During public comment at the recent Board meeting on May 14th, I spoke to the Board on several points that I feel have been not been handled appropriately very recently. Due to a policy limiting citizen input time at meetings to three minutes, I wasn't able to cover all the points I had. They are as follows:
1. Reasons to Continue Attorney input to PC as before:
The Board has recently removed the Planning Commission Chair's ability to speak directly to the attorney and to have his presence at Commission meetings as a matter of course. I do not feel this is in service to the citizens for the following reasons:
a. Transfer of Building Rights:In all Transfer of Building Rights (TBR) situations, stub abstracts for both the sending and receiving parcels are required. As was recently experienced, the Commission needs the practiced, professional eye of the attorney to decipher these abstracts or tract checks to ensure that the building right status is acceptable. This is not the sort of expertise citizen Commissioners typically possess. This is a crucial factor in TBRs. The Board has voted to not track restrictions on parcels in any other way, so it falls to a correct reading of these stub abstracts. The attorney is needed. This serves the Township as a Local Governing Unit (LGU).
b. "Resident Inquiry" Agenda Item:
Without the attorney present to confirm Commission answers to citizens' questions, the Commission can give only a tentative answer. These questions can arise the night of the meeting at the meeting. Their content need not be known ahead of time. It would be more beneficial to citizens to know that the attorney is reading things as the Commission is when such a question arises.
If the Board will not allow the attorney to be present at Commission meetings, perhaps this agenda item should be transferred to the Board's already full agenda when the attorney presumably is to be present.
Some have raised an objection to the cost to have the attorney attend a Commission meeting. If the attorney is asked questions ahead of time and answers them, this also costs money. A disadvantage is that not all pertinent questions may in fact be asked of the attorney ahead of the meeting. Some of these questions may easily arise after all Commissioners have heard the issue further discussed at the meeting. Or an applicant may have an additional question which requires legal input. Without an attorney present to consult on these further questions, this could then still cause a delay for attorney input to be obtained. I don't think this serves the citizens well.
Without the attorney present to affirm Commission opinions as they may be offered, the citizen is perhaps left without full confidence that what they have been told is accurate and that they can move forward on it.
e. Proper and timely representation of the Township:
Citizens frequently are accompanied by their attorneys or realtors. It is important that the Township be similarly represented.
The attorney has also had a role in assuring that state statutes are followed correctly. Appointed officials may not even be aware of the statutes backing up our local authority. They must be followed.
2. Ordinances not being followed appropriately:
At the last Commission meeting, several errors were made in regard to this alone, and the errors were NOT the Planning Commission's.
"Two Board Supervisors" had misinformed applicants from Sibley Aggregates about a use they wanted. The idea was to crush concrete from Lakeville demolition for the whole summer. Now if you know anything about the Mining Ordinance, neither concrete crushing from projects outside of the Township nor crushing beyond fifteen days is allowed. To be able to accomplish this an Ordinance Text Amendment would have to be proposed and passed first. This was unsuccessfully attempted not that long ago. There was concern expressed about the crushing of concrete.
When the Mining Ordinance Task Force wrote the language some years ago, it very deliberately put those restrictions on mines: no outside crushing of concrete, only from Eureka projects and then only for fifteen days. This fact was brought up by task force members at the last public hearing on this subject.
Yet the two gentlemen from Sibley had been told to come before the Commission, which would pass their request on to the Board and the Board, as Supervisor Hansen told the Commission, "would take care of it." Wrong, Mr. Hansen! This sort of change requires a public hearing for starters. And Hansen made that statement about the Commission passing it on to the Board and the Board "taking care of it" even after the requirement for a public hearing was raised, which he totally ignored. Had an attorney been present, this could have been cleared up in a definitive manner.
Ordinance 6 Ch. 7: Mineral Extraction Performance Standards
Section 1 - PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The following performance standards apply to all mineral extraction facilities in the Township:
B. Source of Materials. Only minerals from the site shall be processed at the mineral extraction facility subject, however, to the following exceptions:
1. Recyclable concrete and recyclable asphalt may be crushed and mixed on site if the crushing and mixing do not exceed fifteen (15) working days per calendar year and if the recyclable concrete and recyclable asphalt originated from a road demolition or road repair project in the Township of Eureka.
