NEVER LET IT BE SAID...

...that I don't try to give credit where credit is due.

AT THE LAST BOARD MEETING, I (also following the Citizen Input Policy as did Jeff Otto!) put myself on the agenda as "Ordinance Item."  Frankly, I was hesitant to put "Accessory Building Size Ordinance," which is what I wanted to talk about, for fear that someone might try to delete me from the agenda again because "We've already talked about that."  Boo.

At any rate, I first asked the Board what uses it envisioned in these buildings. "We" had the correct answer this time (Credit Alert #1): personal storage, that is all that is allowed under Ordinance.

Next, I addressed the Non-ag properties that are greater than 11 acres.  You may recall that I had seen and brought this omission of regulation of accessory buildings on such properties to the Board's attention. When they rewrote the Ordinance, they had failed to address this even though it had been addressed under the original Ordinance they wanted replaced. (I still hear officials saying that properties greater than 11 acres "are ag."  Wrong; it's the USE that makes it ag. By state statute one must have a minimum of 10 acres, or 11 with buildings, to qualify as ag. Then you have to "DO ag.") The Board had decided to address this acknowledged omission (Credit Alert #2!). They determined to do so by granting 10,000 square feet of accessory buildings to such properties as a given, with the option of having a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for those property owners desiring even more.  When they did not place any restriction on the CUP size other than meeting setbacks, I had stated that I felt that was certainly excessive.  The attorney had suggested the 25% limit, and the Board had concurred.


So, I asked at the last meeting, why not have a cap to the CUP other than 25%?  Under the 25% rule, a property of twenty acres could have five acres of accessory buildings, also as long as setbacks were met.  I again expressed the opinion that should, I thought, have seemed obvious: that's a LOT of accessory building space!  I suggested why not settle on a square footage limit, even under the CUP--say, 25,000 square feet?


Next, such a CUP would have to be added to the CUP list that is in the Ordinances.  Without that addition, such a CUP could not be granted!  Further, the matter of "opening up" the CUP list, I suggested, goes beyond what was presented at the public hearing on this topic.  I commented that I thought perhaps, because of that, an additional public hearing might be required.  They never got as far as soliciting an attorney opinion on this as, ultimately, (Credit Alert #3!) they decided not to have a CUP option at all and to limit the size to 10,000 square feet on those parcels, plain and simple.


Still not finished.  The original Ordinance had limited the size of NON-ag buildings, even on ag properties, to 200% of the primary structure, presumably a house.  (Ag buildings were never included in the total of accessory buildings.) After several reiterations, I finally got across my point that I was not talking about tractor storage, but personal storage-- yes, on an ag property.  To do so, I resorted to actually reading them the pertinent Ordinance portion. (Imagine that!)  It states: "Permitted Uses and Structures, B. 6: Accessory structures to single-family dwellings such as detached private garages, decks, swimming pools, non-illuminated signs, fences, tool sheds, and other such structures, for the storage of domestic supplies and equipment."  Even farmers might have out-of-season clothes, Christmas decorations, extra furniture, and similar items to store.  A personal storage building would be the place.


When it was argued by a Supervisor that the original Ordinance did not address ag properties, I then read the language the Board put forth as the change: "The maximum total area of all accessory buildings shall not total more than 5,000 square feet on 2 to 5.999 acres and not more than 10,000 square feet on 6 to 10.999 acres 200% of the primary structure total area. There shall be no maximum limitation to total area for agricultural buildings, and agricultural buildings shall not be considered in the total sum of accessory buildings on an individual parcel."  That's any parcel, even those greater than 10.999 acres, which is as far as the new language went.  You may have noticed that it was actually nonsensical to speak about agricultural buildings when addressing only those parcels 10.999 acres or smaller, as they could not have ag anyway by the Board's calculations!

I asked the Board had it been their intention to have no limit on personal storage buildings on agricultural properties? I did not receive an answer from any of them, even though I repeated the question.
Okay, if it is NOW your intention, I queried, what is your rationale for that? Again, no answer to my question.

   

 


 Hopefully, you do not have a headache by now, because I am still not finished..                                


.

Last point: The Board has been considering language to allow agritourism.  If this goes through, I stated, there could conceivably be buildings on ag properties which would be used for the agritourism part, allowing the public inside.  This would render such buildings NON-ag.  Hence, they would be accessory buildings to the ag use, but not ag themselves, and thus fall under this Ordinance, yes?  Had they given any thought to that, I asked?  Only one Supervisor was "brave" enough to answer, no, he hadn't (yet).

The Board did not have any real conversation with me on the points I raised. The item was coming up later on the agenda. I said, "Okay, so you'll have answers for me then.  Please keep in mind my questions regarding intent and rationale for the change."

When it did come up on the agenda, (Credit Alert #4), Supervisor Miller told me not to "fall off my chair," but he told the Board that I had made some good points.  (I just about did fall off my chair!)  As mentioned above, they decided to limit the total square footage of accessory buildings on all non-ag properties to the maximum of 10,000 square feet if over 6 acres, and further, to limit the accessory buildings on agricultural properties to the same amount.  Again, understand, farmer-followers of this blog, that does NOT apply to ANY ag buildings.

I thanked the Board for listening.  I do believe in giving credit where credit is due.

Freedom of Speech; Still Allowed In Eureka?

