PAPER OR PLASTIC? THE "MIXED BAG" CONTINUES...

Revisiting some facts from previous post: All five Supervisors present; Sheriff's Deputy and Township Attorney, Chad Lermmons, also in attendance.

As a now-regular "feature," the Board has placed "Outstanding Complaints" on its agenda. This, in my opinion, is largely in response to repeated comments they have heard that these complaints have been dealt with in a very sluggish manner, not by any real initiative on their part. WELL, to illustrate how "tuned-in" they are, the Board did not deal with or give any updates on any outstanding, "old" complaints.  Why Not? Evidently, because the Board does not yet have a list (Get that--a list?) to work from. Now, believe me, anybody who has been sitting through these meetings could give them the list on the spot!  But, because they do not have a list in front of them, they do nothing, the Chair just moves them on to the next agenda item!?


What were these matters they "sat on," as some might describe it? One that has been around for quite some time is about the uses of three supposed "ag" buildings (there is no record of anything else having been permitted, as determined by our Building Inspector/Official and the Clerk after examination of the files). One of these buildings is currently for sale, along with the house on the property.  This is the building mentioned before whereby the prospective buyers and the realtor (to their credit) came in to ask the Board about the permitted use of the large building. They were told that personal storage is permitted, but NO USE for a business, not even storage. This was directly from the Attorney, Mr. Lemmons, referencing the Ordinance portion that applies, and supported, correctly, by Supervisor Miller.  Yet, when the Board was told by the realtor and the possible buyers what they have seen as the business use already there, Supervisor Miller then said, "We don't want to hear about that.  Don't tell us about that.  It has been a problematic property," or words very close to that. So why doesn't HE remember this matter at the last meeting and bring it up for the Board discussion under this agenda item? He needs a list?

Let me explain something if you don't already know: Hypothetically, if one applies for an "ag" building, all one pays is a $25 application fee, agriculturally used buildings being exempted from permitting under the Building Code and thus also exempted from any permit fees.  State statute is explicit, however, on what building use, and by whom, qualifies as "ag," including that there must actually be "ag" taking place there! (Go figure...) The permitting fees under the Code for buildings if they are not for "ag" use could be in the hundreds or even thousands of dollars to the Township.  It has been very clearly stated by the Building Official that any "ag" building which changes use must be permitted for the actual use as if it were new construction, with all attendant permitting fees. This has come up in reference to different properties.  We'll leave alone for the moment whether the hypothetical one's actual non-ag use of such buildings that may occur is even legal under our Ordinances or not.

Further, one of these "ag" buildings (one that is not for sale) has had obvious construction to it: windows apparently on two floors and a change in the door opening. This much is visible from the road. This has happened without benefit of any permit having been issued.  These matters, building designation/use and lack of permits, were brought to the Board's attention many, many months ago by Scott Qualle, Eureka's Building Official, with no further "real action" actually happening from the Board's part. (They eventually had "okayed" a visit to the premises by the Building Official, also months ago, but to this writer's knowledge that has still not taken place; why, I am not sure.)

I put "okayed" in quotation marks because the Building Official is empowered to carry out these duties whether the Board "approves" or not. This is a fact that some in the community, taking their public comments at face value, don't believe to be the case.  (One person even said the Board "should rein him in.") However, it has been pointed out to the Board by more than one attorney that, in fact, Mr. Qualle DOES have that ability. Nonetheless, even some on the Board have clearly seemed to me and to others in attendance at certain meetings to have had "a problem" with this.


For example, from the April 8, 2013, Town Board minutes:

"N. Building Official Issuing Citations
Supervisor Steve Madden commented that he does not feel that the Building Official should have the authority to write citations. He should only be able to write citations with permission of a Town Board Supervisor or a vote from the Town Board. [Wrong!]
The only citations he has written have been directed by the Town Board. [However,] he has the authority to write Building Code Citations. 
The Building Inspector Supervisors have been working on putting a policy in place for contacting the township." (Additions and emphasis mine.)

