THE BOARD WAS LISTENING...

...or at least most of them.

At the February Board meeting, during the public comment section, three people came up front to enter their input. Two of the three were former Board members themselves; the third was a former Planning Commissioner and former Board member.  The three agreed with each other.  The points made covered the procedures going on of late between the Board and the Commission and the inappropriateness of the most recently modified proposed Agritourism Ordinance language.  The language resulted from the changes made by the three male Commissioners, Cleminson, Hansen, and Novacek, despite opinions to the contrary given by Commissioners Barfknecht and Jennings. These details, such as the misplaced inclusion of the Outdoor Assembly Ordinance (OAO) because "it is already on the books," have been covered in this blog recently.

The three people giving public comments gave a reason for speaking up at the Board meeting instead of waiting for the scheduled public hearing on February 17th. That was that all three considered even holding the hearing on what they considered, in part, as nonsensical language (See previous posts) was a waste of Township time and money.

When it came time for the Board agenda item of "Agritourism," Supervisor Ceminsky STILL moved to forward the language in its most recent version to the public hearing.  Discussion followed. Chair Kenny Miller called for a roll call vote on the motion: Budenski- nay; Behrendt-nay; Miller-nay; Ceminsky-yea. (Supervisor Madden has been absent due to health problems.)


Ceminsky, in spite of the fact that he had been promoting and advocating for the agritourism ordinance over the past year and a half or so, went on to move that the matter of the agritourism ordinance not be pursued, or words to that effect. ???!!!
Roll Call:  All Supervisors voted "yea."

You should remember that this text amendment to the zoning code came up as a proposal by one individual person.  When that attempt was poorly done (my opinion), then-Chair Pete Storlie stated that the Board was "going to take this on." That resulted in Storlie's woefully inadequate definition-only proposal. Again, my opinion, although I am certainly not alone in it!

A Task Force was eventually appointed to examine agritourism more fully and come up with ordinance language. Open houses were held. Public comments were submitted.  It was also my opinion given during the comment period that this public input was poorly "examined" and in the case of written, submitted questions about the attorney draft, not at all.

Two of the three Commissioners voting to change the agreed-upon Task Force language to include the Outdoor Assembly Ordinance were also Task Force members. Again in my opinion, this was simply a thinly-veiled attempt to significantly raise the threshold for the number of people before an Interim Use Permit would be required.  The Task-Force-agreed-upon threshold for number of cars was taken out altogether. The inclusion of the OAO had actually been brought up at Task Force meetings (repeatedly, in fact) and yet was ultimately rejected by that group. But that wasn't the end of it as far as the two Commissioner/Task Force members were concerned, I guess. I am not saying that the Commission couldn't make changes, just that it was interesting to me that this significant but ill-reasoned change was still made even after the two had agreed to the Task Force language that was submitted to the Board as the group's work product.

A public statement made by Novacek about wanting to "keep in place what already exists" and exemptions publicly passed by the three male Commissioners for "seasonal, decorative lighting such as Christmas lights" and even "candles in pumpkins! (Cleminson)" made me wonder whether the Township's interests were what was being looked after, and I said so.

When Clerk Mira Broyles asked, "What about the public hearing?" Chair Miller replied, "Well, you'll have to cancel that."

So at least THIS Board listened.

We'll see what the future brings...

"ALIEN INVASION"--- PART 2

Remember the "loose cannons?" Agritourism Hearing?  Picking up where we left off...

Eureka spends a significant amount of funds on attorney advice each year.  (At the budget meeting last night, the Board settled on $30,000 for the "legal fees" line.  This is in keeping more or less with the past.) This expenditure is totally appropriate, in my opinion, as there are many matters where the admitted amateurs in our public offices need assistance. Anyone with any humility acknowledges that.  If one is intelligent, one seeks advice from time to time.

Therefore, one might think that when such advice is given that it would be followed. Ask for explanation if need be, explore the topic fully, but recognize the Attorney has the J.D. and you don't! I have witnessed Chair Hansen publicly tell Chad Lemmons (Township Attorney) that he didn't agree with the legal advice that Mr. Lemmons had just offered.

Hello???

Mr. Lemmons has on more than one occasion/meeting said that he recommends an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for all Agritourism. (This is separate from Agricultural Direct Market, selling products.) Lemmons has stated that Agritourism encompasses many different uses and has also caused problems for our Township in the past.  True.  He pointed out that this would give the Township, the operator, and the neighbors a chance to address each case individually, affix appropriate conditions, and clarify where everything stands.  Much better than relying on a complaint basis enforcement for an "Ordinance" that is so open to interpretation as the one currently proposed by (the majority of) the Planning Commission- my opinion. If an operator violates a condition, that can be directly addressed as it was agreed upon in the first place.  If a neighbor complains about something that wasn't part of the conditions, unless it violates some other ordinance, the operator is protected. The Township must do a good job on attaching reasonable and related conditions on the first go-round, however, as it is next to impossible to add to them after the fact. (Were there an amendment to the IUP, this would be an opportunity to do so.  Otherwise, the operator has to agree to the addition.) Requiring an IUP makes good sense.