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: The right  to express one's thoughts and opinions without government restriction, as guaranteed by the First Amendment 

 (Black's Law Dictionary).

Mr. Otto attended the September Town Board meeting and submitted what he believes is the "proper procedure and process to study a subject of complexity to communicate issues and recommendations effectively to audiences large and small, and to manage legal and technical guidance for maximum benefit and value to the Township."

The appointment of a Task Force to study Agri-tourism was the issue addressed.(see Eureka Engages an Agri-tourism Task Force.) Task Force candidates were present in the audience.

 In my opinion Mr. Otto's presentation, based on his expertise and experience, was submitted with the best of intentions. It was certainly worthy of serious consideration by the Town Board members and the Task Force and was not intended to be a threat
.
On October 20 Supervisor Ceminsky sent a written statement to the Township Board and Task Force making the following statements.

"While I appreciate Jeff Otto's knowledge, I believe it is the Board of Supervisors who are directing
the committee on Agri-tourism.  I do not recall where the Board authorized Mr. Otto to be giving direction to the Agri-tourism committee. Second, why is this (Mr. Otto's written comments) being sent to the committee before it is reviewed by the Board of Supervisors? As at this point we have not authorized the use of a planner or the expenditure of any funds for this committee. If Mr. Otto is going to be directing the committee without the authorizatiuon of the Board of Supervisors, why did we setup a committee in the first place? It seems
Mr. Otto does not have confidence that the committee is going to see things his way. The committee was established to review the information that has been presented to the Township up to this point, and for them to come back with what they have for recommendations to the Board based off of what the committee has reviewed. As a Supervisor of Eureka township, I feel that the input from Mr. Otto is inappoppriate, as it was not directed by the Board of Supervisors and the Agri-tourism committee has not submitted any reports to the Board as of today. To continue, I feel we need to let the Agri-tourism committee move forward as I have confidence that they will do the job presented to them without outside influence." (emphasis is mine)

The Eureka Policy on Citizen Input and Conduct at Township Meetings states:
"Citizens are welcome and encouraged to attend any and all meetings of the Township Board of Supervisors. To allow Township citizens and members of the general public the opportunity to provide input and comments on Township related issues. Individuals or groups wishing to address the Township Board are encouraged to complete an Agenda Request Form and request that an item be put on the agenda for discussion at a regular Township Board Meeting."

The policy also requests that anyone bringing written materials to the meeting have seven copies available; five for the Board, one for the public and one for the official record.  Mr. Otto followed the proper procedure and requested the Township clerk to add his name to the agenda.

Is Supervisor Ceminsky suggesting that the information presented by Mr. Otto will be utilized by the Board and Task Force, but only if they agree with the content?
                                            
I believe freedom of speech means the freedom to communicate ideas without unwarranted government suppression and restriction and to protect the individual's ability to think and express one's thoughts; not to control. Does anyone find this applicable when referring to Supervisor Ceminsky's comments above?   Supervisor Ceminsky has taken the liberty to exercise freedom of speech; I believe he should respect every other citizen's right to do so as well. I also believe criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy are almost always permitted. What are your thoughts?                                                

    

AAAAHHH, AGRITOURISM!

What IS it, anyway?  

Well, one thing for sure is it can be much more than a pick-your-own pumpkin patch, a hayride, or a corn maze.  These are all uses that I doubt anyone would have any issue with.  Sounds like good, clean, family fun, right?  However, as has been presented in various forums so far, agritourism can entail a wide variety of fairly intensive applications, not all of which you, as a Eureka citizen, might be in favor of in our fair community.

The AGRITOURISM TASK FORCE had its first meeting this past Wednesday, October 23rd.  All six members appointed by the Board were in attendance. One member of the public was there: me.  :-)

Nancy Sauber

I had applied to be on the committee, but was the only person not associated with the ongoing lawsuit (there were three such applicants) not to be appointed by the Board.  Supervisor Budenski had suggested that the seven remaining applicants, once the three litigants were "set aside" at the Attorney's advice, be appointed; this was a good response to a call for a task force, a positive thing, he thought.  However, the Board in its wisdom saw fit to stick with the even-numbered committee (See October 22nd post, "Eureka Engages An Agritourism Task Force," for this discussion) and saw fit to appoint the others. So be it; it is a good group for the discussion.  And your faithful reporter will be in attendance as I have been in the past.

A great amount of meeting time was spent discussing the definition of agritourism. The group had at its disposal several definitions from various other venues: states and also neighboring counties.  It discussed whether it should list things to be NOT included (rodeos, concerts, amusement parks?) or whether it should list things TO BE included (apple sales, tours, meat processing facilities, amusement park rides on a limited time basis?). Or should it NOT LIST at all? How does the Township limit the use? Various participants gave their own views on what should or should not be allowed. The definitions looked at included the concept that agritourism is to be an accessory use to an already-existing agricultural operation. 

Barn concert, Rice County

The definitions included the ideas of such uses providing entertainment, recreation, and education and being involved with the ag operation itself. The discussion of retail sales, importing items from outside sources for sale within Eureka, and whether we even allow retail sales in Eureka cycled around repeatedly. Whether the agricultural operation or the agritourism operation had to be primary in Eureka was returned to a number of times.
It was argued how that exists already in the Township. Where is the line between agritourism and simply a commercial enterprise (remember, Eureka is zoned ag), the group queried?  Can we do something other than the state definition of ag; probably not, the group concurred. What is the difference between "entertainment" and "recreation?" And so on.

