Planners won't pursue 'holiday extension'

The Sisters Planning Commission has declined to pursue the concept of a "holiday extension" for temporary use permit (TUP) holders.

At the end of a sometimes contentious discussion between commissioners and proponents of Ky Karnecki's Wild Mountain mushroom and jerky stand, commissioner Doug Roberts' comments seemed to summarize the commission's position.

Roberts said, "My thoughts then (earlier commission workshops and meetings) and my thoughts now are that the word temporary means exactly that. If you want to stay (open) to cover the Christmas holiday, then slide your 180 days to cover those days. I think this commission has worked long and hard in order to come to these understandings - that a temporary permit should be 180 days, and that the building needs to be removed at the end of that time frame."

Mr. Karnecki opened his business in July 2011 on a TUP that was limited to 180 continuous days (in any 365-day period), and that required him to remove his building within 14 days of the expiration of his TUP.

Due to confusion within the planning department over requirements, in January the City passed a special ordinance giving Karnecki a 90-day extension on his 180-day permit, specifically to allow Karnecki to make his case before the planning commission for a change in the code. Karnecki wanted to be allowed to leave his structure up year-round and to permanently extend his TUP to 270 days.

Over the next several months Karnecki was not successful in convincing either the planning commission or the city council to change the code despite many hours of often-contentious discussions, and numerous accusations of bad faith by Karnecki and his supporters, Camille Atkinson, Mike Morgan and Ed Protas, among others.

However, through applications for his 90-day extension, and then his current 180-day permit, and then an additional 90-day extension (filed just days before the temporary extension ordinance expired) Karnecki is presently allowed to operate on his 180-day TUP through February of 2013. At that point, under existing code requirements, he will have to remove his building.

This succession of events will have allowed Wild Mountain to operate 18 months on a 180-day permit.

The issue has been a focus of attention in the city since last winter, when Karnecki sought to extend his operations, citing hard times and the hope that the City would help his business get its feet under it.

At last week's workshop, ex-planning commission member Ed Protas requested that the commission expand its agenda to include topics that would "... help a business through its start-up period and become successful. It could help it (the business) by allowing it to generate more revenue by allowing it to stay open longer. It could help it by reducing (its) expenses... by (not) requiring it to move the building off-site."

The commissioners declined to expand the agenda.

Karnecki supporter Camille Atkinson accused the commission of "disingenuous and rather alarming conduct," by keeping the meeting to such a narrow agenda. She went on to refer to "... the inconsistent application of city codes, and some of the bias, and some of the flat-out slander that has gone on."

Atkinson said, "The process has been compromised from the beginning. To ignore the history is a big mistake ... we can all stick our heads in the sand like ostriches."

That exchange reflects the level of controversy that has surrounded the issue from the beginning. Karnecki and his advocates cite several instances where City staff or planning commissioners used language showing distaste for Karnecki and his operation. They argue these episodes are evidence of bias, an accusation that Karnecki broached again at the workshop.

Karnecki argued that the commission was "...clearly negatively biased towards my business for some reason. A child in elementary school would be able to perceive the negative bias that this commission holds towards myself and this business.

"When I started out with this business idea more than a year ago, I came here with the idea of creating a business that this community could be proud of," said Karnecki. "This commission has the audacity to ignore these achievements and to vilify me personally."

After the public exchange, Chairman Holzman gaveled the meeting back to order, closed the public testimony and polled the commissioners for their feelings on continuing the discussion of the 30-day extension. There was no interest in continuing the discussion.

Despite the rocky history, planning commission members believe Karnecki has, in fact, received consideration from the City.

After the meeting, Planning Commission Chair Holzman told The Nugget, "I think he (Karnecki) has a wonderful opportunity to make his business go. His main issue was that he wasn't getting a chance to prove he could make a go of it with his business model in this business climate. To get first a nine-month opportunity, and then get a second nine-month opportunity - I'm not sure what more we, the City, could do to help him achieve success."