IS THERE SOMETHING "ROTTEN IN THE STATE OF DENMARK"?

Is there special treatment in the air?

At the Town Board meeting on July 11th, Chair Brian Budenski proposed directing the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on "public opinion" about making four particular properties on Highview Avenue north of 225th St. W. commercial. 

Now those of you who have been paying attention over the last few years know that the Township contracted with TKDA a while back to conduct a Commercial/Industrial (C/I)study.

Bear with me as I attempt to fill in a little background on this.


This study involved different stages, the first of which was completed, I believe, in 2010. There were public meetings, multiple Task Force meetings with TKDA Senior Planner, Sherri Buss, (the minutes of which were faithfully posted on the Town website), a market study, and even a survey sent to all Eureka landowners regarding their interest in having their land become C/I. The survey input from citizens was successful in regard to number of responses. In fact, it was very good for such surveys.

One of the conclusions arrived at by the Task Force was that there was insufficient interest expressed by landowners in this use for their land. The Task Force was interested in determining if there might be a block of land of significant size, especially along an already-improved roadway. There was not. Cedar Avenue was mentioned as a possible area sometime in the future, should interest warrant it..

Another conclusion was that, without being able to offer sewer and water, the types of uses that might be attracted to Eureka would be those of lesser quality. Such uses would not provide much in the way of taxes to the Township. Typical uses of this type might be a truck depot, a contractor's yard, or outdoor storage. Such uses could potentially take up the most desirable land that might otherwise be considered for C/I use in the future, thus ultimately blocking truly beneficial development.


Meanwhile, Airlake Industrial Park in Lakeville could already provide sewer and water and had many open C/I spots. There were many other similar opportunities nearby in the Farmington area.  Eureka did not offer pad-ready sites as did those two other communities. This was the conclusion of the Donjek, Inc., Market Study that was conducted by Jon Commers, of the Donjek firm also under contract with the Township for the study. Mr. Commers met with commercial real estate brokers, asking for and exploring their assessment of the current market conditions. That the economy was still languishing in the slow-down (as many believe it largely still is) was an very significant consideration. There was not a demonstrated need for additional C/I land here, considering the availability that was already nearby and not yet used.

Another very important consensus arrived at by the Task Force was that making properties along Eureka's northern border commercial/industrial may result in making them more attractive to Lakeville for annexation.

Similarly, making such properties C/I would be NO GUARANTEE that the owners would not ask to be annexed to Lakeville anyway.


Ultimately, the Task Force reported its findings from Phase I to the Board and Phase II of the study was delayed to some time in the future should conditions improve. The understanding was that, at any time in the future, the Board could decide that it was time for Phase II, which involved engineering work and further planning and, incidentally, significantly more money. The study could be resumed when it was deemed appropriate.

By the way, a decision to zone any Eureka property as commercial use requires a Comprehensive Plan amendment, acceptance by the Metropolitan Council, and Ordinance changes.

In spite of all these conclusions which he himself as a Board member at the time accepted and approved, Supervisor Budenski now wants to push ahead, outside of the process, just for these four properties and their owners. A lot of time, money, and effort went into the study which was structured and conducted in a methodical, professional manner and reported to the community at each step along the way. Why does a Board Supervisor now advocate on the behalf of four property owners in spite of a sound Township-wide process?

As a member of the C/I Task Force myself, I pointed out at the Board meeting that Budenski's suggestion was abandoning a formal Township-wide process and focusing on just four owners instead of the Township itself. "Think about that!" I implored. If it felt it was warranted, I said, the Board could decide to reopen the study and get down to some structured, actual planning. The role of supervisors is to consider the interests of all in the Township and balance those interests as far as it is able. They are to represent ALL citizens, not just four. I read the look I got as "So What?" Budenski replied, "We are going to have the Commission hold a public hearing!"

Mr. Budenski went on to say that one of the owners of one of the properties had made a statement to him in the way of "We've already paid $8,000 and it's time we were made commercial!" I believe the amount was actually 10k and came from a settlement on an earlier Lakeville annexation at this landowner's request.  It was always intended to help pay for a C/I study, regardless of outcome. I emphasized that "Zoning is not for sale," and reminded Supervisor Budenski that the attorney handling things for Eureka at the time, Patrick Kelly, had gone to great pains to be sure that the wording on this was clear. There were no strings attached. Period.

I asked that the Board at least refresh their memories and re-read the Task Force results first since this came up without advance notice and the study took place a few years ago. Mr. Budenski rejected that idea as well, saying that he remembered the results well enough and he was ready to go ahead with this action. If he remembered the results "well enough," then why is he proposing to act in direct conflict with them?
I said that I wanted to go on the record as objecting to the procedure and that holding a "hearing" on behalf of and regarding "public opinion" about four properties was not the way to do this. Unknown even was what particular uses they might be put to! What might be performance standards, parameters?

