After an six-year hiatus, residents of Beaver Creek Villiage reactivated a lawsuit against Vail Resorts Inc. seeking to halt development of an alpine coaster on a mountainside the company owns facing their homes. The lawsuit pits affluent homeowners seeking to preserve pristine views against the nation's largest operator of mountain resorts trying to boost summer revenues.   


The lawsuit was filed jointly Oct. 3 in the Eagle County District Court by the Beaver Creek Property Owners Association (BCPOA) and the Greystone Condominium Association, which represent about 715 people living in households in Beaver Creek Village, where homes range from $100,000 condominiums to multi-million dollar houses.

 

The lawsuit contends Vail Resorts has not honored prior agreements, is violating government regulations (including those pertaining to wetlands), and is also in violation of its own governing documents for Beaver Creek. Additionally, property owners are contending that because of close proximity to homes, the “amusement park” will be a nuisance to neighbors. The lawsuit also asserts Vail Resorts has misrepresented/concealed its plans from neighbors, has instigated civil conspiracy and violated the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

 

In dueling press releases last week, the homeowners accused Vail Resorts off going off-brand, while Beaver Creek VP and COO Doug Lovell called the lawsuit irrelevant and implied it was elitist.

“Most people would agree an amusement park is not a good fit and very off-brand for Beaver Creek, which Vail Resorts markets as a premiere, world-class resort,” said Barry Parker, vice president of the BCPOA Board.

 

“There have always been people against new innovations at ski resorts,” retorted Lovell. “We do have guests and homeowners who would like us to eliminate snowboarding or terrain parks at Beaver Creek – seeing those activities as ‘not appropriate’ or ‘unbecoming.’ Ultimately, we believe that all our mountains, including Beaver Creek, should have a wide variety of activities year-round, that make them accessible to the widest number and types of guests – not just to a select few. We would imagine that the Beaver Creek homeowners have a high respect for property rights and are disappointed that some have chosen to not respect ours in this situation.”

 

Roller coast or alpine coaster

Much of BCPOA's opposition is centered on what it called a “roller coaster,”  but Beaver Creek officials said that mischaracterizes The Forest Flyer, which is an alpine coaster that will carry people through the forest from the top of the children's lift to the base of the mountain.

 

By providing an amenity that will attract more families during the summer, the project will not only create more local sustainable jobs, but could actually enhance property values by expanding the market for second homes beyond families that don't participate in skiing, snowboarding, mountain biking or other more active pursuits. “Not everyone is able to ski, bike, hike and an activity like the Forest Flyer allows various ages and abilities to make that outdoor connection,” said Jen Brown, a spokesperson for Beaver Creek.

 

BCPOA claims that the coaster, which would run on a one-half mile long steel track, require the installation of 2,000 feet of safety fencing and nearly 3,000 feet (10 football fields) of structural metal, would mar the view of almost every home with a mountain view and generate year-round noise given its capacity of 500 riders per hour.



This artist's rendering from the Beaver Creek Property Owners Association depicts a view of the bottom of the alpine coaster as it emerges from the woods. It does not show landscaping Vail Resorts will install and is not representative of what homeowners will see from their homes, which are located further away than this vanatage point, according to a spokesperson for Beaver Creek resort. 

 


“The amusement park rides would be a distance of less than two football fields from the closest homes and well within sight and earshot of many homeowners’ bedroom windows,” said Tim Maher, President of the BCPOA board of directors, which represents interests of approximately 715 property owner households.


 

 

A history of mistrust
The BCPOA said it filed the lawsuit only after the Beaver Creek Design Review board approved Vail Resorts plan in a 3-2 vote on Aug. 21, 2013 following months of opposition by BCPOA members.


 

“We want to work amicably with Vail Resorts, however, our environmental, visual, noise and economic concerns have been repeatedly ignored,” Maher said. “Vail Resorts is not living up to their own stated values of being aligned with communities and the natural environment. Conversations between the BCPOA board and Vail Resorts led to no resolution of the issue.”


 

The litigation reactivates a law suit PCPOA filed against Vail Resorts in 2007 to stop an alpine slide from being built in the same area within full view of many residential neighborhoods. The lawsuit had been “on hold” in District Court with the agreement of all parties since Vail abandoned the project, but BCPOA reopened upon learning Vail Resorts was movin ahead with construction on the site.

 

Vail Resorts said it has spent nearly eight years crafting a plan to respond to homeowners concerns and remains commited to bringing more people, especially children and families, to experience the outdoors. Company officials confirmed last week that they had begun construction on a summer tubing hill and would soon begin construction of a ropes challenge course and the Forest Flyer.


 





“After spending so much time with property owners to respond to their concerns expressed in 2006 – including close to 10 meetings since February of this year – we are very surprised and disappointed that they are reactivating their lawsuit,” said Lovell. “Our dramatically revised plans are responsive, terrific, and will engage a broader group of kids from different income and diverse backgrounds at our premier resort and in the outdoors as only we know how to do. We disagree with their allegations and will vigorously defend our position.”