CLARITY COMES TO A CLOUDY ISSUE!

                      OCCASIONALLY THE CLOUDS ROLL THROUGH
                     AND THEN THE SUN SHINES, BRINGING CLARITY!     

                                                                                     

     IF you read the previous blog IS THERE SOMETHING "ROTTEN
IN THE STATE OF DENMARK?"you would be aware that Chair Brian
Budenski, at the July 11th Town Board meeting, asked the Planning
Commission to hold a public hearing. The purpose of the public hearing was
to solicit public opinion on making four specific properties on Highview
Avenue north of 225th Street Commercial/Industrial (C/I).

     At the August 8th Town Board meeting, during the public comment period,
Jeff Otto, Butch Hansen, Alan Novacek and Mark Parranto raised concerns as
to why the public hearing was not held.

                                                   HERE COMES THE SUN!

                                                   
                                                                                                  
     Planning Commissioner, Nancy 
Sauber, spoke during the public 
comment period presenting information
that clarifies the position of the Planning
Commission regarding the above issue.

     Chair Sauber stated the following:  
"I am not speaking as pro or anti-business,
but rather as having a duty to citizens to
follow the law. Regarding the proposed ordinance language that was put
forth by Chair Budenski, the language has never been reviewed or
approved by the Board; it would be my understanding that it would be
the Chair's text amendment and he should be paying the costs. He is
NOT a one-man Board nor can he have a discussion outside of the meeting
for the Board to approve the proposed language."

     "The Planning Commission has the duty and power under the ordinances
to ensure that developments are in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan.
If you review the Comprehensive Plan regarding this use, you will see that
the proposed action does not follow it. There is no point in holding a public
hearing on an ordinance that can not be adopted at this stage in time.
That brings me to a most important point. The Township cannot institute
a new zoning district without doing a Comprehensive Plan
amendment first. This is required by State Statute. We cannot ignore or
break State Statute. Our authority comes from the State and we can not go
outside of the State or, for that matter, Federal Law in our laws. This is
putting the cart before the horse."

     "First: The Township has to complete the thorough study for the
C/I called for in our Comprehensive Plan. The TKDA study to meet
that requirement is in two phases. The Township has completed only
one phase. The topics of what are still called for to be studied in our
Comprehensive Plan."

     "Second: Should completion of Phase II show us that the Township
wants to go ahead and zone for such a use as C/I, then we must submit
a Comprehensive Plan amendment and go through that process."

     "Third: Then, and only then, can we adopt an ordinance to regulate
the use. Such an ordinance should follow the guidelines and policies set
out in our Comprehensive Plan. Ordinances flow from the Comprehensive
Plan; not the other way around. Also, keep in mind that this Board has
not yet heard the report from Supervisors Jennings and Behrendt
after their visit to Lakeville. I believe that is very pertinent
as far as some of the reasons that were put forward as to why this
ordinance should be adopted now."
                                                                                                 
Nancy submitted copies of the following documents to members of
the Town Board.

1). Excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan: It says, among other
things, a fiscal impact study should be completed.

2). Mn. State Statute #473.865 addresses plans, adoption and
amendment indicating the procedures needed to complete for an
amendment.

3). Mn State Statue #462.355 addresses adoption, conflicts and
amendment of control devices. Subdivision 2 states the local government
should not adopt any official control (that would be an ordinance) which
is in conflict with their Comprehensive Plan etc. We do not have a
provision for the use in the Comprehensive Plan. What we do have 
are provisions for guidelines and study.

4). Mn. State Statue #462.355 states "to amend a Comprehensive
Plan in Subdivision 3, except for amendments to affordable housing
development, a resolution to adopt or amend a Comprehensive Plan
must be approved by a two thirds vote of all the members of the Board.
A Board of 5 requires 4 votes.

5). Mn. State Statute #462.357 regarding a zoning ordinance. I refer
you to page 4 specifically, where it is talking about when you are
changing your zoning ordinance.you have a situation where residential
use is allowed and you are going to try and go to C/I, that also requires
a two thirds majority of all members of the governing party. Again,
the case of a 5 member Board, the vote requires 4 Board members.
The intent of the Statute is to protect residential uses from living next
to Commercial and Industrial uses.

     Chair Sauber stated "the proposal regarding 4 properties was
put to the Planning Commission with no information, no performance
standards and no details. This was Not the way to do this.  Supervisor
Budenski, either on his own or with someone else, came up with ordinance
language. If the Board is the one pulling together a text amendment
proposal, the Board should have a say in what the language is supposed
to be."

Supervisor Behrendt stated, "To be clear, the Board does not
have any zoning ordinance before the Planning Commission. I am
not sure what was represented, but there is nothing from this Board
that was passed on to the Planning Commission."

                                                   
  PERFECTLY CLEAR??????