WHY LET THE FACTS GET IN YOUR WAY?????

That's what I said to someone after the last Commercial/Industrial (C/I) "work group" meeting on December 17th.

At the "work group" meeting the preceding Monday, the 10th, the members of the group were asking each other if they could remember what questions had been asked at the Open House. I kid you not. Since the Open House was NOT recorded and evidently no one was taking notes, they were reliant only on their collective recall.

They did come up with some of the questions. For example, they remembered that people wanted to know how this all got started. Also they remembered they heard some of what they took as objections to the make-up of their group. Taken as in opposed to them in particular. These comments they pretty much dismissed as beside the point, in my opinion. (See earlier blog about this group's make-up.)

They remembered that questions had been asked about annexation and incorporation, but responded as they had at the Open House that "That's up to the Board. That's not our task." I guess "we" fail to see the connection or interplay between the issues of C/I and those topics.

They remembered that it was raised that there are entities within the Township now that are commercial and are not being monitored to the satisfaction of the questioner. Again, that has nothing to do with trying to establish more such uses. "That's up to the Board. It is not our task."


What they did not seem to recall were the questions asking them to relate to those in attendance what the Met Council representatives have already told the Township about what would be involved in even asking for consideration that Eureka be allowed to connect to sewer and water. When the question was asked about what housing density might be required to be able to hook-up, they declared that "now you're getting too detailed."  I asked why they were not answering this question when the Township has already been informed of this fact.
Guess that's too detailed, too. No answer was given.


A major point was raised at the Open House about enforcement of Ordinances and how well that might go with these new uses, when the Township seems to struggle with enforcement with only ag zoning. No real answer there either.

One individual made the statement that the "work group" had said they were holding the Open House "to hear from the public." He then asked them to indicate what they were taking away from what they had heard by this point of the meeting. Big silence followed at first. Not sure they knew how to characterize THAT! Or wanted to...



So we have a very faulty recall of some of the most important points made. Did we waste our time?
Novacek said he was "shocked" that their "suggestion box" wasn't stuffed full from that night.

As I later raised to the Board, "If they haven't answered questions 1, 2, and 3, why would an individual ask questions 4, 5, and 6?" There were a lot of questions and very little information given out.

OH! One important thing that Butch Hansen said was that he either has or can get a letter from the Met Council stating that they are going to let Eureka connect to sewer and water. Since making that statement, he has been asked about this a few times in public thus far and all he has said that I remember is that he can get that letter. NO LETTER has surfaced yet. If he has it, why not bring it forward?


Novacek also made the statement that the Township had spent "$30,000" on the last Comprehensive Plan update. When no one corrected that, I said I had to interrupt to correct that "fact." The Township spent $18,000. Divide that by the ten years, and that is hardly excessive to obtain professional help!

Novacek also commented that he "had heard" that the Comp Plan update "was rejected" and had to be resubmitted. He also has heard that set straight a number of times already. It was not rejected, simply more information was asked for. At least Ceminsky corrected Novacek on that one. I added that this was all part of the usual, normal process. Another fact that seems to escape.

Okay, so all that happened at earlier meetings. At this December 17 meeting they had received approval from the Board to invite a planner from TKDA to this meeting so that a proposal with associated costs could be submitted.
(The planner stated, "So, you are a committee..." They responded, "No! We are a 'work group'!" Can someone tell me the difference?)

There were a number of  "misrepresentations" of what has come before made during this meeting:

1. That the 2011 C/I Task Force had looked only at office building uses.

FACT: As a member of that Task Force, I corrected that as politely as I could. ("I'm sorry, Butch, but that's not quite accurate..." and went on to say what had actually been done.)

2. That MAC didn't want to be annexed to Lakeville, it is that we "refused" to give them sewer and water.

FACT: What MAC wanted and has said repeatedly is their interest was to have city services in compliance with their own airport policies. That's what they cared about.

3. That the Menasha building "had nothing to do with sewer and water." That the owners of the property had asked Eureka to build "a warehouse," but were told Eureka did not allow C/I.

FACT: The fact that Lakeville was the only municipality that could give them sewer and water was PIVOTAL to their asking for annexation. This continues to be misrepresented in the face of the facts of what actually happened. Talk to Lakeville. As I have stated before, if the 98 acres (not 87 as was pronounced by a "work group" member; "small" fact but can't get even that right) had remained in Eureka Township, it would still be a cornfield.

