TAKE IT ON THE ROAD

 

As the biggest budget item by far and a topic that affects every single one of us, ROADS are a big deal in a township!

Eureka Township has a Road Superintendent, Mark Henry, two Road Supervisors, Donovan Palmquist and Ralph Fredlund,  AND a Road Committee. The Road Committee is composed of four citizen volunteers with an interest in our roadways. They are Rich Stevens, Alex Turner, Jim Larson, and Elise Mincke. Henry acts as the moderator for meetings of this subgroup, while Palmquist and Fredlund act as advisors.

Once COVID settled down, the Road Committee met three times: an organizational meeting, a road tour, and a meeting to discuss the findings of the road tour. On the road tour, the group reviewed the roads needing work and developed a priority list for next year's projects and road budget. Meetings of the Committee will proceed on an as-needed basis; no regular schedule.

What does the Road Committee do? Its purpose is to provide input to the Road Superintendent and the Road Supervisors regarding road issues and to give feedback as to what the citizens think about our roads. Gravel needs. ditch cleaning. ditch mowing, tree and brush removal, signage (including an inventory of all the Township's road signs), plowing/sanding/salting, trash dumping and pickup, dust control, and which roads need to be prioritized when are all topics that the group will discuss and address. Currently, a sign inventory is being done.

 

If you have any road issues, please be sure to call Donovan Palmquist (507-645-9868), Ralph Fredlund (952-469-1335), or the Clerk/Deputy Clerk (952-469-3736). Please do not call members of the Road Committee.

Here's to a fall and winter of safe and happy driving!

WHAT IS A VARIANCE ANYWAY? WHEN DO I NEED ONE? HOW DO I GET ONE? WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS?

Variances are addressed in Minnesota state statutes. Our Ordinances lay out the CRITERIA and the PROCEDURE for granting a variance, based on those statutes. The Board and the Commission are bound by these parameters of this law.

 The first thing one needs to know is that variances are all about measurement and measurement only. Minnesota does not grant USE variances. The use of your property is governed by the zoning in place.  Measurements such as setbacks can be difficult to meet on some properties even when the use is allowed.

You can find the Ordinance language on Variances by clicking on this link and going to page 90 of the Code. My purpose here is to point out the highlights.

One of the key criteria is that there is something unique to the property that presents "practical difficulties" in meeting these measurements. (The standard used to be "undue hardship," which was a harder standard to meet, but that has changed.)

Whatever is presenting the problem cannot be created by the current or previous owners. For example, the fact that the building you want to build is too big to easily fit on your property does not mean that setbacks would be reduced. You can build a smaller building that can meet setbacks and you still have a reasonable use of your property. The setback issue has been created by you because of your proposed building size. This would not be an instance of a variance being justified.

However, something like a steep drop off of the land on the property might mean that even a smaller building cannot easily meet setbacks. Perhaps all the adjustment needed is to reduce setbacks by five feet leaving a 25' setback instead of the usual 30'. This could be seen as a reasonable request for an exception to the "strict application" of the Ordinance. .

Note that the use of the property has to be in keeping with the general zoning, the purpose and intent of the Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan and the local character of the area. What you want to build would otherwise be accepted except for your setback problem.

State statute provides that economic considerations alone shall not constitute practical difficulties. This is an important one.

To receive a variance, the landowner must fill out and submit a variance application. The Clerk as Zoning Administrator receives the application.

"The Zoning Administrator shall provide landowners within 1,000' of the applicant's property with notification of the application for a variance via first class mail." Why is this the case? Because the law provides these landowners the opportunity to weigh in with their views on the application. The variance cannot change the character of the locality. To grant a variance without such notice, in my opinion, would deprive those neighbors of their ability under the law to comment. 

The Zoning Administrator refers the application along with related information to the Planning Commission. The Commission reviews this in accordance with Minnesota Statute 462.354, subd 2. The applicant may appear before the Commission to explain his situation. The Commission  may recommend conditions to the Board. 

The Town Board, acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, then places the item on its agenda at its next regular meeting and holds a public hearing on the matter. All proper notification of this hearing is in force as it is for any other public hearing, including mailed notice to property owners within 1,000' of the subject property. The Board renders its decision in accordance with the parameters outlined in the Ordinance. Any variances granted shall be recorded with the Dakota County Recorder's Office.

 

WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN YOU TURN IN YOUR PLANS WITH YOUR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION?

 

It's a distinction that many do not perceive, but it is important.

When a building permit is turned in, plans are to accompany the application. This is a requirement, but the Clerk, the Planning Commission and the Board simply see that they are submitted.

The Commission and Board review and approve or deny the application based on ZONING only. That is their sphere of authority.

These questions must be answered: Are you allowed the building? Is density cap met? Are you within the total square footage for accessory buildings? If you are housing animals, are they enclosed (building or pen) no closer than 175' from all neighboring residences? If it is an ag building, is it located at least 250' from neighboring residences, and vice versa. This applies for ALL ag buildings, housing animals or not. Do you qualify under the state statute to claim an ag exemption from the building code? Are ALL structures shown on your site plan, and all ALL the setbacks given? (Without the latter, the application should stop at the Clerk until complete and not go forward to the Commission until it is complete.) Are the well and septic shown?

And so on.

So now, regarding your plans, engineered or not: This falls strictly under the authority of the Building Official.

The Building Official is a trained, certified person who is hired by the Township to ensure that the MN Building Code is met. It is the STATE building code, not Eureka's code, although we have adopted the state code and all its amendments. The Building Official is the person who inspects and approves each stage of your building process, including the construction plans. He/she has that authority, not the Board.