Supervisor Hansen was heard telling a building permit applicant that "building permits are good for a year." Wrong again, Mr. Hansen!
SEE BELOW
Ordinance 3 Ch. 4 Section 5 - BUILDING PERMITS
A. Permit
3. Every permit issued shall become invalid unless the work authorized by the permit is commenced within 180 days after its issuance, or if the work authorized by the permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days after the time the work is commenced. The Building Official may grant, in writing, one or more extensions of time, for periods not more than 180 days each. The extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007)
An individual came in to go through the process for a "hoop" building. During the discussion for this, Supervisor Hansen actually advised the Commission to "refer to your Ordinances" and that such a building does not require a building permit.
Hat Trick! Wrong a third time!!!
SEE BELOW
Ordinance 3 Ch. 4 Section 5 - BUILDING PERMITS
A. Permit
1. For the purpose of regulating the location, size, and height of buildings on lots and the density of population in the Township of Eureka, and to provide separate districts for the purpose of carrying out the aforesaid regulations, building permits shall be required for all buildings, whether temporary or permanent in nature. No person or persons, firm, or corporation shall construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure; erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert, or replace any gas, mechanical, electrical, plumbing system, or other equipment, the installation of which is regulated by the Minnesota State Building Code; or cause any such work to be done, before first making application for
What Mr. Hansen still hasn't gotten straight is that he thinks if a building is "portable" it is "temporary" and further, he thinks temporary buildings don't require permits.
"Temporary" has to do with less than 180 days that a building is there. After 180 days, taxation enters in. AND temporary structures are limited as can be seen below:
Ordinance 3 Ch. 4 Section 11 – TEMPORARY STRUCTURES
A. The building official may issue a permit for those temporary structures and temporary uses specified below. The permit shall be limited as to time of service, but shall not be permitted for more than 180 days. The building official may grant extensions in writing for demonstrated cause. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007)
B. The following temporary structures or uses are permitted:
1. Any one temporary building or stand exclusively for the sale of agricultural or horticultural products produced on the premises, provided that such building shall be no less than twenty (20) feet from the road right-of-way and further provided that adequate off-street parking shall be available. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007)
2. Any temporary building for uses incidental to construction work, provided that such building shall be removed upon the completion of the construction work. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007)
3. A garage may be occupied as a temporary dwelling for a period of not more than six (6) months if construction of a permanent dwelling is actually under way and in active progress during occupancy of the garage. Said garage shall be provided and equipped with garage doors. In the event that any person shall reside in any such temporary garage home for a period of time Ordinance 3 Ch. 4 71 exceeding that permitted by the building official, the Town Board shall proceed to have such extended use abated as a nuisance. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007) C. All other temporary uses or structures are prohibited in Eureka Township. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007)
TWO FURTHER POINTS:
1. The policy regarding meetings is that they are to be recorded and the recordings kept to facilitate with minutes until the minutes are approved. Apparently, no recording from the special Board meeting of 4-23-18 exists. More important, the draft minutes submitted by Supervisor Ceminsky do not give his own full motion involving the reduced payment to Darrel Gilmer, the Building Official. Ceminsky's original, fully stated motion actually included the original invoice amount submitted by Gilmer, but the draft minutes reflect only the amount approved to be paid, without any indication that this was a greatly reduced amount. I was there and heard the motion in real time, but this was not included and now no recording exists to verify this. Perhaps other Supervisors will remember Ceminsky's full motion.
Mr. Hansen has been insisting that minutes have only motions and votes and not much else. Motions and votes are what is required, but it is up to the body in question how much detail it wants in its minutes.
In the case of these draft minutes, not only are no details given, an incomplete motion is recorded and the public would have no way to know through these minutes what transpired regarding the Gilmer invoice. Why shouldn't that be "out there for public consumption?"
ANOTHER REASON THE BLOG IS SO IMPORTANT! WE REPORT WHAT HAPPENS AT YOUR TOWNSHIP MEETINGS, INCLUDING DETAILS YOU WOULD PROBABLY THINK IT IMPORTANT TO KNOW ABOUT!!!
AND ON A HUMOROUS NOTE
2. The Township website has our Ordinances dated as 11-17-2103. That means I am 153 years old! Who knew?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.