THE NITTY GRITTY: PART ONE

I have observed and taken part in Township meetings for some time now. Below are some pointers that may assist you as applicants to more efficiently and more easily accomplish your objective. They are in no particular order. They do reflect some of the issues that have arisen over the years that can result in delays and even unhappy citizens because of those delays.

I hope I got your attention with the dog! Perhaps you'll be able to retrieve this information as you need it!

Please read the Ordinance part that refers to your application before you do anything else. Ordinance 3 is the zoning ordinance that will probably cover whatever it is you are thinking of doing. (Unless it's mining, which is Ordinance 6.) Do your homework before working with the Clerk to submit an application. A basic understanding of what you are dealing with helps everybody.

Eureka is entirely zoned agricultural. There are some areas much more densely developed because they predated the zoning Ordinance. As an ag zone, the density is one single family dwelling per quarter-quarter section, with the ability to transfer in rights up to four houses/building rights per quarter-quarter section. That's the maximum of today.

Be sure to include your site plan with ALL the information requested. (There is a sample site plan available on the website or at Town Hall to guide you.) If you do not include information required under the Ordinance, that means your application is incomplete. The Clerk has 15 days under state statute to notify you in writing that it is incomplete and inform you of what you need to complete it. Since the deadline to get on the Planning Commission agenda is the Thursday 10 days before the meeting, this alone can cause a month's delay. If you turned in the incomplete application the day of the deadline, timing is a big issue. Nobody wants that for you, but we must have all the information. Only complete applications will come before the Commission.

The reason behind this is that the Ordinances, our community laws, have requirements that must be met to be able to grant you your request. No one on the Board or the Commission has the authority under normal conditions to alter these requirements outside of a full-on Text Amendment to the Ordinances, including a public hearing. If you read the duties of the Commission and the Board in Ordinance 2, nowhere does it state that these two bodies can step outside of these laws because applicants think it makes "common sense." 

Some examples of applicants pleading "common sense" have been: 

(1) I want to build a house in a quarter-quarter that is already full (maximum density cap of 4 housing rights, including Pre-1982 Lots of Record rights) because it would "save ag land" and keep my family close together. Maybe so, but to exceed that cap would require an extensive change to the Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan subject to the Metropolitan Council's acceptance. (Council representatives have repeatedly told the Township officials over time in various ways that they see us as Ag until 2040, which limits density, with sewer maybe coming after 2040. This keeps us open for future much higher density development from the Council's perspective and oversight of the metropolitan area development.)

(2) What if I get my neighbor to sign something saying he is okay with my infringement into the setback for a new structure; after all, it's only farmland next door. The neighbor has no more authority to waive a setback under law than the Commission and Board do. IN SOME RELATIVELY FEW CASES, a variance may be possible, but the problem has to be unique to the property and not caused by the owner or any previous owner. If the way your house is situated because you built it that way and now because of the house's placement, the addition you want encroaches into the setback, you have created that problem. Under state statute, there wouldn't be obvious grounds to grant a variance-my opinion. Your addition plans may have to change.

(3) I want to buy this property and develop it by building more homes I can sell. It makes more sense if we could just move one of the proposed houses over the line into the (already-full) adjoining quarter-quarter, part of which I would own anyway. Same problem as (1) for different reasons.

If provided by the ordinances and all requirements are met, then the citizen is entitled to the use/structure. The Supervisors and the Commissioners actually represent the common good, not the individual. This means the Ordinance must be followed. Our Ordinances have followed proper procedure for adoption, with appropriate opportunity for public input. Because of this, they are seen to reflect the common good, having been approved by our community. So follow the ordinances, and all should fall into place. The individual's request can be honored under the Ordinance and stay in keeping with the common good.

STAY TUNED FOR PART TWO... CUPs and IUPs.

EUREKA NEWS!

 Eureka Town Board Meeting, July 13, 2020

At the Eureka Town Board meeting on July 13, 2020, the 

Town Board Supervisors discussed the following:

Road Superintendent:  A motion was made to engage a Road 

Superintendent to work with the Road Supervisors and the Road

Contractors to evaluate the current road maintenance and repairs 

plan in order to save dollars spent on the roads.

Several people were contacted and spoken with regarding the newly

created position as Road Superintendent.  Mark Henry, who has an 

abundance of experience with road maintenance and was a Eureka

Road Contractor in the past was selected.

The compensation will be $25 per hour with a maximum of 10 hours

per week. Winter will require less time. A reasonable schedule and

parameters will be set. The intent is also to engage one citizen in

each quadrant of the Township to represent the needed maintenance

in each area. Gravel tickets, work orders and costs will be reviewed 

before work is done.

Four Supervisors were willing to give this system a try to save the 

Township dollars, felt it was long overdue and voted yes. 

Supervisor Ceminsky voted Nay!

New Complaints:  A complaint was submitted regarding the Planning 

Commission Chair's dialogue with citizens who attended a Public

Hearing. Commissioner Novacek raised strong concerns and stated he 

does not understand the rules of engagement.

