THE NITTY GRITTY: PART ONE

I have observed and taken part in Township meetings for some time now. Below are some pointers that may assist you as applicants to more efficiently and more easily accomplish your objective. They are in no particular order. They do reflect some of the issues that have arisen over the years that can result in delays and even unhappy citizens because of those delays.

I hope I got your attention with the dog! Perhaps you'll be able to retrieve this information as you need it!

Please read the Ordinance part that refers to your application before you do anything else. Ordinance 3 is the zoning ordinance that will probably cover whatever it is you are thinking of doing. (Unless it's mining, which is Ordinance 6.) Do your homework before working with the Clerk to submit an application. A basic understanding of what you are dealing with helps everybody.

Eureka is entirely zoned agricultural. There are some areas much more densely developed because they predated the zoning Ordinance. As an ag zone, the density is one single family dwelling per quarter-quarter section, with the ability to transfer in rights up to four houses/building rights per quarter-quarter section. That's the maximum of today.

Be sure to include your site plan with ALL the information requested. (There is a sample site plan available on the website or at Town Hall to guide you.) If you do not include information required under the Ordinance, that means your application is incomplete. The Clerk has 15 days under state statute to notify you in writing that it is incomplete and inform you of what you need to complete it. Since the deadline to get on the Planning Commission agenda is the Thursday 10 days before the meeting, this alone can cause a month's delay. If you turned in the incomplete application the day of the deadline, timing is a big issue. Nobody wants that for you, but we must have all the information. Only complete applications will come before the Commission.

The reason behind this is that the Ordinances, our community laws, have requirements that must be met to be able to grant you your request. No one on the Board or the Commission has the authority under normal conditions to alter these requirements outside of a full-on Text Amendment to the Ordinances, including a public hearing. If you read the duties of the Commission and the Board in Ordinance 2, nowhere does it state that these two bodies can step outside of these laws because applicants think it makes "common sense." 

Some examples of applicants pleading "common sense" have been: 

(1) I want to build a house in a quarter-quarter that is already full (maximum density cap of 4 housing rights, including Pre-1982 Lots of Record rights) because it would "save ag land" and keep my family close together. Maybe so, but to exceed that cap would require an extensive change to the Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan subject to the Metropolitan Council's acceptance. (Council representatives have repeatedly told the Township officials over time in various ways that they see us as Ag until 2040, which limits density, with sewer maybe coming after 2040. This keeps us open for future much higher density development from the Council's perspective and oversight of the metropolitan area development.)

(2) What if I get my neighbor to sign something saying he is okay with my infringement into the setback for a new structure; after all, it's only farmland next door. The neighbor has no more authority to waive a setback under law than the Commission and Board do. IN SOME RELATIVELY FEW CASES, a variance may be possible, but the problem has to be unique to the property and not caused by the owner or any previous owner. If the way your house is situated because you built it that way and now because of the house's placement, the addition you want encroaches into the setback, you have created that problem. Under state statute, there wouldn't be obvious grounds to grant a variance-my opinion. Your addition plans may have to change.

(3) I want to buy this property and develop it by building more homes I can sell. It makes more sense if we could just move one of the proposed houses over the line into the (already-full) adjoining quarter-quarter, part of which I would own anyway. Same problem as (1) for different reasons.

If provided by the ordinances and all requirements are met, then the citizen is entitled to the use/structure. The Supervisors and the Commissioners actually represent the common good, not the individual. This means the Ordinance must be followed. Our Ordinances have followed proper procedure for adoption, with appropriate opportunity for public input. Because of this, they are seen to reflect the common good, having been approved by our community. So follow the ordinances, and all should fall into place. The individual's request can be honored under the Ordinance and stay in keeping with the common good.

STAY TUNED FOR PART TWO... CUPs and IUPs.