As an outside observer, I was unclear as to why the group apparently felt it perhaps needed to come up with a different definition for agritourism than what is already out there.  Since the other definitions were so similar to each other, would it not make sense to simply recommend the adoption of one of them? Then discuss what that might mean in practical terms.

Again and again, I was struck by the fact that here we have SIX people, as well-intentioned as they might be, who are discussing what Eureka wants or does not want; should allow or should not allow, without benefit of open houses and surveys from the public stating what THE PUBLIC wants. The idea of having such open houses and questionnaires was briefly discussed towards the end of the meeting. One member thought it was "not necessary." Others seemed to think it was definitely needed, while still others were okay with it, at least to some extent, although not advocating for it. Frankly, I cannot see a way to do this appropriately UNLESS we have greater community involvement. It feels to me that we are coming at this backwards. WHAT DO YOU THINK?

The group has tentatively planned their next meetings:

Wednesday, October 30th, 7:00 p.m., Town Hall

Wednesday, November 6th, 7:00 p.m., Town Hall

Wednesday, November 13th, 7:00 p.m., Town Hall

Wednesday, November 20th, 7:00 p.m., Town Hall

Tuesday, November 26th, 7:00 p.m., Town Hall

On the agenda for the next meeting is the definition and what the "steps to implementation" should involve.  The latter is where the public input would come in, if it is going to. The group could recommend to the Board that open houses, surveys, Planner assistance and Attorney input be sought, and earlier rather than later. (Again, see "Eureka Engages An Agritourism Task Force" for thoughts on the appropriate process.)

HOW CAN YOU HAVE YOUR THOUGHTS HEARD?

There are several ways:

1) Call the Task Force Members and discuss with them.

2) Send an email to the Town Clerk to be dispersed to a) the Task Force, b) the Town Board, c) the Planning Commission, d) all of the above.

3) Come to a meeting or two.  You have a right to observe, not to comment, but the committee can decide whether to take public input or not.  Other Task Forces have done so during their meetings--at least at a "break time" just for that. At the very least, you can be better informed for your next phone call(s)/email(s).

4) Send someone from your neighborhood to attend and report back.  You can take turns doing this so as to not be overly burdensome for any one person.

5) Come to the Board meeting to speak during the "Public Comment" period. (Limited time-3 minutes or so)
6) Any combination of the above!

EUREKA ENGAGES AN AGRI-TOURISM TASK FORCE

    

After "kicking the can down the road" for several months, the Eureka Town Board appointed a Task Force at the October 15th Town Board meeting to address the possibility of developing ordinance language which would allow agri-tourism in Eureka Township.
     At the September Town Board meeting, the Board had discussed the number of applicants that would be accepted as Task Force members. The Board also requested the Task Force report to the Board monthly regarding progress. The ordinance states there must be a minimum of 5 members, an uneven number, allowing a Task Force to have a majority vote. I believe there was logical thinking applied as it is most feasible to have an odd number and minimum of 5 when this was implemented in Ordinance 2, Chapter 4. The majority of the Board members voted to have 6 members.

     During the discussion at their October meeting, Supervisor Budenski re-visited the issue and asked the Township attorney for his comment on what the appropriate number of members should be.  The attorney's response stated "the ordinance requires only a minimum of 5, but I would recommend the Board to select an odd number; with an even number, the Task Force members could deadlock. If there is a chance of a deadlock, the report then would not serve much of a purpose and would not be practical." Supervisor Storlie stated "With all due respect, I feel having 6 members forces them to come to a solution." The attorney's advice was ignored and 6 members were selected.

Butch Hansen

Appointed to the Task Force are Fritz Frana (photo not available) and Charles "Butch" Hansen, current Planning Commission members;










Phil Cleminson,a partner in a consulting firm and a member of the Transfer of Building Rights Task Force; Mark Parranto, owner of the Applewood Apple Orchard;

Phil Cleminson

Mark Parranto

Atina Diffley

Cory Behrendt

 Cory Behrendt, past Chair of the Eureka Town Board, past Planning Commission member and a computer engineer in technical services with the Minneapolis firm, Clifton, Larson and Allen. He has twice served Highview Lutheran Church in a leadership role on call committees, established the church data base and maintains it. Cory stated he is open-minded, fair and sees things from all sides; and Atina Diffley, an organic vegetable farmer who educates consumers, farmers, and policymakers about organic farming through the consulting business Organic Farming Works which she owns with her husband. Atina and her husband owned and operated Gardens of Eagan.

     Embracing the concept of agri-tourism and developing ordinance language is a very complex and strategic planning process. The stated purpose of the zoning ordinance is to protect the public health,
safety, morals, comfort, convenience and general welfare; to protect and preserve lands identified for long-term agricultural use; promote well-managed and staged development of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas; conserve and manage the use of natural resources; and provide for the compatibility of different land uses and the most appropriate use of land throughout the Township. Addressing these issues should be a very good starting point.
     The Board and Task Force applicants heard a statement from Jeff Otto, a Eureka citizen who served as Board Chair and legal liaison; as well as a task force chair and legal liaison. He also participated in several other committee and ordinance revision efforts for the Township. Mr. Otto submitted what he believes is the "proper procedure and process to study a subject of complexity, to communicate issues and recommendations effectively to audiences large and small, and to manage legal and technical guidance for maximum benefit and value to the Township."

