BOARD GAMES? An Agritourism History Lesson...

AND here's the Open-Book Quiz in Advance:

**Is Your Town Board Listening to Its Citizens? 

**Does Your Testimony at a Public Hearing Make Any Difference?

**Do Non-Residents’ Opinions Count as Much as Your Resident Input?

**Is the Town Board Imposing Its Will on You Despite Overwhelming Public Testimony to the Contrary?

Now Here's the History:

*January 9, 2012: Township receives notice of a lawsuit by an individual concerning her use of an "ag building."  Eureka Building Official, with Town Board support, required her signature on letter outlining what could and could not be done under state statute in such a building, including banning the public from it.

*January 30, 2012: Board votes to counterclaim, stating that the individual’s use on her property was in violation of the Ordinances.  (FYI: This was preceded literally by years of discussion, including Attorney input, by various Boards with the property owner regarding building use and activity on site, especially as shown more recently on her website for the use.)

*December 5, 2012; December 12, 2012; January 14, 2013: Minutes of closed Town Board meetings with Township and Minnesota Association of Townships (MAT) Attorneys regarding the lawsuits disclose that:
1. A summary judgment in the case could have been obtained on January 30, 2013.  (If the judge found in favor of the Township, as many believe would have been likely, this would have ended the matter.)
BUT
2. The Town Board then in office (not the same one which had filed the counterclaim) voted to go into a “working session” with the litigant regarding her use and decided to not go forward with a summary judgment in its own lawsuit.  Q: WHY?

*March 7, 2013: At Public Hearing, Litigant applied for a Text Amendment allowing "agritourism." Limited language is provided. (See website minutes; allow ample time for the numerous attachments to appear.)

Fifty-five people sign in for the hearing, but not all testified. Of residents testifying in person or by submitting written testimony, the overwhelming majority (24 plus several others not named but represented through the statements of their attorney) were against the Text Amendment, citing such reasons as public safety, the overly broad proposed definition of agritourism, lack of any regulations or performance standards for the use, permitting the use on a “straight permitted use basis"  rather than under a Conditional Use Permit, impacts of such businesses on neighboring properties, and other thoughtful objections.

Thirteen residents testified in favor of the amendment.  There were other emailed opinions from people outside Eureka such as from Minnetonka, Columbus, and Bloomington.  (At later Planning Commission meeting, Board Chair Pete Storlie stated that were as many for as against the proposal, even after Commission Chair Carrie Jennings pointed out that some of the statements he was referring to were from nonresidents.) 
Q:  Should someone from Minnetonka be able to tell Eureka citizens what to do in their own township? Does the Board give nonresidents' opinions equal weight as a residents' opinions?

*March 22, 2013: Special Planning Commission (PC) Meeting to discuss the hearing testimony so as to give a recommendation to the Board on the ordinance change. The Township Attorney was present at that meeting at the Commission’s request.  The meeting ended in a split (2-2) vote, one Commissioner having recused himself.

IF YOU ARE STILL WITH ME, HANG ON; IT GETS EVEN BETTER....

*April 8, 2013: Board announced that the applicant had withdrawn her request.  The Board then discusses the Township itself taking on the task of amending the Ordinances to include agritourism. Now, isn't that interesting?!  The citizens at the hearing were against the amendment, the person proposing the amendment withdrew her request, yet the Board is now going to do it itself!?!?  Remember, the Township's counterclaim lawsuit is still sitting there... Q: What Is Going On Here?

*May 6, 2013: Draft minutes of the Town Board Report given by Pete Storlie at the PC meeting state "Due to litigation the Township is involved in, it is imperative we have this put together in a timely manner. By the July Town Board Meeting, they [the Board] would like to see something of substance to move forward on."
Q: Why Is It Imperative?"
Draft minutes for same meeting state, "The Planning Commission members all felt that they need a committee to include the whole Planning Commission and some impartial citizens or professional help in writing this language and a longer time frame to complete the task."  Q. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it, to ask for longer than two meetings to come up with Ordinance language on a complicated subject?

*May 13, 2013: Board meeting, request for Task Force for agritourism delivered to Board.  Delayed until Round-table meeting agenda.

*May 20, 2013: Roundtable Meeting minutes state: "6. 200% Rule & Ag-Tourism
When a task is given to the Planning Commission a report or recommendation should be sent
back to the Town Board, even if it is just a request for more meetings or attorney time. [All italics mine.} The report should be a summary that includes: The information received from the public hearing,
research, what still needs to be done and the tools needed to complete the task."  Q: Didn't PC ask for more time and "tools (task force and professional help) needed to complete the task?"

