AND THE LUMP OF COAL GOES TO...

The topic of this post should be of concern to all in the Township, no matter what your philosophy or political leanings, in my opinion.



As I hope you know, the Township has a "Citizen Input Policy" which is stated on the website under "Policies." Citizen Input Policy  This Policy states in brief:

Citizen Input

Individuals or groups wishing to address the Township Board are encouraged (emphasis mine) to complete an Agenda Request Form and request that an item be put on the agenda for discussion at a regular Township Board Meeting (emphasis mine).  The deadline for such requests is noon on the Thursday preceding the meeting of the Township Board.  Public comment at Board meetings is defined by the following procedures.

It is requested that anyone bringing written materials to the meeting have seven (7) copies available--five for the Board, one for the public, and one for the official record.

As I have done in the past, I submitted a request in writing to Linda Wilson during the Planning Commission meeting on the Monday before the Board meeting, more than satisfying the deadline. Receiving no further

communication on this, and the agenda not being posted on the website as is the normal procedure, I arrived at the meeting and took an agenda.  I had asked to be put under "Citizen Business, Land use information."  There was no such agenda item.  However, under "Public Comment" near the top of the agenda I saw my name! "Public Comment"(very brief opportunity for public for speak before the rest of the meeting) has always been determined by asking those in attendance if there is any public comment.  Those indicating they wish to speak are given a few minutes to do so. This is done on the spot; no one "signs up" for it ahead of time.

I went up to Chair Pete Storlie before the meeting started and very nicely told him I had requested to be placed on the agenda and this was not done. He said I was on the agenda under "Public Comment."  I said I had asked to be placed on the agenda per the policy. He looked me right in the eye and said, "I am following the Citizen Input Policy." (Note the use of the first person!) I told him that a citizen can request to be placed on the agenda, I had done so, yet I was not on the agenda.  He restated that he "was following" the policy. (No, Mr. Chair, you are not.) I told him him he needed to amend the agenda to include my request.  He then started the meeting.

At the end of my "regular" public comments already posted on this blog concerning the CUP application, I added the comment that I had requested the agenda item and this was not done or corrected.  I felt this was a blatant attempt to silence me (or restrict my input) and said so.  I said I had information about land use on a property adjoining my own and this affected my property and demanded to be able to speak on the topic as requested. "Thank you, Nancy" was my bland "response" from the Chair.

Later in the meeting, the property in question and its building use came up.  I raised my hand and told the Chair that this was the matter that I had requested to speak on the agenda about. Since it affects my property, I said, I ask that I be heard before the Board takes any action on the matter. The Chair did not respond to me. As it happened, the Building Inspector had not yet filed his report (which I understand now has been done) so the Board was not able to take any action and the item was put off until the January meeting.

So we don't know if Mr. Storlie would have eventually seen fit (the rest of the Board?) to allow a citizen to speak concerning the effect on her own property when an adjacent land use was discussed.

How does a public official seemingly see himself as so powerful that he can apparently single-handedly attempt to ignore and thwart adopted public policy?  I subsequently learned from another citizen that he had also requested to be placed on the agenda the preceding month and had been told by the Clerk that she "wasn't sure she could do that."  Has someone directed the Clerk to NOT place people on the agenda as requested and as covered by policy?  This has always been done as a matter of course in the past. Whose "agenda" is at work here?  Is it the public's agenda or an individual's agenda? 

Pete Storlie has already admitted publicly that he told Commissioner Hansen to tell a property owner he could "ignore" the Building Official's letter on a closely related topic even though Pete does not have the authority to do so. ("Closely related" because although the use has remained, the ownership has changed.) If you haven't listened to the meeting recording accessed through the "Your Public Officials At Work" post, you really should do so.  It is eye-opening about some things that have gone on in this Township.

If an elected public official can do something like this unimpeded, no one should rest comfortably!  If you are "out of favor" with a Board Chair can you be gagged from speaking about your own property? What would the Minnesota Association of Townships advise the Town Board to do?  What would its insurance branch advise the Board? Do you as a Eureka citizen wish to be subject to this?

This action by the Chair rates not just a lump of coal, I think, but a whole scuttle's worth!

POSITIVE MOVEMENT ON AGRITOURISM DISCUSSION!