Jeff Otto

      Mr. Otto stated that he appreciates the time and effort serving on the Board and Planning Commission can entail. He stated that each of the Board members has taken on particular subjects involving extra commitment to do well that has benefited the Township; however, he felt that as a Board, their management of the agri-tourism issue has not yet been one of their better efforts and felt it is not too late for course correction. I believe Mr. Otto presented a very valid argument for a proper process to evaluate the feasibility of agri-tourism in Eureka in his presentation to the Board members and Task Force applicants.

THE FOLLOWING ARE COMMENTS BY JEFF OTTO ON THE TASK FORCE PROCESS:
TIMING: First of all, what is the rush? The Board has been involved in this subject for nearly a year, directed the Planning Commission to conduct two hearings, and ignored thoughtful early research and draft input on the subject from the Commission.  The sum total of the Board's consideration and vision on the subject after all these months was one paragraph that was open-ended and unenforceable except for hours of operation; and those hours provided no consideration for the nature of an operation, seasonal variation in daylight hours, or possible safety, noise, and light pollution issues for night activity.
                                                                                                                
Now the Board is dumping this broad and diverse tourism subject into a hastily assembled committee, inadequately advertised to the entire Township, with the direction to make its recommendations in 60 days, taking it through Thanksgiving and nearly to Christmas Eve. The option is left open to possibly allow a thirty day extension so the committee can work through Christmas and New Year's to provide recommendations in early January. 
The Board is expecting a lot for that which they couldn't produce in over 9 months. The sham of boxing the Task Force into such an unrealistic time frame is unfair to the volunteers, as well as doing superficial disservice to the complexity of the subject. If the result is to put more time into the effort, the original volunteers are best positioned to advance the subject. If the decision is to produce draft ordinance language working with the Town Attorney, again, the original volunteers are best informed to advance the subject. When, not if, ordinance language on this subject goes to the Met Council for review with answers to traffic, road and sanitary impacts, the original volunteers are best informed to advance the subject. All volunteers need to be informed up front of that possible time frame. Too much loss of continuity in the Task Force will delay overall progress and risk seriously undermining key issues carefully resolved but later re-visited by new members not having the benefit of the earlier discussions.
A point was made by a Board member that this Task Force should need less time because of all the "data" already collected in the two hearings.  A structured public hearing is not an adequate substitute for the open exchange and dialog that a public open house provides. Much of the hearing "data" is little more than opinions raising issues and concerns, not dialog to resolve those issues or detail reasonable regulation.

SCOPE: The scope of the Task Force must be clearly focused on public agri-tourism Township wide. It must not be allowed to digress into another venue for debating what is included and not included in private and commercial agricultural. That is a separate issue being handled in other appropriate venues, including the ongoing legal proceeding. A prerequisite for agri-tourism is being comercial ag, whatever that includes and is resolved outside the Agri-tourism Task Force. The Board continues to suggest that a task force doesn't need to develop explicit language but only provide "recommendations." The implication is that broad recommendations can be done more quickly and then refined into more specific language by others later. This is a completely false economy of effort and time by both the volunteers and Town legal counsel. Who better to provide carefully worded language than the group that has studied and discussed the issues in detail, and done so in concert with the Town attorney so that the concepts are sound and legally supported? This would still recognize that final legal language adjustments may be needed, but the confidence level that the final proposals are workable and proper will be much higher than vague language hastily drafted to meet an artificial deadline. Being able to answer questions specifically and thoughtfully at public meetings is a major factor in elevating the confidence of the public that the study has been
performed diligently.
   
TOWN BOARD SUPPORT: The Board should demonstrate its serious regard for this initiative in the following three ways:
1. The time frame needs to be made longer and can be tied to clear milestone decision points. The Commercial/Industrial Task Force reached an intermediate decision point and recommended no further pursuit. The Transfer Task Force completed its initial charge, but only then was asked to continue on to the final tasks. Of course, it is reasonable and proper for any task force or committee to provide monthly status reports to the commissioning body. This Board has seen that this has been done consistently, speaking of the seven years I have been active in the Township.

2. A Professional Planner needs to be engaged up front to work with the Task Force due to the nature and breadth of the subject. This is not only to provide technical support and experienced input on the subject to the Task Force or ask questions, but importantly to provide knowledgeable external perspective and validation of diligence for the 1100 owners of Eureka Township for whom the Board works. Government transparency and constructive dialog depend on public gatherings and outside objectivity. Only then will public confidence in the process and support for an initiative grow. Concerns about the value of professional consulting are often traced to misunderstanding and mis-management of the consulting service. A common mistake is to try to save money by asking very narrow questions. This limits the opportunity for a consultant to understand the goal and use their experience to identify alternatives and trade-offs. Adding a planning consultant later in the process rather than from the beginning will delay progress while the consultant is brought current with what has already transpired. As with legal guidance, bringing such knowledge and experience into the process at a later stage can result in important insight that will motivate the Task Force to reconsider
and possibly re-work portions they thought were complete, causing delay. 

