ATTN: ALL CITIZENS, ESPECIALLY THOSE ON 225TH, DODD, AND CEDAR !

Did you know that there is a work group that has been meeting and discussing the idea of forming some commercial/industrial areas/uses in Eureka? This group has already met for at least five meetings. The most recent was scheduled for and held on Monday, October 22, from 7-9 p.m. Another is scheduled for October 31, 7-9.

The work group consists of Planning Commissioners Ralph Fredlund and Al Novacek, as well as Board Supervisors Mark Ceminsky and Butch Hansen. This group, notably, was formed during a Board meeting with the latter three "diving in headfirst," and Commissioner Fredlund volunteering to round out the group.

There has been mention made several times in the last few meetings that the other members of the Planning Commission were never even given a chance to indicate an interest in being a part of this work group. That's because if they weren't at that particular Board meeting when this was discussed, they didn't even know about it yet! (In fact, since this blog post came out, a Commissioner reminded me that the whole topic was added to the agenda the night of the meeting. Therefore, most did not know ahead of time it was even going to come up that night!) This did not sit well with the other Commissioners. They have asked for more "transparency."


It has also been discussed that "nobody" knew when and where this small group was meeting. I have attended three meetings to date, along with one other Commissioner and two other citizens who attended October 22. Other Commissioners have wanted and even tried to attend an earlier meeting, but were told there would be quorum issues or that the meetings still were not posted properly to allow them to attend. The posting should have allowed them to attend the meeting on the 15th, but it wasn't done properly, it was decided by Hansen and Ceminsky. Thankfully, this appeared to be rectified for the October 22nd meeting.


These meetings are open to the public (now that you know about them!). Audience members are allowed to listen and observe, but so far have not been allowed to contribute any input or comments during meetings. It is in the work group's ability to request this, especially in its early stages. At the end of the last meeting, a citizen asked a few questions which were attempted to be answered.

You should know that at some point, there will be Open House(s) held to gather public input. Of course, I would hope that the group's work would first be presented to the Board for its input before going to the public. The work group has said that it will present its work to the Attorney as well as to a Planner------yet to be contracted for this project. (TKDA is the Township Planning/Engineering firm.)

Watch for postcards to be sent regarding the Open House(s).

Since you will be asked for your opinions, and since this affects the entire Township, it would be a good idea for citizens to educate themselves about the work this small group has done and the topic before us. I am hopeful that at some point this will be available on the Township website for your convenience. Thus far, nothing has been available for public view during the meetings even though documents are being worked on and discussed.



To quickly summarize some of what has been discussed thus far, I will attempt to give some information on two points: different levels (and zones?) of commercial and industrial activity and whether or not the Township is going to ask the Metropolitan Council to be allowed to hook up to sewer and water. Anything reported here is not written in ink yet and may change, perhaps drastically.

The levels of use that have been looked at are light industrial, heavy commercial, general commercial, and neighborhood commercial. I will give a couple examples that have been mentioned of each:
light industrial: distribution center, lumberyard, trucking companies, bulk mail
heavy commercial: 24-hour gas station, optical manufacturing, cabinet shop, auto painting
general commercial: bowling alley, pet shop, mortuary, furniture upholstery
neighborhood commercial: doctor's office, barbershop, gas stations that are not 24-hour

It was reported that up to 1500 acres north of 225th from east to west across the Township, or acreage along Dodd, or along Cedar, or south and near Jacquard Avenue when/if extended by Lakeville into the Township, or along the railroad tracks from Lakeville south to 240th St. W. are all being considered as possibilities.

It has been said at the group that land will not be zoned C/I unless and until the landowner asks for that change. The first question that pops into my mind upon hearing that is how does the Township deal with the issue of spot zoning. Spot zoning, as you may know, is not permitted. Uses should be together and buffers next to adjoining uses are needed to separate the uses and mitigate negative effects.

It has also been stated that the only C/I use that can abut residentially used land is neighborhood commercial. And that commercial buildings may not be any closer to a residence than 250', similar to agricultural buildings now.

The uses would "step" thru the four categories of intensity according to the "plan." In other words, the uses wouldn't go from a machine welding shop to a residence right next door. Or from a lumberyard right next to a doctor's office. These juxtapositions are missing a level of intensity in between them and thus are not "stepped." How much and where area is taken for each level of use is open to question in my mind. These are all topics being discussed.