SO, if you turn in plans, those plans are reviewed by the Building Official and a plan review fee is assessed. This fee must be paid before the permit is actually issued. Again, the Board does not review or weigh in on, nor do they approve your plans. Nothing should go forward until Inspectron, Eureka's Building official has okayed the plans.

Take the example, next, of an ag building. Since qualified ag buildings are exempt from Building Code inspections, all the Township does for one is review and approve the ZONING for that structure. The zoning review is required, even if inspections are not. As you see, these are two, separate domains.

BROADBAND GRANT APPLICATION

 As anticipated, there have been numerous applications for the grant money, over 230, for a total of $2.5 billion in requests over 49 states and U.S. territories! 

From NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information Administration):

Due to the high volume of applications, the award process will be highly competitive. As outlined in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, priority will be given to projects that:

1. Provide broadband service to the greatest number of households in an eligible service area;

2, Provide broadband service to rural areas;

3. Are most cost-effective in providing broadband service; or

4. Provide broadband service with a download speed of at least 100Mbps and an upload speed of at least 20Mbps.

Legislation recently passed by the Senate will expand upon the groundwork being laid by this program, according to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce.

More to come...

A LITTLE BIT OF THIS, A LITTLE BIT OF THAT...

The Town Board recently submitted an application for grant money for fiber optic internet service. This is one of several grants that the Township can apply for. Supervisor Kathleen Kauffman, Clerk Ranee Solis, Ben Blomgren of JTN, and Supervisor Ralph Fredlund have spearheaded this effort. Many hours were spent in a short while to ready the application by the deadline. Supervisor Kauffman has been appointed Authorized Representative, and Supervisor Fredlund has been appointed Grant Administrator. More news on this topic to come...

DID YOU KNOW: At a recent Board meeting it was discovered in speaking with the Deputy sergeant in attendance that if a citizen calls the Sheriff with a complaint and request for an inspection, he/she needs to specifically request a follow-up from the responding Deputy or one will not be provided. Citizens can also request copies of Sheriff reports.

An ACRE Agricultural Sector Townhall was held August 25th in Farmington at the SWCD. Input from farmers/producers at this meeting will be used to draft a plan that is more restrictive than the state regulations. There is also a survey available through the County. Contact Ashley Gallagher at the SWCD: Ashley.Gallagher@CO.DAKOTA.MN.US. 

The goal is to regulate pollutants such as nitrates from ag sources.  Unfortunately, only FOUR people were in attendance! Three of these became aware of this meeting only through a Supervisor forward through the Eureka Clerk to the Commission and the Board. The Board will address this topic at its meeting on Monday, September 13. Visit the Dakota County website and search for "ACRE" for more information. Information is also available via the Board packet accessible on the Township website.

OR https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/EnvironmentWaterResources/Agriculture/Pages/agricultural-chemical-reduction-effort.aspx. 

This effort has implications for ALL citizens in Dakota County.

BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE...

 

In spite of the Eureka Town Board publicly objecting at a Lakeville public hearing concerning the annexation by the City of Lakeville of the Ruddle and Adelmann properties, the annexations have gone through. The Ruddle property on Dodd is 91+ acres, and the Adelmann property on 225th is 115+ acres. Both are in ag use in an ag-zoned township. However, under State Statute, the Township is powerless to object. MN Statute 414.033 subd 2(3) A public hearing is required, but one wonders what the point of it is. The City can annex up to 120 acres per petitioning landowner. The Minnesota Association of Townships Town Government Manual states "The town has no power to object." See 17.3 #3.

It's this way because the State Legislature enacted annexation laws that favor cities. Period. A city is not compelled to annex the properties, but it has every ability to do so. Open, larger tracts are desirable for distribution centers such as we have seen along Dodd or larger factories such as seen along Cedar. 

Recently, Eureka Township has received Comprehensive Plan Amendments from Lakeville. As an adjoining district, we have the opportunity to review and respond with comments.

I was asked if the Metropolitan Council gets involved in such annexations. After all, it was argued, Eureka is considered ag until 2040 and yet Lakeville can take Township land and develop it as commercial/industrial? I spoke with Patrick Boylan, the Metropolitan Council staff representative for our municipality. His answer is that the only time the Council would be involved with an annexation would be if property owned by the Council were the subject of the acquisition. Once other land is annexed, they have oversight on Comp Plan amendments for the use of such land. Naturally, the Council would be unlikely to object to Lakeville's developing the land as proposed when it is adjacent to property used in a similar fashion.

The Town Board has asked Lakeville to provide a green zone buffer to abutting residential properties to mitigate the negative effects to at least some degree. Lakeville's ordinances provide this for its own citizens when C/I abuts residential areas. Of course, Lakeville has no obligation to Eureka residents to provide such a buffer, but we had to ask. After all, the developer could absorb this expense. To date, Eureka has not received a response to the Town Board's letter regarding this.

IT BEARS REPEATING...

 

... YOUR VOTE MATTERS!

As you know, Township elections were recently held on March 9th. In a neighboring township, the election was decided 195 to 191. That's a 1% edge! Four votes out of nearly 400. That means one household or just a couple of two-person households decided the outcome.

Here in Eureka, there have been several elections decided by a handful of votes, even as few as TWO votes.

Other neighboring townships have frequently had low voter turnouts in the twenties. In such a case, it wouldn't take much of an organized effort to change the outcome.

LESSON LEARNED: You truly have a powerful influence in your local government. Your one vote can actually be the deciding vote. There were 455 votes cast on March 9th in Eureka. While the margin was not close, it could have been. Thank you for voting!