ARE YOU IN THE ZONE...OR OUT OF IT?

 The Town Board has tasked the Planning Commission with work to allow commercial and home extended business. Not whether we should allow it and where. but to allow it and in certain areas. This post is about the commercial use.

A few years ago, a task force made up of Mark Ceminsky, Allen Novacek, Butch Hansen, and Ralph Fredlund met to come up with a proposal for the Board regarding commercial/industrial (C/I) use. This was a second attempt as the concept had been examined a few years before that. The task force had access to TKDA planner, Merritt Clapp-Smith, to help guide them. I attended their meetings, even addressing my Christmas cards as I sat through one of them! I was not allowed to speak, but they couldn't stop me from attending. The committee was created by the Board and was therefore subject to Open Meeting Law. I should say that I did not believe Ralph Fredlund was in agreement with the others.

The other three of this group were in favor of zoning the north end of the Township as commercial/industrial use. At one point, the planner sent a letter to the Board about steps going forward. Three of these committee members were very unhappy that she chose to do so as the recommendations she submitted were not what they wanted to happen. That got walked backward. In my opinion, they more or less dictated to the planner their will and ignored her advice.

An open house was eventually held and there was very good attendance. Nearly all those present were against commercial/industrial use in the Township and let their opinions be known. I was one of those at the open house. When I started to make my comments, Ceminsky and Hansen who were sitting on the side while Clapp-Smith was presenting, said, "Oh, here we go!" They did not like my commenting. They did not like my relaying information from the earlier, larger, and much more professional task force studying this same use a few years earlier. TKDA Sheri Buss was the planner who assisted us, and she was excellent. So I'm at an "open" house and they don't want me to talk! I pointed out this irony, and then I went ahead and said what I needed to say, as did others.

The implementation of this use in the Township hit a dead end at that time.

Now, the current Planning Commission just met to once again discuss this same issue. Interestingly, I was told at the meeting that the map they were using was the same map that Ceminsky and company had generated. (You can get a copy of this map from Deputy Clerk, Amy Liberty.) Whether it is an old map or not, the map shows what I consider similarly arbitrarily placed zones for industrial, "neighborhood commercial," even high-density housing areas, and other uses.

1. If we want to set up and encourage annexation to Lakeville, the easiest way to do that is to place commercial/industrial uses along the northern border. This was oft-repeated in the Buss committee. For some strange reason, the thinking on the "other side" has been and seemingly continues to be that doing so would prevent annexation! Which would you think would bring higher income, commercial/industrial use with the oft-pushed but unrealistic community well and septic, or being able to hook into the MUSA line currently just inside the Lakeville border? As can be seen from recent annexations of the Ruddle and Adelmann properties, being annexed and thus having access to municipal sewer and water brings much higher-end C/I uses. Without sewer and water, uses such as contractor yards and other low-revenue-generating uses would prevail. Higher quality uses would not be interested in investing all their money without sewer and water provided. So even the argument that allowing C/I in the Township (with no municipal services) would bring in significant funds to the Township is false. So why move to this? Are we talking about private agendas?

2. I asked at the recent Commission meeting whether any actual citizens who own property in those proposed zones had even been consulted or offered a chance to express their views on this topic. Of course, the answer is NO, because that was never the intent of the earlier Ceminsky group. Basically, they just wanted to shove it down people's throats-my opinion. I own property near one of the areas, and I heard all sorts of outrageous ideas concerning my property, but I was never asked for my opinion. Same with my neighbors. Nor is the intent of the current Board to ask for landowners' input at the beginning stages before even spending the time and money on something that people arguably do not want.

3. This current Board makes a lot of ado about "property rights," ordinance "over-regulation," and getting to "do whatever you want" on your own property. The rationale is that landowners pay taxes so they should get to do whatever they want. (This whole subject was dealt with on this blog years ago when Novacek suggested it back then and stated as a public official at more than one public meeting that we'd be "better off with no ordinances at all." The logical next step is to consider what happens when one's neighbor does whatever he wants, and it is disruptive to the neighborhood and quality of life. But logic escapes. Current Board Chair Storlie also once said as a public official at a public meeting that "ordinances are guidelines." No, actually, they are laws. There's an earlier blog post about that as well.)

I asked the Commission if they considered the fact that by creating zones for these uses, they would be taking away landowners' property rights to use their land otherwise going forward. I got blank stares, but at least three of the four Commissioners in attendance seemed willing to listen. They even reached a consensus that meeting with property owners in different areas first would be a good thing.

Will the Board allow them to even do so? Some supervisors have stated the Planning Commissioners are their "employees!" That's a very odd stance in my opinion.

4. Curious who owns the designated "high density" housing zones? Although it has been repeated many times by many people, including Wendy Wulff and Patrick Boylan from the Met Council, that agricultural zoning means one residence in 40 acres, or as  Eureka has it, one per quarter-quarter section, this fact just somehow doesn't register with some current officials. The Met Council has also repeatedly informed us at our meetings that they do not see our zoning changing or sewer and water being available until 2040 at the earliest. Again, this falls on deaf ears with some current officials. They can complain about the Met Council all they want (which they have), but that doesn't changes the facts, Folks. The Council still has oversight. So why are certain areas on the map designated as high density housing which isn't even currently possible? Are they picking winners and losers? Who's who? Where will YOU end up?

So, are you as a resident and taxpayer who enjoys our quality of life even aware that this life-altering direction is in the works? Would you like to live across the road from such uses even if your own property isn't directly involved? It will still affect you. Would you like an opportunity to offer your thoughts before the time and taxpayer money is spent on this? 

Maybe the time for your involvement is now.