MOU prompts discussion

Saratoga Planning Commission appoints acting chair, hears opposition to Memorandum of Understanding

The Saratoga Planning commission met for their regularly scheduled meeting Tuesday, Jan. 8. Committee members Jim Beckmann, Chris Duke and Tom Westring were in attendance as Commission Chairman Jon Nelson called the meeting to order. Will Faust and newly-appointed council representative Bob Keel were absent.

A motion was asked for to approve the past agenda and with minimal changes the agenda was approved.

Nelson then asked if there were any nominations to fill the chairman’s seat he was vacating.

Jim Beckmann and Tom Westring then nominated Chris Duke to the chair. Chris Duke declined the nomination due to recently added business and coaching obligations.

After small discussion, Tom Westring volunteered for, and was nominated to, the position of acting chairman.

After the nomination, Nelson handed the gavel over to Westring and joined the audience.

Variance Hearing

A public hearing was opened to hear comments and concerns on a setback variance requested by Jon Nelson.

Nelson said he had 23 approved signatures from neighbors and Westring asked if there were any concerns about moving the variance request to the board.

There being no comments, the public hearing was closed.

Through the Agenda

The meeting then moved quickly through the agenda as minutes for Nov. 13 were approved with minor changes, and there was no correspondence or items from the public. Under new business, the commission voted to grant Nelson’s variance request side yard setback for a garage.

Old Business

Four topics were listed under old business: The grading and excavation permit discussion, Ordinance 18.58 regarding recreational vehicle parks, the flood ordinance and the Zone of Influence MOU.

The grading and excavation permit was discussed briefly with an audience member saying it would be prudent to table the discussion as he said there may be developments on the council side and the permit would likely be reviewed by the new town attorney.

With this information, the discussion was tabled.

The recreational vehicle park ordinance was noted as having passed third reading by the Saratoga Town Council and the committee went to the next item on the agenda.

The flood ordinance, which had been tabled the last few meetings, was once again tabled with Saratoga Zoning Officer Dan Ferrin saying there was plenty of time to review and update the policy.

Discussion then moved to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the county and town.

County planner Sarah Hutchins said the county attorney had made punctuation changes to the document along with changing the mayor’s name to John Zeiger.

A motion was made to accept the changes and move the document to the Saratoga Town Council.

MOU Discussion

Before a second could be made on sending the MOU to council, area resident Scott Kerbs asked to make comment on the MOU.

Kerbs wanted to know what jurisdictional authority the MOU granted.

Hutchins explained that the MOU formalized what is currently a courtesy the county provides in informing the town of development occurring on land adjoining the town, saying “The purpose of this is to encourage cooperation between the Town of Saratoga and county—and transparency and communication.”

Kerbs eventually expressed that the MOU was, “an exercise in futility,” continuing, “If the town will be notified anyway if there is any actions within the vicinity of the town, why do you have a Memorandum of Understanding?”

Hutchins explained, “At the moment it is a courtesy on the county side to provide notice to the Town of Saratoga. It is a prudent thing to do. But in the future, that could change. So it is to just have something in writing that states that there is this level of cooperation and referral between the two.”

Kerbs said he was concerned with the document saying the Saratoga Master Plan includes an area outside of the Town of Saratoga and that would affect zoning outside the town.

Nelson found the section referred to, read it and commented it only codified the town and county’s desire to continue to work together and communicate.

That having been said Kerbs said, “That’s fine. Exclude my property from within the boundary of what you have outlined on the map.”

Nelson replied that, “What your property being within the boundary essentially means is that if you were to choose to rezone or develop your property—that would all go through the county. Just like it does today,” Nelson continued, “and that during that process when the county sends out notification to adjacent property owners and solicits comment/feedback the town would also receive that information to be able to provide a response. It wouldn’t come to the town for approval—it would just be a notification and request for comment. I don’t think that’s a bad policy.”

Kerbs then asked, “Why, if the planning commission has no opportunity to influence something as a planning commission by the law, why are you muddying the waters?”

When Nelson replied there needs to be a spirit of cooperation between the town and county Kerbs replied, “I have seen some of the management of the town. I don’t care to be a part of it as far as influence or whatever.”

When both Hutchins and Nelson said that this process is what currently goes on Kerbs again asked that his property be excluded from the MOU.

Westring then pointed out that there was a motion on the table to send the MOU to council.

Beckman commented it was important for the council to note Mr. Kerb’s concerns MOU would be discussed in council before any action was taken.

Nelson pointed out that, originally, the MOU discussions centered on whether the town should have authority to control development outside of town in a half mile area. He continued that this was met with opposition and the commission understood the lack of representation in that kind of authority over people who could not vote for the officials making those decisions. Nelson went on to explain that the wording had been dialed back to the current notification process.

A back and forth ensued on what would happen if Kerbs wanted to install a nuclear waste dump. Nelson said that the town would be notified and would likely tell the county, “Hey county, we know that this is your call, and the ball’s in your court and it’s your hearing and they are your regulations that Mr. Kerbs is following—but we really don’t want a nuclear dump facility up from the town.”

After some more back and forth Beckmann said, “I think, to me, it makes sense that anything in this area could have an impact on town infrastructure and require additional planning on the town. Scott, I definitely understand your concerns and hope the council will end up being made aware—and hope you can present your side to the town council—but I think I am going to second the motion on this because I like the idea of the process. Honestly, going it through the county, I don’t foresee where any landowner is going to be slighted in the process. I think that is what happens when someone buys land near town.”

That being said, the MOU was unanimously sent to the town council.

Zoning Officer Report

Town Zoning Officer Dan Ferrin said that he had sent the zoning officer’s report to the commission via email. When asked later what that report contained Ferrin said is was a list of building permits issued recently.

Ferrin also said he would be getting with new committee member Bob Keel to update him on what was going on.

Next Meeting

The last agenda item being disposed of, the meeting was adjourned.

The next scheduled meeting of the Saratoga Planning commission is set for 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Feb. 12 at the Saratoga Town Hall.

 

Reader Comments(0)