Rutland Herald
Provided image
The proposed ski village is seen in this architect’s rendering.
The commission this week granted a partial extension requested by Steven Durkee and his company, Mountainside Properties.
Durkee asked for time to respond to storm water permits that were recently issued by the state to SP Land Co., the project’s developer.
In a June 12 letter to the commission, Durkee’s lawyer, Nathan Stearns, said SP Land “did not submit to the District Commission, or provide to the Mountainside Properties, the complete set of information that they provided to ANR (Agency of Natural Resources) in connection with applicant’s application for the stormwater permits, including, without limitation, stormwater runoff calculations …”
Stearns also noted that SP Land had “requested and received numerous extensions” for filing final rebuttal that have extended for 10 months.
The letter went on to say that because they did not receive the information from ANR until June 10, Mountainside “requires additional time to complete a review of the information in order to submit final rebuttal responses, if any, on the related Act 250 criteria.”
In its response, SP Land objected to the extension and the assertion that it was responsible for the numerous extensions.
“The Durkee parties and the commission know that, in fact, the extension requests and delays were caused by the inability of the Agency of Natural Resources to timely issue stormwater permit(s) …in part due to the Durkee parties’ extensive intervention in the permit applications before ANR,” Peter D. Van Oot, a lawyer for SP Land, wrote in his June 13 letter to the commission.
In opposing the extension, Van Oot also argued that Durkee has been “broadly aware” of the permit proceedings before ANR, including filing extensive comments in connection with the stormwater permits.
This is not the first time SP Land and Killington businessman Durkee, a neighboring landowner, have had disagreements over the project as well as other issues.
Durkee previously had raised questions about the project’s parking and environmental permits.
The first phase of the $133.4 million ski village and parking lot, to be built at the base of the ski area, includes 193 condominiums, nine single-family lots, 23 duplex lots, 31,000 square feet of retail space, and a 77,000-square-foot base lodge that would replace the Snowshed and Ramshead base lodges.
SP Land also wants to build a 1,276-vehicle parking lot that would be located just north of the Mountain Inn.
Durkee and Mountainside Properties requested an extension until July 12 to submit a final rebuttal and to submit proposed findings.
The commission gave the parties until June 25 to file final rebuttal and set a July 9 deadline for submitting proposed findings, conclusions and permit conditions.
The commission’s original deadlines were June 5 and June 26 respectively.
SP Land owns the land around the base area. The ski area is owned by Powdr Corp.
Comment: So, one of the prime movers and beneficiaries of the Economic Development initiatives in Killington is spending all kinds of money on delaying the biggest development project to come down the pike since the ski resort was established. Our town is so hypocritical. We have turned our town inside out in the name of economic development yet support the very person who is putting the kabosh on the biggest development project to come along in years. Durkee is one of the Bill's Country Store 5, purchasing it in partnership with Chris Carr, Phil Black, Howard Smith and Aris Spanos. The town wrote a grant application to "monetize" that property by improving drainage and paying for a "park and ride" facility on the property. Durkee was involved in negotiations with the owner of the Fireside when the town was considering buying it (costing the town a $25,000 binder fee and thousands in property taxes and other foregone fees as part of an agreement to keep it off the market until it came to a town vote). The price was going to be about a million give or take and guess what, Durkee purchased it at auction for less than half that. You think he has the best interests of the town at heart?
If he can go around snapping up the Fireside and Bill's country store and spend tens of (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars thwarting actual private economic development in our town, he does not need the town "monetizing" his investments and giving his company hundreds of thousands in municipal contracts. Because then we are in fact funding his efforts to obstruct and delay the village project.
Vito
5 comments:
Too bad the rest of the residents of Killington don't see through his manipulations.
