This is a citizen blog. Visit http://eurekatownship-mn.us/ to sign up for the Township newsletter.

Saturday, November 29, 2014

IS EUREKA GOING TO POT?

MORE BITS AND PIECES FROM THE NOVEMBER 10, 2014, TOWN BOARD MEETING.

ORGANICA GARDENS:  
Mr. Frank, a representative from Organica Gardens, was present at the Town Board meeting. The Supervisors and attorney engaged in a conversation regarding the Right To Farm Act. Attorney Lemmons explained to the Board that the Right To Farm Act cannot be used to grow anything one wishes.  There is a specific statute and set of rules that govern how marijuana can be grown, where and under what conditions. The set of rules are outside of the Right To Farm Act.

Mr. Frank stated that their position is that a moratorium can not be placed on a compliant agricultural business which does not require a permit. He stated that they would be "processing and packaging". Chair Miller reminded Mr. Frank that the State's application states that applicants WILL BE manufacturing and processing. 

Supervisor Behrendt reminded the Board and Mr. Frank that our ordinance states the Town Board may require any farming operation to seek a conditional use permit to expand or intensify
said operation. Supervisor Behrendt suggested that if a moratorium is not established at this meeting and the State awards Mr. Frank the ability to engage in a marijuana operation, the Town Board should require a conditional use permit for Mr. Frank's operation. It was not agreed that a moratorium would be adopted as previously discussed with the Township attorney.

Chair Miller made a motion to inform Organica Gardens that if they are selected by the State as one of two permitted applicants, the Town Board will require a conditional use permit for the manufacturing and processing of marijuana.  Supervisors Miller, Budenski and Behrendt voted yes; Supervisors Ceminsky and Madden voted no. (Why would Supervisors Ceminsky and Madden not want conditions placed on a marijuana manufacturing and processing plant in Eureka when the ordinance allows the Township to do so? Some consideration should be given to citizens with neighboring properties, in my opinion.)

Mr. Frank stated that, if they are selected by the State to engage in the" growing
and processing of marijuana," (note: the application stated manufacturing and processing. I question why Mr. Frank is not acknowledging this.) his partners from Rhode Island will be on site for 2 1/2 years.

                                                             *******************
River Clip Art
VERMILLION RIVER WATERSHED JOINT POWERS ORGANIZATION: Once again the Town Board engaged in a discussion regarding the possibility of the Township taking the permitting process for the VRWJPO ordinance. Chair Miller stated that there have been several dilemmas in the last three or four months where the Town Board could have handled them more speedily in house. Supervisor Budenski asked if Eureka has the staff to do so? Chair Miller stated the Township would have to get the staff; possibly TKDA or" do something." There was a discussion regarding approval problems by the VRWJPO of applications in the recent past. Mr. Miller stated the citizens were not aware of the process and the County screwed up. [sic] Supervisor Miller later stated his statement might have been skewed.

Supervisor Behrendt stated the application process will be the same. Someone will come in for a building permit and there is something in the process that will indicate the permit will need a review. If the Township administers the permitting process, errors can still be made.

Supervisor Madden stated that he had obtained signatures from citizens living on the Vermillion River starting with Dodd and going East.  He commented that the petition stated the citizens  wanted the Township to take over the administration of the entire Watershed permitting process. Apparently most members of the Board were unaware of the petition and Supervisor Madden stated he gave it to Planning Commissioner Hansen. Supervisor Behrendt questioned Mr. Madden as to its validity and understanding of the content by citizens before signing. (No one on the Board other than Supervisor Madden indicated they were aware of the petition.)

 (Where is the petition?  Supervisor Madden claims he gave it to Planning Commission Chair Hansen. Why would he submit it to Chair Hansen rather than the Town Board. Supervisor Madden and Chair Hansen are both aware that all information is to be submitted to the Clerk who will then distribute the document to the Supervisors and Planning Commissioners for review and preparation for a meeting.  Did the Board members agree on the content of the petition? Did the entire Board authorize Supervisor Madden to engage in obtaining a petition from citizens or is this just Supervisor Madden's "gig." I live on the Vermillion River as well as other neighbors.  I, as well as others, were not asked to sign a petition. Was the information biased and participants selective?  Why did Chair Hansen not give it to the Board if it was significant and approved? This is absurd! The entire Board makes decisions regarding issues; not just Supervisor Madden.) My opinion. 

