential property to commercial property, anyway.

So where does the retail development go? Probably an Intrawesty minimall at the base?

I do agree, however, that Kingdom Trails are in danger, not necessarily on the Darling Ridge, but on the lower/mid mountain. I'm not sure Ginn realizes the added amenity that the trails bring, and I'm not sure anyone's been successful putting it on their radar. I've been around in the woods a lot, and there's ALOT of surveyor's tape marking off lots where existing trails are now.

 

[thetrailboss]

I find it interesting that everyone is getting all worked up over 850 units when Northern Star was approved to build 1500 in 1999.

This didn't happen though. The plan called for 850 units according to the Caledonian.

Additionally, the fear of the town changing is inevitable, and started long before Ginn was even mentioned. Bailey's and the Pub are owned by Jerseyites as of last summer. I'm not sure I agree that the sky is falling, just because something appears quaint doesn't mean it actually is. What is this? The Vermont version of the Dubai ports deal?

Development is inevitable. The concern is to do this RIGHT. Hire locals, make the economy sustainable.

Out-of-state ownership IS Burke's history, going all the way back to Darling Ridge, lumber interests, etc.

Not true. Doug Kitchell, though originally from Connecticut, was a respected St. Jay business person. The ski area was also founded by area businessmen.

Additionally, there's not really any place that Burke CAN grow as far as retail goes to make it look anything like Stowe. Perhaps Boss will disagree, but the 114 corridor north is either park or leachfield and the 114 corridor south is a log yard or too close to the Passumpsic to build. It's my understanding that that log yard, while a great retail location, is so soaked with creosote that it would take a Superfund effort to clean it up. The land behind Bailey's / Pub is a leachfield. Also, I'm not sure the town will support the purchase and conversion of residential property to commercial property, anyway.

Route 114 north of town has a lot of open space and the mountain owns all the way down to the river. They do have some developable land. Pinkham Road is also in the crosshairs. The town of Lyndon could grow as well.

I do agree, however, that Kingdom Trails are in danger, not necessarily on the Darling Ridge, but on the lower/mid mountain. I'm not sure Ginn realizes the added amenity that the trails bring, and I'm not sure anyone's been successful putting it on their radar. I've been around in the woods a lot, and there's ALOT of surveyor's tape marking off lots where existing trails are now.

Not sure I agree. Kingdom Trails is one of the "golden eggs" that Ginn would not want to break. It is a key to having summer traffic. East Burke Sports makes more $$$ in the SUMMER than the winter now due to the traffic

 

[riverc0il]

Development is inevitable. The concern is to do this RIGHT. Hire locals, make the economy sustainable.

where do the locals go when ginn is done with them? that is not sustainable, that is temporary work. sustainable development is not an ideal either if you value the small town feel of vermont towns in the kingdom. while i agree drawing work from the local population is preferrable, i also understand for the type of resort that ginn is trying to build, the local business in this area will not be able to provide for all of ginn's needs. though i agree, ginn does need to do things right. though what is 'right'? that is an ethical question that can not be answered because everyone will have a different opinion on 'right'. my hope is that ginn's vision and the local community's vision match up as much as possible, and much more than they will differ. i think ginn is smart enough to realize this is a worthy goal to pursue.

Out-of-state ownership IS Burke's history, going all the way back to Darling Ridge, lumber interests, etc.

it could be argued that out of state influence and ownership is within vermont's history stretching back over a hundred years, let alone burke. i appreciate locally owned. but i appreciate operating ski areas more than location of ownership.

crumudgeon raises some great points. though i think the boss is right about the kingdom trails. ginn is trying for a four season resort and i doubt they will hack apart the jewel of the kingdom's summer recreation. however, that being said, they certainly can try to develop property on current trails and try to re-route them. i saw lots of tape in the east bowl run out area last week, surveyers are definitely out and about. kingdom trails will likely be effected, but i doubt ginn will be so foolish as to destroy such amazing recreational opportunity for their future resort.

 

[thetrailboss]

where do the locals go when ginn is done with them? that is not sustainable, that is temporary work.

But hiring locals for management positions, from a college that you work for and from high schools that are very reputable and are in the area, keeps dollars in the area and is sustainable. Part of Ginn's mission is to hire people permanently so as to treat their customers the best. I think that there is nothing wrong with hiring people who are from the area and know the area, have an interest in staying, and have a strong work ethic. To me, that is sustainable on both ends.

sustainable development is not an ideal either if you value the small town feel of vermont towns in the kingdom.