*June 3, 2013: Commissioner Butch Hansen presents language nearly identical to litigant's; Fritz Frana submits different language from his research.  Discussion ensues, including a few motions back and forth, too long for here. Please see "Agritourism," p.3 at eurekatownshipminutes//PlanningCommissionJune 3, 2013

*June 10, 2013: At Board meeting, Jennings conveys PC's request for task force with professional assistance, which Board rejects. Storlie reads his definition for "agritourism" into the record. Board by 3-2 vote sends this definition and a directive back to PC to come back with something and move to [another] public hearing. Minutes do not state, but believe that Budenski and Miller were the "nay" votes.

*July 1, 2013: Commissioner Jennings presents draft document drawn up by group of Eureka citizens, which includes lengthier language and which gives some regulations.  Long discussion follows, ending with motion to send newest language to the Board along with statements made at the meeting, including that this task is not completed yet and a [yet another] "strong request" is made by the PC for professional assistance.  The last passed 3-2, with Commissioners Novacek and Hansen voting "nay." eurekaPlanningCommissisonJuly1,2013 See pp 3-5  for many more details if interested.

*July 8, 2013: In spite of PC request for a Task Force, Ceminsky moves to send slightly amended definition of agritourism back to PC to hold public hearing on it. Sunday hours were extended from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. and on-street parking was allowed, despite argument against the latter by Supervisor Miller. Storlie seconded motion which passed (surprise!) 3-2; Budenski and Miller dissenting. Q. OK, now we are having a public hearing on a definition?  Hours of operation and parking are part of a definition?  This is unheard of, folks.

August 5, 2013: PC sets date for public hearing on the definition as directed by Board. Hearing was set for 8:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 3, 2013. This, despite Deputy Clerk Wilson's passing on of a message from Supervisor Storlie to the PC: Hearing should be no later than August and only three Commissioners are needed.  Now, it IS true that only a quorum (3 of 5) is needed to conduct a meeting or hearing, but allowances were made (by the Commission itself without any help!) for setting the March 7th hearing, so that ALL Commissioners could be present as they had expressed the desire to be.  Further, it is well-remembered by some how kindly then-Commissioner Storlie took to anything he saw as Board interference in Planning Commission business, such as scheduling public hearings.  Remind you of a Bob Dylan song?  Extra credit for those answering with the correct lyrics!!

Where we are Today:

SO, although there has been NO DEMONSTRATED MAJORITY OF PUBLIC SUPPORT by the citizenry of Eureka, and although the litigant withdrew her request for the text amendment, the Board has directed the Planning Commission to hold another hearing anyway - and, can it be said often enough? -  on a definition.

Instead of just a definition, there should be proper regulations and performance standards that would limit the use in such a way so as not to create any adverse impacts on neighboring properties.  It surely should be allowed only under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), so that appropriate, reasonable conditions (such as hours of operation, lighting, off-street parking) could be placed on and tailored to each permit. Under Ordinance, granting a CUP would follow a public hearing, so that the public could have its input.  It would be allowed only as an accessory use to a commercial agricultural use, not as a primary use by itself. 

Note that, legally, such an amendment to the Ordinances would allow such uses anywhere in the Township, not just on the litigant's property.  As currently proposed, this means that a property near you could have hundreds of people visiting it every day, year-round, creating traffic, noise, light pollution, and so on with very little in the Ordinance to restrict or mitigate those negative impacts.  Next to nothing.

“Agritourism” is a very complex subject which encompasses numerous uses, generally for educational or entertainment purposes.  Just a few of these are tours, rodeos, restaurants, concerts, pick-your-own-fruit, corn mazes, festivals, playgrounds, farm vacations, dude ranches, roadside stands, horseback sporting events, bed-and-breakfast accommodations, and barn parties.  Some of these uses are fairly benign, while others are probably not appropriate for Eureka.  Unless this Ordinance is carefully crafted with public input and professional assistance, the quality and nature of life in our Township could change dramatically!

There have been Task Forces or Committees conducted in the past for other changes to the Ordinances, such as for Mining, Commercial/Industrial Use, Transfer of Housing Rights, and also one for the Comprehensive Plan Update.  This is the reason Eureka has an escrow fund set up for planning assistance. These committees/task forces are provided for in our Ordinances and represent the Minnesota Association of Townships’ (MAT’s) recommended process for changing Ordinances.  Yet the Board will not allow one for this complicated use.  Say it with me: WHY NOT?

Previous Task Forces have included (1) a minimum of five members (minimum number required under our Ordinance), meeting for a number of months to carefully examine the change, (2) public interest surveys so citizens have a voice, (3) open houses for information and citizen questions and input, (4) valuable professional assistance by planners from the Township’s Professional Services firm, TKDA, (5) Township Attorney assistance in wording the Ordinance properly (MAT also advises that the attorney write ordinances as this is one of his/her areas of expertise.  MAT goes on to say that, at the very least, the attorney should review any ordinance put forth), and (6) input by the Metropolitan Council and others such as the Soil and Water Conservation District of Dakota County.


