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.
.gif)
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...
A big Thank You to all of the Upstanders who attended the Public Hearing, researched the issue and intellectually put forth their findings.
ReplyDeleteAlso, thank you to the bystanders who took the time to attend the meeting. This is very important also. I hope the evening was an "Eye Opener" and an educational insight related to a very complex issue. I expect more of my Town Board.