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.