If You Take the Quiz Now, Do You Think You Can Self-Score It?
Move to the Head of the Class!

Field Trip Opportunity: You can testify in person, send an email or snail mail to the Township Clerk in time for the 8 p.m. hearing on Tuesday, Sept. 3rd.  Request that your mail be made part of the record. Let the Board know that RESIDENTS are the ones they should be listening to.

Let them know how you feel about this use, about this ordinance language, about taking more time to do this right (if you think we should do it at all).  Ask them why they didn't listen to you the first time? Ask them why they are pushing this forward.

If you attend the hearing, you will hear what goes on, but if you don't testify, you probably won't be counted.

                                                                                       

         

Sleeping teen is bitten by wolf near Lake Winnibigoshish

• Article by: JOSEPHINE MARCOTTY , Star Tribune
• Updated: August 26, 2013 - 10:41 PM

  Sleeping teen is bitten by wolf near Lake Winnibigoshish

  Article | Updated: Aug 26, 2013 - 10:41 PM
  ... The teenager, who was staying at a campground in the ... An adult wolf is capable
  of biting with a force of ... through a moose femur in six to eight

16-year-old attacked near Lake Winnibigoshish is state’s first such recorded victim.

A solitary wolf bit a 16-year-old-old boy sleeping outside his tent near Lake Winnibigoshish on Sunday, the first documented wolf attack in Minnesota history.

The unidentified boy, who is reportedly from Solway, Minn., stood up and kicked at the wolf, which then ran away, according to state wildlife officials.

The teenager, who was staying at a campground in the Chippewa National Forest, was driven to a hospital near Bemidji, where he was treated for a gash on the back of his head and canine punctures on either side of his face.

A 75-pound adult male wolf that matched the description provided by the boy and others at the campground was trapped and killed Monday morning by federal wildlife officials.

The wolf’s body was taken to the University of Minnesota veterinary school, where it is being tested for rabies and dissected. Investigators will collect DNA in an effort to match it to saliva samples on the victim.

“This is a rare occurrence,” said Tom Provost, enforcement manager for the Department of Natural Resources. He said there have been no other recorded cases in Minnesota of a wild wolf attacking a human, though it has occurred elsewhere in the United States and Canada, and more frequently in India.

The wolf that was killed Monday had a deformed jaw. The top and bottom were out of alignment, and it was missing a canine tooth, Provost said, meaning the animal likely had learned to survive by hanging around campgrounds.

In order to hunt successfully, wolves must be able to exert tremendous force on their prey, Provost said. An adult wolf is capable of biting with a force of 1,000 to 1,500 pounds of pressure per square inch, a strength that makes it possible to chomp through a moose femur in six to eight bites. A German shepherd has a biting pressure of 750 pounds per square inch.

(ref. Mpls. Star and Tribune for complete story)

          

2 wheels or 4?

Have you run across the peloton of cyclists that uses the Town Hall parking lot as an assembly point on Wednesday evenings?  Chairman Miller has-- kind of literally--and he was seeing red at the last Board meeting.

He let the Dakota County Sheriff representative know that he sees this activity as a threat to the safety of Township residents.  At a previous meeting, Commissioner Hansen reported that he had to wait to turn into his driveway because of the cyclists.

The officer said he was used to being a sounding board for misdirected anger, but this went on long enough that even Chairman Storlie tried to shut it down and a citizen attending the meeting spoke in support of the officer.

Why lay into the Sheriff?  The cyclists are warned in their registration materials that roads are open to traffic and that they must obey rules of the road.  But as a safety precaution, the club hires off-duty Dakota County officers.  On the night in question, Mr. Miller didn't see any.   

The Silver Cycling non-profit club has hosted 5 time trials on Wednesday evenings along 250th and Highview and one Saturday race in May.
They moved their long-standing event series to the County roads in Eureka after being forced to abandon their preferred, Black Dog route owing to frequent flooding and road degradation.  In appreciation for the use of the Town Hall parking lot, they recently donated $100 to the Township. 

Many in the Township like that cyclists are taking advantage of our wide County Road shoulders.  Some residents even participate in these events.  

If the Board members find 2-wheeled, silent cycling so dangerous and detrimental to the quality of life in Eureka Township, then why, you may ask, did they listen to a group who are proposing to create an off-road, 4-wheel drive, recreational area (like Lake Ore-Be-Gone in Gilbert, Minn) in an abandoned, 13-acre gravel pit on the west side of the Township and tell them to approach the Planning Commission with a proposal?

The general concept is for a group of local clubs to apply for Grant In Aid money to develop a 4x4 recreation area with trails comprised of varying artifical hazards created from old road and construction debris. The clubs can't apply for the money themselves, they need a government body to partner with and that is where Eureka comes in.   After 20 years, we would own this modified gravel pit.

