Commissioner Madigan Rejects The Latest Proposal From Saratoga National

At last night’s meeting following the hearing and on the Public Safety’s part of the agenda, there was a discussion about the resort proposal.  Chris Mathiesen expressed frustration about the last minute action by Saratoga National proposing a new zoning amendment.  Skip Scirocco expressed his concern about why the change was submitted on the day of the meeting.  He wondered out loud about “shenaningans.”  John Franck responded defensively offering a red herring about why it would been bad to call off the hearing.  None of the Council was arguing that the hearing should have been called off.  It was clear that Franck was trying to divert the conversation from being critical about Saratoga National submitting their change at the very last moment.

There was then a discussion about what to do about the new proposal.  It was clear that both Mathiesen and Scirocco thought that quite enough time had been devoted to Saratoga National’s many forays and that the Council needed to vote in a way that made that clear.  In the ensuing discussion John Franck and Joanne Yepsen supported sending the new language to the Planning Board.  Michele Madigan stated that she saw merit in the revision and would support sending it on.  No actual action was taken.

Jane Weihe spoke to Commissioner Madigan the next day about the new proposal.  Madigan said that she was quite fatigued when the topic came up that night (given the hour one would have had to be on drugs not to be tired) and said that on further reflection she thought the proposal was fatally flawed and would not support it.  Here is her follow up email:

From: Michele Madigan

Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 5:01 PM
To: John Kaufmann
Subject: SNGC

Hi John,

I understand there is some confusion or unsettlement about a statement I made last night at the
City Council Meeting.  I stated on Monday morning that the definition that was before the
Council, that came back from the Planning Boards, was not something I could support.  An
amended definition came in on Tuesday morning, which I have not reviewed until today,
Wednesday morning.  This new definition is missing elements I would need to support this to
move on for a merit for review, hence the way it is written now, I would not support this latest
definition.

Thank you,
Michele

This is not to say that she would not consider other proposals in the future.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s