The Building Inspector Supervisors at the time were Supervisor Storlie and Supervisor Ceminsky, both of whom wanted to be alerted before the Building Official acted in the very capacity for which the Board hired him.  Evidently, when called by irate constituents (at one meeting they mentioned having received such calls: "We get yelled at."), "Let me check on that and get back to you" doesn't work for them.

All this caused me to wonder under what circumstances would a Supervisor tell the Building Official to NOT write a citation or order concerning a violation of our Ordinances?  Beats me.

Indeed, wouldn't you think that Commissioners and Supervisors would, for another example, expect landowners to respond appropriately to the Building Official's letter? I know at least SOME of them do, and would like to think that they ALL do... but it appeared not so in a (recorded) heated and astonishing exchange between Commissioner Hansen and Supervisor Storlie at a public meeting over a year ago. To wit: The property owner who had not responded in a timely manner to the Building Official's letter regarding these buildings had been told, it was admitted, that he could "ignore" the letter! Hansen alleged that he did that after talking to Storlie and receiving his direction in this, and Storlie finally admitted in public that he had done so!!! (See first item on page 7 of  Board Minutes June,11, 2012 )  The Board-approved minutes do not include the embarrassing exchange.  (Imagine that.) Note, the Building Official cites state statute and his licensing as they apply to his duty to carry out his job.
This was 1 year and 3 months ago...and counting.

My Goodness! With what I will describe as such a "hazy history," why isn't the Board now making sure this and other matters on their "Outstanding Complaints" list are taken care of in a more appropriate time frame?  Do they really need a list after these items have come up time and time again over years? Do they believe that everyone should abide by the rules?  Do they understand their obligation to enforce the Ordinances? There is currently a lawsuit ("Does This Suit You?" post) about enforcing the Ordinances, as you know.


Some other complaints discussed at other meetings but not even updated at this one are the model airplane noise complaint that should have been resolved by now (and maybe has been), an ongoing and repeated building setback issue that has been cited and was to have gone to court, a junk complaint (the one coming up on its third-year anniversary) which was supposed to have been cited. What is the status of these?
Now, I think that these complaints are of interest to others beyond those who filed them.  I believe that many in the community, I among them, would like to know how the Board handles complaints, follows up on them, and brings them to final resolution.  There's a word for you: "final."



STILL TO COME: JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE DAKOTA COUNTY SHERIFF, A FURTHER POINT ON ACCESSORY BUILDING SIZE, and BUILDING INSPECTOR CONTRACT.

HOW FAR CAN WE SEE?

When contemplating changes in our community, is it not wise for us to take the time to look at surrounding communities and examine their visions and the process that is utilized to guide their principles for future development? We might not be Wayzata, Stillwater or other towns, but we are a community that has the zoning responsibility and opportunity to demonstrate quality growth while still maintaining a high quality of life that will make Eureka exceptional. It would be wise and advantageous for Eureka to recognize other communities as possible role models rather than adversaries and perhaps build on their development strategies that have proved to be successful. After all, are we not all in some way large or small, in this together?


The Sunday, September 15, StarTribune dakotacounty, Section N, printed an article "Lakeville drafts vision for future". The article "Envision Lakeville" is worthy of Eureka's attention. It demonstrates the necessity of engaging a task force and bringing citizens together to share opinions and ideas regarding how they view their community. Community surveys are utilized; town hall forums are included as well as focus group meetings. Data is gathered and analyzed; the task force then uses the community input with the facilitation of a professional consultant and knowledgeable speakers to propose a unified community vision. Sounds reasonable, right?   

 

As this community engages in the study and feasibility of Agri-tourism, I recommend the Eureka Town Board members and Planning Commission members review the summary of the process utilized by Lakeville to develop their vision. I feel quite confident in stating that this is a process familiar TO and adopted by most communities who are cognizant of the most logical and long-term uses as established in their comprehensive plans. The guiding principles will address the need to
protect the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience and general welfare of its citizens; while promoting well-managed and staged development of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas. Specific to Eureka, our guiding principles are to protect and preserve lands for agricultural use, conserve and manage the natural resources, and provide for the compatibility and most appropriate use of the land throughout the Township.