What developer is going to sink very significant money into such a structure and have it be serviced by "an advanced" septic system? And what about water?

4. That we want to develop the northern corridor (established/spoken of now by the group as the area they think is best) so we can have the C/I that's "inevitably coming," not Lakeville. "It's coming, so let's get in front of it and keep it for ourselves."

FACT: That putting C/I property along such a border only encourages annexation has been raised so many times, but it is always ignored. It was clear to me that this group may not even yet have read the 2011 Task Force Report. This very point was concluded in that report.

When the planner asked to see the report, Mark Ceminsky said, "I suppose we could find a copy of it around here somewhere," or words close to that. Why don't they have those copies with them at their meetings? HAVE they read the report or haven't they?

Why not benefit from the work that was done before by citizens with professional assistance from Township Planner, TKDA? When Phase I of the 2011 study was completed and the rest was put on hold because of the findings of Phase I, it was determined that if/when the economy improved significantly, it could be picked up again and Phase II would come into play. So why not update the market study that was accomplished with brokers in the C/I real estate field to get an informed opinion of where things really stand right now? How much has that status changed?

Why not do a cost/benefit analysis or fiscal impact study to have some real facts about what this will cost the Township and what is a realistic estimate of what it will bring in? There was also a significant amount of engineering work to be done to lay out the future sewer plan for a minimum of 1,000 acres of various uses, including high density housing. This had to be invested in before the Met Council would consider a request for hook-up to sewer and water. They don't tell you ahead of time that they are going to approve it. They can still say "no, try again for 2040" which is the time at which they have told us they see Eureka getting city services.

To learn more about the 2011 C/I Task Force Final Report and other matters, go to this Township website link.

5. This move to C/I uses and areas has been characterized as a "done deal" as far as the Board is concerned.

QUESTION OF FACT: Do they mean to represent that the public has no (worthy) input about what happens in their community? Are they saying the Board isn't open to public opinion, changes, or recommendation? These are two of your Supervisors speaking...

6. When they asked the (in my opinion naive) question of why would any business want to be annexed to Lakeville when it could stay in Eureka, the planner responded in a couple of ways.

PLANNER'S TAKE: She said that it might be technically possible to service some C/I uses by "advanced" septic systems, but that she wasn't sure that "it would be worth it." Judging from the response from the "work group," I think they missed her point that the business might not find that worth it and would still prefer sewer and water.

She stated that in her experience with the Met Council, she is "not so sure" they would accept a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Eureka allowing these uses. She will look into it further by speaking to the Met Council.

7. I thought the planner was at least mildly surprised when Hansen said at this meeting that the Met Council has told him the Township can hook up to the MUSA. He also stated that the Township has never actually applied to do so.



Actually, the fact is the Township submitted an incomplete application to the Council which it, of course, rejected as incomplete! Hansen has attributed this to the fact that all this was "dumped in my lap" at the last minute. Still doesn't explain to me why he didn't make sure (with the attorney who was to assist) that the application was filled out. I believe the fact is that it simply involved much more technical input than he ever acknowledged or, when informed, wanted to accept. But don't "blame" him!

Hansen keeps pointing out that the interceptor runs along Eureka's northern border, so it would be easy to hook up to it.

The fact that this does NOT make it Eureka's interceptor seems to get by him. The Met Council is in charge of that aspect.

8. As I said above, I corrected something early on in the 17th meeting. And I asked for clarification from the planner about zoning, nonconforming uses and future uses, depending on the way this might be enacted, which she confirmed. It is important that the group understands this fully. Sometimes I think they do, but then again sometimes they say something that leads me to think they really don't.

When a few more things were misrepresented, I raised my hand and had it up for a long time. Finally, it was asked whether they should call again on someone from "the audience." Hansen, who I feel had tunnel vision when it came to my raised hand :-), replied that "if you start that, it'll never end." Of course, I had already been allowed to make two contributions. (Probably because the planner was there.) So perhaps a third just plain wasn't welcome.

I stated that the "work group" had made some "misrepresentations" of facts that I would like to address. I agreed that if the "work group" does not want to hear from a member of the C/I Task Force or a member of the public at this stage, that is up to them. In response, Hansen declared to Novacek, "See what I mean!" There was no curiosity that I could discern about what I felt they had stated inaccurately.

So I ask: Why let the facts get in your way?

MY TWO CENTS' WORTH

The Planning Commission held the public hearing on the gravel pit storage of non-gravel-related items on November 19th. Following are my comments regarding this proposal.