Planning Commission Chair Sauber responded stating that at a Public

Hearing it is important to add facts that will clarify 

any information pertinent to the issue. Chair Sauber felt her questions

and perspective, while being respectful and transparent, were to relate

as much information as possible so everyone understands what the

issue is.

Chair Palmquist commented that it is important to make clarifying

statements. Meetings are not always civil.

Commissioner Novacek was adamant that personal comments be removed

from the minutes.  Attorney Lemmons stated that a public forum is healthy

for democracy. People have a right to express their opinions and should 

be respected. The public can be engaged with a dialogue and respectful 

conversation. It was determined that whatever has been stated by a citizen 

will be recorded. One cannot arbitrarily decided what is and is not recorded.

It was determined that there was no violation of anything. 

Attorney Lemmons stated the Township should establish policies

and procedures that do not violate 1st Amendment rights and statutory

notice requests regarding zoning. The Planning Commission

will review their Policies and Procedures Manual at the August meeting.

Property on 10132 235th Street - The amended Court Order filed 

January 18, 2018, in the case of Eureka vs Terri Petter, was reviewed 

and it appeared that what Terri Petter was proposing to do violates this

Order. Paragraph 1 enjoins Terri Petter and other defendants from 

conducting activities related to ANIMAL exhibition at 10132 235th

street exhibit. 

Paragraph 2 of the Order permanently enjoins the defendants from 

conducting retail sales in Eureka Township at 10132 235th Street 

except for horticultural products produced on one's property.

Upon reviewing the information in the complaint, Attorney 

Lemmons stated it appears Terri Petter intends to violate this 

injunction as well.

Under paragraphs 6 of the order, it states that the Dakota County Sheriff is 

authorized to enforce the Eureka Township Ordinances in accordance

to the Order.

The Town Board authorized the Attorney to send a letter to the Sheriff

providing the information the Township has and request the Sheriff 

enforce paragraphs1 and 2 of the amended Order. This Order

prohibits exhibition of animals. This would include farm animals 

as well as exotic animals. 

Four Supervisors voted yes to enforce the Court order and the Eureka

Township Ordinance. Supervisor Ceminsky voted NAY!!!!!!

Building without a permit - Eureka Township's Building Inspector 

is Inspectron.  It was determined that Darrel Gilmer, who was no

longer the Township's Building Inspector, had NO authority 

to issue extensions for the accessory building construction on 

Mark Ceminsky's property. 

It was agreed that Supervisor Ceminsky will pay a fee of $388 to

the Township and the final inspection will be done by the Township 

Building Inspector, Inspectron.

  

24404 Iceland Path - Complaint regarding running business 

without a CUP. A Supervisor inspection will be conducted initially.

24230 Holyoke - A complaint regarding a pool without a fence which

is required by the Eureka Ordinance. Inspectron sent a letter

to the property address and there has been no response.  Supervisor

Murphy will follow up with Inspectron.

Human Resource Safety Concern:

Chair Palmquist read the contents of a Trespass Notice at the 

direction of the Minnesota Association of Townships and the Township

Attorney regarding abusive behavior. The letter dated June 11, 2020, 

and signed by the Township was sent to Charles (Butch) Hansen.

"Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 609.605, no person shall intentionally 

trespass on the land of another and refuse to depart from that land, 

without legal basis, when  demand to do so made by a lawful possessor 

or the agent of said lawful possessor.

This notice informs you that you are prohibited from trespassing, entering

or occupying the land and buildings located at 25043 Cedar Avenue,

Eureka, Minnesota. (Eureka Town Hall).).

This trespass notice constitutes a written demand to depart from the land

and property immediately. Any violation of this will be considered a 

criminal trespass in violation of Minn. Stat.  609.605.

Any communication with the Town including but not limited to permit

application and complaints, should either be mailed by U.S. Mail 

postage prepaid to the Town, electronically delivered to the Town 

Clerk, or delivered by a third party messenger. If you need to 

communicate with a representative of the Town you should contact 

either Donovan Palmquist or Timothy Murphy. There should be no 

contact of any other member with Town Staff.

This notice does not prohibit you from attending open meetings of the

Eureka Planning Commission or Town Board. However, if you become

disruptive while attending either a Planning Commission or

Town Board meeting, the Town reserves the right to demand your

immediate departure. "

(Information in the above Trespass Order was taken from the meeting

CD recording of July 13, 2020, which can be obtained from the Clerk).

The Town Board does have the responsibility to protect Township 

staff.

COVID-19:

It was stated that the Town Board put great effort into the 

development of a preparedness plan to hold a public hearing on 

June 15, 2020.

Masks were required at the meeting. Planning Commissioner Novacek

refused to wear a mask at the Planning Commission public

hearing. He stated that he believed the masks do not work and the 

masks were "feeding the fear narrative" among the population.

Attorney Lemmons stated that Ordinance 2 dealing with the Planning 

Commission states that rules can be set as to how members are to

operate.  If they refuse to comply with a mandate of the Town Board,

that would be a basis for removing from the Planning Commission.

I believe Governor Walz's order requiring all citizens to wear masks 

in public buildings will satisfy this issue.

(Information regarding this blog was taken from the July 13, 2020,

meeting CD which can be obtained from the Clerk).