I would like to believe our Town Board and Planning Commission members will take great pride in knowing that they utilized the most applicable guiding principles in a timely manner to develop and envision each and every challenge that can be managed by present and all future Boards..
Can we see that FAR as we envision agri-tourism and other uses?  


 The summary of the Lakeville process can be found at www.lakeville.mn.us and click on "Envision Lakeville." The full draft is at http://tinyurl.com/oxws7dg.

DOES THIS SUIT YOU?

One very interesting development to come up (barely) at the Board meeting last Monday was that a lawsuit has been filed against the Board/Township.  I may not get everything exactly right since the information was so sketchy, but here goes:

At the agenda approval time, Supervisor Budenski asked if the lawsuit that had been served to the Board were going to be on the agenda as it hadn't been placed there already. Chair Storlie quickly looked to the attorney, Mr. Lemmons, for help.  Chad advised that it could be mentioned, but not to go into any detail or discussion of it.  It was placed on the agenda.

When it came up later, it was never actually stated what the lawsuit was about. ( I guess the audience of taxpayers and constituents didn't need to know?)  At any rate, from the brief discussion that did occur, and which centered around exotic animals and a recent vote, it would seem that enforcement of the Ordinances might be the issue.  Supervisor Budenski was at great pains to make clear that it was "you three" (Storlie, Ceminsky and Madden) who had voted together on the matter, implying (at least I inferred) that he, Budenski, was not responsible for a lawsuit being served. The "matter" followed a citizen complaint that certain exotic animals were being harbored illegally in the Township in violation of the Exotic Animals Ordinance.  Ultimately, the Board had voted 3-2 that there was no problem with the animals in question because they were part of an agricultural operation. The discussion had been very involved, including DNR definitions of said animals, state statute definitions of said animals, the legal concept of estoppel, and more, such as local ordinances taking precedence over DNR licensing. (Apparently, it is clearly stated on the DNR license that was so belatedly finally submitted to the Township, that this license does not preclude or supersede local ordinances--or words to that effect.) Those in the majority vote had cited parts of Board minutes to support their stand.  Supervisor Miller had joined Budenski in dissent.

It is of interest, however, that when it had come up at an earlier Board meeting that the complainants'attorney had informed the Board that a lawsuit might follow an unsatisfactory addressing of the complaint, Supervisor Miller described that as "A SCARE TACTIC."  At that point, Mr. Lemmons, who as Township Attorney had received the letter from counsel, advised the Board to "take this very seriously."
The Board then decided, since a potential lawsuit was involved, that it would schedule a closed Special Meeting with the Attorney.  What followed at the next regular Board Meeting has been recounted in the "Can You Say Estoppel?" post.

It is also of note that the attorney for the complainants asked Chair Storlie to recuse himself from the decision on the complaint, due to his familial relationship to those connected to the property complained against.  He declined to do so and went on to what I would call "spearheading" the response to the complaint which resulted in the vote to allow the animals.  The audience left that meeting that night in what I would call a very disgruntled mood.

ENOUGH ABOUT THE HISTORY; IT'S HARD TO KEEP IT ALL STRAIGHT--AND I WAS THERE FOR THE ENTIRETY OF IT!
This action will surely result in still further Special Meetings of the Board with the Attorney to discuss this current lawsuit.  The Board has already engaged in multiple Special Meetings with the Attorney concerning its own (forgotten?) counterclaim lawsuit against Ms. Petter concerning her land use. All charges from the counterclaim by the Board and those meetings concerning it are paid for by Eureka taxpayers. (The initial suit from Ms. Petter was covered under insurance.)
Since the Board is now being sued again, the Township will again be represented in this latest suit by Minnesota Association of Townships counsel under its insurance with that group.  (I believe there is a deductible involved --perhaps $1,000 or more per occasion?)
FYI: Did you know that the community of Greenfield is no longer carried by its insurance provider due to the extremely high costs resulting from challenges to its officials' decisions?  Thankfully, Eureka isn't close to that yet...