3. An Aggressive Schedule requires direct access to legal counsel via the Task Force Chair or a designated legal liaison with the Task Force. Not all questions can be efficiently handled in writing alone. There may need to be dialog to clarify the question or the answer, as well as follow up questions based on the initial response. This was true in more than one instance with the Transfer Task Force to avoid spending time on a path outside the authority of a township, not being aware of the risks for a course being considered, or swinging effort to a better alternative suggested to the Task Force. A 60 or 90 day time box certainly allows no room for external delays impacting the progress of the Task Force.

A copy of the entire content of the presentation by Jeff Otto can be obtained from the Township Clerk in written form or on a CD of the Town Board meeting. Eventually, the written presentation should be posted on the Township web site as an attachment.

ALICE (AL is?) DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE?

     Another "transparent" moment or perhaps "imaginative twist" unfolding
at Eureka's August 12, 2013 Town Board meeting. 



"Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?"  "That depends a great deal on where you want to get to." "I don't think...." then you shouldn't talk." Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland                        

                                                                                     

      Public comment from two Planning Commissioners addressed to the Town Board on August 12, 2013. (Refer to the Township CD of the 

Al Novacek

8-12-2013, Town Board Meeting for the entire discussion of the issue.)     Listen to Commissioner Al Novacek's seemingly "transparent" moment; 
and Commissioner Barfknecht's well-prepared recollection and response.                          

            

                     Click below to view Clip

                                                                 Board Meeting Clip

YOUR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AT "WORK!"

The link below will take you to a recording of a short part of the June 11, 2012, Town Board meeting.  In it, Supervisor Pete Storlie and then newly-appointed Planning Commissioner Butch Hansen have what yours truly will describe in my "down-home, folksy" manner (smile) as a "set to."

LET ME SET IT UP FOR YOU:
The Board has been discussing various matters with Building Official, Scott Qualle.  They have just been on the topic of a property that has three "ag" buildings that are, admittedly, according to Mr. Qualle, being used for purposes other than ag. (He has had a conversation with the owner.) There has also been un-permitted construction that has taken place on the middle building of the three.  Inspector Qualle had sent a letter to the property-owner concerning all this, asking for a reply by May 23, 2012.  Mr. Qualle tells the Board that no reply has been received. It is now June.



On the recording one hears that the Board apparently wants to MOVE ON to septic issues without giving further direction to Mr. Qualle, but Scott brings them back to the issue, asking them what next?  What is next at this meeting is a truly "transparent" moment in government which we all hear so much about these days!!!


You will first hear Inspector Qualle asking for direction, and then Supervisor Storlie, Supervisor Miller, Supervisor Ceminsky, and Commissioner Hansen. (Mr. Hansen commented on the Board's discussion uninvited from the side table, which then-Chair Budenski later points out to him.). There is a part in which it is hard to make out the Clerk's comments, but she is saying there are no permitting sheets in the files; if you turn up the volume on her comments, you will be able to make out the latter part.  It goes on from there to Supervisor Miller, and then more Commissioner Hansen and then the heated exchange between Supervisor Storlie and Commissioner Hansen. You will want to wait for it.

This "main" exchange between Supervisor Storlie and Commissioner Hansen will certainly be eye-opening for some of you.  For others in our community, however, I am afraid it will be just a surprisingly public affirmation of what they might have suspected as possibly going on for some time outside of public scrutiny.

In either case, yours truly will say I expect much more from my public officials than THIS.

Then-Chair Brian Budenski attempts to mediate and gives background on how other complaints have been dealt with. Supervisor Madden asks a question about back-up.  Supervisor Miller backs up Mr. Qualle at the end, his words showing he understands Qualle's role, which Scott has explained to the Board..

Click on Board Meeting

It is now October, 2013, which, of course, you know.  That is one year and four months later and nothing has been done about this yet!  What are they waiting for?  Could it be for that "nasty contract" to expire? Just a question....................

EVER HAVE ONE OF THOSE DAYS WHEN YOU JUST CAN'T SEEM TO GET IT RIGHT?

Well, in my estimation, the Board just did at their last meeting when it comes to the "ever-popular" (read still-resurfacing) ordinance on accessory building size.

You are going to have to bear with me, please, as this gets a little complicated.

As you might recall, there was a public hearing a few months ago on what the Board was proposing then, since they evidently didn't think that 200% of the primary structure gave citizens enough room for their personal storage, which use is what is allowed under our Ordinance in such buildings.

Think about that for just a minute. Whatever size your house's footprint is, including your garage's if it is attached, you could have twice that size in storage building(s) for your out-of-season clothes, extra furniture, holiday decorations, etc. If you have even just the minimum-sized house currently required (960 sq. ft.), along with even just the minimum-sized garage currently required (484 sq. ft.), you could still have 2,888 sq. ft. in storage building(s), or the equivalent of 2.98 four-car garages. I think even for a pack rat like me, that would surely be a lot. 

One person mentioned to me that he knows someone in another township who has lots of collector cars.  That would be personal storage.

At one of the Board's meetings, one Board Supervisor mentioned he would like a building to store his boat.  That would be personal storage.






Okay, that's an issue, and probably people naturally would like the cheap way out and store them here rather than at facilities that are built for such items.  I get that, too.

However, it did not seem to enter the Supervisors' heads that PERHAPS the cleanest way to amend the Ordinance was to increase the percentage, leaving aside for the moment whether the definition of "accessory" is blown going beyond the 200%.  (By Ordinance definition, such an "accessory" structure is "subordinate to" and "does not change the character of" the principal use.)


