• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

Balsams Grand Resort teams up with ski industry legend Les Otten

dlague

Active member
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
8,792
Points
36
Location
CS, Colorado
It's Hydro-Quebec and the Balsams redevelopment does not depend on more power from the Northern Pass - it is just being used as leverage sadly.

The Northern Pass will not provide power anywhere near Northern NH. Balsam will get power distributed by NHEC. Used to work for them and NHEC was constantly up there helping with electric delivery plans.
 

deadheadskier

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
28,179
Points
113
Location
Southeast NH
The Northern Pass will not provide power anywhere near Northern NH. Balsam will get power distributed by NHEC. Used to work for them and NHEC was constantly up there helping with electric delivery plans.

As you used to work for an electric utility, I'm curious to hear your take on Northern Pass. I've done little research on the subject. I have spent a lot of time in the Lancaster, Colebrook and Berlin areas for work in the last couple years. Seems most folks are against it judging by all the signs in yards.
 

dlague

Active member
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
8,792
Points
36
Location
CS, Colorado
As you used to work for an electric utility, I'm curious to hear your take on Northern Pass. I've done little research on the subject. I have spent a lot of time in the Lancaster, Colebrook and Berlin areas for work in the last couple years. Seems most folks are against it judging by all the signs in yards.

Well it will bring cheaper power to southern New England. Technically, New England is somewhat power starved because no wants bigger natural gas lines either. Some thing has to give eventually. I do not have any strong feelings for or against it.
 

Los

Active member
Joined
Jan 21, 2016
Messages
505
Points
28
Location
NH
From the Article:
According to the Colebrook Chronicle, the developers have yet to apply for the necessary state alteration-of-terrain permit.

This is probably true, but it does not show the whole scenario. I am involved with a local boat launch on a local pond. There are many permits that must be obtained. Some of these permits can not come until others are obtained. (Try to get a building permit for a house in this town, you'll need to already have gained the plumbing permit. ) We are waiting for the wetlands permit to come forward, and the state has 60 to 90 days to act on it, and they are taking all of it. Backlog, lack of staff, being careful and studious, giving all objectors the full opportunity to object.... the reasons go on and on. It doesn't matter, the bottom line is the permits take a certain amount of time and you in many cases, you don't the second permit until the first one is obtained. I'm sure when they say "
[FONT=Georgia, Arial] many items are still considered missing" that they certainly are missing some of he permits. This is not get a single building permit and bring in the excavator. Government bureaucracy is a reality, and part of the process. If a man lobbies someone to smooth out the process, others will certainly look at it as "[/FONT]reportedly pressuring local elected officials to drop their opposition".

In any case, I can not see how there is a downside to any of this happening, just ask the folks at Rangeley if they want Saddleback to open. I hope Les and Co. are able to make this happen.


I agree with your overall point, but just to clarify, in NH a Planning Board cannot make their review or and determination contingent on first obtaining other state or federal approvals, although they can certainly make it a condition of approval. I believe that's a relatively recent statutory amendment. Here's the language from the statute: "An application shall not be considered incomplete solely because it is dependent upon the submission of an application to or the issuance of permits or approvals from other state or federal governmental bodies; however, the planning board may condition approval upon the receipt of such permits or approvals[.]" RSA 676:4, I(b).

Whatever. It doesn't change your overall point, which I agree with.
 

from_the_NEK

Active member
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
4,576
Points
38
Location
Lyndonville, VT
Website
fineartamerica.com

Wow, that really gave the nostalgia muscles a workout.

Double wow on the 1.5x vertical exaggeration on their ski trail overlay making the mountain look look like it is 5421' tall vs 3490' :roll:.

Comparison of images in the video (right side) with the same angle on Google Earth on my computer (left side) with no vertical exaggeration and with 1.5.

1st View -
No vert exaggeration:
View1_noexag_zpsszlpqq9j.jpg


1.5x Exaggeration:
View1_1-5exag_zpssisbmmab.jpg



Second View -
No exag:
View2_noexag_zpssfzhoian.jpg


1.5 exag:
View2_1-5exag_zpsjkgwfvvr.jpg



And is that a skier bridge across Route 26?!:idea:
Bridge_zpsmxr01f1p.jpg
 

Mapnut

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
644
Points
0
Location
Connecticut
Though I'm a stickler for vertical drop accuracy, I have no problem with the vertical exaggeration of the graphics in the video, because that's how it would look to you when you're there amid the mountains.
 
Top