Man charged with Killington burglary

June 28,2013

Rutland Herald

 

A Rutland man has been charged in connection with a burglary in Killington.

Vermont State Police charged Nicholas Seck, 31, with possession of stolen property. State police responded to a burglary complaint on Cubs Concourse on May 16. Police said Seck was located on Crescent Street with an item stolen from the residence.

“Obviously, it’s good news, not only for the property owner but for the community,” said Killington Police Chief Whit Montgomery. “Any time you take someone off the streets, it sends a message that these crimes will not be tolerated.”

Killington saw a rash of burglaries during the late spring. Residents have begun holding monthly neighborhood watch meetings. The next meeting is at 7:30 p.m. July 18 in the Sherburne Memorial Library.

Seck is scheduled to be arraigned Aug. 28 in Rutland criminal court.

Killington developer objects to suggested permit conditions

By Josh O’Gorman
STAFF WRITER | June 28,2013

Rutland Herald

KILLINGTON — The developer behind a proposed $100 million project on the mountain has objected to Act 250 permit conditions suggested by three regional planning commissions.

S.P. Land Company has big plans for Killington Mountain. The Village Master Plan includes 2,300 housing units and 150,000 square feet of commercial space. While the scope of the project is monumental, S.P. Land has applied for a permit for the first phase, consisting of 198 residential units, 32,000 square feet of retail space and 32 subdivision lots.

The state Agency of Natural Resources has granted party status to the Rutland, Southern Windsor County and Two Rivers-Ottauquechee regional planning commissions. It’s up to the Environmental Commission to decide what conditions will be required of SP Land to receive a permit. However, the Environmental Commission solicited suggestions from the three regional planning commissions.

At one point earlier this year, the three regional planning commissions issued a joint letter, suggesting S.P. Land be required to partially fund a traffic study encompassing more than 100 miles of highway from Waterbury to Bellows Falls.

Since then, the Rutland Regional Planning Commission withdrew its support of the joint letter and issued its own. The remaining two planning commissions went forward with a joint letter. Rebuttals issued jointly by Steve Selbo, president of S.P. Land, and Stephanie Hainley, a consultant working for S.P. Land, address both letters.

In the case of the Rutland Regional Planning Commission, the two object to language requiring S.P. Land to include 495 units of affordable housing during the construction of the entire project, with portions of that number of units to be included in each phase.

“Phase I has already been designed and no workforce housing has been included within the plans because this is not necessary given the current housing stock within the Town of Killington and Rutland Region,” Selbo and Hainley state, referencing a June 4 letter from the Town of Killington which asserts “workforce housing is currently not an issue within the Town of Killington.”

According to approved minutes from the May 30 meeting of the Rutland Regional Planning Commission, the workforce housing suggestion was prompted by a requirement of an Act 250 permit issued in 1998 to a different landowner for the same project. That project never broke ground and the permit — for the entire development, not just the first phase — is long expired.

Selbo and Hainley also object to the letter from the Southern Windsor County and Two Rivers-Ottauquechee regional planning commissions, requiring S.P. Land to partially fund the traffic study, which would be performed after the completion of the first phase. A completed traffic study has shown the first phase will not have any traffic impacts.

“We have no idea whether any future phases of the Village Master Plan will ever be constructed, and if so, how large they will be, which parcel they may be on and when they may occur,” Selbo and Hainley state.

Their letter cites a 2010 court decision that upheld an Environmental Commission’s decision regarding a proposed development in St. Albans. In that case, the Environmental Commission declined to consider possible future developments’ impact on traffic in an area where future developments have not yet received permits and might occur at an undetermined time in the future.

The Environmental Commission is expected to issue a decision about the Killington project in the near future.

josh.ogorman

@rutlandherald.com

Permit delays hurt region

June 27,2013

Rutland Herald

 

After reading the article concerning the delayed permit for the Killington ski village in the June 19 issue of the Rutland Herald, I am disheartened to see an opportunity well wasted. I am a junior in high school and dream to one day have a home in Vermont. Many of the young adults in my generation are ready to graduate high school and leave Vermont as fast as possible. The open door for job opportunities is closing at a rapid pace, as many of the small businesses that make up the towns of Rutland, Killington and Mendon are out of business or soon to get there. These hiccups that keep occurring are weakening the community that we live in, and unless something is done it will be hard to rebuild.

Being an avid skier I have been privileged enough to travel to many parts of Vermont to ski. After being to two of the well-known areas like Stowe and Stratton, you can see how their villages have such an attraction. For someone knowing a lot about the history and construction of Killington — my grandfather Joe Sargent was one of the founders — it concerns me that the empire, which Pres Smith and he built, does not have the draw it used to. Killington, known for its great terrain, abundance of trails, and the Burton Stash, is losing its competitive appeal compared to other big mountains in Vermont, such as Jay Peak, Stowe, and Stratton.

