DRIVE TIME?

At the October Board meeting “Driveway Regulations” was listed on the agenda. First, know that driveway permits are over-the-counter. The Clerk issues them and the applicant does not need to go before the Planning Commission and Town Board.




A story unfolded during the Board's discussion. It seems a driveway permit application came in during August after the Board meeting that month. The applicant wished to move his driveway from its current location north. Mark Ceminsky, who had resigned as road supervisor at the August Town Board meeting, weighed in. (It seemed from what Ceminsky said at the August meeting during his resignation comments that his feelings were hurt and he claimed to be “stabbed in the back.”) Ceminsky told Clerk Ranee Solis to deny the permit. He asserted that there is a fifty-foot offset for driveways re other driveways. Upon examining the Ordinances, Solis found no such offset mentioned anywhere. Ceminsky apparently didn’t think that mattered, because he insisted, “It’s how it’s always been done.”

Solis rightly determined that the Township has to have a legal basis to deny a permit and, since there was nothing in the Ordinances about this offset, she did not think the permit should be denied.  Yet Ceminsky apparently was firm on the denial being the course to take. Since Ceminsky was no longer road supervisor at this point, the clerk reached out to the Chair and Vice Chair. She was instructed to go ahead and issue the permit.

When this agenda item came up at the October meeting, both Ceminsky and Hansen objected to the Clerk’s action and the instruction she was given. Hansen went so far as to very rudely and very loudly state to the Clerk that she  “doesn’t run the Township.”

Now the Clerk is duty bound to follow the Ordinances. When, during the meeting, Hansen and Ceminsky were asked by Supervisor Barfknecht to point to the spot in the Ordinances that states the offset requirement, neither could do so. Hansen, however, argued “It IS in the Ordinances [because] we’re supposed to protect the public health, safety and welfare and this is a safety issue.”

Without any Ordinance language, how does that work? Supervisor Q decides that “xwyz” is necessary for your safety. No real rationale given why a distance should be a 50’ offset as opposed to a 40’ one or a 60’ one. Or that an offset greater than the distance to the lot line already in the Ordinances needs to be. “We’ve always done it that way” is not a reason to stand on. Where does it say that the public through the Ordinance adoption process agrees? What if a new Board Supervisor P says he/she thinks that “abc” is how it should be done? Doesn’t this leave the Citizen at the mercy of fluctuating standards at the whim of whomever is in office? Yes, the Board's authority comes from a duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, but this “umbrella” does not give any Board the right to act in such an arbitrary and capricious way!

Following is what the Ordinances have regarding driveways in Ordinance 3, Ch. 3, Section 5, B:

       B.  Driveways shall meet the following requirements: (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007 (B.1.-3.)

1.    Driveways that take access on township roads shall be located a minimum of ten (10) feet from the property line or as necessary to provide adequate drainage onto the parcel the driveway serves. 

2.    Driveways that take access on County/State highways shall conform to ordinances of the County and State, as appropriate.

3.    Driveways must be located a minimum of 300 feet from the intersection of any two or more public roads.

Clearly, different Ordinance language is required if the Board wants to proceed down this path, and anything else is nonsense! Supervisors ought to know this, or I wonder what they are doing up there.

As a result, the Planning Commission was tasked with looking into the Ordinances and Chapter 169 in state regulations. I briefly scrolled through 169 and saw no reference to driveways. That's not to say that the Commission couldn't come up with some recommended language. It is of note that there are driveways along Dodd Blvd. (a County Road so the County issues driveway permits) that do not have this offset. And we not are talking about driveways that have been there "forever." Does the County, then, have little regard for your safety? I doubt it.

The road that the permit applicant lives on is Denmark Avenue which is a road a portion of whose maintenance is shared with Castle Rock Township. Apparently from what I have been told, Castle Rock does require a fifty-foot offset between driveways. Eureka citizens are not governed by Castle Rock Ordinances, however! Are we a little confused? Is this where this requirement came from? Or have Eureka road supervisors been operating without the benefit of Ordinance language? Because "it's always been done this way"?

There was also a list of drives presented in the public packet that gave a number of drives on the same side of the roadway (the Eureka side) that do not meet fifty-foot offsets. Ceminsky, perhaps surprised to see the list, judging by his comment about it, objected to this list because he said some of those listed were field approaches, not regular driveways.

It appears to me that Clerk Solis was correct in her assessment and acted to protect the Township. If the Board wants to establish an offset, they can go through the public process to insert Ordinance language to that effect. It should be noted that under the Ordinances, the Town Clerk is the Zoning Administrator. As such, the call she made is within her authority.