Cog Rolls out big development plans near the summit.

[peakbagger]

I saw a reference in the news that the cog will be going before the Coos County Planning Oct 7th for a concept review of the proposed project. Its not on the planning board website as of this morning.

 

[peakbagger]

A long article on the Cogs Lizzie's Station proposal and history ad the differing views of future development on the summit

https://www.eagletimes.com/the-figh...cle_fb4b5263-157a-51df-b3cc-1f0e2ac20961.html

Later in the article is a new to me development where the cog will have the rights to operate on the summit even after the state park building is closed pointing to a provision in the agreement that would allow the Cog to apply for a special use permit to operate a coach within the summit circle for shelter, shopping, and snacks when the state closes its operation. This has not been in the news as far as I know yet. The cog has established the right to use snow cats on their right of way with no limits so effectively should they care to do so, they could run a winter tourist operation to the summit. I expect the hiking public would flock to it in the winter and sadly poorly equipped folks may rationalize that since there is snack bar on top that they can be less prepared.

 

[peakbagger]

Another update on the cog hotel proposal https://indepthnh.org/2022/10/24/op-ed-who-speaks-for-mt-washingtons-fragile-alpine-tundra/.

It's interesting that at one point the press had indicated that the auto road welcomed the development concept but subsequently it has come out that they are not in agreement with the current proposal which includes aspects of the non public negotiation between the state and the Cog with respect to summit operations which traditionally have been done with all the members of the Mt Washington Commission. Howie Weymss, retired general manager of the Autoroad has been attending Coos County Planning board meetings in case the cog ends up on the agenda at the last minute. Unlike the Balsams project, the cog does not seem to submit materials in advance of a meeting for posting on the Coos County website for the public to review in advance. They then submit a fairly thick hard copy package to the board members and refer to it extensively during the meeting so that it is very difficult for the public to fully participate in meetings as they cannot see a large amount of the presentations and have no chance to review in advance.

To date there is no formal application before the Coos county boards for the special exception or the project site plan review. Recently the cog was given permission to build a platform lower on the mountain (below treeline) within the setback which may indicate that the setback may not be big issue to the zoning board. It is quite difficult for most folks to envision the impact of the project on the summit area as to date the only documentation is a photo of a visually distorted artist's concept that does not show the fairly extensive area of platforms required to support the proposal. The planning board had indicated that they would require far more extensive documentation prior to acceptance of formal request for site plan approval so maybe someday there will be accurate representations that will get published in advance of a planning board meeting for the public to see. Note all the activities by the MWC appear to be based on verbal representations by the cog with the self same artists concept. It is likely that when an application is submitted to the boards it will be done as late as possible to meet the statutory minimum public posting requirements with meetings typically in Lancaster on weekday evening at 6 PM making it difficult for many to attend.

It was interesting to notice this summer that one of the visit NH TV campaigns led off with what appeared to be the very view of Adams and Madison across the Great Gulf from somewhere near the summit. I question if it would have been selected had there been extensive platforms and train cars parked in the foreground but then again the official approach to the summit operations by the new DCNR manager appears to boil down to "anything for a buck".

 

[Mike P.]

In thinking of the Washington Summit and the view from 302 or other roads, I didn't give much thought of future development. However, the view from Madison and Adams across the Great Gulf is one of my favoritesas well as the view from Mt. Hight. These views would likely be very different.

 

[skiguy]

In thinking of the Washington Summit and the view from 302 or other roads, I didn't give much thought of future development. However, the view from Madison and Adams across the Great Gulf is one of my favoritesas well as the view from Mt. Hight. These views would likely be very different. View attachment 6917

You are already looking at the Auto Road, the many cars with the sun reflecting off their windshields, Berlin, Gorham with their mills, the houses in Randolph, and many tourists and residents driving back and forth on Rt. 2, Madison Hut, Wildcat Ski Area, The Sherman Adams building all of which is a yearlong eyesore. Lizzie's Station which is proposed to be seasonal will most certainly add to the pile of nasty things for one to have to take in. While we are at it lets tear down Crag Camp as it can be seen also from the Valley below. Be sure not to be up there at night as the light pollution from NH, Vt. and Maine is unbearable.