I'm sorry, not to be offensive or anything, but this is nonsense. If you look at "traditional New England towns," you'd find that people, my grandparents included, sustained themselves off the land and off of each other for many years. To argue that sustainable development is not something that will work in Northern Vermont is to put blinders on to history and to the potential that lies there. Vermonters have, and always will be, resourceful people because they had to be in order to survive. This state is situated, geographically, geologically, and climate-wise in a harsh area. Settlers learned quickly what it took to survive and thrive. They used local resources wisely. They conserved. They "recycled" long before blue bins. It was understood that small communities, that worked together survived together. People patronized local businesses because that was all they had--and local businesses and people came together to create solutions to problems.

And now you say that "sustainable development" can't exist in rural Vermont? History proves that it was here long before you and me.

Hell, the Northeast Kingdom is one of the few places in the country where school choice works! I had the opportunity to get an education at two very reputable private high schools for FREE. There are THREE private high schools in the immediate area that put out high calibur students, and one excellent state college that puts out students of the ski resort management industry. There is plenty of local "human resources" that need to be tapped. If Ginn does so, everyone wins. More talent, skill remain. The whole purpose of starting these schools was to enrich the local society (and to keep a "sustainable culture"). To turn one's back onto the local talent harms everyone and forces people to leave the area.

while i agree drawing work from the local population is preferrable, i also understand for the type of resort that ginn is trying to build, the local business in this area will not be able to provide for all of ginn's needs. though i agree, ginn does need to do things right. though what is 'right'? that is an ethical question that can not be answered because everyone will have a different opinion on 'right'. my hope is that ginn's vision and the local community's vision match up as much as possible, and much more than they will differ. i think ginn is smart enough to realize this is a worthy goal to pursue.

I'm not talking about "local businesses," which will see a benefit, I'm talking about the broader "social resources" that are available as stated above. There are plenty of hardworking, bright, educated people from the NEK who would leap at the opportunity of a livable wage. IIRC Ginn states that they have those values. I think it is in everyone's interest to tap the local resources.

it could be argued that out of state influence and ownership is within vermont's history stretching back over a hundred years, let alone burke. i appreciate locally owned. but i appreciate operating ski areas more than location of ownership.

I think it is also crucial to remember that the REASON why Burke re-opened to the public in 2000 was because in excess of 4,000 or so locals got behind it in a grassroots campaign (buying passes, advertising, donating services, etc). The success of the resort is linked to the connection to the local community.

Part of my concern, and points, stems from a private comment reportedly made by a senior manager who just came to Burke (and referred to locals as "ludites"). The history of Burke indicates that those who come to the resort with the blinders on do not succeed. There is ambition, talent, and skill in the backyard and it makes sense to use it.

 

[riverc0il]

I think that there is nothing wrong with hiring people who are from the area and know the area, have an interest in staying, and have a strong work ethic. To me, that is sustainable on both ends.

totally. i was thinking strictly in the terms of construction, should have made mention to clarify my thought about that point.

trailboss, whoa! DEVELOPMENT. other than burke, i don't see any major development in the area. i am fine with that. you speak of hard work, and worth ethic, and making something out of nothing, and preserving and sustaining on little. that has nothing to do with development. development is building and expanding. school choice has nothing to do with development.

you are preaching to the choir about getting local people for the job. i'm all for that! but ginn shouldn't feel limited in getting the right people for the job by geographics. the problem ginn is more likely to face is those high school and college graduates won't want to work at burke because they want to get out of VT, a pattern long since established. to me this is a non-issue. local people will apply if they want to and ginn will ensure the right people are put in the right places.

I think it is also crucial to remember that the REASON why Burke re-opened to the public in 2000 was because in excess of 4,000 or so locals got behind it in a grassroots campaign (buying passes, advertising, donating services, etc). The success of the resort is linked to the connection to the local community.

glad for the grassroots campaign. but the fact remains that the group that bought burke realized that the only way for the mountain to be sustainable was a real estate development and resort mentality. burke of the past was not successful, it was propped up and kept running so an outside group could come in and make the place successful. the success of ginn resorts is not going to be much linked to the local community. the town will have a lot of control in issueing permits and the like so there is an accountability and ginn resorts has done a lot of talking about working with the local community. i think a partnership is definitely trying to be developed, and i think that is a great thing. but burke is about to be taken far beyond the effects of the locals to be made successful. ginn resort is looking for out of state second home and condo buyers and resort vacationers to make the place 'successful' or at least how they will define success.

the process is all about balance. it can't be one way or the other, all or nothing. burke lovers are going to be forced to surrender a part of what they loved but in return, the mountain will be kept operational. it was heading for a failure without a sale regardless of how much the local community helped to keep it a float. ginn resorts is also going to have to compromise and approach the town of burke and work with them for a mutually beneficial scenerio with hopefully as few compromises or consetions that will inevitably have to be made by both sides.