BUT KEEP YOUR CALCULATORS HANDY, FOLKS...

"MIXED BAG" ON AGRITOURISM---PLUS and MINUS

The Board meeting on Monday, September 9, 2013, was fairly well-attended by more citizens than usual who wanted to see their public officials at work. Both a Sheriff's Deputy and the Township Attorney, Chad Lemmons, were in attendance along with the five Supervisors.   The discussion and decisions of the Board that night were a mixed bag.  This post will address the agritourism issue; more to come on the rest soon!

On the plus side, the Board finally seemed to listen to what many, including this blog, have been trying to tell them regarding the proposed agritourism ordinance. After much discussion, they decided at last to send out a call for citizens interested in being appointed to a committee which will examine this ordinance and make a recommendation to the Board. Hopefully, this recommendation will be just an initial task in the process, although that is far from certain at this juncture.

Negatively, however, it appears from what they said that Supervisors Storlie, Ceminsky, and Miller remain largely unconvinced that having a planner to advise us would be a desirable thing. It was stated once again that having a planner would "just slow things down."  I cannot understand why they are in such a rush on this!  Can you?
Further, indicating a planner is not needed, Supervisor Miller made comments that this is a "down home issue," and "this is Eureka, not Wayzata or Stillwater."  Really?  That escaped me!

What has apparently escaped Mr. Miller is a report this blogger made YEARS ago from a Government Training Services session on writing ordinances.  One of presenters, John Baker, an attorney well-respected on the state level, asserted that rural communities regulate the same types of things that urban ones do.  Just because the community is rural does not mean its ordinances should be less well considered or detailed, he stated.  Nuisance is nuisance, for example, wherever you find it. At that time, I had, following the presenters' invitation, presented language then being considered for the nuisance noise ordinance. What had been criticized here locally by Planning Commissioners such as Pete Storlie and others out of the limelight now as being "too detailed" and "over the top" was, Mr. Baker said, reasonable.

He went on to say that those ordinance challenge cases that get thrown out of court are largely those coming from rural communities because, he said, of the "amateurish" (his word) manner in which they approach writing ordinances. This is precisely why many who have been on the Planning Commission, the Board, and previous Task Forces have spoken passionately about having a planner and more opportunities for public input and information.  We want to do this right in a reasoned, thoughtful manner, not slapdash to just "get 'r done!"

The Board has also received the message from the Attorney, because he reiterated that evening what he had already recommended to the Planning Commission, that the "but not limited to..." language regarding prohibited uses that many at the hearing protested has to go.  Why?  Because it doesn't really limit the uses sufficiently.  The Attorney suggested  naming all prohibited uses would be a way to approach this.

To the negative, the Board did not even mention that the Attorney had also strongly recommended to the Commission that this land use be permitted under a Conditional Use Permit, which makes me wonder whether or not they had all carefully read the results of the public hearing.

What did the other Supervisors have to say on this topic that evening?  Supervisor Budenski was silent on the matter of the planner during the discussion.  However, he was very negative toward the ordinance itself, stating he did not see why it was even necessary.  He referred to statements made by then-Attorney Oliver that "that is what apple orchards do," implying it is a use by right.  One major problem he had as he expressed it was why, if Ms. Petter had withdrawn her application for the ordinance, was it still being sought?  Chair Storlie replied that it was so because of a 4-1 vote of the Board to pursue it.  Not surprisingly. Supervisor Budenski had been the dissenting vote on that one!

Supervisor Madden, who was characteristically quiet most of the night, and has been in favor of the ordinance pretty much in lockstep with Ceminsky and Storlie, did do us a favor by calling on Jeff Otto, former Board member, Comprehensive Plan Update Committee (CPUC) member, Citizens' Advisory Committee member, Commercial/Industrial Task Force (C/ITF)  member, and Transfer Task Force (TTF) Chair, (!!!) for comment.

