EXACTLY WHAT PART IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

Towards the end of the September Board meeting, a topic that has been discussed and explained multiple times was brought up yet again.

It seems that Butch Hansen continues to hold a steadfast belief that Dakota County has been interfering in Eureka's zoning, no matter how many times the pertinent distinctions have been made clear! Mark Ceminsky has publicly supported and agreed with Hansen in this assertion. This, of course, is nonsense because the County has no zoning authority in the Township, as most people living here know.

However, on multiple recent occasions, Hansen has asserted that property he has stated he is handling the sale of has been zoned commercial by the County. He insists it is zoning, even when it has been suggested that this is actually a tax issue. He even wanted the Planning Commission to check this alleged problem out. The Board agreed that the Commission could do so. So use up their time looking into something that all the Board, all the Commission, and indeed, all the citizenry should already understand! What a waste of time.

The crux of the matter is that, even though the County cannot zone any property in Eureka, it can and does tax properties. Now, all of Eureka is zoned agricultural, but we allow different uses within the ag zone, such as residences, gravel mining, CUPs for certain uses, etc. How a property is used within the ag zone is how it is taxed. I believe that is state law. So if an individual holds a CUP for a commercial use on his property, the County is going to tax it that way.


The Township Attorney has even been asked to send letters to the County on this subject. I objected to the Township spending any money on this and to asking the Attorney to act on what I see is the behalf of one Board member. I will allow that if the County were doing what Hansen alleges, it could be a problem for the Township as a whole, but this just isn't so. Hansen simply will not accept the explanation. Board members looked up properties online at Dakota County Property Records during the meeting. When it was pointed out that that source does not state anything is zoned anything other than ag, Hansen still refused to accept it. He claimed he stood in line for "four hours" and the information he was presented indicated that the property is zoned commercial.

However, Hansen produced no paperwork to support his claim of County zoning. I am sure that is because it can't be produced. Nowhere will it state that a Eureka property is zoned commercial, but it will state information as to the uses of a said property, one of which might be commercial.


I pointed out that the property in question does have a CUP for a commercial purpose. (I remembered that from my time as a Supervisor reviewing this property's CUP.) I suggested that, if Hansen doesn't want commercial taxes on the property, he could ask that the Township revoke or cancel the CUP. Otherwise, as everyone knows, the CUP "runs with the land" and doesn't go away. Even though what I suggested would have helped Hansen in his situation, he angrily would not accept it. He not only didn't want to accept the information, but he strongly objected to my commenting at all, and let me know it in a very rude manner. (Now, from time to time, former Supervisors and Commissioners have offered, or have even been asked to offer, information based on their experience during their tenures in office. That has happened for me many times, so I did not feel my offering a possible solution could be so offensive to him.)

As it happens this situation occurred on another property during my time as Planning Commission Chair. That particular owner had actually come in much earlier and obtained a CUP during the yearlong opportunity that businesses had some years ago. The owner subsequently found that the commercial aspect was making it hard to sell his property and came in for consultation. I believe he considered asking for removal of the CUP to make his property more salable.

,
What I further don't "get" is why the Board authorized Chad Lemmons to draft and write a letter to the County on this subject. The Attorney had already explained the zoning authority question after a phone call to the County which he did not charge for, but still that wasn't good enough for Hansen. It is even embarrassing that we are now sending a letter to the County, in my opinion! We're going to look a little stupid, if you ask me.

Don't Town Supervisors know who has zoning authority here? I'm pretty sure that I was not the only person in the room who gets this! Are we spending money just to appease someone who refuses to understand a simple explanation? Can we speak up and tell fellow supervisors that they are mistaken on this one and end the discussion?