I once again attended the latest Agritourism Task Force meeting on Wednesday, December 18th, along with three other members of the public.  The committee hosted an "outside speaker," Mike Wozniak, planner and Zoning Administrator for Goodhue County.  Goodhue County has enacted agritourism ordinances that have been in effect for a few years now. Mr. Wozniak has been in the profession for over thirty years and was quite articulate on the subject.  He presented what Goodhue County has done, provided informational handouts from other jurisdictions such as Michigan which has done work on the matter, and answered the group's and the audience's questions. His contributions were many, including advice to be very clear about what the Township wants to do regarding uses and regulations and his support of the idea of engaging a planner to assist with the process.  I think his input was very valuable, as did the others at the meeting who thanked him for his time of nearly two hours' discussion.


At the meeting before the last one, the task force met with Bob Patton, of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, for his take on the subject from the state level.  During his report from that aspect, he mentioned yet another gentleman at the state who is working on a definition of "agritourism" for Minnesota.


Over the past week between these two meetings, three members of the task force (not a quorum) also met with Gary Shelton, Administrator for Scott County.  They reported what they had learned from him and also about his suggestion that, if desired, they could speak to Brad Davis, also of Scott County.  I have spoken to Brad in the past during one of the training sessions given by Government Training Services in which he took part as a speaker and found him to be very approachable and knowledgeable.  He is the Planning Department Manager for Scott County and has experience and background that could be of benefit to Eureka and its citizens.  I hope that the Agritourism Task Force will follow through and set up a meeting with Brad as well.


I am encouraged by this approach that the committee has taken.  Some of these attempts at information gathering were made by certain Planning Commissioners on their own initiative before the appointment of the task force, since they recognized the importance of learning from others' experiences.  No need to work in a vacuum and reinvent the wheel!  It is wonderful that staff working for other local government units are so generous with their time and expertise. That the committee as a whole has welcomed and sought this input is a positive step in gathering a good foundation to explore the subject further, I believe. "Thank you!" to those who are volunteering their time and commitment to serve on the task force.  Let's hope we continue to proceed with a thoughtful, deliberative process!

On another subject, unfortunately, at this time, the website does not have the task force's minutes and other materials available to the public, as I was hoping would be the case by this point. (See "Coming Soon to a Website Near You?" post.) I encourage the committee and the Board to expend the energy to make this happen soon.  Not everyone can attend meetings, but everyone should have accessibility to the meetings' progress at his fingertips.  It is important not only that the public is fully informed of the conversations on this land use in our Township, but that being so informed then has the further valuable opportunity to weigh in with opinions and suggestions as things move ahead.


Along those lines, the Agritourism Open House held on Thursday, December 12th, was attended by

perhaps 25 people in addition to the task force members, and still others availed themselves of the opportunity to submit comments via email, USPS or the drop box. Although some on the task force earlier expressed that they felt there would be a very low turnout or that only those people who were against the use would show up, I do not feel that was the case at all. As a fellow citizen, "thank you" to all those who took the time to be involved in our community, especially during this very busy time of year!  If you haven't taken the time to do so yet, your neighbors would like to hear from you!

IT GIVES ME NO JOY---HOLIDAY OR OTHERWISE...

...but you, as a Eureka citizen, should know how you have been represented lately.  There was a public hearing held recently concerning an application for a church Conditional Use Permit (CUP) on what is a residential site.  These things ought to go smoothly, but that was not the case.

I spoke about this during the "Public Comment" time at the most recent Board meeting, but I know, as you blog-followers should know by now, that those remarks will not be transmitted to the public via the minutes.  "Nancy Sauber made comments" doesn't quite capture it.

When I make a public comment, I am certainly addressing the Board, but sometimes I am also addressing the rest of the public, not just those at the meeting, but all of you. Since the Board will not enter public comments into the minutes the way the Board used to do, I guess I shall have to do it here.

First, let me say that the "price of admission" of five dollars for a CD recording of the meeting is worth it, if only to listen to the three public speakers from that evening.  Jeff Otto's comments, in particular, would be of interest to blog followers. Listen hard, and you will hear the thunderous, silent applause from the audience during and after his remarks!