Butch Hansen has indicated that he thinks sewer and water would still be desirable for any of these uses. He is of the opinion that a proposal has never been formally submitted to the Met Council. Well, that is probably correct insofar as the Met Council representatives (including the gentleman in charge of sewer issues) who attended the March 29, 2016, joint Planning Commission and Town Board meeting have told us what is necessary before they would even consider such a proposal. This meeting centered to some extent around the airport annexation possibility, but touches on sewer and water as well. FIND MINUTES HERE. Since these requirements were never addressed, there could be no formal submission to request sewer and water.

The Council representatives have also submitted details to the Township as to what such a request would require. You may have heard some talk of 1,000 acres set aside for much higher density housing (possibly 3/acre) and other uses and NOT just commercial/industrial. In other words, the government unit requesting sewer and water hookup is proposing making a definite move toward urbanization. Of course, the Met Council, which has Eureka as agricultural and without urban services until some time after 2040, can always turn down a community's request. They just won't even start to consider it until the acreage location, along with sewer plans, etc., have been submitted, which hasn't happened yet. A "sort-of" attempt was made a year or so ago, while Hansen was pushing for it, but the Met Council indicated that what was submitted was insufficient and the forms were not even filled out entirely--as I remember it.

"GOOD FENCES MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS?"

There was a little "fencing" going on at the October Board meeting, as in parrying and thrusting and feinting. The Planning Commission had recommended that the new language for the Fence Ordinance be adopted and that the Ordinance NOT be repealed. (There were two separate public hearings on these topics and in that order.)

There were four Supervisors in attendance at this meeting as Supervisor Barfknecht was out of town and, according to MAT attorney, could partake in the meeting only by means of "interactive TV.”




Mark Ceminsky moved that the Ordinance be repealed. He suggested that the Board vote on that motion first and then there could be another motion to adopt the new language.

EXCEPT it was clear to me and others in the audience, I'm sure, that with a 2-2 vote in the offing on the adoption--Hansen and Ceminsky have been bucking this ordinance since the start--this was a little disingenuous. At least I could clearly see that coming and thought so.

Over the next few minutes, Ceminsky put forth that the motions had to be in the order of the hearings. When it was established that the hearings were actually in the reverse order as the motions Ceminsky was  proposing, then it was argued that it just didn't make sense to adopt new language when the old language was still there. However, the adoption of the new language would supplant the old. Ceminsky objected to this notion. This had been raised and discussed at the public hearings, which I attended along with a few others. At that time, it was argued by Butch Hansen that the current Ordinance "has a hole in it." He also alleged that the current Ordinance was in conflict with State Building Code. When, at the October meeting, Attorney Chad Lemmons helpfully suggested that this could all be done in one resolution by stating the stricken language go away and the underscored language be adopted in its place, that was met with a non-reaction. (Just ignore it and it will go away?) All this was in the name of "We have to do things right." RIGHT. And it went around and around...

Eventually, the motion to repeal died 2-2 and the motion to adopt failed 2-2. (Thus bearing out the thought that Ceminsky and Hansen had no intention of adopting the new language anyway.) If they had snowed the other two Board members into the repeal since it was "just doing things right," that would have been the end of it, I believe, in their minds.



But Chair Murphy stated, "OK, we'll bring back again." As in when there is a full Board. Ceminsky and Hansen and Novacek have been against this very reasonable Ordinance from the beginning. It has been characterized it as "manipulative" and "over regulation." The argument that the Township couldn't regulate fences seven feet or less because of the Building Code has been made repeatedly. It has been repeatedly shot down, too, as the Building Code doesn't affect ANY fences until they reach more than seven feet. At that point a building permit must be procured. For fences up to six feet, an administrative approval from the Township must be sought first.

That was another thing: The Commission worked on the language with the idea that residential fences not requiring building permits be limited to six feet. However, Hansen argued that this wasn't to his liking. When it was pointed out that the Commission had put that limit on fences as it aids law enforcement to see over the fence, Hansen said he was at the hearings and that wasn't brought up. A Planning Commissioner in the audience corrected him saying, "Butch, I was the one who said that!"


