"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...