Instead, they came up with language allowing up to 25% of a parcel, so not related to the primary structure square footage at all, even though "accessory" is related to "primary," could be covered with impervious surface, presumably one's house, garage, driveway and "accessory" buildings. (Be aware that under the former and the then-proposed language, agricultural buildings were always exempt, so that issue does not enter in.)

This proposal met with strong resistance and protest from various quarters, including former Planning Commissioners, former Board Supervisors, the VRWJPO, and "just 'plain' ol' citizens!" 

Do the math and you will figure out that it would mean that on a 10-acre parcel, not unusual in Eureka, 2.5 ACRES, or 108,900 sq. ft., could be covered, mostly by "accessory" buildings. Subtract for a house/garage and a 1,000-ft. driveway, and you still have enough left over for 109 four-car garages!

Even on a 2-acre parcel, the minimum currently required, that would still allow 0.5 acres or 21,780 sq. ft. to be covered, mainly in "accessory" buildings.  If one deleted the footprint of a house/garage and an additional 1,000 sq. ft. for a driveway, one would still be allowed roughly 20 four-car garages!  On 2 acres! Does any of this seem sensible to you?

Okay, all that is water under the bridge. (If it looks like I am having way too much fun with clip art, I probably am!)

Because of the reaction from the above-mentioned public hearing, the Board, outside of any further public hearing, then came up with AND ENACTED INTO LAW their "brainchild" that for acreages that were too small to qualify as ag under state statute, that is, 10.999 acres or less if a house is involved, they would allow 5,000 sq. ft.of "accessory" buildings on parcels 2-5.999 acres, and 10,000 sq. ft. of "accessory" buildings on those of 6-10.999 acres..  The principal use would in most instances be a single family dwelling. So 5,000 sq. ft. divided by 968 sq. ft. for a four-car garage would leave one with more than 5 such garages on even 2 acres, while 10,000 sq. ft. divided by 968 sq. ft for a four-car garage would leave one with the equivalent of more than 9 such garages on even 6 acres.  Ordinance  Better, (I certainly don't say good) but there is still a problem with what is now LAW, which I then pointed out to them!

WHAT is that?  Not all parcels over 10.999 acres are agriculturally used! (Note that their ordinance language still mentions the former language saying that agricultural buildings are not included in the sum of accessory buildings on a parcel. This is NONSENSE because a 10.999 parcel with a house cannot be ag in the first place.) I myself have a non-ag parcel equal to or greater than 11 acres which is 17 acres in size, of which I informed my elected officials.  It also has a grandfathered housing right.  I could build a modest home with a modest garage and still cover nearly the whole thing, just as long as I met the setbacks!  How can that be?  Well, there is no provision for such a parcel, so there is no limit for such a parcel.  All I have to do is to tell them that I am going to use it for personal storage: Trust me.






Supervisor Miller stated publicly that, yes, he guessed there is a problem.



I suggested that perhaps there needs to be a cap on such non-ag parcels of 11 acres or more.  That seemed to be thought a good idea, except when it eventually came back again at yet another meeting (the last meeting, and here we are getting to the "just can't get it right part" of my headline), it was then proposed that such a parcel would automatically get 10,000 sq ft of accessory buildings, but could receive even more, with a Conditional Use Permit or CUP.  Okay, a CUP is a good thought because it involves a public hearing, except that it was still left without a cap under those circumstances, which I protested.  We would be back to the "just meet the setbacks" situation. A Board could allow up to that "setback amount" if it desired. Or not.  Seems arbitrary to me, I said. Township Attorney, Chad Lemmons, then suggested to the Board that he could write it so that in no instance would there be more than 25% of the parcel used in this manner, with which the Board agreed..

Back where we started from, right?





Still wondering how someone can have that much personal storage?  I am. When pressed further on USE for larger-than-10,000 sq ft., Supervisor Miller mentioned a horse arena.  He said "someone" had spoken to him.  That "someone" was interested, he said, in purchasing a 28-acre parcel and wanted to put up "a horse arena," that would be large and, Miller said, horses are not ag so it wouldn't be exempt. Currently, we do not give CUPs for horse arenas. Look at the list of uses for which one can receive CUPs.  "Horse arena" is not on it. So what is the Board going to do about that?  What else might they do? Still no additional public hearing?  As a member of the public, do you feel informed by your Board of Supervisors?


AND YET, there is STILL ANOTHER PROBLEM that no one has seemed to have thought of yet.  That is, under the agritourism ordinance that has also been down a rocky path under this Board's watchful eye, but which seems likely to be enacted in some form, even large ag properties could have buildings that the public might tour.  If the public is admitted, then they are no longer ag buildings!  They would be accessory buildings, but they would have to be permitted for public use.  AND we HAVE NO LIMITS there, either, whether under this ordinance language for non-ag properties or under the "definition language" which the Board in its wisdom thought was adequate for the use of agritourism!


                                 HELP YOURSELF.

DOES THE MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE REALLY MATTER?

YES, OF COURSE, IT  DOES!   WHY?
Because it is designed to keep us all safe.  The authority for the Code comes from the good old "to protect the general health, safety and welfare" intent and purpose for such codes and for laws in general.
In its Ordinance, Eureka has adopted the Building Code and any updates to it, as well it should to protect its citizens.