The continued delay in the permit process is depressing to see because it is such a large opportunity wasted. The village would offer so much more than just housing; it would offer job opportunities. With jobs being as scarce as ever, the opening of shops, restaurants, and hotels would create jobs and revenue, as well as an appeal that would compete with the other big mountains. The two old lodges that rest at the bottom of Ramshead and Snowshed are the original lodges. It is hard to find such a big ski area with lodges as old as these. The town of Killington is small; it leaves guests nowhere to explore and limited places to shop. I wish to see the delays and shenanigans of the permit process stop, so opportunities for this struggling community and my generation can open.

ABIGAIL JONES
Mendon

Commission not so supportive

Rutland Herald

June 22,2013

 

Thanks, Tracy, for clarifying your stance regarding the Killington Ski Village (Rutland Herald, June 19). Having been witness to the proceedings regarding the commission’s recommendations to the Act 250 commission and your participation in the regional issues committee and the full commission discussions regarding same, I can confidently state that you are sincere in your support of the ski village and the economic health of the Rutland region.

However, by the same token, I believe other more vociferous (and thus by my estimation, more influential) members of the commission were working towards intractable demands upon SP Land, such as making them responsible for fixing “adverse and unsafe conditions” in the Route 4/100/103 corridor from Killington to routes 89 and 91. That is 133 miles of road and 17 major intersections. That demand, once exposed to the full commission, was removed, thank heavens.

The housing requirement that you allude to was brought up at the last minute without even going through the regional issues committee, with no public or applicant comment allowed before a vote on it in the full committee.

Add to that, after the vote, when public comment was allowed, Chris Bianchi, chairman of the Killington Select Board, stated there was plenty of housing available in Killington already. Never mind the glut of empty homes in the surrounding area.

And to boot, the original recommendation letter (which ended up being rescinded by the RRPC after it was considered by the full committee) was never seen, discussed or approved by the full commission.

There are forces at work behind the scenes within your commission which are trying to sidestep full commission consideration for their own agendas, whether to quash development entirely or to extract every last pound of flesh from the developer.

While I respect your stance and word on your commitment, I cannot accept your stating the same on behalf of the whole commission

VITO RASENAS

Killington

Killington board considers adoption of records policy due to Neisner requests

By Josh O’Gorman
STAFF WRITER | June 20,2013

Rutland Herald

KILLINGTON — The Select Board is considering the adoption of a public record policy after being inundated by a deluge of requests from a town official.

“Over the past year, we’ve seen a dramatic rise in public information requests. We’ve provided thousands of documents that have been requested,” said Town Manager Seth Webb during Tuesday night’s Select Board meeting. “Currently, we have a request that would cover 100,000 documents from the town.”

Many of these requests have come from Melvin Neisner Jr., an attorney in Killington and the town moderator as elected by the residents. Neisner declined to be interviewed for this story Wednesday, saying, “I don’t talk to the Rutland Herald.”

According to a June 13 memo from Webb to Neisner, Neisner has requested, among other documents:

All long-distance telephone bills for the Town Hall for the last three years;

Mileage and vehicle reimbursements for Webb;

Maintenance and insurance records for town vehicles;

All legal bills for the past four years;

All of these documents have been copied and have been available at the Town Office since early November.

While some record requests can be quickly filled, others — either due to their subject matter or simply the sheer size of the request — have proved more difficult.

Webb receives $50 a month from the town in reimbursement because he uses his personal cellphone for town business. Neisner requested Webb’s phone records, including his account numbers and “known personal calls related to family, friends, medical, health and personal legal expense,” records state.

Webb, who began working for the town in February of 2010, turned over the phone bills he had from October 2011 to February of this year, with personal calls and account numbers redacted. Neisner appealed the redaction, but the decision was upheld by the Select Board, which in a written decision stated “(i)nformation as to a person’s personal cellphone account numbers and records of calls made to family, friends, medical, health, and personal legal expense is not information produced or acquired in the course of agency (town) business, and accordingly, not a public record or document that must be produced under (public record law).”

According to the memo, Webb did not have his earlier phone records, but could get them from Verizon at a cost of $5 a month, if Neisner would care to pay the cost.

Neisner has also requested all texts and emails from Webb related to town business, a request that is estimated at more than 100,000 documents. Currently, state statute allows 208 reasons for a town to not make a document public, with reasons ranging from personnel issues to contract negotiations.

“To comply with this request, we would have to examine more than 100,000 documents to see which exemptions apply,” Webb said Wednesday.

At one minute an email, it would take one person — working 40 hours a week — 40 weeks to review the emails. Town officials estimate the total cost to comply with Neisner’s records request as between $36,000 and $45,000.

State statute allows a town to adopt and enforce rules to prevent the disruption of town business when responding to record requests, as well as requiring the person requesting the record to bear the cost, if the request exceeds 30 minutes of town staff time.

The Select Board took under consideration a model public record policy from the Vermont League of Cities and Towns that would create the above rules for the town.

The Board took no action, but expressed its support in adopting such rules.