Supervisor Ceminsky had already said something along the lines that the public was heard from at the hearings, rejecting the idea that open houses might still be held as has been done in the past for other ordinance matters.
Supervisor Miller had just stated that he felt that planners might have their own viewpoint and that what is needed is a variety of opinions, seemingly oblivious to the fact that the citizens on the Task Force represent the different opinions; the planner lends experience and expertise.  (In just this way, the Board represents differing opinions in its deliberations, while the attorney advises them based on his knowledge. Surely, Supervisor Miller would not say that the "attorney tells the Board what to do," would he?)  In my experience, having also been on the Commission, the Board, the CPUC, the C/ITF, and the TTF, the planner has never "told us what to do."  Instead she has always acted and advised at our request and direction.  ALWAYS.  I wanted to say this at the meeting, but Chair Storlie would not call on me on this issue. (In fairness, he did call on me otherwise.)
FYI, Supervisor Miller has been down this contentious road with the planner before, even back on the CPUC.  Others on that committee agreed with me that her role and that of her assistant was only ever to advise as requested.

Having thus been called on, Jeff Otto tried to explain to the Board that this ordinance matter will take substantially more time to resolve than the Board is suggesting. He said that the public hearings were opinions vs. citizen meetings being more data-oriented.  This data is then analyzed and processed.  He stated that planners do not try to steer communities in a particular direction, if for no other reason than it would affect their future business!  It was clear to me that Mr. Otto believes that the Board should address this ordinance matter in the same fashion that it has others, such as the Transfer of Housing Rights, which he chaired.  His, among others', is a voice of experience and fair-mindedness.  Hopefully, your Board will listen, as the committee's recommendation in part could be to move to a "full" Task Force status, including the services of a planner.

Time for a result!  The Board has stated various opinions on the size of this committee to be formed.  Ceminsky wanted 6; Storlie said the Ordinance calls for [at least] 5; Miller suggested the odd number of 7 for voting purposes.  They ended by saying that they could be flexible on the size if it is felt necessary to balance the make-up of the group: pro, con, neutral. What is important is that different viewpoints be represented.  Ceminsky stated that he felt it was important to have those currently engaging in some form of agritourism on the committee.  That seems reasonable.

This invitation to apply has gone out via the website, the email alert list, and, via this blogger's input, the official newspaper, to ensure that all have an opportunity.
Please consider whether or not you have something to offer, if only from a neutral position in this discussion.  What ultimately is decided will affect all of us in Eureka.

To indicate your interest, respond to this posting notice from the Clerk:

The Eureka Town Board is issuing a call for residents of Eureka Township to join a committee to consider and provide a recommendation of proposed changes to Eureka Township Ordinance concerning Agri-tourism.  

Please submit a paragraph with your qualifications and interest to the Clerk by October 5, 2013, at 2:00 pm. Applicants must be present and will be interviewed at the Tuesday, October 15, 2013, Town Board Meeting, starting at 8:00 pm. at the Eureka Town Hall , located at 25043 Cedar Ave. For more information contact the Township office 952-469-3736. Send letters of interest to: Eureka Township P.O. Box 576, Lakeville, MN 55044 or e-mail to: eurekatn@frontiernet.net

STAY TUNED FOR MORE FROM THE MEETING...

Eureka Town Board meeting

Town Board meeting tonight, September 10, 2013!  7:00

Business of interest:  Citizen complaints, Text Amendment - Agri-tourism, Accessory Building size, Road Maintenance Contract, Eureka Sand and Gravel, Building Inspector Contract and other items.
                                                      
                                          KEEP CURRENT ON TOWNSHIP ISSUES!                                   

EUREKA! THE NEWS

                 

            

EUREKA! THE NEWS is a quarterly publication which is mailed to all citizens in Eureka Township. I believe the intent of this publication is to keep the citizens informed and educated on the issues that affect the community. The editor, Jody Arman-Jones, is a long-time citizen of Eureka who has dedicated many hours to insure the accuracy and integrity of the news. 