HOWEVER, this recommendation has not been directly addressed by the Commission OR the Board as official bodies. Commissioner Barfknecht did, however, ask Chair Hansen at a recent special meeting, "Why aren't we following the attorney's advice and making this an IUP for Agritourism?" Hansen's reply?  "Because I don't think it should be." (My emphasis.) Commissioners Novacek and Cleminson remained silent on the topic and therefore acquiescent.  Commissioner Jennings was absent as this was a special meeting called for a date she was not able to attend. The majority of three agreed to move the language on.

Okay, that's bad enough, but, in my opinion, further damage was done. Without a requirement for an IUP from the get-go, there are various thresholds which, when surpassed, require the operator to come in of his own volition (sans complaints) and request an IUP. (This in itself is problematic for many.) The Task Force on Agritourism, six people, had agreed and submitted threshold language referencing, among other things, the number of cars and the number of people.

In what I would call an ill-reasoned and inappropriate move, the three male Commissioners decided that they wanted to remove those particular thresholds for both Agritourism AND Direct Marketing and replace them. What did they choose to replace them with? The Outdoor Assembly Ordinance!  Reason given?  "It's already on the books."  So are dog kennels and swimming pools, but that doesn't mean they fit here!!!

The Outdoor Assembly Ordinance (once I got them to stop calling it the Large Gathering Ordinance) is what has been dubbed "The Woodstock Ordinance." No, not that one, the muddy one! The reason is obvious: it is an assembly of people for an outdoor event.  Eureka's ordinance closely follows the County Ordinance.  When the County reduced the number of people from 500 to 300, Eureka followed suit. If someone proposes to hold such an event and anticipates 300 people at it OR 100 people for eight consecutive hours, that person must apply for a permit.

So, just on the face of it, this move by Hansen, Novacek, and Cleminson greatly increased the number of people allowed from 100 on a daily basis to 300 before a threshold is crossed and a permit is required.  The part referring to the lesser number over eight hours could be interpreted by some as allowing quite a few more as people come and go throughout the day for their Agritourism activities.  I don't agree with that, but I do have enough imagination (and experience) to envision someone making the argument.

They also took out the threshold for the number of cars as well. The argument was that it wasn't enforceable.  Sherri Buss of TKDA and Chad Lemmons had suggested a means by which it would be enforceable: change car trips to cars parked on the property.  Easily counted, right? Traffic was supposed to have been a concern that was addressed and the Ordinance now is silent on this.

So for the reason of increasing the numbers alone, I object to the Commissioners (two of whom were on the Task Force) overriding that group's recommendation. You should know that this idea of using the Outdoor Assembly Ordinance was discussed and rejected at Task Force meetings. The group of six agreed to submit the language, including the two thresholds that these three Commissioners want to remove.

It doesn't stop there, though. That Ordinance requires a number of other things fitting for an outdoor assembly but certainly not for Agritourism and Agricultural Direct Marketing.  Commissioner Barfknecht pointed this out, but she might as well have been speaking Hungarian!

What are those things?  Well, some of them are:

    ** A license for each "event"

    **Security guards

    **Physician and nurse and an enclosed facility for treatment

    **A fence surrounding the grounds to keep people from entering (without a ticket)

    **Ambulances

    **A BOND!!!

    

All so appropriate for corn mazes and selling ag products!!

At a subsequent (regular) meeting when she was able to attend, Commissioner Jennings asked what about the people inside?  The Agritourism Ordinance addresses how many square feet of a building can be open to the public, after all. Where do those numbers come in?  How is Agritourism an Outdoor Assembly?

More Hungarian.

More telling to me: At one point, Commissioner Novacek stated, "We're just trying to keep in place what already exists." Hmmmm...  He also came up with an exemption for the prohibition on outdoor lighting for such uses other than what may be required under building code. He suggested that seasonal, decorative lighting be exempt.  Such as Christmas lights. Putting aside the merits of the argument. I was struck by his foresight to even THINK of this...

LAST POINT FOR NOW:  The Agritourism Ordinance Public Hearing has been rescheduled for Tuesday, February 17th, at 7:00 p.m.

If the Board is actually going to get its opportunity to review the language at its regular meeting this coming Monday night, how do you, the citizens, get ten days' time in which to review the language? Ten days' published notice of the hearing is required by law, but the language isn't even ready yet.