IT WAS A DARK AND LONELY NIGHT...

...and the wind was HOWLING across the Town Hall parking lot, but at least this time the only agritourism task force member with a key who was in town showed up so we were able to have the meeting! (I will give credit for some shoveling of snow by the door.)




The faithful Three Musketeers of the public were in attendance, and Commissioner Fritz Frana took part long distance.  Thus, all members took part in the meeting.  Most of the evening was taken up with discussion of the four definitions submitted by Sherri Buss of TKDA.  It seems to have been the consensus that they could be condensed into two.

The "ever-popular" roadside stand for farm produce sales was again cited. It is agreed among the Musketeers that we do not have to revisit that at every meeting, yet it seems to occur!  It's already in the Ordinance, we all acknowledge that, let's get beyond that.




It seemed to me from his comments that Commissioner Hansen apparently does not understand the difference between complying with the Building Code and land use zoning.  Even though the task force's majority understands and believes, and the attorney recommends, that an IUP for agritourism use of a certain level is a good idea, providing the Township the ability to adjust conditions as problems might arise, Mr. Hansen kept pushing, in my opinion, for simply complying with the Building Code, no IUP necessary. He even made the statement that another member of the committee "just wants to regulate it."  Since an IUP is clearly beneficial to all at certain levels of impact, I was left wondering whether Hansen just "doesn't want to regulate it --at all."  He has, after all, several times  made the comment that this task force on which he sits isn't even necessary.


Refer to "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight?" post for a similar issue on the AgStar/Living Waters Church CUP application during which Hansen stated that the Township could just go ahead and issue the building permit for the church and take care of the CUP at a later date!  I objected to this incorrect thinking at the next Board meeting. The Board then asked Attorney Chad Lemmons for his advice. He stated that it is done as one; the CUP includes the building permit as well as any conditions the Board deems beneficial for the use.

So why isn't it yet crystal clear that complying with the Building Code is all well and good, but that doesn't mean that is all that is desirable?  For example, one might want to build a factory and could comply with the Code, but that land use is not allowed, even under a special permit.  The church example shows that, yes, the Code must be met for a public building, but our Ordinance also shows that there are procedures and conditions involved in granting the CUP for this allowed land use. One doesn't just build a building. Even simple residential buildings, which have to meet Code, also have to meet land use requirements such as setbacks and housing density. At least some on the committee clearly get that.


The next meeting is to be held on Tuesday, March 4, 7:00-9:00 p.m., at the Town Hall.  You are encouraged to attend.  I heard a rumor that Musketeers bars are going to be served...