At the Town Board regular meeting on May 28, a citizen, who I believe lives in the southernmost part of Eureka, spoke during the public comment period. She stated that her family has been having a hard time keeping the farmland that has been in her family for some time. Her suggestion to alleviate their difficulties was for the Board to increase housing density and to allow commercial uses. She expressed that this would allow her family to be able to farm the land together. She suggested ten-acre lots and rural residential zones as the solution and passed out some language on that topic to the Board. More on that below.
Sheriff's deputies once again urged citizens to call 911 if they have any concerns. Deputy Puls emphasized that one is not "wasting the deputies' time" to do so. That's their job and what they are here for. A new hire was accompanying the veteran deputy. Thank you, Sheriff's Office!
Apparently someone is pulling traffic signs out of the ground in Eureka Estates and leaving them in the ditch. Every time this happens, these important safety signs must be replaced ASAP at another cost to the Township.
The Road Committee has had one response from a potential new member and one response from a member willing to continue. The Clerk stated she will send out the request again.
The matter of the Mining Superintendent came up. Currently, Dr. Carrie Jennings, an experienced geologist in these matters, has been hired the last two gravel seasons to provide knowledgeable oversight. The cost is a "pass through" for the mines, who have agreed to pay the fee.
Supervisor Novacek read portions of the Ordinance that references the mining superintendent position. However, he stated he sees no mention of a requirement to have such a person working with the mines to ensure their compliance with the conditions on their use. Novacek promoted eliminating the position, and even went so far as to declare that he is against the mines paying for this; instead it should be a Township cost (paid for by taxpayers). !!! Note again that all mines have said they are okay with paying for Dr. Jennings' oversight. I believe it works in their best interests as part of our community getting along with the rest of the community to do this. The cost is certainly minimal compared to profits.
Supervisor Barfknecht raised the issue that a qualified person needs to review this sort of use. There have been problems over time with some of the uses, and the Board/Commission aren't really qualified to provide this technical oversight.
I might add that the Township Engineer would be qualified to do Dr. Jennings' job, but at twice the cost. Mining's neighbors have expressed their concerns with mining practices vs IUP conditions and Ordinance language over several years -even recently.
Supervisor Storlie stated he questioned "the gaps" in how we got here (to have a mining superintendent position). He stated other agencies monitor the mines. He asked if we are saying as a township that we are "too stupid" to know what we are doing, so we hired someone.
At an earlier meeting, Supervisor Storlie admitted he hadn't "been at a Board meeting in ten years." So what does he know about recent problems with the mines, I wonder?
He also seems to gloss over the fact that THE TOWNSHIP is the entity issuing IUPs for gravel mining (CUPs formerly). As such, Eureka places conditions on such permits to mitigate any negative impacts. Another agency does not inspect for the mines' compliance with OUR conditions.
In fact, in the past when Storlie and I were in office together, I explained to him at a public meeting that the reason there even ARE CUPs and IUPs is to allow the Township to place conditions to mitigate any negative impacts for these particular uses. He demanded, "WHAT 'negative impacts', Nancy??" I don't think I would have to explain negative impacts to the citizens complaining about the mines over the past several years. Perhaps there is something to be said about keeping up with Township issues...
At this point, Supervisor Novacek stated he thinks the Board should get rid of CUP reviews as they exist now. Start there and then move on to mining reviews, he said. HE forgets such reviews are a condition themselves to ensure that the other conditions of the CUP are being met. Citizens with complaints against CUPs can complain at any time, but having the reviews gives a formal opportunity before the Board at its meeting to bring up problems affecting neighbors. Supervisor Storlie even said that he saw "no value" in the two CUP reviews that occurred earlier in this same meeting; that it boiled down to just an opportunity to "say hi." I would argue that the fact that there were no problems makes those reviews a success! Do he and Novacek need to be reminded that this hasn't always been the case by any means?
Supervisor Storlie then raised the fact that Dr. Jennings lives in the Township. He mentioned that it has been brought up by some in the past that no one who lives in the Township should ever be hired for any Township job.
1. This was a non-binding recommendation to the Board from some citizens many years ago at an Annual Meeting.
2. Whether followed or not, this recommendation has not been encoded, and I don't believe it was ever even written up as a Board policy. Storlie recommended this be done now. The question was raised as to what "the true purpose of this position" really is. ???
3. Under State Statute there actually is a provision for this very thing to happen under certain requirements. The Township has even hired residents (a Board Supervisor, no less) involved with road work under this statute not very long ago! It wasn't a problem then...
Getting back to the issue raised during public comment, the Board discussed wanting to increase housing density, allow commercial uses, allow extended home businesses and to allow agritourism. In the interest of your time, I will have to revisit this topic for more details, but let me now minimally say that NO ONE raised the issue that, since we are zoned agriculture, that level of development necessitates a one per 40 (or in our case one per quarter-quarter) housing density. The whole idea from the Metropolitan Council's perspective is holding the area open for future development, including sewer and water. Sewer and water is economically feasible only with a much higher density than even one residence per two acres, much less ten.
I have it on good authority that Eureka has 380-400 unused housing rights as it stands now, so what is the push for more density?
Increasing housing density MUST go before the Met Council and would necessitate a change in the Comprehensive Plan. The Council was surprised at one point in the past that Eureka, with grandfathered lots, has much more housing eligibility than they had thought. What are the odds that they will okay an increase in density before sewer and water and with all those unused housing rights?
Who IS minding the store?
