Falling on Deaf Ears

                                              Is this the trend of our local government?

                                                      

Steve Madden

On Monday, June 3, I attended the Planning Commission meeting. As I listened to the discussion regarding Agri-tourism, I became quite concerned regarding what appeared to me to be an attempt by two of the Planning Commission members to feel the need to implement and rush through an Agri-tourism ordinance without engaging in the steps necessary to develop an ordinance.  I spoke at the Town Board meeting during the Public Comment period regarding the following: What

is the sense of urgency? Is the intent to allow Agri-tourism meant to satisfy the needs of one, two or a handful of citizens?  What does the urgency have to do with an August deadline?  Ms. Petter withdrew her application for a text amendment to allow Agri-tourism.  That wagon rolled out of town some time ago.

 Mr. Novacek was quite insistent on sending on to the Board his definition which was almost exactly the same definition Ms. Petter and Mr. Hansen submitted, with little consideration of other Planning Commission members’ input. He stated that "they were beating it to death and were dysfunctional."  He said having an ordinance is “too much into police state, get rid of the ordinance.” "The only purpose to have an ordinance is because the Town Board requested it" was stated. Planning Commissioner Al Novacek asked "who is given the gift to decide limits.” Al did not want a Task Force and stated public opinion will "stretch out the process.”

Commissioner Frana stated that the definition of Agri-tourism needed to include more than hours of operation. Mr. Hansen asked “what else is there.” Mr. Hansen stated that "standards of practice were not needed." He stated that “if we feel someone is doing something that is not allowed, we can go in and say it is not allowed.” (Imagine how this would be addressed in the court system!) He also stated” No reason we can’t regulate.” Mr. Hansen stated that "Agri-tourism has nothing to do with the Comp plan."  When asked how he knew that, he stated it is “not my first rodeo.” With this attitude, I believe it will be difficult to develop an ordinance without the guidance of a professional planner.

I am not anti Agri-tourism and am looking at the feasibility with an open mind.

However, I believe the issue which will affect all citizens has many critical components and is a very complex issue. I have spoken with large and small landowners in Eureka and when I mention the feasibility of Agri-tourism, they have no idea what I am talking about. As with the Commercial/Industrial study and the Transfer of Building Rights, the study of an Agri-tourism ordinance

requires the same process which included attorney input, Professional Planner input, mailed citizen surveys, citizen input meetings, a Task Force and a public hearing at a minimum.   The Minnesota Association of Townships article “Ordinance Adoption Procedures and Formalities" states “always seek professional assistance when adopting an ordinance.” 

 I recommended as a citizen the Town Board and Planning Commission give serious thought to engaging a Professional Planner, attorney review, post cards sent out to all citizens inviting them to informational meetings and perhaps surveys. Questions need to be answered such as how will the ordinance be administered, do we have the necessary staff, how will the ordinance be enforced and is the Board committed to following through with the enforcement of the ordinance if it is adopted as well as many other considerations.  Please review Ordinance 3, Chapter 1, Section 2 – Intent and Purpose of our Zoning Ordinance. This Township has difficulty enforcing the ordinances that are already in place.  If the Township cannot afford a Professional Planner and attorney reviews and if any members of the Town Board and Planning Commission feel a need to railroad this through,  then I believe they have no business considering Agri-tourism. I looked forward to the Board discussion regarding the issue.

It was quite obvious to me that my concerns and comments were not addressed

by the majority of the Board of Supervisors.  The request by the majority of the Planning Commision to engage a Task Force was also ignored. Supervisor Storlie stated the following:

(Draft of Town Board June 2013 minutes).

A motion by Supervisor Pete Storlie: That the definition (Pete's which was similar to Ms. Petter's and Mr. Hansen's) and all the information gathered from the public hearing be directed back to the Planning Commission again as a starting point for the Ag-Tourism Ordinance and they propose back to the Town Board and at some point a public hearing be held to move forward with this. Motion seconded by Supervisor MarkCeminsky. Vote was taken on the motion, motion passed with a vote of 3 to 2.  (Supervisors Budenski and Miller voted nay)

HAVE CITIZEN CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE MAJORITY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FALLEN ON DEAF EARS!