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON LIVING WATERS CUP PUBLIC HEARING by Nancy Sauber, 12-09-13:

I would like to express concerns regarding the public hearing for the CUP for Living Waters church.

First, let me state that, during my public testimony, I supported the change of use to a church at 22222 Dodd Blvd. This is a permitted, allowed use of the property, something my husband and I are all for!  It is also probably a good use for this property, given that Uponor is to the north and apparently a commercial use is to the south.  Not your typical 2-million-dollar housing site by any means, in my opinion.

Second, this application was submitted without a site plan, which would be highly

recommended from the Township’s point of view.  A plan that details uses in specific buildings, parking, lighting, and the like would hold until the applicants may wish to make changes.  At that time, because of the site plan, an amended CUP would need to be applied for.  This would give the Township the opportunity to place conditions as if for a new CUP, an important benefit to Eureka. An informal site plan came through via i-pad at the hearing; it needs to be formalized and be made very specific.  I would recommend that the CUPs for Glory to Glory and Prairie Creek School be looked at to assist the Commission and the Board. There is a list of "Documents Required for a Complete Application" on the website. This should be consulted.

Third, it would appear to me from comments made at both the Board and the Commission level, that there is a lack of understanding that, if an applicant is willing to abide by any and all reasonable, related conditions, the Township MUST grant the CUP.  I learned that at the very first training session I went to as a Planning Commissioner: “Your Role as a Planning Commissioner,” presented most ably by John Shardlow, currently a senior planner at Bonestroo. The Township cannot require the applicants to paint everything red because that is the Board’s favorite color, but it can require downward-cast, hooded lighting and sufficient parking spaces, for instance.  If the applicants agree to these and other reasonable, related conditions, the CUP is theirs.  At the public hearing, the applicants expressed real concern over what happened at the last (November) Board meeting,  I believe they have been made to feel, unnecessarily, that they are on shaky ground.  They should be assured that they are not.  The Board and the Commission are bound by the Ordinance, which permits the use.

Fourth, I was dismayed to hear Commissioner Hansen move at the hearing to “recommend approval of the change of use.”  This was without any discussion of possible conditions, no formalized site plan, and no Finding of Facts.  I was allowed by the Chair to quickly inform him that the Township approves the change of use through means of granting the CUP.  Hansen stated  “I'm not talking about the CUP, just approving the change of use.”  This makes no sense.  What are we about?  Public officials making decisions about people’s property need to educate themselves about the ramifications of what they are voting on.  Thankfully, the motion was thwarted.

Fifth and last, I need to bring to the Board’s attention something that occurred at the hearing.  Commissioner Hansen signed in as a speaker at the hearing, came around to the podium, spoke as a member of the public, and then proceeded to go back around to his Commissioner’s seat and resume his role there!  This is not at all appropriate.  I ask the Board and the Attorney to take measures to assure that this does not happen again.  Again, where is the understanding of proper procedure and roles?  Surely, we can do better.

There was no response from the Board at that time. When the CUP hearing came up later on the agenda, Commissioner Hansen told the Board that there had been "a lot of interaction" during the hearing.  He had Clerk Wilson pass out papers to the Board which contained his motion.  He again made "his case" to the Board that he was "not talking about the CUP, just about approving the change of use." He said the applicants would still have to come in to get the CUP, but approve their change of use to a church now. (You can lead a horse to water...) He then suggested to the Board that they "ask me questions."

The Board was quiet for some little time, whether because they understood and agreed with my points, because they weren't sure themselves, because they weren't sure what to ask him, or for some other reason, I couldn't say.  Finally, Chair Storlie asked the attorney, Chad Lemmons, for comment.

I will not quote Mr. Lemmons, but he stated that (1) a church is a Conditional Use under Eureka's Ordinances which allows the Township to place conditions, (2) the granting of the CUP and the approval of the change of use take place as one, and (3) it appeared the application was not complete.  

When asked whether, once the application was made complete, would there have to be another public hearing, Chad replied, "Yes, there would." Now a public hearing costs the applicant some money for Commissioners' time, letters sent to adjacent property owners, publication in the newspaper, and possible other fees such as attorney consultation.  Here, I agreed with Mr. Hansen when he said something along the lines of, "This is our mess and we should clean it up.  They shouldn't have to pay for another public hearing."  The Board eventually agreed as well.  (I think the church representatives' and the realtor's dealing with the frustration is enough of a price to pay.)