The park acquistion and development process would be facilitated by DNR Parks and Trails but there would be no staffing or policing of the grounds.  Club members would self-police.  A sticker would be required to use the park.  The number of users would be controlled by the size of the parking lot.   

Maybe I'm forcing you to make a false choice here--cyclists or off-road vehicles. But both are supported by local recreational clubs.  If the issue to consider is the impact of the proposed use on Township residents, where do you stand?  (Actually, in the case of people using the county roads, we have no control but we could take away the use of our parking lot.)

Parallel Public Hearings? Tuesday Sept. 3rd

If you were really interested in the rules surrounding Agritourism you could attend two hearings on this topic on the same day.   Both Eureka Township and Rice County have scheduled a public hearing on Agritourism for Tuesday, Sept. 3rd.   Theirs is scheduled for the morning and ours is 8pm on that Tuesday.

Rice County directed their staff to research what neighboring counties were doing and to come up with a recommendation for ordinance language --just like our Board did!

The proposed Rice County ordinance will recommend that an agricultural operation that has more than 6 events per year or more than 250 people will have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit.  This means that specific conditions that pertain to how the property can be used will be developed and reviewed annually.

You might think that since our processes were somewhat parallel that our results will be too, especially since they are our neighbors.  Well, Rice County is a big place and one obvious difference is that they have staff.

We are a small township where research has to be done by the Planning Commission members if the Board is unwilling to hire a planner or consult the attorney as they were in this case.  In Eureka "everyone is related" according to Board Chair, Pete Storlie, when giving the reason why he did not recuse himself when voting to dismiss the complaint against his cousin's current "agritourism" operation.


The ordinance language proposed by the Eureka Board will be considered at the Public Hearing at 8pm on Tuesday, Sept, 3rd.  The Board cut short the research process, rejected efforts by a subcommittee of the Planning Commission to provide language similar to the counties surrounding us and is proposing to make Agricultural Tourism a use by right.  That means that once established, an operation can function without review and with very few restrictions.  They can operate forever, on a year round basis, as long as they keep to the suggested hours.

Sound like a good idea to you?  Or does it seem like an attempt to just be done with it--to move on, and not give much thought to future ramifications of the proposed change?  Come to OUR hearing and let your voice be heard, then go to the Board meeting that follows, when they will make the final call, or they may reject the majority opinion and base their decision on their personal findings and opinions as they did for the Accessory Use Structure changes.

Proposed Definition

Agricultural Operation:
Operations operating for a profit which include, but not limited to, the cultivation and tillage
of soil, dairying; the production, irrigation, cultivation, growing, harvesting and processing of
any agricultural commodity, including horticulture and timber; the raising of livestock, fur
bearing animals, fish or poultry; or any commercial agricultural practice performed as
incident or in conjunction with such operations; including preparation for market, delivery to
storage, to market, or to carriers for transportation to market, and agricultural tourism.
Proposed Ordinance addition to ordinance 3, chapter 2 zoning districts, section 1
item B-11
Agricultural Tourism: “Agricultural tourism”, “Ag-tourism” and/or “Agri-tourism” means activities conducted for
profit – or- not for profit, year round on a regular basis, shall be an accessory to the primary
working agricultural operation and allowing the public or invited groups for the purpose of
education, enjoyment or active involvement in the agricultural operation.
Activities include, but not limited to, agricultural operation tours, educational events,
hayrides, pony rides, historical or cultural events, exhibiting animal, agricultural products,
corn mazes, pick your own fruit or vegetables and retail sales related to the agricultural
operation. Allowed hours for agricultural tourism will be Monday – Wednesday 8am - 8pm,
Thursday – Saturday 8am – 10pm and Sunday 10am – 7pm. Adequate and designated
parking on agricultural property, is required to accommodate the public and/or invited
groups. On street parking maybe allowed on one side of the road. Agricultural tourism does
not include activities as, but not limited to, music events, rodeos, and auctions unrelated to
normal agricultural operation.

(emphasis is mine).

Can You Say "Estoppel?"

At the August Board Meeting, the Board was finally  considering a response, after a number of months, to a formal complaint against a well-known property in the Township.  This response could have been an enforcement of the Ordinance it was alleged to have been violated.  During the discussion of the matter, the Township Attorney, Chad Lemmons, of Kelly and Lemmons law firm, stated to the Board that estoppel had not attached and that, indeed, it is very unusual for estoppel to have attached in governmental matters such as the one before them.  (This was one of several statements by him to the Board on the complaint.)

Interestingly, the Board did not ask the attorney to clarify what he meant by "estoppel has not attached."  I don't know the reasons the five of them did not ask for this information since I cannot read their minds and they did not speak on the subject, but perhaps:

1)  They've all gone out and received law degrees recently.
Just kidding...