Supervisor Ceminsky stated that the VRWJPO permitting process is making sure there is not soil runoff in the Vermillion Watershed. The Township would look for soil runoff and state that if the Board is to approve the citizen's plan, they would need to have a silt fence here and here and our inspector goes out and verifies that they are doing their water runoff plan. [sic]

 Commissioner Jennings indicated the statement Supervisor Ceminsky made regarding "the permitting process is just about soil runoff" is an over-simplification. There are five different areas that have to do with various levels of filtration; not just sediment. After comments from Commissioner Hansen, Chair Miller stated that they (VRWJPO) cannot all be smarter than us [sic] and the Board should be able to implement the ordinance. Chair Hansen stated that the County "is not handling the permitting on their end and the Township is not handling the permitting process on our end." (If the Township has not been able to handle our permitting process,
what makes Supervisors Ceminsky, Miller and Madden think they can take over the entire process?"
The Truth Is Between My And Your Stories Royalty Free Stock Photo - 17961035
Ceminsky stated that he has spent time with Brian Watson, District manager/ Wetland Specialist, Dakota County Soil and Water, and Travis Thiel, Water Specialist,  VRWJPO. He stated that Mr. Watson and Mr. Thiel told him they would just as soon see Eureka take over the permitting process because of the cost. Commissioner Jennings did not agree that this was their position. Supervisor Ceminsky stated he spoke with them personally and Brian Watson told him that if there are questions, grant funds are available through Soil and Water that the Townships can use to cover some costs. He stated he was speaking from firsthand conversations with Mr. Watson and Thiel.

(I emailed Mr. Thiel regarding an unrelated matter.  I also, stated that he has been quoted by Supervisor Ceminsky as an advocate of Eureka administering the VRWJPO ordinance permitting process.  The following is his return email response:  " I can say for sure, that no VRWJPO staff have stated we would or would not like Eureka to do so.  Commissioner Slavik said he was quoted as saying that, which he clarified to staff and other VRWJPO board members, was not true.  We’d consider it, but they have not put forth an effort to organize a process and ordinance to actually do so.  Even then, we’d be checking to ensure that Eureka Township, as we do with other communities, is doing an acceptable job at implementing that ordinance. ")

Travis                                                                                                                                                 
        

                                                                               **********************

There was further discussion and disagreements. Supevisor Ceminsky suggested Board members come to the December Town Board meeting prepared to make a decision.  The Clerk should be tasked to obtain fee schedules from surrounding Townships who administer the permitting process. The Building Official should be at the December meeting to address his responsibilities. Chair Miller requested a response from Soil and Water as to their willingness to assist the Board if needed. Supervisor Ceminsky will ask Mr. Watson of Dakota County Soil and Water to put the above in writing. Mr. Ceminsky's motion reflected the above.  The motion was seconded by Supervisor Madden. Supervisor Ceminsky, Madden and Chair Miller voted yes; Supervisors Behrendt and Budenski voted no.

 (Supervisors Ceminsky, Miller, Madden and Planning Commission Chair Hansen have been quite adamant that the Township administer the VRWJPO ordinance permitting process. Are they all trying to dance on the top of a pin? With the Township's constant changing of local officials, the lack of willingness of many to attend government training and their inexperience in implementing all the requirements of the permitting process; why would the citizens of this community want the Township to take on this responsibility. I suggest the Board invite Mr. Thiel and Mr. Watson to a Town Board meeting for an honest discussion, rather than accept all the stated verbiage from private/personal meetings that have not been directed by the entire Board.) My opinion.

Chair Miller requested a Text Amendment to Mining Ordinance 6. The amendment language would be amended as follows: 
A text amendment of Ordinance 6, Mining Ordinance to address only Level 3 Interim Mining Permits (new permits).
Ordinance 6, Chapter 3 Definitions, Principal Use
Second sentence, delete the words “or ready-mix concrete plant”

Ordinance 6, Chapter 7, Section 2. K, Accessory Uses
Third sentence, delete the words “or ready-mix concrete production plant”

A Public Hearing was held on Monday, November 24, by Chair Hansen and Commissioners, Jennings, Novacek and Cleminson.  The Township attorney was present.

Chair Miller made a recommendation that Chair Hansen receive a "bonus"for his work on the 
storage building which is now complete.  Supervisor Ceminsky asked Chair Hansen if the project came in under budget?  Chair Hansen stated all the invoices had been submitted. (Supervisor Ceminsky works with the budget; why would he not have this information before additional money is spent. Coming in under budget is not always a reason to spend more money.)