Comment:
If there's nothing to hide, give him the records, they are public after all. In this town we've had a lot of stuff go on that did not see the light of day. To limit access to public records for any reason is to allow sub rosa dealings to go unnoticed and tacitly condone such actions via town policy.
Neisner may be a pain in the ass but he is within his rights AND he may be on to something that he is looking to document before stating anything publicly. I know I've heard rumors about some unsavory goings on at the Town office which if proved to be true would put egg on some people's faces.
Vito

Commission backs Killington project

June 19,2013

Rutland Herald

 

Due to recent articles and letters to the editor, it is important to clarify for the public the Rutland Regional Planning Commission position regarding the Killington Village Plan.

As vice chairman, I can state with certainty that the RRPC’s priority for the region is responsible and effective economic growth. We fully support economic development in the Rutland region in all its forms, and have strongly supported the Killington Village Plan. This project represents a very large commitment to Killington and is a significant and critical investment in the future of our region. Throughout our state-mandated review process the commission has unanimously endorsed this project and the benefits it promises.

It is the commission’s legal obligation to review projects and to comment in order to insure that the goals of the region and towns are fully addressed. This is especially true for projects with regional and statewide impact — even when these impacts are enormously positive.

The Rutland Regional Planning Commission is not a “roadblock” in this process. We serve to inform the public and assist developers in traversing what is often a highly complex and difficult path toward approval. The commission is composed of committed volunteer officials from every municipality in the region. We seek to serve the public interest to the very highest standards. The commission continues to be highly supportive of the Killington project and wants it to move forward as quickly as it can, in a way that benefits all Vermonters.

Killington/Pico is the finest ski resort in the East and the addition of a project like the Killington Village will make it even more attractive for skiers and winter enthusiasts from around the world.

We are deeply saddened that despite this commission’s efforts to recommend highly favorable conditions and opportunities for the developer, SP Land continues to represent that it feels blindsided. The commission and its staff have worked with SP Land over many months in an effort to provide the desired support and framework for a successful review and approvals. We have attempted to make every appropriate accommodation.

We understand that SP Land and its affiliate E2M (www.e2mpartners.com/) remain concerned about a sentence in our letter that simply states workforce housing needs to be considered when dealing with such a large project. Our letter does not require the building of workforce housing. There are many ways to accommodate the opportunity for housing that this project presents, from innovative design within the project, to provision of housing from the existing underutilized housing stock in the town of Killington and surrounding areas. Our letter is simply an observation of a very real circumstance related to this project.

Housing is one of many legitimate concerns for our region. It is simply disingenuous for SP Land to behave as if they haven’t already considered the amount of housing necessary for the workers for this project. In fact, the prior owners of this project offered substantial contributions toward addressing the need for housing to mitigate these impacts. The commission letter simply pointed out the obvious.

We all agree — this is a great project for the Rutland region and want it to move forward to great success. The Rutland Regional Planning Commission letter submitted to the Environmental Commission, if incorporated into the final order, clears the path for SP Land to move forward. A successful Killington can only benefit the Rutland region and the state of Vermont.

I will state it as clearly as possible: I support the Killington project and want it to move forward.

WILLIAM TRACY CARRIS

(Vice chairman,

Rutland Regional

Planning Commission)

Rutland

 

Comment:

Thanks Bill for clarifying your stance regarding the Killington Ski Village. Having been witness to the proceedings regarding the commission's recommendations to the Act 250 commission and your participation in the Regional Issues Committee and the full commission discussions regarding same, I can confidently state that you are sincere in your support of the Ski Village and the economic health of the Rutland region.
However by the same token, I believe other, more vociferous (and thus by my estimation, more influential) members of the commission were working towards intractable demands upon SP Land, such as making them responsible for fixing "adverse and unsafe conditions" in the Rte 4/100/103 corridor from Killington to routes 89 and 91. That is 133 miles of road and 17 major intersections. That demand once exposed to the full commission was removed, thank heavens.
The housing requirement that you allude to was brought up at the last minute without even going through the Regional Issues committee, with no public or applicant comment allowed before a vote on it in the full committee.
Add to that after the vote, when public comment was allowed, Chris Bianchi, chairmen of the Killington Selectboard stated there was plenty of housing available in Kilington already. Nevermind the glut of empty homes in the surrounding area.
And, to boot, the original recommendation letter (which ended up being rescinded by the RRPC after it was considered by the full committee) was never seen, discussed or approved by the full commission.
There are forces at work behind the scenes within your commission which are trying to side step full commission consideration for their own agendas, whether to quash development entirely or to extract every last pound of flesh from the developer.
While I respect your stance and word on YOUR commitment I cannot accept your stating the same on behalf of the whole commission

Act 250: Another delay for Killington ski village

By Bruce Edwards
STAFF WRITER | June 19,2013

Rutland Herald

Provided image

The proposed ski village is seen in this architect’s rendering.

More than a year after the District 1 Environmental Commission concluded four days of hearings on the proposed Killington ski village, it will be a while longer before the commission issues a decision on whether to grant the project a state Act 250 land use permit.

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