2)  This concept of estoppel has been so well and exhaustively explained to them during the many special meetings called concerning this property and the Township's own counterclaim lawsuit regarding it that they did not require a refresher.
OR, understanding it well themselves,
3)  They somehow did not feel that the many people present in the audience would benefit from a full understanding of what the TOWNSHIP Attorney was advising them. Forget that the audience members, along with the rest of us taxpayers, are paying for this advice!
4)  They did not feel a need to address it because they did not consider that estoppel having not attached was that important, so why delve into it anyway???  Just a question...


Why is estoppel important?  Here are two brief, general explanations of it which, along with other information, can be found online:

Estoppel in its broadest sense is a legal term referring to a series of legal and equitable doctrines that preclude "a person from denying or asserting anything to the contrary of that which has, in contemplation of law, been established as the truth, either by the acts of judicial or legislative officers, or by his own deed, acts, or representations, either express or implied."

Estoppel is essentially a rule of evidence whereby a person is barred from denying the truth of a fact that has already been settled. Where a court finds that a party has done something warranting a form of estoppel, that party is said to be "estopped" from making certain related arguments or claiming certain related rights. The defendant is said to be "estopped" from presenting the related defense, or the plaintiff is said to be "estopped" from making the related argument against the defendant.

What this means in any matter in which estoppel has not attached is essentially that past decisions by former Boards which may have been in error, may have been founded on partial or incorrect information, may have been you-fill-in-the-blank, do not stop this Board from finding otherwise. In this particular case, if they had reason to believe that the Ordinance should be enforced in the here-and-now based on the argument and facts laid out before them by the complainants' attorney, based on the Ordinance, and based on the Township Attorney's complete advice, they were not bound legally to do otherwise.  There was not a precedent set by those earlier Boards which must be followed.  If they felt previous Boards were incorrect, they could "right the wrong."

Ultimately, the Board voted 3-2 to allow the property owner to continue to do what was being done and found that the property owner was not in violation of the Ordinance. Supervisors Storlie, Ceminsky, and Madden voted in favor of the property owner complained against, while Supervisors Budenski and Miller voted against the motion.

Now, what they ultimately decided was their decision, whether you or I or anybody agrees with it or not. They were elected to make these decisions on behalf of all of us.  I simply say that I believe it clearly would have been preferable to directly address the concept of estoppel when it was raised, explore what it means, and explain in so many words why they were deciding as they did even though it had not attached. It appeared to me by some statements made that at least some felt a need to go along with what other Boards had done, so I am still not sure, because they did not directly address it, whether this concept WAS clearly understood by (all of) them. Or perhaps those parties simply believed that what other Boards had done was correct in spite of certain facts, definitions, and explanations about local ordinances taking precedence that were presented that night.  

In all matters such as this which could be subject to further legal action, taxpayers would surely desire that, and want to be assured that, each aspect of legal advice is clearly explained in some detail for all, examined thoroughly, and weighed consciously before decisions are made.  

Hoping it IS a "beautiful day in your neighborhood..."

                                     THE VOTE IS IN!           

Eureka Town Board Meeting August 12, 2013:

 Multiple complaints have been filed with the Eureka Township via formal complaints from citizens, letters to the Board from citizens and attorney correspondence, asking the Board to
enforce the Township Ordinance 3, Chapter 7, Section 3 - EXOTIC ANIMALS.
The intent of the ordinance is to protect against the health and safety risks of the exotic animals that are held in private possession. The agenda item to be discussed at the August 12 Town Board meeting requested the Board to enforce its ordinance and in particular not allow Ms. Terri Petter and Dan Storlie to continue to harbor and exhibit exotic animals.  The issue was discussed and the Board of Supervisors voted:

SUPERVISORS MARK CEMINSKY, PETE STORLIE AND STEVE MADDEN VOTED   YES! (To allow Ms. Petter to harbor her exotic animals)

SUPERVISORS KENNY MILLER AND BRIAN BUDENSKI VOTED    NO!

ARE THE SUPERVISORS WHO VOTED YES PROTECTING CITIZENS AGAINST THE HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS OF EXOTIC ANIMALS IN THIS TOWNSHIP WHEN THERE WERE VALID REASONS PRESENTED TO ENFORCE OUR ORDINANCE?  YOUR TOWNSHIP - YOU DECIDE!

 

 

 

A Sign Which States "Fine For Dumping Garbage" Should Not Be Confused With "It Is Okay To Dump Trash Here."

Most people would not dream of dumping refuse along rivers, ditches, ravines, wooded areas and wetlands. However, illegal trash dumping is increasingly becoming a problem in Eureka.  It is against the law to dump trash or large discards in rural ditches and other prohibited areas. 

It is becoming common place to find illegal dumping of furniture,tires, carpet, roof materials, wallboard, lumber, construction and demolition debris, tires, electronic equipment, appliances, auto fluids, batteries, mattresses and bags full of trash in our ditches as people prefer not to pay for legal disposal. These are very selfish acts and have created a chronic problem.  

