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!  

  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

KUDOS ALL AROUND !!!

Eureka citizens turned out big time to vote in the election on November 3rd.

The day started with 1,054 voters registered. Sixty-seven new voters were registered throughout the day.

By the end of the day, a whopping 788 people had voted!

Special thanks to the people who staffed the polls for our community:

Election Administrator, Ranee Solis

Head Election Judges, Julie Larson and Mary Ann Michels

Election Judges

Jody Arman-Jones                        Cindy Murphy

Dan Barfknecht                             Bill Pekarna

Laurie Campbell                           Colleen Riley

Mary Dawson                                Sue Rogers

Rich Fott                                        Kris Todd

Ralph Fredlund

It couldn't have happened without you! Thank You!

THE NITTY GRITTY PART TWO: CUPs and IUPs

Conditional Use Permit. Interim Use Permit

Both are grantable permits, that is, allowable uses. If an applicant meets all requirements and agrees to all proposed reasonable, related and roughly proportional conditions to help mitigate any negative impacts, the Township gives the permit. These are considered "quasi-judicial" (as opposed to legislative) actions, and they are the most likely to end up in court if not executed properly. 

Conditional uses are those decided upon and enacted as allowed, but with the capacity for the Township to place conditions such as adequate off-site parking and turn lanes so as to not negatively impact neighboring properties. Arbitrary conditions such as the buildings must be blue are not allowable and can be challenged.

The whole process of granting a CUP is outlined in the Ordinances. See Ordinance pp. 84-87.

Any CUP application requires a public hearing and notification of nearby neighbors. Public hearings require ten days' published notice in the official newspapers of the Township. The Board has also adopted the practice of sending out postcard notices of all public hearings to all property owners to ensure that they are aware of the upcoming proceeding. Newspaper publishing is required by state statute; notification of nearby neighbors up to 1,000 feet away is required under the Ordinances; postcards are not required and are optional.

Some examples of Conditional Uses allowed in the Ordinances are schools, cemeteries, churches, signs larger than 50 sq. ft. ONLY those CUPs listed in the Ordinances are allowed in Eureka. See Ordinance pp. 501-52.  In the past, inquiries have shown that some think that they can obtain a CUP for what they consider a "good idea" although not mentioned in the Ordinances. This is not true. If it were true, of what good would zoning be?

In fact, the Ordinances contain a paragraph that states anything not regulated in the Ordinances is prohibited. See Ordinance p. 52:

E. Prohibited Uses and Structures All other uses and structures which are not specifically permitted as a right or by Conditional Use Permit or Interim Use Permit, including public stables and boarding of dogs, shall be prohibited in the Agricultural District. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007)

Once granted and recorded at the County, CUPs "run with the land." That is, they transfer owner to owner. They do not go away unless a landowner would request this of the Township. Sometimes, tax issues are involved in this.

Interim Use Permits are very similar to CUPs with the distinction that they do terminate, either on a specified date or at a specified event. The only two IUPs currently allowed in the Township are gravel mining and airstrips. See Ordinance p. 52. Perhaps the clearest example of the termination by an event is the gravel running out on a gravel mine. See Ordinance pp. 87-90 for the process to grant an IUP. IUPs require public hearings and notification just as CUPs do.

If an IUP terminates on a specific date, and the applicant would like to continue, a reapplication can be made and granted.

Any changes to CUPs or IUPs require and amendment process which follows the original process, including a public hearing. 

                                                     

The only way the list of CUPs and IUPs could be changed is by way of a Text Amendment to the Ordinances. Such amendments can be initiated by the Planning Commission, the Town Board, or by an individual. If an individual proposes an amendment, that person is responsible for all costs, regardless of the outcome of the process.

Whether as an applicant or as a neighbor to such uses, it is helpful to understand the ground rules!