 

[Mike P.]

You are already looking at the Auto Road, the many cars with the sun reflecting off their windshields, Berlin, Gorham with their mills, the houses in Randolph, and many tourists and residents driving back and forth on Rt. 2, Madison Hut, Wildcat Ski Area, The Sherman Adams building all of which is a yearlong eyesore. Lizzie's Station which is proposed to be seasonal will most certainly add to the pile of nasty things for one to have to take in. While we are at it lets tear down Crag Camp as it can be seen also from the Valley below. Be sure not to be up there at night as the light pollution from NH, Vt. and Maine is unbearable.

Seeing the towns in the valley is a silly comparable. (That is almost every summit with a bare top in the East, although if we buy in on your thought, we'd drive more visits to Owl's Head, East Sleeper and every other treed summit. I can see Boston from Monadnock and Wachuset, Springfield from Bare, Towns from Greylock, Burlington from Camel's Hump.) The road is barely visible in winter and no windshield glare when it's closed.

On the flip side, I did forget that the structures as currently proposed are supposed to be seasonal and removeable. I would be worried that once you get the permission to build, will the proposal change or over time, grow in scope.

 

[peakbagger]

Note, only a portion of the structures are removable, in order to support the combination use of area as train station and as site for the cars with accommodations and support cars, there is strip of 99' right of way of some substantial length that will be covered over with an elevated large array of grated platform that has to be "stepped" to accommodate the slope of the area. There also will be hardening of routes from the new platform to the summit. There is also potentially signage and posts on and along the platform. The cog did state at the prior planning board meeting that they would attempt to locate support equipment under the "steps" of the platform. These "steps" were envisioned to be in the 4' high range and need stairs between the steps. The owner speculated that the grating would protect the alpine area under the grating but he has admitted he is no expert. I am not an alpine export either but my experience with grating is that the area underneath it becomes a place for dirt and gravel carried in on guests shoes mixed with bits of small trash (and in the past cigarette butts).

Therefore, even if the rails cars are removed seasonally, that is only part of the impact. Probably the biggest impact is a major increase in overnight guests at or near the summit. Currently with the exception of the OBs staff and guests there are "quiet hours on the summit when the majority of animal encounters occur. Effectively the area becomes far more occupied 24/7. Access to the summit building off hours will be interesting as currently the state park manages it. The Cog also reportedly plans to utilize the summit complex before and after the autoroad closes which is how the summit building and state staff access the summit.

 

[skiguy]

No worries.No problem. The Autoroad keeps on trekking. Their former Manager now on the board swings and sways with his support. Take a look at the progress but NIMBY!

 

[Andrew]

No worries.No problem. The Autoroad keeps on trekking. Their former Manager now on the board swings and sways with his support. Take a look at the progress but NIMBY! View attachment 6918

Unfortunately, it seems where you stand on this project has become of one of the many culture wars up here. I think the former manager initially saw the many positives that this project would bring, but once the local conservation community raised so much objection, his position was untenable (statement = 100% personal opinion based on observation). He may be getting ready to run for a political office.

Nice to see they paved the road as it has probably been one of the biggest polluters to headwater streams on the mountain due to erosion of the roadway. But I wonder if that is worse in the end as it would carry a larger un-natural volume into drainages at an accelerated speed?

 

[skiguy]

Unfortunately, it seems where you stand on this project has become of one of the many culture wars up here. I think the former manager initially saw the many positives that this project would bring, but once the local conservation community raised so much objection, his position was untenable (statement = 100% personal opinion based on observation). He may be getting ready to run for a political office.

Nice to see they paved the road as it has probably been one of the biggest polluters to headwater streams on the mountain due to erosion of the roadway. But I wonder if that is worse in the end as it would carry a larger un-natural volume into drainages at an accelerated speed?

Like I said swinging and swaying. He should have not been placed in the position to begin with due to his lack of transparency and conflicts of interest. But I diverge. Although isn’t that the root of this whole situation.

 

[skiguy]

Seeing the towns in the valley is a silly comparable. (That is almost every summit with a bare top in the East, although if we buy in on your thought, we'd drive more visits to Owl's Head, East Sleeper and every other treed summit. I can see Boston from Monadnock and Wachuset, Springfield from Bare, Towns from Greylock, Burlington from Camel's Hump.) The road is barely visible in winter and no windshield glare when it's closed.