The financial burden of cleanup of illegal dumping by uncaring individuals becomes the responsibility of all taxpayers while creating a very aesthetically unpleasing environment.   The trash is also a public health hazard and can create public safety problems.  One quart of used oil can contaminate a quarter million gallons of water.  Many of the items dumped are toxic and can become breeding grounds for mosquitos, rats and animals such as skunks which spread disease and can destroy wildlife habitats.

Each piece of discarded video equipment contains 2-8 pounds of lead and small amounts of other harmful pollutants like mercury and cadmium (MPR News).

Citizens who partake in illegal dumping try to protect themselves from citations by removing identification markings.  In spite of attempts to do so, County Officers are successful in tracing the trash back to its owner. In another Minnesota County, a trail camera was used by a property owner which captured a photo of a suspect and his vehicle in the act of dumping trash. Live video and photographs can speak for themselves.

This living room brown couch set was nicely arranged on my property on the South in the wetlands and a garage sale sign was placed next to it; they went beyond ditch dumping. Who do you think paid for this removal?  That is correct!  Tax payers' $'s at work.  Does anyone in Eureka recognize this comfy furniture!   

Illegal dumping of waste material, appliances and items mentioned above is a criminal offense.

If you notice anyone disposing of their possessions in a ditch or area on private property

call the Road Supervisors and if possible obtain license plate numbers and description of vehicle.

Road Supervisor:  Mark Ceminsky  612-819-1334 
                      

Road Supervisor: Pete Storlie  952-469-3668

Dakota County Recycling Zone
3365 Dodd Road
Eagan MN 55122
p: 651-905-4520
web: http://www.co.dakota.mn.us/EnvironmentRoads/RecyclingZone/default.htm

 

                                   

                                                          

                                                                 

  

 

What's in your outbuildings?

When I bought my farm, built  in the 1880s and still owned by the descendants of the homesteaders, there was over 100 years of stuff in those outbuildings.  It was all laid out for every one to see at the auction.

The good stuff went fast.  There were horse-drawn sleighs; an anvil and blacksmith tools; a fainting couch. We were left with the stuff that no one wanted.  There was a chicken coop with its roof held up by twine-tied stacks of Farmer's Wife magazines.  The next coop was a museum to the history of vacuum cleaners.  A room in the barn was filled with bread bags stuffed in other bread bags and jars of straightened baggie twisters. The hayloft was a church with  lectern, two pianos, dozens of pews, and boxes of psalm books in Norwegian, plus lots of pigeon poo. The milking parlor archived hundreds of windows and extra panes of glass; straightened nails, tin ceiling panels, and doors from somewhere else entirely. You get the picture, and there were over a dozen buildings.

We eventually dealt with most of it, finding appropriate homes, renting dumpsters and trying to learn  how much could be amassed in a lifetime or two and keeping an eye on our stashes of yarn, washed ziplock bags, wine corks, canoes, bikes and yes, straightened baggie twisters.

Why does the Township get involved with what we have in our outbuildings?   Well, the short answer is, they don't if we are an agricultural property or if we are using them for personal storage.  What we keep, hoard or save for a rainy day is our business and our childrens' problem (or embarrassment at the auction).


But are all accessory-use structures used for personal property?  Even the really big (and getting bigger) ones?  Can we trust the current Board to enforce our ordinances and make sure that they remain for personal use?  What do they keep in their outbuildings?  What are we to think when a current Planning Commission member said that, as long as what's being done is under the radar, its okay."?  Or when a long-time Board member said,  "We don't want to know about that.  Don't tell us that.  That has been a 'problematic' property."   with regard to how to represent a well-known property to prospective buyers.  The real estate agent was present at the June Board meeting with two potential buyers when that statement was made.  Everyone knew that the place for sale had been operating commercially as a number of things over the years...most recently as a furniture and second-hand store with food for sale.    Even the County acknowledged it was a commercial interest and had been taxing it as such.  So why do we allow this to happen?  Why should we care?


The Township should care because it has ordinances that protect the health, safety and welfare of its residents.  Home occupations are allowed but are to be limited to the home.  Businesses are not to be run from accessory use structures. Even storing business equipment or materials there, as recently clarified at the June meeting by the Township Attorney, Chad Lemmons is not permitted. We do not have sewers, fire response, road infrastructure, or the setting to allow businesses to operate from accessory use structures.  We do not have a commercial zone that isolates and separates people's homes and backyards from back-up beeps, delivery trucks, motorized equipment, bus parking lots, waste piles....  There are simply things that should not go on, be stored, used, heard or dumped on the ground in a non-sewered, rural community.  We lay it all out in the ordinances and comprehensive plan.