(Commissioner Hansen is listed as the General Contractor on the storage building permit application. Mr. Hansen offered to donate his time as General Contractor; Chair Storlie (previous Town Board Chair) and the Board agreed with this arrangement. The process was completed without competing bids.)

Mr. Miller stated that he had seen Chair Hansen physically working on the project and felt he should be compensated; at least for "out of pocket" money. Chair Miller asked Mr. Hansen to submit an invoice for the December meeting. (Compensating Mr. Hansen for his "out of pocket" expenses seems to be reasonable with a submitted invoice including documentation receipts.)
                                                       
                                                    **************************
The above information is gleaned from a video recording of the November Town Board meeting.
For more detailed information, request a CD copy from the Township Clerk.


Sunday, November 23, 2014

NOTICE! A PUBLIC HEARING ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2014

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: The Planning Commission of Eureka Township will hold a public hearing on Monday, November 24, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. in the Eureka Town Hall located at 25043 Cedar Avenue. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the following application:

A text amendment of Ordinance 6, Mining Ordinance to address only Level 3 Interim Mining Permits (new permits).
Ordinance 6, Chapter 3 Definitions, Principal Use
Second sentence, delete the words “or ready-mix concrete plant”

Ordinance 6, Chapter 7, Section 2. K, Accessory Uses
Third sentence, delete the words “or ready-mix concrete production plant”  

                                                        *******************
Ordinance 6, Sect. 3.C. Levels 3 Permit:

Level 3 Permit. This permit applies to operations that will exceed ten (10)
concrete mixer : Cement Mixer Truck Vinyl Readyacres of excavated area to a maximum depth to be determined by the  approved site plan, but not to exceed 1 foot above the water table unless
the end use is to be a lake or a wetland.
                       **************
For additional information on Mining as it pertains to Eureka, see Ordinance 6 of the Eureka Ordinances on the Eureka Township web site.



THIS PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW A READY-MIX CONCRETE PLANT AS THE PRINCIPLE USE. SHOULD THIS TYPE OF A COMMERCIAL USE BE ALLOWED IN AN AGRICULTURAL ZONE? HOW WOULD THIS OPERATION AFFECT ROADS ON HAUL ROUTES, "FLY ASH" THAT CAN CONTAIN MERCURY, LEAD, ARSENIC AND CADMIUM AS WELL AS OTHER POSSIBLE CONCERNS?

 PLEASE ATTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING TO WEIGH IN, EXPRESS YOUR OPINION OR JUST LISTEN TO THE PROS AND CONS WHICH WILL HELP DETERMINE THE OUTCOME OF THE TEXT AMENDMENT REQUESTED BY MR. KENNY MILLER.

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Incivility in Government

When healthy debate turns into disruptive disagreement, democracy slips away.

I attended a session  at the Minnesota Association of Townships annual meeting in Duluth in December that summarized the results of a task force report on incivility in local government.


The presentation was based on a report sponsored by the League of Minnesota Cities to address what appeared to be a trend in dysfunctional local government, brought to light by a situation in Maplewood.

The task force report could have been written for those of us in Eureka.

After I list the contributing factors to incivility that the task force identified and the costs of incivility, I will list possible solutions.  

See if any of these things ring true for you (and if you see a glimmer of hope).


What contributes to incivility? 
  • Lack of a shared vision for the future of the community
  • Financial crisis, whether real or perceived
  • Single issue politics or hidden agendas coupled with a lack of interest in a representative’s full responsibility
  • Role confusion and power conflicts between elected and appointed members and staff
  • Personal power seeking and self aggrandizement that may be accompanied by bullying tactics
  • Unethical or illegal behavior
  •  Ideological commitment and partisan politics
  • Lack of interpersonal skills including poor communication to rudeness
  • Lack of transparency and timely communication with citizens 

What are the costs of incivility?

  •  Inability of the local government to function efficiently
  • A spillover into the community itself, creating a toxic political environment that makes it even more difficult to find consensus on urgent priorities
  • Chilling effect on participation.  Good people don’t want to serve.  Who needs this?
  • Loss of talented staff
  • Young people not participating
  • Action to limit local government control for malfeasance (e.g. loss of zoning authority)
  •  Loss of private investment in an unstable or hostile community
  • Neglect of infrastructure investment
  • Inability to work with surrounding communities and authorities or bad reputation among them
  • Costly legal actions against the local government
  • Negative effect on the personal health and well being of the officials and staff including violent actions against them

As I listened to these lists of causes and costs of incivility, I thought that the speaker from the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) must have somehow eavesdropped on Eureka Township’s recent Board and Planning Commission meetings.


