"MINORITY" REPORT(S), BUT NO TOM CRUISE!

Agritourism Task Force Chair Cory Behrendt reported to the Board at its June meeting on the Task Force's "end product," as far as it went.

The Task Force had had its final meeting and voted on their draft Ordinance language to submit to the Board, although it wasn't entirely agreed upon by any means.  There was a vote of 4 to 2, with noted exception by two members, Fritz Frana and Chair Behrendt.



The Ordinance provides for members of any Special Committee (or "Task Force") to submit a "minority report," which Yours Truly thinks would be the responsible way to take if one had serious reservations about where the majority of the group was headed.  Apparently Behrendt and Frana had strong reservations as they submitted such a report.  (This has happened before: with the Citizens Advisory Committee a few years ago, for example, two members submitted a minority report objecting to an action with which they disagreed that had taken place in their absence .)

Others on the Agritourism Task Force became aware of this minority report and, at the Board meeting, expressed a desire to submit their own reports, one five pages in length according to its author, Mark Parranto.  Atina Diffley stated that she would like to submit her own individual views to the Board as well, one being that perhaps the Board didn't want/need to have an Ordinance at all on this use. The Board then invited all Task Force members, including Butch Hansen and Phil Cleminson, to submit what they might wish the Board to consider.


In my opinion, this parting of the ways just shows what many have said all along-- that this topic is rather complex and that people approach it from very different viewpoints. There is no simple answer.

One item that concerned some was that the Ordinance language suggested relied heavily on a complaint being filed in order that an individual property owner operating at a certain level, but without a permit, be made compliant. This would be at a level of intensity and scope that, under the Performance Standards, would rise to needing an Interim Use Permit (IUP). Other Interim Use Permits and Conditional Use Permits are typically required at any level of those uses, e.g., churches. Since the committee, working from community feedback at the December Open House, was interested in allowing lower-intensity agritourism activity as a use by right, this begged the question of how does the Township get people beyond that level of use to come in and apply for the necessary IUP when the time is right?  Because of limited resources, the Township functions on complaint-based enforcement of its Ordinances. Some citizens would be diligent and apply for the necessary permit; others perhaps not. It is important to note that IUPs are a tool whereby the Township can impose reasonable and related conditions on a particular use in order to mitigate any negative impacts on surrounding properties.  This actually protects all involved, including the permit holder. (Some, however, have argued that requiring an IUP is "restrictive," rather than being "protective," an opinion I don't agree with.)

Many have expressed discontent with the complaint process and how it has been handled by certain Boards. Many have expressed concern about the Ordinance being applied evenly to all, not to just a few. To add another use when these concerns are seen as not being satisfactorily dealt with might be considered to be problematic.

POINTS TO PONDER:
1) There are still no Task Force meeting minutes or materials posted on the Township website for you to read.
2) This may not happen soon as the website is still being updated and there is again no Town Clerk. (The Board dismissed the recent hire, and Linda Wilson is about "out of here," having stayed around much longer than she planned.)
3) It would be beneficial for citizens to have another opportunity for receiving information and asking questions before a public hearing would be held. Another Open House could accomplish that. The Task Force members would be the likely people to conduct such a gathering, at least as far as their discussions have covered the topic. Citizens could weigh in on how the Task Force has addressed their concerns expressed at the first Open House. Ideally, a public hearing is not the time to be first finding out the details of a proposed law.

   

                                           STAY TUNED!