On the flip side, I did forget that the structures as currently proposed are supposed to be seasonal and removeable. I would be worried that once you get the permission to build, will the proposal change or over time, grow in scope.

You may see it as a silly comparison because it does not fit in to what you think a view should be or what it really is. Just because a structure does not sit on a mountain ridge does not exclude it from the view shed. How about the person that never hikes but drives their car or rides their bike through the mountains. Is it not fair to say for instance the construction of the new Glenn House might be perceived as objectionable as it now partially blocks the view into the Great Gulf. Which is a view from a valley looking up. No offense intended but “The View” or “A View” and the quality there in is a matter of personal perspective. So what might be silly to some might not be so silly to another.

 

[Mike P.]

You may see it as a silly comparison because it does not fit in to what you think a view should be or what it really is. Just because a structure does not sit on a mountain ridge does not exclude it from the view shed. How about the person that never hikes but drives their car or rides their bike through the mountains. Is it not fair to say for instance the construction of the new Glenn House might be perceived as objectionable as it now partially blocks the view into the Great Gulf. Which is a view from a valley looking up. No offense intended but “The View” or “A View” and the quality there in is a matter of personal perspective. So what might be silly to some might not be so silly to another.

I would expect people who hate any structures down in the valley when hiking will stay on summits covered with trees or move to WY, MT and Ak where it's expected that there are few people. Few places in the NE would be considered as wilderness and be more than a day away from a paved road. Being 10 feet inside the High Peaks Wilderness or Dry River Wilderness is not a Wilderness experience.

 

[sierra]

I find it interesting that people take such exception to the possibility of additional construction on the summit. The summit has been occupied for so many years, it's the culture of the summit. It brings the summit to the people who would otherwise never enjoy such alpine terrain. There are so many untouched peaks in the Whites, it seems quite selfish to constantly complain about the summit having buildings on it. To be honest, it's sanctimonious at best.

 

[skiguy]

I would expect people who hate any structures down in the valley when hiking will stay on summits covered with trees or move to WY, MT and Ak where it's expected that there are few people. Few places in the NE would be considered as wilderness and be more than a day away from a paved road. Being 10 feet inside the High Peaks Wilderness or Dry River Wilderness is not a Wilderness experience.

I agree. Although IMO it is important to understand "The View" is a matter of personal taste and perspective. Having spent time climbing and skiing in Europe for instance I find many of the structures on mountainsides and tops rather aesthetic in that situation. Although in contrast climbing in The Alaska range and the thought of seeing a Cog Railway on the side of a ridge climbing to the summit of a 14000ft. mountain might evoke a different perception. As far as this project and location I think Sierra's last comment pretty much wraps up my opinion on the situation.

 

[skiguy]

I find it interesting that people take such exception to the possibility of additional construction on the summit. The summit has been occupied for so many years, it's the culture of the summit. It brings the summit to the people who would otherwise never enjoy such alpine terrain. There are so many untouched peaks in the Whites, it seems quite selfish to constantly complain about the summit having buildings on it. To be honest, it's sanctimonious at best.

Well said.

 

[Rhody Seth]

Yeah at this point the Mt. Washington summit is what it is. Put an Arby's up there for all I care.

 

[skiguy]

Yeah at this point the Mt. Washington summit is what it is. Put an Arby's up there for all I care.

LMAO...Haven't heard yet or not. But did they start selling slices up there again? Things were shut done last I knew because of the pandemic.

 

[peakbagger]

Just rename the summit Sugar Top North https://carolinapublicpress.org/174...e-battle-over-mountaintop-development-in-wnc/

 

[Mike P.]

Just rename the summit Sugar Top North https://carolinapublicpress.org/174...e-battle-over-mountaintop-development-in-wnc/

That is ugly, In the east we also have the Mohonk Mountain House which isn't cheap either. While Elk Lake isn't cheap in the ADK, it blends in better and is lakeside.

 

[Spiny Norman]

So the guiding principle for the cog summit development program is "Things are bad up there, let's make it worse."?