What can we do?
    •  Build a true Township team.  Understand and respect roles and procedure.  Require training
    • Set expectations of civility with rules and procedures for the officials and the public
    •  Consider adopting a code of ethics or statement of aspirational values. Example are available from the LMC
    • Work on citizen engagement and a broad base of support for community projects.  Make sure citizens understand the importance of their vote
    • Allow the public to be heard.  People who feel shut out may resort to disruptive behaviors
    • Promote the Township’s accomplishments.  Use newsletters to aggressively inform citizens about what is going on
    • Never assume that elected and appointed officials and staff understand their roles.  Take the time and money for training
    • Training is especially important for a presiding officer.  It is a requirement for a well run meeting and one in which they will not be undermined.  The presiding officer is responsible for maintaining civility in the meeting and should be versed in tactics to deal with incivility and bullying.




    League of Minnesota Cities, League of Minnesota Cities and Minnesota City/County Management Association Joint Task Force Report on Civility, ©2014

    Friday, November 21, 2014

    WATCH OUT FOR YOUR RIGHTS..DON'T LET THEM BECOME "WRONGS!"

      


    Here's an interesting glimpse into your Township officials...

    For the last couple of Board meetings an agenda item regarding "number of complaints" has been on the menu, so to speak.  The item had been tabled to another meeting at least once due to time constraints.

    At the last Board meeting, Supervisor Steve Madden acknowledged this as "his" item; he had requested that it be placed it on the agenda.  It turns out that the Supervisor who has publicly stated that Eureka public officials, both in general and even specifically, have violated the Constitution of the United States, no less, apparently thought it would be a "Good Idea" for the Township to limit the number of complaints that could be made by citizens.




    Irony of ironies!  Supervisor Cory Behrendt stepped up to state to Mr. Madden, "I don't think you can do that.  I believe that would be unconstitutional!"  Attorney Chad Lemmons hastened to clarify that the Township cannot do such a thing.  If the same complaint were submitted after its already having been dealt with, the Township could reply, he said, by stating that no further action would be taken.


    Of course, I would put forward that a perhaps similar but still different complaint on the same property (maybe different dates of additional alleged violations of the same type since the last complaint, for example) would necessitate the Board's looking into such a complaint as a "new" complaint. Otherwise, a hypothetical property owner could be given license, in my opinion, to continue to commit the same type of Ordinance violations!



    Thankfully, more informed heads quickly prevailed to ensure your rights to Free Speech, but it shows me at least that the electorate needs to be ever-vigilant lest such indefensible positions be taken.  What if there were a Board in place that agreed with Supervisor Madden and an attorney were not present to set things straight?  That may seem far-fetched to you, but I, for one, certainly would not have envisioned this occurrence that I and others witnessed on November 10th at our Town Hall!


    This again underlines for me the real need for public officials to attend training and information sessions.  And, perhaps, that it might be a good idea for citizens to attend a meeting now and again!



    Friday, November 14, 2014

    BITS AND PIECES...

    During a Town Board agenda item  requested by Yours Truly under the Citizen Input Policy, I once again asked that the minutes and other materials that the Agritourism Task Force was privy to be posted on the Township website.  I stated that citizens should at least have the opportunity to inform themselves fully on this topic before the public hearing that will be held.  I referenced the Transfer Task Force, chaired by Jeff Otto, of which I was part.  All those minutes were posted in a timely manner.  The same should be done with the Agritourism minutes.  Citizens could then follow the comments made by the invited guests to the meetings, as well as understand TKDA Senior Planner Sherri Buss' input at the three meetings she attended to assist the committee  The Board did not respond to me on this issue at the meeting. The Task Force had agreed with my requests at the time, but there were website issues, so perhaps it will be done by the IT Supervisor soon anyway.  Check under "Task Forces" or "Minutes" on the website.

    While we are on the subject of the agritourism public hearing, an informative word or two generally:



    Any change in land use is a change in zoning.







    Any change in zoning requires a public hearing.  This is why there will be a public hearing on agritourism before any Ordinance can be enacted.





    Public hearings must be published with ten days' notice in the Township's official newspaper.  This is different from a "posting," which need go only on the official posting place, in our case the bulletin board on the south wall of Town Hall. A Special Meeting of the Board requires a posting with 3 days' notice; it does not require publishing.