 

[the original trailboss]

a few corrections

I find the current thread concerning the development of Burke Mountain, East Burke, etc quite interesting but would like to bring another view to the table. First, the Pub Outback and Baileys and Burke are leased and run by two local guys (both natives). The physical real estate is owned by a New Jersey couple who purchased the property only last year. Secondly, the Darling ridge was "developed" around the turn of the century by EAST BURKE NATIVE Elmer Darling,who,through a series of events, ended up as owner of the post Fifth Avenue Hotel in New York City. He used his personal wealth to build several farms on the ridge (all of which employed locals) and some of which supplied his hotel, built the Burklyn Mansion, East Burke Clubhouse and brought electricity to East Burke. He also purchased and later donated what is now known as Darling State Forest to the state (the ski trails are mostly on this land), built a road to the summit, had the first fire tower constructed there and left (for the time) large sums of monies to support the club and other causes.
Burke Mountain ski area was started by a group of local businessmen through the sale of stock (I have an original stock certificate) and the original Poma lift was opened to the public on Feb.12,1956. In the early sixties they sold to Doug Kitchel (a Conn. native who moved here relatively early in life) who at the time owned the well-known (and locally run) Kilfassett Farms dairy in Passumpsic. He was the consummate gentlemen,well-spoken and so well thought of that he spent several terms in the Vermont Legislature representing his community.
During his tenure he oversaw the purchase of over 2,000 acres of land around the ski area solely for the purpose of preventing the kind of development that is planned now (although after Gloria Chadwick came on board in 1975 he did allow some development at the ski area inself). He had even envisioned (in the early 70s) a complete community where mid-Burke is now that included shops, a school, sewage treatment facility and lodging. He was determined that the access road to the ski area NOT become a Stowe or Killington access road with motels,restaurants,etc.
After Doug was forced to sell out, the mountain went through a series of "out-of town" owners, all of whom failed and for a variety of reasons, mostly big ideas and no $$$$ to back it up. During that period several large proposals were put on the table and the town planning commission even created and endorsed a plan for development of the mountain but at no time did the reality of any plan stare the community in the face as it has now.
850 new housing units in a community of 638 housing units is massive by any standard and enormous by the standards of this area and cannot be taken lightly or with the defeatist attitude of some I hear speak of it. It will, if allowed to happen, change the character of East Burke forever and not necessarily for the better.
It has been my experience that the people who come here and stay here do so for what it is - the others quickly go away. In essence they leave their trappings behind. Ginn could well change all of that or try to but imposing its heretofor successful resort community model on the area,trappings and all. It could well create a new class-oriented society, complete with big $$$ on one end and a new sub-culture of imported,low-end workers on the other end.
More to follow....................................

 

[thetrailboss]

Welcome the Original Trailboss. Yes folks it is true...he is the real deal. Long story. Hence why my name is "summitchallenger" in other boards. I did not realize who the real guy was until I received an E-mail from him after a day at Burke. He is the official Burke man.

 

[stomachdoc]

It's a fascinating discussion. In reality, this has potential to be the largest development at a ski area in the Northeast in several years. There's no doubt that Burke Mountain would not had survived without outside $$$$, and there's no outside $$$$ without the potential for real estate development.

The real question is, what is the zoning in place in East Burke as that will determine the density and design of what Ginn does. Hopefully, this will be the ultimate result of close collaboration between the locals and Ginn.

While I know that many A-Zers are not fans of Waterville Valley Ski Area, the development and design of the resort town of Waterville Valley has been lauded in the national press over the years as an example of really intelligent community design. As some of you know, the town of Waterville Valley encompasses a "town square" with recreational facilities (ice rink, boating), restaurants, shops and hotel-style condo units. Placed around this town center, in almost a spoke and wheel arrangement, is lower density condo units, private homes, golf course, tennis center, hiking trails, pool/athletic complex, etc. While there are fewer units in Waterville Valley then what is planned for Burke, there are no traffic lights, no fast food, etc.

Because Waterville Valley is surrounded by the White Mountain National Forest, developable acreage is limited, and no housing can be constructed on the ski area itself (which has left the ski area pretty much unchanged as Booth Creek really can't make any big $$$ from further real estate sales).

It might be worth a drive through Waterville Valley for interested parties from Burke, because I think that Waterville Valley really came out nicely, and this is backed up by steadily increasing real estate prices, etc.

Just my 2 cents!

 

[riverc0il]

wow, never thought i would in favor of the slopeside big resort model in any discussion, but i REALLY don't like waterville valley (speaking of the town) for some reason. i'd rather have slope side development personally, something about WV just rubs me the wrong way and it is hard for me to describe, sorry i can't elaborate.

 

[thetrailboss]

Anyone thirsty? According to the Cal Rec, Ginn is. They want 450 gpm pumped up to the resort for drinking water. Townsfolk are concerned about the impacts, including withdrawing for snowmaking. The question was raised as to why the resort was not drilling wells on the mountain.