I believe that this text amendment should have been paid for by the individual who first brought this forth to the Township. Instead, because the Board voted as it did, now the taxpayers are paying for it. I'm sure some taxpayers are against this idea, but because of the Board's action, they are paying for it anyway.

For the Township to take on a text amendment that was first brought up by an individual, to me compromises the appearance of neutrality and objectivity. How does the public hope to have any of its objections taken seriously enough to actually stop the adoption of this language, which is supposedly always an option? The appearance is that Township officials may have already made up their minds even before the public can testify. Are we just going through the motions?

What is the purpose of this amendment? Is it in accordance with the original intent of the Mining Ordinance to excavate the gravel, reclaim the land, and return it to ag use as quickly as possible? Or is it simply a way certain officials see a use subject to a legal settlement agreement being able to in effect expand beyond its property to which it is restricted? Is this a way for the use to circumvent the agreement? Note that this use was actually storing its product in the gravel pit earlier and, following a complaint, was directed by the Board to remove it as it was in violation of the Ordinance. Neither the gravel pit owner nor the people associated with the settlement agreement live in the Township to my knowledge. Therefore, would they ever have to live with the negative effects of this storage as residential neighbors will have to? 

Is this a backdoor approach to allowing contractors' yards in Eureka? What is the connection between gravel pits and construction equipment and construction materials anyway? We do not allow contractors' yards, but now one can get one, albeit on an interim basis, in a gravel pit? This is really a commercial/industrial use that otherwise is not allowed.How is that not contradictory to the Comprehensive Plan?

Even the C/I "work group" currently meeting recognizes that a Comprehensive Plan update would be required to start to allow such uses. Their discussions have also included the requirement that there would be no outside storage in any C/I area. How do you reconcile that with this proposed language?

Going through the proposed language, I would point out the following issues.

Section 2 adding No. 3 to Ordinance 3, Chapter 2, Section 1 (D) references "property for which an interim use permit has been issued" as the only properties eligible to apply for a storage IUP. When raised before, the attorney replied that the older mining uses are now considered non-conforming uses. That is correct, but they were issued CUPs. Presumably the CUP would govern the NCU. HOWEVER, none of these "grandfathered" uses outlined in the legal descriptions in the Ordinance has ever applied for an IUP to my knowledge. In fact, Ordinance 6, Chapter 13, Section 1, states that they can continue "...without first obtaining an interim use permit for a mineral extracting facility...," so how does the language stating that an IUP has been obtained include these "grandfathered" uses?

Under A, I would insert the words "for storage" so that it reads "...shall first have applied for and obtained an interim use permit for storage..." This would distinguish it from the IUP that a use has have in order to have a gravel pit in the first place. I could see future bodies finding this a little confusing in application.

Chapter 10, B, 2. I question whether this use is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. We allow mineral extraction. We do not allow commercial storage. There is no connection between storage of construction materials and equipment and gravel mining, so this is contorted, in my opinion. The same lack of connection applies to gravel mining and storage of "ag" products. They are two totally different uses. The Ordinances are supposed to "flow from" the Comprehensive Plan, not the other way around. Ord. 6, Chapter 7, Section 1, L, states that "Any vehicles, equipment or materials NOT ASSOCIATED with the mineral extraction facility....may not be kept or stored at the facility." Are we to understand that "associated with the mineral extraction facility" and "associated with mineral extraction" are two different things and that by including the proposed storage by however a convoluted reasoning MAKES these materials and equipment "associated" with the facility? Or does this have to be changed also? Again, I ask why would we do this?

Chapter 10, B, 4, regarding the negative effects on existing land uses nearby. I believe the words "and reasonably" are perhaps meant to be "unreasonably."

Chapter 1, C, material to be stored. If an applicant comes in with a list of ag products, construction materials, and construction equipment, none of which is hazardous as described under this portion of the proposed language, how can the Board "reserve the right and authority to deny permission to store any material or equipment described on the application?" If an applicant meets the requirements of what is to be stored and the Board denies some part of that material, how is that not "arbitrary and capricious?" Section F, 1, again references the Township's ability to modify the list. Repeating, how is that not "arbitrary and capricious" if the applicant's list includes items allowed for storage?

D, Application, again states that the property must have an IUP in the first place. "Grandfathered" mines do not have IUPs, so again are we limiting this use to only the two newest mines at present as they are the ones with the IUPs?