    The Planning Commission will be reviewing the comment cards from the Open House and any other comments submitted in time for their December 1st meeting.  Since the week before this meeting is Thanksgiving week, I would suggest that any comments you may wish to submit be in to the Clerk by that Tuesday.  Visit the website under "Task Forces" for the ordinance draft language and minority reports.





    A second item that was brought up under my "Communication Follow-through" agenda item was the Watershed Ordinance. You may recall that I had attempted to speak to the Board on this subject before but was cut off by the Board Chair.  This time I reminded him that there is no time limit for agenda items under the Policy and was able to complete my thought.  That thought being, "Where is the report that the Board requested of the Planning Commission on this subject?"  This request was made by Chair Miller at some length at the Roundtable meeting wayyyy back in June.  No report has been forthcoming.  Each Commissioner had been invited to submit pros and cons and to "educate" the Board on this matter.  This was said by Miller in response to a Commissioner's noting that she would just be outvoted.  The report was to give each member a chance to express his/her views. What happened?  Why, a Commission vote was taken!  3-2 in favor of recommending that the Board adopt the ordinance. Bare bones. That's it. No requested input submitted.

    The Board did not respond to me on this specific matter either and the Planning Commission was not further directed to submit the information requested. Instead, Supervisor Ceminsky was given the task of following up on the mechanics of enforcing the ordinance once adopted.

    Empty words? Window dressing?  Best interests of the community?  Why make the request if one isn't even going to expect it to be fulfilled?  Got me.





    A third item under "Communication Follow-through" was The Moratorium That Wasn't.  A small group of people, including one Eureka resident, has submitted an application to the state to be licensed to have a medical marijuana manufacturing facility in the Township. This was discussed at a regular Planning Commission meeting and there was even a Special Meeting of the Commission to further discuss it.  The Attorney had brought up the possibility of a moratorium on the use, which would allow the Township to study this before going down the road of having such a facility. Under a moratorium, no such facility could be built until the Township had explored all its options. The Township could take up to a year to conduct its study. The Attorney had recommended a moratorium and the Planning Commission had agreed as a body to recommend it as well.

    This is the very type of topic that moratoriums (a) are made for, I suggested to the Board.  However, I pointed out that during the ensuing Board meeting, the moratorium idea was brought up and discussed, but it was never made clear by the Commission liaison and Chair, Butch Hansen, that the Commission was making such a recommendation.  This recommendation was included in the Commission meeting summary prepared, I believe, by the Clerk, but no mention of it was made by the Board either.  The end result was a 3-2 decision (sounding familiar?), with only Supervisors Behrendt and Miller supporting the idea of a moratorium.

    ADDED NOTE:  The State accepted twelve such applications, along with a non-refundable $20,000 fee from each.  TWO sets of applicants will be licensed. Notice will be coming soon as to whom was selected.




    Last topic on my agenda item was the state statute that regulates "Notice of Meetings."  Under that statute anyone who wishes to be notified via email (or USPS) of any Special Meetings of the Board or Commission can so request.  The Township must provide this notification. The rationale behind this as I would understand it is that only the regular meeting calendar is set at the Reorganizational Meeting following an election. Special Meetings come up as the situation warrants it and require just the notice as mentioned above: easy to miss. SO, if you are a person who likes to stay abreast with what is going on in your community, contact Clerk Mira Broyles to be  placed on this notification list.  Even if you were on such a list before, you should re-request it as Chair Miller instructed the Clerk to build a new list,  The Township can request such renewals under this statute, given appropriate notice as stated therein.

    Like  the idea of bringing something to the Board's attention for discussion** outside of a three-minute limited Public Comment?  Check out the Citizen Input Policy.

    **I guess we are still working on this aspect!





    Friday, November 7, 2014

    MAKE HAY WHILE THE SUN SHINES...AND OTHER OPPORTUNITIES


    We're well past haying season, but you can still take advantage of some political "fair weather."  That is, you still have an opportunity to weigh in on the proposed agritourism ordinance language and even shape it before it goes the required publc hearing.


    Recently, a second open house on this subject was held. About 30-40 people attended, as also happened at the first open house held some months ago. That there even WAS a second open house was an accomplishment, in my opinion. Supervisor Cory Behrendt, Task Force member Fritz Frana, and Yours Truly spoke in support of having one. The thought was the Township (Task Force, Planning Commission, Town Board) needs to get back to the people to tell them how their input came into play in drawing up the currently proposed language.


