by Don Keelan

For Dorset, Vermont’s highly charged proposed housing development for Raptor Lane, the Dorset residents have the final decision. Notwithstanding, the conversations held earlier this year and more recently are failing to address the substantive issues. If only 35 units are approved and construction started, will the project succeed, and if not, what debt will Dorset be obligated for? 

The Manchester Journal’s July 24, 2026, headline piece by Andrew McKeever, “Raptor Lane Survey Input Sought by Dorset,” never mentioned cost.  However, the article reported on the Dorset town officials’ survey of residents’ wishes for the total number of housing units on the town-owned Raptor Lane 35-acre site. The balance of the 300-acre property is dedicated for conservation purposes.

The town’s consultants have provided three site plan concepts: 

The Terrace consists of 22 buildings, incorporating single-family cottages, duplexes, townhouses, and multi-family units, a total of 54-58 units. No dollars were mentioned regarding the units’ cost or selling/rental amounts. 

According to McKeever,  the Loop and Neighborhood concepts would consist of 44-48 and 33-37 units respectively. And as with the Terrace, no dollars were mentioned.

The Journal reported that the town had feedback from about 250 residents and plans to continue seeking responses. The first feedback noted that 65% of respondents called for 0 to 30 units. The balance expressed a preference for 30-60 units. 

The town appears to be planning to place on the November ballot (there will be a public hearing in September) the least number of units–the Neighborhood version– of 35 units. And if it is only to be 35 units, the project should not go forward. It will be financially unfeasible. 

I based this statement on what was experienced in 1993, when my company acquired the 70-acre Village at Ormsby Hill property on Route 7A in Manchester at a public foreclosure auction. The proposed 34 single-family residential unit project was started in 1988; three units were completed, significant infrastructure work was in place to serve all approved 34 units–wastewater, potable water, stormwater runoff (ponds), roads, and underground service for electric and phones. 

The bank providing the funds had over $2,000,000 advanced to the developer and had to incur a significant write-down when the project went into foreclosure in 1989. 

I disclose this piece of local history because the Raptor Lane project’s costly pre-development and infrastructure work must be accomplished and paid for before the first of the “proposed” 35 units is delivered.

The second level of concern is the fact that today’s residential building cost per square foot, between $400 and $600 (exclusive of pre-development and site work), will make the proposed unit pricing prohibitive for most retirees and working families.

Not addressed in any of the Raptor Lane written material is the management of what will be community potable and wastewater systems. The project, as proposed, will conceivably have a homeowners association (the cottages), a condominium association (the townhouses), and a rental owner/management company (the rental units). If this is to be the case, such a structure could be a management nightmare.

Lastly, and most critically for Dorset residents, is the risk that the Raptor Lane project will utilize Vermont CHIP financing. Under this plan, the Town will borrow the funds to help pay for the site work and use the tax revenue from the project to pay off the debt. 

By now, the reader will understand why I brought up the history of the Village at Ormsby Hill. If Raptor Lane were to fail either for marketing or financial reasons, the Town of Dorset might be without the Raptor Lane project’s tax base to pay the debt the town had incurred. 

My advice to Dorset residents, for whatever it is worth, is not to go forward with a 35-unit project at Raptor Lane. If the project is not 125 units or more, which could absorb the upfront fixed costs, better to place the land in conservation. The Village at Ormsby Hill, in 1993, with so much infrastructure in place, sat barren for four years. It became a dumping ground for tires and appliances. The initial two homeowners (1989) felt abandoned.  

The author is a U.S. Marine (retired), CPA, and columnist living in Arlington, VT.