The above allegations are a bunch of crap and totally without basis. In fact Steve Durkee purchased the Fireside property for almost exactly the same as the asking price to the town. Steve didn't purchase the property at auction at all, he purchased it directly from Terry Perry. There was no property tax money to the town lost during the process, and I have no idea what a "foregone fee" is. Maybe the writer could say more about something that didn't exist. As for Steve's stance on the SP Land project, he is totally within his rights to challenge the project in the Act 250 process. That is supposed to be what the Act 250 process is for, in spite of what is alleged by the comment writer. If Steve had been allowed to present his information at the local Planning Commission level maybe an Act 250 challenge would not have been necessary, but of course he was told that he couldn't be heard at the local level by the Chairman of the Killington Planning Commission.
If anyone wants to know what bull**** is just read the above epistle by Vito.
By the way, I notice that there was no mention made of the fact that Steve built the baseball field free to the town, and has done many other services for the town without compensation. And also, if Steve were eliminated from bidding on town projects because he exercised his legal rights under the Act 250 process wouldn't be a victim of extortion. If anyone is interested in learning the truth, as opposed to the false allegations being spread come on down to the WaterWheel and the discussion can take place face to face. What does 'monitized' mean anyway? I've always found that it is better to check the dictionary before using big words that one doesn't understand the meaning of.
Charlie Demarest
I don't know what "monitize" means, not sure if its even a word, but what "monetize" means, at least in this context is the town looking for ways to put money into Bill's Country Store. In this case it was the attempt to get grant money with a match from the town for a total of approximately 200k to be invested in storm water mitigation measures on the Bill's Country Store and the adjoining lot as well as creating a "Park & Ride" in Bill's parking lot with another 80k grant. Those two actions would improve the landscaping and appearance of the property as well as the stated grant proposal goals. Oh, and one more thing, it would increase the value of the property by at least the amount spent on the improvements. You get the drift yet?
Charlie if you're going to criticize me about what "monetize" means at least you could spell it right.
In the interests of fairness I checked on the the price of the Fireside property. The town was going to pay 850k and Durkee paid 656K. Excuse my hyperbole but that's still a significant discount from what the town would have paid.
As for other fees related to the property there was due diligence done, surveying, title search, etc which amounted to another 20k+.
So Charlie if you're going to challenge me at least provide some facts with your "truth".
You, as well as I, know the real reason Durkee is challenging SP Land in the Act 250 Commission.
Dear Vito:
Sorry I mispelled the word monty python, the mispelling was a mistake on my part, but at least I didn't use big words that I didn't have any idea of the meaning of.
As for the price of 850k that the town was going to pay for the Fireside property. The property the town was buying included 52 ERU's, and the property Steve purchased included 37 ERU's. To purchase the ERU's that were removed from Steve's purchase would cost approximately $161,000, which when added to Steve's purchase price would make $817,000, and then there is the fact that in the $856,000 town price is included the $25,000 one year option, which means that the town price was in fact $831,000. I realize that you would like to have everyone think that Steve got a great deal, but in fact he paid about $14,00 less than the town.
Now, as to the other expenses that you quote: there was no title search done (in case you weren't aware that is one of the last things done before closing), which never took place: there was no survey done although I believe the boundaries were well known by all parties.
The above are facts, chew on them.
As for Steve's reasons for taking issue with the things SP Land has planned, they are not the business of anyone but him. The fact is that he was rebuffed from providing input at the town planning process level, and he is following the law as written in Vermont, which is his right.
But I will give you my opinion of the village so that there will be no doubt about my reasons for opposing that village at the base of Killington.
1. The village as planned is a plain vanilla real estate development that will do nothing to bring visitors to town.
2. There are no attractions planned as part of the development, which would bring visitors to this town.
3. The ski areas that compete with us are busy building attractions, and they are eating our lunch by doing it.
Quote from Seth Webb's presentation of Proposed Economic Development Investments, 12/11/12, "Support efforts to monetize Visitor Center and create a more sustainable organization" in reference to Bill's Country Store. His words, not mine. Why don't you tell him he doesn't know the meaning of the word.
Post a Comment