E, Permitting Procedure, 2, talks about the Comprehensive Plan again. Since we do not allow C/I uses in the Comprehensive Plan, wouldn't the amendment to the Comp Plan also mentioned here have to take place before this Ordinance could go into effect? Let me stress once more that there is no natural connection between gravel extraction and the storage of ag products, construction materials, and construction equipment. How did construction materials and construction equipment come to be included in this language? Is this another small minority wanting a use that the Comp Plan does not afford them? And why is the Township taxpayer paying for this then?

F, 2, applies to conditions limiting height, size, and location of a structure. If this structure is to be used for interim storage of the allowed items under this proposed language, should it not be specified that this structure can otherwise be used only for purposes directly related to gravel mining?

F, 3, speaks to modifying the size and location of the proposed outdoor storage area. Since this proposed additional use has been said publicly to not be visible from the road, perhaps that requirement for outdoor storage should find a place in this ordinance.

F, 6, mentions signage and lighting of signs. Is this as good idea to allow for this 9-month activity?

F, 7, speaks to protecting adjacent or nearby property by fencing, etc.  Again, I would suggest that the "no visibility from the road" be included. At a use that required berms and limited stack height, a passer-by can still see the product sticking out even above the berms and the trees planted there. Should residential neighbors have to look at another C/I use in addition to the mining itself?

F, 8, requires "regular and periodic" inspections of the structure and the outdoor storage area to confirm all conditions are being met. Shouldn't there be a number of inspections and a frequency given? These are presumably outside of complaints. These would incur inspection costs for which the IUP holder  should be responsible.

It is of note that Ordinance 6, the Mining Ordinance, currently requires the Board to ensure that all conditions are being met by the newer gravel pits each year at their February reviews. When I was on the Board, I noted this and followed up on it. One of the newer pits was NOT following its conditions. I brought this to the Board's attention. The owner of that pit was then even on the Board himself. What followed was month after month after month of my endeavoring to see that these conditions, to which the gravel operator had agreed, were being met. When it came to having the Township engineer verify these as provided for in his Development Agreement, he resisted that as well. Eventually this was properly addressed.

However, in the years since, I have never once heard the Board reference this part of Ordinance 6 at the February reviews. These reviews are no longer just a question of how much did you excavate, how much do you owe the Township, and are there any complaints, as they were in the past. Have the Boards been aware of this and ignored it, or are they unfamiliar with this? Either way, not good. My opinion.

G mentions "...the right and authority to grant 'acceptations' to the hours..." I believe this should be "exceptions."

H refers to the length of the IUP for storage. It has been mentioned publicly that such a use would provide a source of income during the months that mining is idle. If that is the intent, I suggest that 9 months is too long. The gravel pits are active more than 3 months in the year.

There is no requirement that a mine be actively mining gravel to be allowed this non-gravel-related storage. If an older pit is an NCU governed by a CUP, which "runs with the land" and does not "go away," what is there to prevent an older mine from just becoming a storage facility with no mining occurring? The current proposal is for temporary storage. Are we on the proverbial slippery slope with pit uses? (Some testifying at the public hearing suggested so.) The CUP would include the reclamation plan when the gravel is exhausted. If this never occurs, does not this use just continue? (The IUP expires either when the gravel is gone or after a certain number of years have passed.) Should there be amending of the CUPs? What happens to the building for storage after the primary use of mining disappears? No accessory use without a primary use is allowed under Ordinance. Therefore, should not ag use or an accessory structure to a residence be outlined for this building's after-pit use?

For those of you not in attendance at the C/I Open House, this very ordinance proposal was brought up in general reference to the Township's enforcing ordinances. People objected to changing the ordinances to accommodate those who have violated them!

In closing this blog post, I would have to say I strongly disagree with this text amendment proposal. I see the ordinance language as highly flawed. I disagree with the concept. I believe we have Comprehensive Plan issues here. Why are you and I paying for this?

The Planning Commission by a 4-1 vote recommended denial of this amendment. I believe that those four Commissioners felt strongly about this, based on their discussion. Will the Board be listening to its Planning Commission, or are they beside the point?



Following is a comment I received.
Eureka Concerned Citizen has left a new comment on your post "MY TWO CENTS' WORTH": 

Thank you for the well thought and thoroughly done article. This is a must read for ALL Eureka Township officials. But I have my doubts it will be read because many are showing their minds have already been made up.