THE POSTMAN COMETH....

JOIN THE AGRITOURISM DISCUSSION TO BE HELD ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 12TH, 6:30-8:30 AT THE TOWN HALL. You will be receiving a postcard very soon inviting you to this event.  The Board granted the Agritourism Task Force's request to hold an open house and seek input from the public. That's you! 
Don't miss the opportunity to say your piece-- plus, negative, or neutral-- regarding this use to be started through Ordinance in Eureka.

The Task Force has been working on a definition, which they have broken down bullet point by bullet point for you to comment on.  A list of possible uses under the heading "Agritourism" was streamlined by the group by removing those items not related to agriculture. This list will be presented at the open house for your reactions. Some of the items that remain are farm dinners, fee hunting and fishing, bed and breakfast of five or fewer guest rooms, corn mazes and fright houses, and more.

It is important to note that, thus far, both public hearings on the formerly proposed texts, as well as the Task Force's current efforts, have all been coming from the standpoint that agritourism cannot exist here unless there is first the agricultural use to which it must be related.  This is a very important foundation.  Without it, agritourism uses could stand alone and could literally pop up anywhere in the Township.  Personally, I do not think that the Metropolitan Council would accept an Ordinance change that would allow what amounts to commercial enterprises dotted around Eureka.  I believe the Council would be more amenable to the idea that agritourism is secondary to the agriculture, as we are zoned ag.  (The Commercial/Industrial Task Force recommended not to advance that discussion at the time.  Thus we have no commercial zone.) But then, the Metropolitan Council has not yet even come up in the Task Force or Board discussions except for my submitting to the Board an email reply from the Council and Jeff Otto's mentioning the Council review in his public comments--- to which Supervisor Ceminsky objected so much.

The Task Force has been wrestling with how to state the relationship between agriculture and agritourism.  I lean toward simply using the already-defined definitions of "principal use" and "accessory use."

Principal Use: A principal use relates to the main purpose of the zoning district, exists independently of any other use of a property, and is allowed as a permitted, conditional, or interim use. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007, Ord. 2010-1, 6-15-2010) AND

Accessory Use: A use of a parcel that is subordinate to the Principal Use of the parcel, is located on the same parcel as the principal use, is customarily associated with and incidental to the principal use, and does not change the character of the principal use. There can be no accessory use on a parcel without a principal use. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007, Ord. 2010-1, 6-15-2010) 

That means there would have to be a principal use of commercial agricultural operations for an accessory use of agritourism to exist.  If/when the farm goes away, the agritourism goes away.
This is why I favor an Interim Use Permit (IUP) instead of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for agritourism at least of a certain level of intensity or greater.  Both require a public hearing and both can be tailored to the particular use being sought.  The difference is that a CUP "runs with the land" and does not go away unless conditions are violated and this is not rectified.  There is no time restriction on how long a CUP continues.

An IUP, on the other hand, also "runs with the land," but has a sunset date or event. Not being an attorney, I would like to hear what Chad Lemmons, Township Attorney, might have to say, but I think that to grant a CUP to agritourism, even though we mean to restrict it to being attendant to an agricultural use, would mean that the farm could cease to exist, but the agritourism use would still continue, basically as a strictly commercial use. From all discussions so far, I do not think that is the intent. The "event" for the agritourism IUP to terminate could be the end of the agricultural use.  That would still be controlled by the farmer.  If she wants to continue the agritourism, she continues the farm. If it is possible to make the termination of the farm the terminating event for the IUP, that would do away with the part of an IUP that businesses do not like compared to a CUP; namely, that it sunsets or ends.
.

These are some of the thoughts than run through my head as I continue to attend the Task Force meetings as a member of the public.  Since my last report, there were three members of the public and one supervisor in attendance at one meeting, three members of the public at another, and at the last meeting, back to just one member of the public, me, with two supervisors poking their heads in after their Special Meeting.

At the last meeting, I think the group gelled and moved forward, instead of going in a circular discussion as I felt it did during its first meetings.  There was more consensus of opinion on the committee than I would have suspected, and a consensus that I found myself in basic agreement with as well.  I hope this bodes well for theTownship.

However, it is not up to the Task Force to say what the public wants, which at least some on the committee have openly acknowledged.  It is up to the public.  That is why it is very important that the public come forward and give its reactions and comments to the Task Force.

This blog is "Engaging Eureka in Governance." That's what we are trying to accomplish.  By informing you of what is going on in our community even if you can't make the regular meetings, we hope that you will make the effort to take part in what happens here.  If you don't, rest assured someone else will! Make a difference.