SET YOUR "SITES" ON THIS...

One of the most common requirements for permits that require zoning approval, and also the one which is most often submitted as incomplete or not submitted initially at all, is a site plan. Without this documentation, an application is incomplete and should not even be accepted by the Clerk until the information is provided.

By requiring zoning approval, I mean the applicant must go before the Planning Commission and the Town Board for approval before moving forward with a building permit. Once the permit is issued by the Building Official, then he is in play and takes over the process. The Building Official does all inspections and files reports with the Township. He is NOT able to okay changes in what was approved by the Town Board, however. If you apply, be sure that what you have on your site plan and application is exactly what you want to do. If certain things change, the applicant must go back through the zoning approval process to receive approval of the changes. Again, the Building Official does not have zoning authority and would be beyond his scope to approve a change in setback, for example. His purview lies with the Minnesota Building Codes, not zoning. He could approve a change of material inside a structure, for example, but not where that structure is located on a property.

All this is not to say that zoning approval for certain changes would be withheld, but the applicant must go before the proper authorities for the different aspects of permitting. This has come up recently in a few situations. It may seem like splitting hairs, but the various officials must not act outside of their scope of jurisdiction. And applicants must be clear on what they are requesting.

The site plan is to provide the Planning Commission and the Town Board with the information they need to determine that all setbacks pertinent to Eureka's zoning are met and that the proposed uses are allowed. This is the reason, for example, that applicants for pole buildings are informed of the Ordinance restriction for use of that pole building. No business use of any kind is permitted in accessory structures, even business storage. The business use allowed within Eureka is a home occupation. Such a business must be located within the primary structure only, along with some other parameters found in the Ordinances.

Please note that,whether the applicant is informed in person or not, the Ordinances/laws of our community still apply. The current Commission tries to make things as clear as possible for everyone's benefit as there has been some "confusion" in the past as to what are allowed uses and what aren't.

Please also note that decks, pools, and rebuilds after a fire also require zoning approval, but that process due to the circumstances involved has been streamlined for time concerns. HOWEVER, that streamlining process still includes approval by the Clerk as Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission Chair, under the rules adopted at the time.


To assist you in becoming more informed about site plans and what makes a complete site plan, you are provided this link: site plan, page three of four

AND A BIG THANK YOU TO ALL THOSE APPLICANTS WHO HAVE SUBMITTED CLEAR AND COMPLETE APPLICATIONS! Doing so makes it easier and faster for all.

DOES A RECUSAL MEAN AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACCUSE???

These comments come after an incident that took place recently at a public hearing in Town Hall.

When a Commissioner or a Board Supervisor recuses him or herself from weighing in on a decision before the relevant Township body, does this mean that something is amiss? Does this mean that the Township's interests are not being represented fairly? Does this mean there is a conspiracy afoot? Does this mean that you, the citizen, are being misrepresented or taken advantage of?

Quite to the contrary!!! What it means is that the public official is doing the proper thing to remove him or herself from decisions regarding a topic wherein it could be argued that there is a personal financial interest, however indirect, or even just the appearance of such a lack of impartiality. This is the public official being transparent about something of which you, the citizen, may be, and most likely are, totally unaware.

See the definition below, which applies not only to judges as mentioned, but also to Planning Commissioners and Town Board Supervisors:

re·cuse

riˈkyo͞oz/

verb

NORTH AMERICAN

1. challenge (a judge, prosecutor, or juror) as unqualified to perform legal duties because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality.

   "a motion to recuse the prosecutor"

   • (of a judge) excuse oneself from a case because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality.

     "the Justice Department demanded that he recuse himself from the case"

The Reader should also note that, ultimately, no one can recuse another person; only the individual can recuse himself. If he does not (whether urged to or not is beside the point) and conflicts come to light, then he suffers the consequences, which, if you read the information on the link provided at the end of this post, in some instances could include possible prison time!

N.B. One does not have to reveal the reasons for recusal, although he may freely choose to do so.

Instead of being castigated publicly for doing the right thing, with all sorts of innuendo attached, the public official should be commended, really, if anything, for being ethical.

And do you wonder why it is often difficult to get honest, responsible citizens to run or apply for office? Who needs the headache, yah?

That such people have and continue to demonstrate an interest in serving the public forthrightly and impartially is perhaps the wonder here. As a citizen, I thank all those individuals who have done their humanly best to carry out their duties faithfully. And that goes even for those people who have made decisions that Yours Truly totally disagreed with as long as the official made the decision in good faith, doing what he or she thought was the right and proper thing to do.