It is also laid out for display at those auctions.  We can't pretend to not know what's going on.   If you have a complaint, use link to the form on the right side of the blog.  Your name will be protected and the complaint will have to be addressed by the Board.

IS CAPX2020 DRAINING YOUR ENERGY?

Many Eureka citizens are dealing, in one way or another, with what many might see as the disfigurement of the Township by fifteen-story-high power lines.

But did you know that the Town Board had a possibility to soften the impact, at least in its early stages of the installation, but passed up the opportunity?  This is a story you would not necessarily know from the minutes, but would know if you had been in attendance at a recent Special Board Meeting.

First, you need to know that, at a Special Meeting as opposed to a regular one, the Board can discuss only those items that have been listed under the agenda in the posting of the meeting.  The post has to be up at the Town Hall bulletin board (the official posting site) in time to give citizens a three-day notice of the meeting, not counting the day of the posting and the day of the meeting.  It happens that, at the eleventh hour, "CAPX2020" was added to then already-published agenda.  This is actually okay by procedure, but requires that citizens are alert for such last minute changes if they want to be fully informed.

[If you have certain items that are of interest to you, be advised that the best way to stay on top of things is to ask to to be placed on the "alert" list that the Town Clerk maintains.  She is to send you all agendas, notices of public hearings, Special Meetings, and the like, saving you from having to check the bulletin board or the website. (The latter is NOT the official posting site.)  BE AWARE, however, as mentioned in an earlier posting, the Board can add items to a regular meeting agenda as late as at the meeting itself.  Refer to the "Housekeeping" addition of two controversial Ordinance items; Chair Storlie made these additions at the "agenda approval" time during the beginning of the June meeting that night.  Unless a person was in attendance, he would have had no idea that these items were to be discussed.]

Second, you should know that Supervisor Miller recused himself from the vote I am about to tell you of because he is being paid for the use of his property for a lay-down yard for the utility's equipment/materials needed for the installation.  It was proper that he do so, since he has a financial interest in the matter...

Third, the permit application and its representatives at the Special Meeting asked for Monday thru Friday hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., with an additional half hour on each end, and Saturday hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., again with one half hour on either side.

Supervisor Budenski moved to limit the hours to Monday thru Friday only, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Not one of the remaining other three Supervisors seconded Brian's motion.  Therefore, it died from the lack of a second.

Chair Storlie then proceeded to move to approve the application as presented; Supervisor Ceminsky (perhaps serving as earlier described as Storlie's "right hand man???") seconded that motion.  The motion passed, 3-1.  Supervisor Budenski was the dissenting vote, while Supervisors Madden, Ceminsky and Storlie voted in favor of the longer hours plus Saturday work as described in the Great River Energy application.

You can form your own opinions of this maneuver, but we wanted to you to know the full story as we understand it. What is required to be recorded in the minutes is all motions, seconds, and votes.  Supervisor Budenski's motion would not be listed as it died.

FYI, very few "regular citizens" were in attendance at the meeting.  



Is your property on the CAPX2020 Route?  Are you negotiating property values with them right now?

Know your rights.

        

Top Ten Reasons to Read The Citizen Blog:

We hope that the blog will…

1... provide factual, detailed, current information on issues and happenings in the Township; get “the story behind the minutes.”

 2…offer an opportunity for you, as a citizen, to engage in and respond to issues that capture your interest.  Stand up and be heard! 

 3…enhance your understanding of Eureka’s policies, procedures, and Ordinances; how are they evolving, how can you have input on them.

 4…encourage you to attend Planning Commission and Town Board meetings.  What happens there CAN affect you; be involved early on.

 5…provide you with a different viewpoint than some of the “rumors” you may have heard.  Check out how your local government really works.  Experience firsthand discussion of issues, the leadership skills of local officials, and the manner in which Township business is conducted.

 6…make evident the importance of electing officials who are dedicated, have integrity, believe in the development of local laws which protect all citizens, and who have the best interests of the community at heart, first and foremost. 

 7…inspire you to get out and vote once again by being a resource for information regarding candidate qualifications for office. 

 8…encourage citizens to be part of the solution; like nowhere else, you can make a difference!

 9…help citizens connect with others in the community, developing positive relationships with neighbors.  We’re in this together!

 10…engage you in an exchange of ideas; share your concerns, offer constructive comment, think critically.

Sincerely,                                                     BLOG:    http://theeeg.blogspot.com/  

Concerned Citizens of Eureka

                 

  ARE EXOTIC ANIMALS ALLOWED IN EUREKA TOWNSHIP?

                                                          

 Is someone in your neighborhood keeping exotic animals as pets?  Eureka township
has adopted an ordinance which prohibits the harboring of exotic animals:  Ordinance 3, Chapter 7,  Section 3 - Exotic animals.