 I attended the Public Hearing at the Townhall on September 3 on the issue of Agri-tourism. There were many citizens who spoke regarding the pros and cons of agri-tourism and the process in which the language has been developed.  I believe the BLOG has been vigilant in reporting on this issue.  I was very interested in a comment reported by a citizen when he was speaking to the Planning Commission.  The concerned citizen reminded the Planning Commissioners and audience of the obvious absence of and negligent reporting by the Town Board regarding the Agri-tourism issue asking the question WHY.

Ms. Petter applied for a text amendment to the zoning ordinance to include Agri-tourism in February of 2013.  A public hearing was held, the citizen responses and input were quite negative and Ms. Petter withdrew her application. A few members of the Town Board made the decision to pursue the possibility of allowing Agri-tourism in Eureka and Chair Pete Storlie
instructed the Planning Commission to develop language regarding an ordinance to allow agri-tourism. (To familiarize yourselves with the numerous meetings of the Town Board and Planning Commission members regarding this issue read the previous blogs.)  It is quite obvious to me that the Agri-tourism issue has been intentionally ignored in EUREKA! THE NEWS publications. In reviewing the past Newsletters, I can find nothing regarding lawsuits, Agri-tourism and issues related to Agri-tourism.  WHY? I can find various articles on ROAD ISSUES, CAP X2020, ACCESSORY BUILDING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, BUILDING RIGHT TRANSFER ORDINANCE AMENDMENT UPDATES, WEEDS and other current, useful, educational and timely information which the tax payers have a right to know.

IMPORTANT!  Our editor, Jody Arman-Jones, volunteers her time to make this publication possible.  She diligently attends meetings to keep current on issues that are relevant to the Township.  Jody does not decide what articles will be published and what will be ignored. As the editor, she requests in advance from the Town Board the articles and issues that the Board would like to include which would keep the citizens current and informed. Before publication, Jody submits the draft to the Board for approval and/or corrections, and to include anything that might have been omitted.  The Newsletter is edited if necessary according to Board input and then published. Jody takes direction from the Board.

Agri-tourism has been an on-going issue and concern for many months. What member/
members have made the decision to exclude this topic which affects the entire community in negative or positive ways. Is it possible that our editor was asked not to publish this important and controversial issue. If so, I MIGHT then conclude that the information we receive via this publication might be selectively reported for personal agendas. This leads me to believe that the BLOG will continue to be a very good resource for citizen information.  CHICAGO STYLE?  SOMETHING TO PONDER!

STAY TUNED!  KEEP CURRENT! READ THE BLOGS, QUESTION YOUR LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES AND ATTEND MEETINGS. YOUR CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENTS ON THE BLOG ARE WELCOME!

 

CLEAR AS A BELL, PLAIN AS THE NOSE...

At a well-attended public hearing on September 3rd, the Planning Commission heard loud and clear as a bell once again from the public regarding the proposed Ordinance language on agritourism.

The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of those tesitfying who had given the subject any critical thought, as evidenced by their comments, were against the Ordinance language as currently written.