    Not all were in favor of having such a public gathering.  Commission Chair Butch Hansen was not and opined that "we'll just be back at square one," and the Township should just move on to the public hearing. I was surprised that as a member of the Task Force he would apparently have so little faith in the language that they had labored over for months or that he felt that the public did not need to be heard from again outside of a hearing. The point of the first open house was to inform the public and also to gather its feedback on the topic.  If the public is worth hearing from in the first place (and indeed they are!), shouldn't they also find out how the Task Force chosen by the Town Board on their behalf worked with their feedback? Certainly, it is entirely possible (probable) that at least some "tweaks" might be needed!

    Indeed, at a Special Planning Commission meeting the night before the open house, Supervisor and Board Liaison for the Commission meeting, Kenny Miller, stated that he "thought the open house was to inform the public about the ordinance that we are going to enact."  To employ another rural saying, I think that is "putting the cart before the horse."  Mr. Miller is fond of saying how long it took to update the Mining Ordinance, one time stating it took "two years," so I
    wonder what's the rush with the Agritourism Ordinance?  Also, I think one should keep an open mind since there is still a public hearing to be held.

    Since the ordinance will affect all the public, I think the public should be involved in its formation, don't you?  Giving people the opportunity to weigh in on zoning laws that will affect them, even starting in the early stages and onward, should just be a matter of course in government, in my opinion. This need not be relegated to a onetime event such as a public hearing after the language might be argued to be already "half-set in cement" and some people might be non-receptive to changes, even good changes.


    You may remember that this agritourism ordinance all started with one individual applying for a Text Amendment, as individuals are welcome and able to do. The public hearing for this change in the zoning was published as is required by state statute.  However, when people showed up at that hearing and many spoke against the language and even the idea itself, the Board, under Chair Pete Storlie, decided that it would "take it on." In earlier posts, you were informed of his attempts at the language; not much of an improvement on the first submission in my and many others' opinions.



    Eventually, the current Board saw fit to appoint a Special Committee or Task Force as it can do under the Ordinance.  This group was made up of six individuals who, as it happened, in many instances did not agree with each other on facets of the proposed law.  All the more reason to hear again from the public at large.



    At the open house, a number of people offered input and all were invited to submit a comment card provided by the Planning Commission, who hosted the evening.  (According to Deputy Clerk Cheryl Murphy, about 35 of these latter were turned in.) Sherri Buss, Senior Planner at TKDA, who had worked with the Task Force, facilitated the meeting with a PowerPoint and information from other communities she has worked with and their experiences with this use.

    Just a few of the comments made that night were:

    ***The Township seems to have considerable trouble enforcing the Ordinances that we already have, so why add another to the mix?
    ***The attorney has recommended that all agritourism be by Interim Use Permit.  Where is the Board on this?
    ***Many did not like the possibility of weddings being held every weekend near their homes.  One person even described it as "moving in the American Legion down the road from me."
    ***It was questioned how is a wedding even agritourism in the first place?
    ***There are many levels of intensity possible with this use. Do we want them all?


    When asked, the Planning Commission stated that they would be willing to take any further input beyond the comment cards that evening.  This topic will be discussed in depth at their December meeting. That meeting is on the 1st of December, so normally any feedback that you may wish to submit should be in by the Thursday before. BUT that happens to be Thanksgiving.  Not sure if the clerk will be working on the Friday or perhaps (more likely?) will shift office hours to the Wednesday. To be on the safe side, earlier is better so that she can be sure to get your information in the packets for the Monday meeting of the Commission. Written comments may be mailed, dropped off during office hours at the Town Hall, dropped in the Drop Box at the Town Hall at any time, or, of course, emailed to the Clerk, Mira Broyles.

    The draft of the proposed Ordinance is available on the Town website.  There is actually more than one there, but perhaps the attorney's version is the one to look at.  The attorney's task, as given to him by the Board, was to put the other text proposals and further minority reports into suitable language for an ordinance. His comment about Interim Use Permits being advisable was made during a Town Board meeting.

    Consider giving your input now so that down the road we won't be faced with "closing the barn door after the horse is gone!"










    Monday, November 3, 2014

    VOTE TUESDAY!

                                                              
                                                                               VOTE

                                                                Click to view

                                                       VOTE TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2014
                                                                 
                                                                    EUREKA TOWN HALL

                                                                    7:00 A.M.    -   8:00 P.M.