Just doing what one thinks is the "right and proper thing" to do doesn't let one off the hook, however. In an effort to be on the right track on such decisions, it is vital that public officials do all in their power to inform and educate themselves on different topics, whether it is when to recuse oneself, what zoning is all about, what a Comprehensive Plan is for, to recognizing their duty to enforce the Ordinances, and on and on. Training and informational sessions are available every year to accomplish that end. Reading the Minnesota Association of Townships Manual of Government, the Comprehensive Plan, the Ordinances, as I have said "early and often," can also go a long way. Asking questions of the professionals, such as planners, attorneys, engineers, is the smart thing for (amateur) citizen officials to do. (It is also a smart thing for citizens not in public office to do the same.)

As the first line states in the document the link below takes you to "public office is considered a public trust."


Minnesota Association of Townships Government Manual

SPRING, SPRANG, SPRUNG!!!!

It took a LOT of time, but bicyclist Bryan Joas, severely injured on 250th street in Eureka the night of our Annual Meeting, has just been released from the hospital! No weight bearing for six weeks yet, but he is finally home. That he has come this far is a testament to modern medicine and the strength of prayer.

Those of you who may have followed the Caring Bridge postings for Bryan know what a fearful ordeal it has been for him and for his family, including an eight- and a ten-year-old. Those children came so close to losing a parent in what still remains as a life-altering event for them all.

The driver of the white or light grey/silver pick-up truck which hit Joas has yet to be apprehended, despite efforts by the Dakota County Sheriff's Department. Many have asked the question how someone can live with himself after leaving the scene of an accident like this.

HEADS UP, THOSE OF YOU INTERESTED IN THE AIRPORT ANNEXATION ISSUE !

Those of us in the Township who have been paying attention lately know that there is a very real possibility of the AirLake airport being annexed to Lakeville. There have already been a number of meetings at which this was explored, including a joint meeting with Met Council representatives, the Planning Commission, and the Town Board- refer to earlier blog.

Following the joint meeting on March 29, the Town Board received a letter from the Council confirming statements made by its representatives that evening. Part of that was detailing what the Township would have to submit to the Council to even be considered for the possibility of providing sewer and water to the airport. (Citizens were very concerned about this at the Annual Meeting and had asked the Board to look into what might be doable to keep the airport in Eureka and still meet MAC's needs for service under its policy.)

At a following Board meeting, Supervisor Behrendt asked that Sherri Buss, Senior Planner at TKDA, (the Township's planning and engineering firm) attend the June 13th Board meeting. The purpose of her appearance is to provide a realistic and broader understanding of the costs, time, and effort necessitated by providing what the Council is asking. This a prudent move because the Township and its citizens must understand what would be involved to achieve the retention of AirLake before making any decision on the matter. And that's providing that the Council would agree to the proposal. Those of you at all familiar with the Metropolitan Council know that there are no guarantees ahead of time. Eureka would have to fit in with the current systems statements, and the Council would have to agree that there is a regional need for Eureka to move now in the direction of becoming an urban township. This has been detailed in earlier blogs, too.

The purpose of this posting is to be yet another means to let you know of this opportunity to hear the consultant's input and the Board's discussion.

Regarding citizen information, at the Annual Meeting, Yours Truly proposed USPS notification of all Township landowners for all Text Amendment Public Hearings.  This is not required by state statute, but could go a long way to inform a public which unfortunately seems, over the years, to be a little out of timely contact with its own government. (My opinion) The Board approved this measure.

At a recent text amendment hearing, a person who has been perhaps the loudest in publicly complaining over many years (I've been there!) that he doesn't know what is going on, in spite of newspaper publications (These are required by statute), possible email notifications, calls to the clerk, website checks, not to mention attendance at Town meetings and even a personal letter of explanation on this topic from Yours Truly several years ago, complained at the hearing about the "scrawny/crummy" (paraphrasing) postcard that he had received notifying him of the hearing. He's complained that he hasn't been personally notified and then complained how he was personally notified!
If the Township had sent something which cost more money than the postcard (and this issue of how to notify was discussed at the Annual Meeting), then I suppose he might have complained that too much money was spent and that a postcard would certainly be sufficient. (Applicants for Text Amendments must pay for the USPS notification in addition to the other costs of the hearing.)

You can lead a horse... 
Please attend the Board meeting on June 13th to be up-to-date on the annexation matter.


If you don't already receive the newsletter via email and would like to, let the clerk know you are interested. If you don't already get email notifications of all meetings and agendas, and you would like to, let the clerk know you would like them. If you don't already check the website for updates, please do.


JUST SAYIN'...