Time and again, it was stated that the person was not against agritourism as a concept and that it could be a plus for the Township.  What was problematic for people was:
1. Overly broad language, "but not limited to..." leaves the Township wide open to many uses that may not be to our benefit and which could drastically change our way of life.
2. Minimal regulations included in a definition.. Highly irregular; if you're serious about it, do it right!
3. Agritourism to be allowed as a "straight permitted use," which allows little recourse for the public when problems arise.
    a.As it is, alleged lack of Sheriff enforcement of loose dog ordinance has been a problem for some!
    b.Board has had complaints on the agenda for years at a time and has appeared to some unwilling to move forward in a reasonable time frame. Many in Eureka feel there is a big problem with ordinance enforcement already; why add to it when we don't have the staff for it?
    c. In the ensuing discussion by the Commission, Township Attorney, Chad Lemmons, advised them that, under a straight permitted use, any enforcement falls under whatever ordinances are in place for noise, nuisance, etc., generally. He further stated that this scenario of enforcement can lead to further legal bills for the Township
4. Allow only under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).  This follows a public hearing and the placement of reasonable, related conditions tailored to each specific use for the protection of all, including the permit holder.  (We have a CUP for cemeteries, folks.  When was the last time you heard about a problem with a cemetery?  Shouldn't we have a CUP for this complex land use?)
Again, Chad Lemmons later advised the Commission that a CUP would allow conditions that would streamline enforcement.  A permit holder must abide by the conditions attached.
5.. Board refused multiple requests from a majority of the Planning Commission for more in-depth study, a task force as been used for other Ordinance changes,  planning assistance (we have an escrow with money in it just for that), legal advice.  Why didn't they listen to the Planning Commission that they, themselves, appointed and grant this repeated request ?
6. Little opportunity for public comment and discussion outside of a "it's a done deal" public hearing.
7. No mention of this topic in the newsletter to alert citizens.  It's not that ordinance matters haven't been addressed there before.  Is the Board selective in what it directs the editor to include for the public?  Why not be as sure as you can that people know what's going on ? That was the rationale used before for putting ordinance issues in the newsletter.  Makes sense to me!

  Not to sound like Tom Cruise, but 
       

        ARE WE CRYSTAL YET ?
         



It is true that a number of what the Commission Chair Barfknecht called "blanket statements" were submitted by one individual to the Commission, gathered by her and signed by residents in support.  First, some signatures were illegible, which may be problematic.  But much more importantly, there were no additional comments made that would necessarily assure anyone that signatories understood the ordinance and what they were signing.  Indeed, the statement read "I support agriTOURS."

Agri-TOURS is not agriTOURISM, and, no, I am not making a mountain out of a molehill.  Agri-TOURS is pretty much one-dimensional; agriTOURISM is highly complex and varied.  Google it and you'll see what I mean.

What is really important about what people say when they testify at a public hearing goes beyond "I am in favor" or "I am against."
What should really matter are THE REASONS that they give for their opinions.  Do they understand the matter thoroughly?  Have they thought it through and are able to offer fact-specific suggestions or comments?  Are they knowledgeable about such matters? (Note that at both public hearings on this topic, former Planning Commissioners and former Board Supervisors, representing years of experience, weighed in on the side of "do this right, have a task force, STUDY this in more depth." Their comments would seem to have been ignored by the Board in its push to get this done.)
Are those testifying against it just because they are against change, even positive change?  A number of longtime residents said they could endorse the change if it were done correctly with adequate limitations and public input.  That's a long way from "If you don't like it, move back to Edina!" as one citizen stated. That comment sure doesn't rank there for me as a thoughtful response.  What about those longtime residents mentioned above?  They are not people who moved here and now don't want change and don't want "those who were here first" to have any opportunity, are they!?  They simply want a responsive Planning Commission and Board who understand their concerns and who have the political will to do this properly.

The Planning Commission, by a 3-1-1 vote to not recommend the current language and to have at least recommended to the Board that this be done under a CUP.  Commissioners Barfknecht, Jennings, and Frana voted in favor of not going with the proposed language, but instead having a CUP; Commissioner Novacek against the motion, thus in favor of the proposed language; while Commissioner Hansen abstained.  The dissenting Commissioner, Novacek, said that adding regulations was taking people's rights away.  Do the people living next to one of these uses have any rights, I wonder?  This is the same Commissioner who rejected the draft agritourism language submitted by two other Commissioners and their ad hoc committee of concerned residents as "too complex."  It had regulations.



THE BOARD CONSIDERS THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION AT THEIR MEETING THIS COMING MONDAY NIGHT, SEPTEMBER 9TH.

IT WILL BE AS PLAIN AS THE NOSE ON YOUR FACE IF THEY ARE FINALLY LISTENING AND WHETHER THEY HAVE THE INTERESTS OF ALL OF US AT HEART...

STAY TUNED...