As you know, the state legislature has given farmers "a break" by making agricultural buildings exempt from the Building Code. However, the public is still protected because an agricultural building may not have the public inside of it.  If it does, it is no longer an ag building.  As mentioned before, the state statute is very specific on this.  That is why the Township (credit going to a Planning Commission Chair from some time ago who recognized the need) requires anyone asking for an ag building to sign an ag exemption form which clearly lays out the statutory specifications for such a building to qualify.  This, along with a very nominal $25 application fee (no permit fees), is all that is necessary from the Building Code aspect.

It is also a fact that the Township receives some of its revenue from its share of any permit fees that are collected under the Code.  Because of the sluggish economy of the last few years, this revenue has dropped precipitately and, as a result, affects us all as taxpayers.  Whatever does not come in through permit fees has to be made up to meet the budgetary requirements for the Township.  And you know how that is done!

As discussed at the last Board meeting, the contract for the Township Building Inspector/Official expires at the end of this year.  As reported earlier, it appears from various actions and comments that there are members of the Board who may not have any interest in renewing Scott Qualle's contract.  The last contract to his firm, MNSPECT, was for three years.  Yours truly was on the Board at that time and was glad to give him a longer contract than for just one year as he had demonstrated good job performance.

Much earlier, as a Planning Commissioner, I was asked by Chair Mike Greco to go through the files of the Building Inspector contracted by the Township at that time.  This was in an effort to determine what permits were still open and which had been closed, very like what is done today by our current Planning Commission. Unfortunately, I had to report to the Commission and the Board that I found the files in what I could only describe as disarray.  There were forms that should have been there that were missing, things were certainly out of order, and it took me hours and hours to make sense of it.

Because of my efforts in that respect the Board at the time actually invited me to help them interview applicants for the position when they let the contract that was in effect expire.  Mr. Qualle was one of the applicants.  In my opinion, he was clearly head-and-shoulders above the other two applicants.  He was very professional in his demeanor and in the way which he described his job as he saw it.  I remember telling the Board that I thought he was "a breath of fresh air" for this position.  I meant that figuratively AND literally after having waded through the former Building Official's files that were heavily permeated by cigarette smoke!!! (My lungs still shudder at the memory.)

I then had, and still do have, a lot of confidence in Qualle's ability and willingness to do his job right.  (As a reminder, it is in the minutes and on the recording that I referred to in an earlier post regarding ag buildings that allegedly are not being used for ag, that he explains to the Board--not for the first time-- that he is bound by state statute and his license to do as he has done in performing his job.)

The current Board Chair, Pete Storlie, is, of course, quick and careful to say publicly that Scott can certainly apply for the position again if he so chooses; in my view, Pete would be crazy to say otherwise, especially given what I would call the "tiffs" he and Mark Ceminsky have gotten into with the Inspector on these matters.  I, for one, though, have little doubt that Mr. Qualle has the proverbial snowball's chance, unless he is the ONLY applicant or the others are so dismal that even Mssrs. Storlie and Ceminsky, along with their brother-in-arms (my opinion, folks, and it's still a free country), Steve Madden, have no choice but to give him the contract again.

It should be noted as background that back several months ago, the Board, at which Supervisor's (s') instigation I couldn't say exactly, not being the Attorney Liaison (although I don't see it as a stretch to guess who), spent money asking the Township Attorney if different "items" he/they had "come up with" would constitute cause under his contract for dismissing Mr. Qualle.  The answer, at how much Township expense I don't know, but we could find out, came back pretty much a definite "No" on each "count." The Board member(s) who instigated this apparently gave up his/their pursuit of this as no more such questions were put to the Attorney.  At a later time, "a" Supervisor (since I can't remember definitely which one of two it was, I won't say who) stated at the Board's public meeting that "it's too bad we have to continue with the current Building Inspector" (since we can't come up with legitimate cause for dismissal) or words close to that, parenthetical words being my interpretation.  It is also of note that in most local governments, elected officials strive to work closely with and have a good relationship with their building official who is, after all, only helping them conform to Code in their permits.  Some on this Board seem to have a markedly different approach to this.

For their part, Supervisor Budenski and Supervisor Miller have appeared generally more supportive of our Building Official.

We get the government we deserve, in my opinion.  As a fellow citizen, I ask you to keep your eye on this topic and watch what the Board does.  Offer your opinion to them, whether it agrees with mine or not. Show up, as they say. It is in all our best interests on a number of levels that Eureka have a competent, professional, and experienced Building Official.

"JUST THE FACTS, MA'AM!"

FIRST, a little background:
While yours truly was still on the Board, I reported to it that, at a County Commissioners meeting I had attended, the Assistant Dakota County Attorney had advised the Commissioners that the Sheriff's Department did not have the authority to enforce local ordinances without a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the County/Sheriff and the Local Governmental Unit-- that is, Eureka Township, or any other of our townships.  The Sheriff and his Deputies are empowered by the state to enforce state statutes, but they must be empowered by the County to do so for local township laws as townships do not have authority over the Sheriff's Department..Shortly after that meeting, then-Commissioner Joe Harris came to one of the Eureka Board meetings and officially informed us of that.  He was going to each of the townships in Dakota County to tell them the same thing. The Board then moved forward, with the assistance of the Township Attorney and the Clerk, to explore entering into a JPA with the Sheriff.  This entailed, among other things, sending the Sheriff all the local Ordinances that the Township wished them to enforce for us. They would then determine which of those they would agree to enforce.