It should be stated that these have been some tough times for the Township of late.  Clerk Nanett Sandstrom has resigned and Linda Wilson has been doing her best to fill the position, which is a big one, until a replacement can be found. I acknowledge Linda's efforts and certainly sympathize with her. She is doing her best without a lot of training-in.  Knowing this, perhaps those who have been around much longer than she could step it up and see that things go a little more smoothly by advising her. Everyone benefits from an understanding of what is involved in granting a CUP, how the process works, what the applicants' "rights" are, what is the proper role of Commissioners at the hearing, and so on.  

I know it is not easy up there; I've been there.  It can be a little scary, folks. It should be; it's serious stuff! (Fortunately, I had some great, experienced people to rely on while I tried to find my way.  I was very thankful for that!)  But that is precisely why those who put themselves forward to fill these positions must be willing to seek advice and to go to training sessions provided by non-profit organizations to help them do their jobs.  When one is making decisions about peoples' properties that can even last "forever," he needs to act very carefully. 

Generally, my thought is that every newly elected Supervisor would benefit greatly by attending the New Supervisor Training offered by the Minnesota Association of Townships insurance and general attorneys each summer. (It's been very aptly titled "New Supervisor Or What Have I Gotten Myself Into?")  These attorneys offer sound advice to keep the official and the township out of legal difficulty. Even those officials who have been around a while would benefit from attending the sessions designed to keep them up to date. Planning Commissioners would be well-advised, in my opinion, to go to at least "Your Role as a Planning Commissioner," and the "Basics of Planning and Zoning," both of which are offered multiple times each year by Government Training Services. Some of Eureka's Supervisors and Commissioners, including some currently in office, have availed themselves of this information; others have done little or nothing along these lines.  Perhaps Commissioner Hansen might consider this so he can be better prepared? In the past, while in office, I attempted twice to make what I suggest above required for new Supervisors and Planning Commissioners.  The response was always, "Well, it certainly would be good for people to go, but we don't know that we want to require it."

Why not, I ask?  Grassroots government is great in theory, but can get a little messy in

practice.  At the Township level, let's just all acknowledge, as some humbly have, that we are amateurs who would be wise to seek advice from professionals.  We are very limited in staff compared to other local government units, such as cities and counties, which grant the same kinds of permits we do.  That means that the Planning Commission and the Town Board actually act, in large part, as their own staff. This is a big responsibility and can be difficult and time-consuming.  Yet it needs to be done and done well.

By the way, the fellows from the church, including the pastor, and I struck up a few conversations sitting at the Town Hall.  They seem very friendly and engaging.  I welcomed them to the neighborhood!

"LET'S TRY THIS AGAIN..."

Those were the words spoken by Supervisor Brian Budenski at the last Town Board meeting on December 9th. He was referring to his failed attempt last month to seek a temporary injunction against Great River Energy (GRE) so as to (at least for now) stop the installation of the rust-colored "monster poles" across the Township.

As you may recall, (See  "A Poll on the Poles" post) Budenski had volunteered his time along with assistance from Ray Kaufenberg to do the work to apply to the Public Utilities Commission for the change to galvanized poles.  Last time, Supervisor Kenny Miller (correctly) had to recuse himself due to his receiving income from GRE for its laydown yard on his property. As he explained, his voting on the matter could be argued to constitute a statutory conflict of interest, since an injunction, if approved, could prolong the project and thus increase his compensation.  Budenski and Storlie had voted for the motion, while Ceminsky and Madden had voted against it.

During the December discussion, Supervisor Ceminsky stated that he "didn't care" himself whether the poles were rust-colored or galvanized. He said he wondered whether the Township as a whole would come down on the side of galvanized poles.  He said he was concerned about the potential cost of the injunction to the Township, citing costs up to $40,000.

Budenski cleared that up by asking Township Attorney Chad Lemmons what the cost would be to file the injunction. Lemmons replied that it could cost from $2,000 up to $3,000.

Budenski assured Ceminsky that he, Budenski, has talked to the people whom this would affect most directly and he is speaking for them.

