As part of Sugarbush providing feedback to the town of Warren regarding its proposed Land Use and Development Regulations (LUDRs), resort officials told the town that its zoning fees are disproportionately higher than surrounding towns. That led Warren zoning administrator Ruth Robbins to research zoning fees of other resort communities.
At a March 23 hearing Sugarbush director of planning Margo Wade referenced previously submitted examples of how Warren’s fees are out of line with Fayston and Waitsfield fees.
In 2021 Sugarbush applied for permits from the towns of Fayston and Warren for installation of warming cabins for use by resort guests at both the Lincoln Peak and Mt. Ellen base areas. Fayston charged $75 for two cabins while Warren charged $1,200 for four cabins, which is a $262.50 per cabin fee difference.
Sugarbush is in the process planning and permitting reconstruction of the Glen House at Mt. Ellen. A mid-mountain lodge located at the top of the GMX lift. Fayston’s estimated permit fee is $1,212 plus $100 conditional use review fee before the development review board (DRB). For the same project, Warren’s permit fee would be $3,732 plus $500 conditional use review before the DRB. Waitsfield permit fee would be the same as Fayston ($1,212) plus $200 conditional use review before the DRB. Warren would charge 67% more for the zoning fee compared to Fayston and Waitsfield.
In 2014 Sugarbush permitted the Gadd Brook Slope Side residences, a 16-unit residential condominium building. The Warren zoning fee for the project was $16,816 (without DRB fees), Act 250 was $39,417 and DFS was $38,863. Were the project in Fayston or Waitsfield the zoning fee would have been $6,511. Warren charged 61% more for the zoning fee compared to Fayston or Waitsfield.
Sugarbush is in the planning and permitting phase of a workforce housing project at the former Rosita’s Restaurant site. Estimated zoning fees for Warren are $27,759, while Fayston or Waitsfield zoning fees would be $10,222.
Comparing the three towns on the above projects, Warren charges roughly 61% to 67% higher zoning fees than do Fayston or Waitsfield.
“As the town moves through the LUDR adoption process, we respectfully request the Warren Select Board reduce rather than increase the zoning fee schedule,” Wade wrote.
In response, Robbins, at a March 23 meeting, presented preliminary findings as well as potential changes in fee structures for Warren. For her research, she looks at zoning fees in Waitsfield, Fayston, Killington, Bolton, and Stowe.
At the March 23 meeting Robbins told the members of the town planning commission, select board and Sugarbush representatives that her research focused on the costs of permitting a 2,000-square-foot single-family home and a 3,000-square-foot commercial building in each of the towns.
In terms of the single-family home, Warren’s current fee is $550. Stowe’s fee at $600 was the highest of the town’s reviewed and Fayston’s, at $200 was the lowest. Her research suggested Warren’s fee be dropped to $450 which is less than Stowe and Bolton and $50 more than Waitsfield.
The 3,000-square-foot commercial permit fees in Warren would currently cost $1,700. That building in Stowe would cost $1,200 to permit and $900 to permit in Bolton. The cost of permitting that building in Waitsfield and Fayston would be $450. She suggested a revised fee of $850 might be right for Warren.
She also reviewed the cost of DRB review for commercial uses, subdivisions, and planned unit developments. Warren’s current conditional use fee is $250 for residential and $500 for commercial. Killington’s fee for residential and commercial use review was $400, the highest of the town’s she looked at, and Fayston’s was the lowest with $75 for residential and $100 for commercial DRB review.
In terms of subdivision review, Warren currently charges $400 a lot for a two- to four-lot minor subdivision and $800 a lot for a major subdivision of five or more lots. PUD review is currently $800. She suggested changing PUD review to $400 to match Waitsfield and Killington.
Robbins noted in a March 23 memo to the town boards that there are numerous others fees that may need to be reviewed for possible adjustment.