During this time, when the updated nuisance/noise ordinance was adopted, I asked that the Sheriff attend one of our Board meetings to be sure it was clear what was wanted with that law and others under the JPA.  Part of this nuisance/noise ordinance provided for its enforcement in a more informal manner that was nonetheless based on Minnesota standards regarding noise. The idea had been to make it more practical to determine whether a violation was occurring in a given instance.  I wanted to be sure this process was understood well by the Sheriff so that ordinance that we had worked so hard on could be appropriately enforced.  The Sheriff did attend, along with, I believe, the Chief Deputy, or perhaps it was a sergeant.  I asked them directly if they had any questions about that ordinance or any of the others; they replied, no, they did not.  They accepted the expanded nuisance/noise ordinance as one that would fall under the JPA.  A JPA was entered into for the course of one year.

The JPA was renewed the following year for another year.  Recently, it has come up again for yet another renewal.  (The renewal requirement is from the County's end of things to allow them to easily make changes as they see necessary.)

Since that time, a number of things have happened:
1. The Township was billed in the thousands of dollars for following up with their investigation of a complaint that was filed.  The rate per hour was $65/hour, so that seemed a little high to those of us on the Board who expressed a comment.  At the advice of the Attorney, however, the bill incurred under the JPA was paid as remitted. Not complaining, just saying.

2. Following a model airplane noise complaint, there was a lengthy conversation at a Board meeting between the Supervisors, the Attorney, and the complainants about the nuisance/noise ordinance as it would apply to this circumstance.  It appeared to be very unclear to the Board, in my opinion, as to how that Ordinance they had passed could be enforced (again, as it was deliberately written and discussed) without having to bring in noise decibel readers..  As then an audience member, I tried again and again to clear this up from my perspective as a former Supervisor and as the Attorney Liaison at the time of the ordinance's passage.  I am still not sure I got anywhere in that effort, as following discussions have since showed me.

3. There have been a number of informal in-person citizen complaints to the Board regarding the Sheriff's Deputies, seemingly to the citizen, not doing much, if anything, to enforce the local laws when called upon to do so.  This citizen reported that he was told a number of times that perhaps he should "just move" if he does not "get along" with his neighbor.  Personally, if this is true, I find that somewhat shocking and certainly not what I would expect from my law enforcement body.

4. On the issue of enforcing the "No Trucks" sign on local Township roads, I spoke to the Sheriff's representative at a recent Board meeting, again as an audience member.  I said that, in the past, Deputies have informed attendees at Board meetings that they are about "education first," before actually issuing a citation for a violation.  Fine; not a problem, sounds reasonable.  However, I said, this sign in question, and others like it, have been posted, collectively, for years already.  Further, the Board has adopted a Resolution regarding the roads in question (enforceable just as an Ordinance is, according to the Township Attorney).  I stated that, if, for example, as I have many times observed, a gravel truck driver on such a posted road heads east empty, returns going west with a load, heads east empty, returns going west with a load, PERHAPS the "education" he needs is that his actions have consequences! The Sheriff's rep immediately agreed with me.

OKAY, SO WHAT'S THE ISSUE, you might ask?
Very simply it is this:

Throughout all this time, various Sheriff's representatives, whether deputies or what-have-you, have shown repeatedly in different venues that they apparently are not quite certain as to what they are being asked to do regarding our various local ordinances and their enforcement!  For example, they have repeatedly questioned (not just at the meeting mentioned above when at least that rep seemed to "get it") whether the "No Trucks" signs are even enforceable at all. This happened most recently at the last Board meeting.  At that time, the Deputy then representing the Sheriff said he was unclear and "confused" (his word) about the "no trucks" signage mentioned above and whether he could actually enforce it or not.  Roll out the "a-Resolution-is-as-good-as-an-Ordinance" explanation from the earlier meeting-again!  He had referred to different state statutes regarding the issue of trucks on roads, but that is not the point of the JPA; our local laws ARE..


Finally, when called upon in the audience by the Chair, I said I was confused myself. Why, after what must be three years' of JPAs, is the Sheriff still confused?  Dave Bellows attended our meeting as I had requested, the Ordinances were submitted to the Sheriff a long time ago, and yet the Deputy is referring to state statutes which they already enforce anyway, rather than our local ordinances.

Now, as I stated at the meeting, my nephew and godson is a lieutenant with the Rice County Sheriff, so I understand they do not have an easy job, and I am really not trying to "beat up on" the Sheriff and his Deputies, but, really, why are we still confused?

I would like the Board to take a more active role in this than they have instead of letting it drag on and on as it appears to me it has done and, at last report, continues to do.  Why not have Sheriff Bellows in again for a chat and clear this up once and for all?  (This regrettably reminds me of the unfortunate frustration I experienced in trying to get the aides in my mom's nursing home to actually do what the nurses in charge had agreed to regarding her care. It's the hands-on people that make the difference!)

I asked the Deputy and I ask the Board that this be resolved once and for all and moved along in as quick a fashion as possible.  In the meantime, the JPA is worth very little to me, my neighbors, and the rest of the citizens if the Sheriff's Department is not enforcing local laws as they are required to do under that agreement.

Respectfully,
MN 4th regiment descendant!