Let me editorialize for a moment:  The Town Board is elected to represent the public of Eureka.  At times, they have seemingly had no problem taking action to try to institute something like the agritourism ordinance in spite of the public's objections to the proposed language at two public hearings. Until pressed, they were not even willing to appoint a task force to explore the issue on behalf of you and other citizens. But when it comes to something which, to me, is as commonsensical as going with the less obtrusive option on the poles, now Ceminsky wants a vote by the public before acting on their behalf in a positive manner? Even though he is elected to do just that, one could argue.

Back to the vote: Once again, Supervisor Miller had to recuse himself from voting for his constituents because of his financial interest in the matter. Editorializing briefly, perhaps this is a good argument as to why a Town Board Supervisor shouldn't get himself into these situations. To my way of thinking, he is elected first and foremost to represent the citizens.  Just my opinion; enough said.

Once again, Storlie and Budenski voted "yes" to seek the injunction. This time, Supervisor Ceminsky joined them. Thus, the motion passed.

Supervisor Madden, as he is wont to do as the record shows, again voted "nay" without any explanation as to why he did so. Now understand, he is under no obligation to state for the record why he voted "nay."  However, this is an option taken by several Supervisors in the past. One of you out there might be curious as to his reasoning.

Digressing once again, after an earlier email by me to the Board quoting Ordinance language

regarding regulations on Conditional Use Permits, trying to show them the correct time frame under which the letters to adjacent property owners are to be sent, I received an email from Supervisor Madden.

His email stated : "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH." Just like that, all in caps; what some see as "shouting on the Internet!" So is he, as an elected public official, telling one of his constituents to quit communicating about Township issues, issues which can affect every one of us? How else do I take that? I'm not certain whether he was referring to my email or to this blog, but either way, REALLY?

Supervisor Madden may think "enough is enough," but I think posting on the blog to keep citizens informed and speaking up when one sees something done incorrectly, is important, of value, and I intend to continue.

stay tuned for updates on the injunction.  It is worth a shot, as we will be living with those poles for a very long time.

Thank you, Supervisor Budenski!

COMING SOON TO A WEBSITE NEAR YOU?

Hi again!  I attended the latest agritourism meeting, this one on December 4th, where I was one of two members of the public.  No new faces. Drop on by sometime!

The next meetings are Wednesday, December 11th, and Wednesday, December 18th.  The task force will then take a break for two weeks over the holidays, picking up again in January.

I brought up at the end of their meeting that the minutes of their meetings do not appear to be on the website. This, it turns out, is because they have not been submitted to date.  In the past, other task forces have posted all their approved minutes in a timely fashion on the Eureka website for the public's convenience and information.  Indeed, one member of this committee noted that there is nothing at all on the website explaining about the agritourism task force!  

Thankfully, at least this blog has been attempting to alert you to the matter!  I can only expect your Town Board to do something to remedy this at their meeting this Monday, December 9th, when a request is made to post the minutes so as to inform you.  Be aware that the agritourism open house is slated for this upcoming Thursday, December 12th, at the Town Hall from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. The minutes posting on the website will be just a couple of days ahead of that function.  Please read the minutes and get caught up on what has been going on. This will allow you to get more out of, and to contribute more to, the open house discussion.

At the open house, you will be asked for feedback on the definition, particular uses and their regulation, and any other comments you might have.  This is a use that will affect us all.  It can certainly be a benefit to the Township, but it has to be done properly.  Your input is important in this effort. Mark you calendar!

WHAT'S THE USE?

Land use, that is!
During the latest Agritourism Task Force meeting, at which I was one of four members of the public, it was stated that those on the committee thought that "most people" do not know much about the different types of land use that Eureka allows or the sections of the Ordinance that refer to them.  They had been debating whether, at the upcoming open house on December 12th, to even bring up the topic of possibly allowing agritourism under different "levels" of use, such as a Conditional Use Permit or an Interim Use Permit, or whether that would just confuse people at this stage.

 So, assuming they may be right, I will attempt to simply spell out for you some of the uses and regulations as I understand them after six years in public office and many training/informational sessions.

First, there are the "permitted uses," those that are allowed as long as they conform to any parts of the Ordinance that are intended to regulate them. Pages 48 and 49 of the Ordinance list eleven different uses and structures that fall into this category.  Some people call these "straight" permitted uses.



