"TAG TEAM" ON THE LOOSE AGAIN! COULD YOU BE "IT"?

Another item from the July Board meeting was a request for an Interim Use Permit (IUP). It was for storage at a Eureka gravel pit of bagged product from another use in the Township that produces bagged mulch and other products.

Butch Hansen and Mark Ceminsky spoke strongly in favor of this application. One wonders what they may have said previously about trying to get it done for the applicant. Perhaps just get it past the Planning Commission and we'll take care of it at the Board.  Only problem is that Eureka does not issue IUPs for such a use.

See Ordinance 3, Chapter 2, Section 1 Agricultural District, A. Intent (reason we have this Ordinance), and D. Interim Uses (to see the TWO IUPs Eureka can currently issue). That would be airstrips and gravel mining.

Gravel mining, as stated there, is governed by Ordinance 6. Ordinance 6, Chapter 7, Section 1 Performance Standards, B. 2, states that the only minerals that can be brought in from outside the subject property have to be for the purpose of mixing with minerals excavated on the site and cannot exceed 25% of the total product excavated on an annual basis.

"E." of Ordinance 3, Chapter 2, Section 1 Agricultural District explains that any other use or structure not specifically permitted by right or Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or IUP is prohibited.

The interesting thing is that this very use for the specific properties involved has all been brought up before. It was explained to the gravel site landowner why this is not permitted. At some point, this bagged product actually showed up at the gravel mine site! The Town Board followed up on a complaint and had to order that it all be removed and gave a deadline date.

It's already been explained in depth to the bagging concern why it is limited, by settlement agreement, to the acreage covered by that settlement. They have been advised that the Township does not allow off-site outside storage for a business.

Kudos to the Planning Commission for having dealt with this accurately, citing parts of the Ordinance, and recommending that the application be denied as not permissible under Ordinance. Or at least I give kudos to four out of five of the commission: Fredlund, Larson, Funk, and Wood. (Remember Sibley Aggregates and "two supervisors" who told them they could apply for an IUP to be able to crush concrete from outside the Township for a whole summer? Another IUP that doesn't exist! Required a Text Amendment. See earlier post on the "Dynamic Duo" on that one.)



Then this application goes to the Board and Hansen and Ceminsky seem to think it is totally reasonable to do this "because an IUP expires," as opposed to a CUP which "runs with the land" and does not normally go away. But, an IUP may not expire for 30 years, for example; depends on limit set by Board or an event that renders it closed, such as having mined all the gravel from a pit.

Since this has all been through the wringer before, why are Hansen and Ceminsky still pushing what currently amounts to an illegal use?

Think about this: if any person with his own "bright idea" could come in and be granted a CUP or even an IUP for anything as long as the majority of the Board agrees, why even have zoning? Why have Ordinances? Why have government? Anything goes if one can convince three supervisors?




WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! The Township would have spot zoning in effect all over the place in reality. NOT a good plan for future development, not to mention life for the neighbors in the meantime.

Supervisors are sworn to uphold the Ordinances before they take office. Apparently, the catch is that they have to understand the ordinances and government in general. I submit that Ceminsky and Hansen appear woefully short on that knowledge and bear watching. Thankfully, we still have three Supervisors who will listen to and accept legal explanations.




                                     
And I haven't even mentioned that an IUP has to go through a public hearing set by the Commission and is never granted outright by the Board at the time of application.

                             HOLD ONTO YOUR HATS!

HOW LOW CAN YOU GO?

There was so much that went on at the 5 1/2 hour (!) July Town Board meeting, that we are going to take it one issue at a time. So check back for more!

First, you need to know that Chair Tim Murphy was on a previously planned vacation and unable to be at the meeting. Due to that, Butch Hansen chaired the meeting.

I had placed myself on the agenda as I had questions about the Board being adequately prepared for the meeting regarding a matter that concerned my property. The very first thing that the tag team of Mark Ceminsky and Butch Hansen did was to try to remove my item from the agenda.

Supervisor Lu Barfknecht patiently explained (once again) what the policy is on items being placed by citizens on the agenda for Board discussion. Hansen said, "Then, I guess it's a question of whether the Board wants to leave it on there." Barfknecht replied, "We have to." (Per adopted policy) So my item stayed on the agenda.

During the time that I was speaking to the Board on this item, Hansen interrupted me and called for a recess! I said, "Butch, I am talking in a calm voice. Just because you don't like what you are hearing is not a [valid] reason to shut me down." The recess did not take place.

So let's stop right there and take a look at this. You, as a citizen, are able to ask to be placed on the agenda to discuss something with the Board about a question you have. Yet two uninformed Supervisors think they can stop you from expressing your concern and your question to your very own elected officials. Even though those elected officials have adopted this policy as a means by which you can be heard. If you aren't perceived positively by these two supervisors, they think they can selectively keep you from speaking. They have no authority to do that.

Then, if you are actually allowed to speak, the acting Chair thinks he can shut down that discussion by calling for a recess. Calling for a recess is a method which the Minnesota Association of Townships (MAT) suggests can be used for a "cooling off period" when things become too heated. The only thing heating up was Butch. He doesn't like what I was saying, he doesn't like being presented with THE FACTS, so let's just gag the citizen and keep her from being heard. This should be alarming to you. 

                                     YOUR FACE HERE.

These two supervisors have presented themselves again and again as being "for the citizens," "treating people with respect," and making sure "the rules apply to everybody." How benign sounding! Butter wouldn't melt!

What happens if there are THREE such supervisors (a majority) which want to limit certain people from being heard? What is your recourse if YOU should fall prey to such inexcusable behavior? What if three of your elected officials just don't want to hear from you? Is that what they are elected to do? How do you stop it?

We must all be/stay vigilant to protect our rights.