The Planning Commission holds public hearings for various reasons: Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Interim Use Permits, and Zoning Ordinance changes. When such a hearing is held, the Commission and the public are presented with specific and often extensive data by means of an application and supporting materials, or language for consideration that is spelled out and precise. The Commission takes holding these hearings very seriously, let me assure you. It is the public's opportunity to weigh-in on such permits, adjustments, or language. To hold a hearing to gather "public opinion" on four properties without any details or information for how such properties would be used is irresponsible in my opinion. There are no applications because this use does not exist in Eureka. There is no Text Amendment language proposed. And again, there is no real information concerning these four properties that could beneficially inform the public so that it can comment intelligently. This is not the way to do this because the proper way would be to reopen the study if the Board/Township is committed to making the investment to continue this examination. I have not yet seen concrete evidence that any of the economic conditions have really changed, but reasonable people can disagree. We can explore this as a community and plan for the future.

A resumed study and not a hearing would be appropriate at this juncture. Public opinion can be gathered through the study process with the background of sound information and facts.

It is of further importance that Scott's Miracle-Gro (SMG) had asked to be on the Planning Commission's July agenda at the inquiry level (questions, no forms required) and also to be on the Board's July agenda. As Commission Chair, I had asked for attorney representation at the PC meeting expressly because of this agenda item. However, the representatives from SMG did not appear. It was a stormy night, but everyone else with business before the Commission showed. Even though they were not present, SMG had indicated in their request that they wanted to expand their business at Highview and 225th. They had been negotiating with Ron Bjustrom (formerly of Country Stone) to lease property near the airport and store product there, they said.


Since I was on the Board, as was Brian Budenski, when that whole "fiasco" with Country Stone (my opinion) went to litigation, I knew that the property was restricted by the terms of the settlement agreement. (That property is now occupied by Scott's Miracle-Gro.) This agreement was worked on for some time at taxpayer expense by the Board and Attorney at meetings and was entered into by Country Stone and the Township.
.

The use's hours were modeled on the gravel mines' hours. Gravel mines were considered by the Board to be the closest permitted use to the industrial use at the Country Stone property. Since then, there have been two attempts under two different owners, both attempts strongly supported by Supervisor Budenski, to expand the hours of operation, most recently to go to 24/6 for Scott's Miracle-Gro ! Again, why would the Township be willing to amend a settlement agreement after the fact to make an unfortunate situation worse? When that question was put forth in the past, Budenski's response was, "It's already there..." BUT it wasn't supposed to be,so why intensify it? Who's looking out for the Township's interests? Where is the balance?


At its July meeting, the Commission discussed SMG's expressed intent and made a recommendation to the Board to inform SMG that it was bound by the settlement agreement on the property and could not expand. Their proposed use of other Township land for outdoor storage of industrial products is not a permitted use, a conditional use or an interim use under our Ordinances. Therefore, Liaison Commissioner Fritz Frana asked the Board at its meeting to put this discussion on its agenda for discussion and action. Budenski said, "But they [SMG] aren't here." I said, "They weren't at our meeting either, but we had enough information to respond and therefore discussed this and made a recommendation to the Board."

Township Attorney Chad Lemmons advised the Board on the settlement agreement. The Board directed the Clerk to send a letter to SMG explaining that expansion was restricted. However, this was largely in response to a complaint that had previously been filed a couple of months ago. The complaint was in part about SMG rental of other additional property for "extra" product storage that was already happening and was not allowed. As it happens, Supervisor Budenski was one of the Board Supervisors tasked with investigating this complaint. The complainant had not been informed as to what was happening on this aspect of the complaint and thus attended the July 11th meeting and spoke at the public comment time to find out! Thus, the letter to SMG was to be sent.

Further post-meeting Data Practices research at Town Hall revealed that Melanie Vodnick of SMG had emailed the Clerk that she had been told that "Brian Budenski has instructed our Representative (Ron Bjustrom) not to attend the [July] meeting[s]." She wanted to know if she could still attend the Board meeting to at least introduce herself. The Clerk assured her that she was always welcome to do so. Ms. Vodnik as it turned out was absent at the July 11th Board meeting in spite of that reassurance and her statement that she had "already made arrangements to attend [then anyhow]."

In light of Budenski's "preemptive strike"  to hold a public "hearing", I found these absences and the email that came to light concerning his alleged "instruction" to be of some interest!!!

I apologize for all the details, however, the details and background are necessary to evaluate what may be special treatment of a few.

Let me also clarify that (1) when going on a routine inspection, say because of a complaint, the Board designates two Supervisors to visit a property together outside of a meeting. These two Supervisors then report to the full Board for follow-up. When (2) negotiations have been entered into by two Supervisors on some occasions in the past it has ALWAYS been through the entire Board's designation of whom was able to represent them outside of a meeting and bring back the information to the whole Board FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION. In the case of being (3) a liaison from the Board to an outside group or agency, say, the watershed, that Supervisor is to attend meetings and bring back to the full Board information that is of interest to Eureka. It doesn't matter if the liaison attends such meetings alone or with another Supervisor, the job is to bring back anything of interest or concern TO THE FULL BOARD.  
Just so we're clear. Crystal.

Stay Tuned...