For example, think of a house.  It is allowed under our Ordinance that a house can be built in the agricultural zone (which is all of the Township) under certain restrictions such as density.  As to another regulating part of the Ordinance that would apply, think setbacks or the Minnesota Building Code, which has been adopted in our local laws. One can apply for a building permit for most houses without any special procedure or outlay of cash, such as with a public hearing; just Planning Commission and Town Board review and approval (along, now, with VRWJPO approval for those in the Vermillion Watershed), and accompanying Building Inspector involvement are required.

Another type of allowed or permitted use is a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).  It was stated at the Task Force meeting (and then, mercifully, corrected by a couple of other members), that "a CUP is not a permitted use."  Yes, it certainly is a permitted use (Ordinance allows it after all!), but is a category of use with the provision for attaching conditions which are deemed needed to mitigate the negative impacts of these types of uses.

Page 49 (use link above) lists eight of these "special" uses that Eureka allows. Although one current Board member took great issue with me in the past when I mentioned the "negative impacts" of certain uses, (He apparently didn't think there was such a thing!) CUPs are for uses that by their very nature may involve such things as greater traffic, noise, and so on. These negative impacts may occur at a greater intensity for conditional uses than those accompanying the "permitted uses" mentioned above.  (A school generates more traffic than a residence.) Because of that, the Township is able to place conditions on conditional uses so as to lessen these impacts. These conditions must be related to the negative impact and reasonable.

It is important to note that the Township has, practically speaking, one shot at affixing conditions, and that is when issuing the CUP.  After that point, conditions may be applied, but the CUP holder must agree to them. Not always, if ever, a likely scenario. 
However, if any already existing CUP is altered, the Ordinance provides another opportunity to attach conditions as if it were for a new CUP. (pages 80 and 81 of the Ordinance)


As an example of this type of use, a school may be granted a CUP under our Ordinance.  The Township would apply the usual items such as Building Inspector review, but can (and should) also attach conditions, such as a certain amount of off-street parking or bus drop-off and pick-up sites on the property.  Provisions such as those would alleviate congestion on public roads, thus positively affecting the public as well as school families and staff.


OTHER IMPORTANT FACETS OF CUPS:
*A public hearing is required for any CUP to allow for public input.  The public has the right to speak at these hearings, unlike at public meetings, where one has the right to observe decisions being made.
*It is also important to note that, since a CUP IS A PERMITTED USE, if the applicant agrees to abide by the related and reasonable conditions proposed by the Township, the Township MUST grant the CUP.
*Another feature of a CUP is that it does not have an expiration date, in the normal course of things.
*It also "runs with the land."  If the property is sold, the new owner receives the CUP along with the acreage.
*A CUP cannot be transferred to another piece of property, although this request has been made of Town officials in the past. (The person in question was correctly told "no" by a Planning Commissioner.)
*One last item here, is that there actually are a few CUPs in our Township with no conditions attached at all!  Figure that one out!
*Pages 89-83 outline the requirements and procedure for granting CUPs.


Another type of use is the Interim Use Permit (IUP), currently used for gravel mining and personal airstrips.  This type of allowed use is very similar in many ways to a CUP: it also requires a public hearing, conditions are also to be attached, it also "runs with the land," and it has a similar provision for criteria to be used in granting one. (Pages 83-86)  If the applicant agrees to all reasonable and related conditions, the Township must grant it.

The one thing that is noticeably different with an IUP is that it has a sunset date or event.  This is most easily seen in the case of gravel mining.  A gravel IUP would sunset when the gravel is gone- a sunset event.  It may instead have a sunset date for when the gravel might be expected to run out.  If the gravel has not all been mined by that date, the IUP could be applied for again, providing the use is still allowed.

I have in an earlier post outlined how I think some of this would apply to Agritourism.  (See "The Postman Cometh.") You may be interested to know that the committee has decided to go with the "principal use" and "accessory use" designations at this time.  These will be some of the items that you will be asked to give feedback on.

I hope that the explanation above makes things a little clearer for those of you not familiar with these things.  Perhaps, feeling a little comfortable with them, one might be more inclined to attend the open house on December 12th, Thursday, 6:30-8:30, at the Town Hall.

See you there?!