It was discussed if not including fences between 6 and 7 feet actually meant that those fences were not allowed. The attorney said that was exactly what that meant. In support of his comment, I pointed out that Ordinance 3, Chapter 2, E. Prohibited Uses and Structures states that "All other uses and structures which are not specifically permitted as a right or by Conditional Use Permit or Interim Use Permit, including public stables and boarding of dogs, shall be prohibited in the Agricultural District. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007)

Unfortunately, this isn't the first time I found it necessary to mention this provision to a Supervisor in office. One such Supervisor from the past made the statement during a meeting that "If it isn't in the Ordinance Book, that means it's okay." When I pointed out that portion of the Ordinances to him at a break, he said, "Well, I didn't know that." Obviously. I don't know about you, but I expect our public officials to read the Ordinances and to become familiar with them. Hasn't always happened, folks. That's a little scary.

As I have stated before, "Anyone who wants to get along with his neighbor would have no problem with this Ordinance." This sort of ordinance is common and the Township has the right to enact such language.

ALL ABOARD FOR POUGHKEEPSIE!

Here are some further details from the September Board meeting.

 The representative from Progressive Rail (PR) attended the meeting and updated the Board on the issue of the side rails and grant, etc.

First, PR has declined to purchase the property that Butch Hansen was advocating for at 225th and Highview. I guess they are not interested in spending that much or more money.

The grant application was to be submitted on September 17th as it was originally drawn up. That is, with the side rails between 250th and 240th for car storage. The rep didn't rule out a possibility of adjusting, but that is how the application was to be filed.

Hansen raised the issue of the amount of land the railroad would need to accomplish its plans as submitted. The thought was that PR will need to use eminent domain to acquire more land along the tracks there. That issue was left basically unanswered.

Chair Tim Murphy asked Jason, the PR rep, point blank whether this was being done to relieve Lakeville of the problem. Short answer: yes. Hardly a surprise, right?
Stay Tuned for updates as they become available!

On another issue, Ceminsky and Hansen have proposed that the Township issue Interim Use Permits (IUPs) for storage of non-pit products in a gravel pit. We are talking about such things as bagged mulch from another use within the Township.

You may recall that such product from that use appeared in a gravel pit on 235th St. W. There was a complaint filed and the Board directed that the material be removed as this use is not allowed under the Ordinances, which it was eventually.

 Hansen and Ceminsky apparently have held the idea that an IUP can be issued for this use even though the Ordinances do not provide for it, based on their comments at past meetings. The idea of  needing to alter the Ordinances in the proper manner seemed to be rejected. That got straightened out even though Ceminsky's latest attempt involved reading a portion of the MAT Township government manual that he argued meant an LGU can give out an IUP during a moratorium on such IUPs! Of what use would a moratorium be then?

The basis of the reason given for this storage was that bagged mulch is an ag product "if anything ever was." (Not sure I agree with that, but I'm personally not really in favor of storing other businesses' products in gravel mines.) Why would we be storing ag products (grains or anything else in addition to bagged mulch) in gravel pits?

It was presented that it could be done for “six months” when the pit is idle. That makes some monetary sense, at least from the pit owner's point of view if not the neighbors'. However, an IUP can be issued for various lengths of time (even 30 years or more), depending on the Board and the applicant at the time, unless restricted by Ordinance.

It was also stated that the product stacks “wouldn’t be seen” from the road.  Will there be a limit on height? Visibility?

And there would be no noise or traffic. Not sure how THAT is guaranteed! Presumably the product could be moved in and out at various times.

At one point it was discussed that storing other things, as long as they were inert, would be a possible use to be allowed as well. Pavers? Concrete block? Manhole covers? What else?

You may recall that the Mining Ordinance was put in place with the intent that the gravel be excavated and the land returned to ag use as quickly as possible.


The idea was that as a community we would be doing our part in getting a precious and needed resource for the state and the area out of the ground for use, but then would reclaim the land for ag use. That is also the reason things like concrete crushing and asphalt recycling were not allowed. The thought as I understood it was that the Township didn't want to become a repository or staging area for recycling other communities' waste products even though it was recognized that this is a necessary function somewhere. We don't really produce these products for use within our community much either. Further, this sort of use would be industrial in nature and not a good fit for Eureka. (Even one pit owner said that himself at the time!) That is the rationale presented and I have since heard reasserted and defended by those from that task force at public hearings on adding uses. In some cases, this rationale was heard as sufficient to keep things as they were, and in others it wasn't .

            I’m not sure how this storage issue might extend the life of mines.

Language will be looked at soon. If this topic is of interest to you, be on the lookout for the topic on Board agendas and for an eventual possible public hearing. Make your input heard.