A. Purpose and Intent
It is the intent of the Town Board of the Township of Eureka to protect the public against the health and safety risks that exotic animals pose to the community and to protect the welfare of individual animals that are held in private possession.  By their very nature, exotic animals are wild and potentially dangerous and, as such, do not adjust well to a captive environment.

B. Keeping of Exotic Animals Prohibited
1. It shall be unlawful for any person to own, possess, keep, harbor, bring, or have in one's possession an exotic animal within Township limits.
 2. It shall be unlawful for the owner, possessor, or any other person in control of a lot, tract, or parcel of land within the Township or any residence or business premises situated thereon to knowingly permit any other person to be in possession of an exotic animal or exotic animals upon the property, residence or premises.

C. Exceptions
 The following shall be exempt from these regualtions under the conditions noted:
 1. Animal control officers

 2. Licensed veterinary hospitals or clinics

 3. Any wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the State who temporarily keeps exotic animals 
  within the Township when the purpose is to return the animals to the wild

  4. Any person who owned, possessed, kept or harbored exotic animal(s) on or before the
   effective date of this Ordinance, provided that all federal, state, and local licensing and/
   or approval requirements are met.  Any person who falls within this paragraph
   shall be permitted to hold, keep, harbor or maintain the number of exotic animals
   that person was legally permitted to hold, keep, harbor or maintain as of the date of
   adoption of this ordinance BUT SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO INCREASE THE
   NUMBER OF EXOTIC ANIMALS HELD, KEPT OR MAINTAINED WITHIN THE
   TOWNSHIP. (RESOLUTION 59, 8-13-2007.) This Resolution is applicable to any
    animals that are currently harbored in Eureka.

D. Violations and Penalities
Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor 
 and shall by punishable according to State law.  Each day that a violation continues shall
 constitute a separate offense.

                                                             _________________________


    
A LIFE SENTENCE: THE SAD AND DANGEROUS REALITIES OF EXOTIC ANIMALS IN PRIVATE HANDS 


Across the United States, millions of exotic animals are kept captive in private homes and in ROADSIDE ZOOS and menageries. The trade in exotic animals is a multi-billion dollar industry, and exotic animals are bred, sold, and traded in large numbers.

Monkey Kept as a "Pet"
View more images »

But these animals — including, among other species, lions, tigers, cougars, wolves, bears, monkeys, alligators, and venomous snakes and other reptiles — pose grave dangers to human health and safety. By their very nature, exotic animals are unpredictable and are incapable of being domesticated or tamed.
In many states, people are allowed to keep exotic animals in their homes and backyards without restrictions or with only minimal oversight. Every year, people are attacked and injured by exotic "pets" or exotic animals in roadside zoos; some of the attacks are fatal, and children have too often been the victims. In recent years, people have been mauled by tigers, attacked by monkeys, and bitten by snakes, just to name a few of the tragic incidents involving exotic "pets" and incidents involving exhibited animals. View a comprehensive list of all Exotic Animal Incidents that Born Free USA tracks.
Compounding the risk to the public, many exotic animals are carriers of diseases, such as herpes B, salmonellosis, monkeypox, and rabies, which are communicable — and can be fatal — to humans.
Further, the conditions in which privately-owned exotic animals are kept also raise serious animal welfare concerns. Most people cannot provide the special care, housing, diet, and maintenance that exotic animals require. Many animals who have become too difficult for their owners to care for, or who have outgrown their usefulness as "pets" or profit-makers, end up languishing in small pens in backyards, doomed to live in deplorable conditions, or are abandoned or killed. A very few lucky ones are placed in genuine sanctuaries to live out the rest of their lives.
The serious problems associated with the private exotic animal ownership have led groups as diverse as the American Veterinary Medical Association, the United States Department of Agriculture, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Animal Control Association, and the American Zoo and Aquarium Association to oppose the private ownership of certain exotic animals.   

Born Free USA


Minn. State Statute 343.20

Subd. 5. Animal control officer.

"Animal control officer" means an officer employed by or under contract with an agency of the state, county, municipality, or other governmental subdivision of the state which is responsible for animal control operations in its jurisdiction."

An Animal Control Officer can only be an Animal Control officer in the jurisdiction that he/she is employed. I am not aware that Eureka has employed an Animal Control Officer; are YOU!

Several complaints have been filed with the Township regarding Exotic Animals in the Township.

As of this date the Town Board has refused to enforce its Ordinance regarding Exotic Animals.

Perhaps the Town Board Supervisors will finally address the issue at its Monday, August 12, Town Board meeting. 

                  IF YOU ARE CURIOUS, CONCERNED AND INTERESTED IN THE

EXISTENCE OF EXOTIC ANIMALS IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN SPECIFIC OR

IN EURKEA TOWNSHIP, PLEASE ATTEND THE AUGUST 12 TOWN BOARD MEETING.

                                    STAY TUNED!