Out with the new, in with the old

PALMER — On Tuesday, the Mat-Su Borough Assembly had a rare meeting at which no major changes were made to the borough’s tower regulations.

Psych!

Actually, at that meeting, which happened to be the one immediately following the meeting at which the assembly made a different raft of significant towers changes, the assembly again revisited the tall structures ordinance. Specifically, the assembly decided to go back to square one.

“I think it’s more appropriate … if we’re going to have something in place to have what was in place before this whole drama started,” Assemblyman Steve Colligan said.

He and others around the table referred to the rules governing towers and tall structures as a kind of a placeholder to keep something on the books at the borough while Mayor Larry DeVilbiss’ tower committee looks at possible long-term changes.

This chapter of the saga began in November 2011, when the assembly, faced with a list of changes to the tower rules, chose instead to throw out everything that was on the books, leaving the borough devoid of regulations on tower construction. Neighbors of towers built with little to no notice soon cried foul.

Assemblyman Warren Keogh, who has been critical of the tower changes from the start, was critical again Tuesday.

“Over a month ago, after a year-long absence of having any tall tower ordinance, we finally arrived at one,” said Keogh, who sponsored that new tower ordinance approved late in 2012. “At the time I did that I offered a substitute ordinance, which was the old one. So I guess my question is where was Mr. Colligan when he had the opportunity to make this substitution five weeks ago?”

He said that, on the bright side, at least there are rules on the books rather than the absence of regulations for towers borough residents endured for more than a year.

The assembly also discussed whether to first refer the change to the planning commission. Borough Attorney Nick Spiropoulos said the borough wasn’t bound by code to send the ordinance there. Colligan’s motion to revert to the old codes took the form of an amendment to Keogh’s tower ordinance.

“It’s a pretty liberal thing to call this an amendment. It’s a total substitution,” said Assemblyman Vern Halter, who added that he’d like the planning commission to “tell us whether they want this set of ordinances or tell us which one they want to go with.”

Mayor DeVilbiss said that the way the tower committee is working, it’s going to end up at the planning commission regardless of what the assembly decides.

“Regardless of what you do, it’s going to go to the committee and then it’s going to go to the planning commission,” the mayor said.

In the end, the assembly decided not to run the change past the planning commission before taking a vote. Then the assembly decided to go back to square one on a 4-2 vote, with Halter and Keogh in opposition and Jim Colver abstaining due to a conflict of interest.

Contact reporter Andrew Wellner at andrew.wellner@frontiersman.com or 352-2270.