You should be aware by now that the current Town Board and Planning Commission have been pursuing major changes to our zoning.
I’ve watched the sausage being made, and it sure isn't pretty. I've seen and heard decisions made on an “I think this area could be zoned commercial/industrial. What do you think, fellow Commissioner/Supervisor?” basis. As in "give it your best guess." Or, "this would be an area to make high density for housing, don't you think?" These ideas would affect many people's properties, people who in many cases don't want these changes.
I don’t think this effort is even founded on sound planning principles and facts. There has been no appreciation shown for what has come before regarding interactions between the Township and the Metropolitan Council or the Township and professional planners already covering these topics. The thought seems to be we can do all this without Council oversight or even recognition of what its reaction to different such ideas has been to date and over many years. Any data or recommendations from past studies have been dismissed out of hand if they are even acknowledged at all.
To my knowledge, there has been NO DISCUSSION at this time with the Metropolitan Council. There has been no mention that the Council may not go along with what this Board wants to do. In my opinion, this has been presented all along as easily doable. Many people might not be conversant with this topic. We live in the seven-county metropolitan area and are subject to Council oversight whether anyone likes it or not.
I and many others have been concerned by the lack of consideration shown to past efforts. We've had excellent professional assistance with a significant investment of time by many and, of course, Township funds, but the current officials don't seem to want to even hear about it.
Which leads us to the “walk before you run” perspective. I’ll give you just a couple examples of actions that might indicate that a thoughtful, informed basis might be lacking. One thing a Board must NEVER do is be “arbitrary and capricious.” It must have a sound rationale for its actions or it exposes the Township.
Example 1: There was a recent application for an ag exempt zoning approval. If the applicant meets the State STATUTORY requirements, there is no building permit required nor inspections performed.
The cost for an ag exempt application is a $25 fee based on Clerk time and a $25 fee to cover a Planning Commissioner check of the stakes for the building and Ordinance setbacks which do still apply. To permit similar structures under the Building Code can easily cost thousands of dollars--part of which goes to the Township.
Under the Minnesota State statute, the land upon which the ag-exempt structure will be placed must be taxed as ag by, in our case, the Dakota County Assessor. It must have been in ag production for at minimum the year preceding the application. There is a section of the application the applicant uses to check off at least ONE (and all) ag uses of the property. The public is not allowed in the structure which is the reason the Legislature gave farmers a financial break on permitting and inspections. (The Building Code exists to ensure our safety.) Only employees or lessees, no public, are allowed to use the building. There are certain Ordinance setbacks required including distances from neighbors’ residences to reduce problems with noise, dust, odors, etc.
The application that came before the Deputy Clerk and Commission had NO agricultural uses checked. I believe I heard at the meeting that the Township attorney was consulted, and he agreed that this property did NOT qualify at the time for this exemption. The property was taxed for two uses, one of which was ag as this property had originally been part of a family farm, later divided. However, the property had not been used recently for ag production, but for the other use listed. It was recommended that the property owner go through the usual process involved with the Building Code, assuming he wanted the building built in the coming construction season. Otherwise, ag production is required first.
The BOARD went ahead to approve the ag exemption.
Supervisor Ceminsky said if he bought a farm, he should (automatically) get the exemption. Unfortunately, if that farm were not active, he would have to put it into ag production for a minimum of one year and THEN ask for the ag exemption. The statute requires this.
Supervisor Novacek said he thought this property was “on the edge.” What “edge” might that be? You either meet the requirements or you don’t. If you don’t, you do not receive the exemption or, at the very least, must put the application on hold for a year while you get the property back into ag production. A simple hayfield can qualify.
The person representing the application, not the property owner, stated he had come a long way to represent the owner, and the zoning approval should be given. Why, he even said that probably in “the next three years or so” the ag production would return. The statute doesn’t refer to any nonbinding promises as sufficient of course; it requires ag production for at least the preceding year. No matter how far one has come to represent the landowner.
Yet the Board accepted that argument and granted the exemption.
To give credit where credit is due, Supervisor Pete Storlie had it right this time during the discussion.
Example 2: Each Board that is elected has a duty to enforce not only the Ordinances and obey any superseding laws such as state statutes, but also to enforce such items as CUPs and IUPs, and to the point here, settlement agreements resulting from litigation actions.
Having been involved in this matter with other Board officials at the time, I was aware of the settlement agreement provision on a certain property that required maintaining berm plantings. There is a landscape plan that was part of the agreement. It is in the files at Town Hall. It specifies locations and specific types of trees. The opposite side to the Township in this agreement agreed to this detail. Recognizing at the time, that trees can die or become diseased, I had asked for a provision stating these plantings must be maintained (such that any dying or dead trees should be replaced according to the landscape plan).
In time for the spring planting season last year, I brought this matter before the Board in April through means of public comment. The Board did not discuss this outside of Chair Pete Storlie stating, "I would have to see that agreement."
Nothing happened. So, in time for the fall planting season, I brought this matter up to the Board again in August of last year. I referred to Storlie's comment from April and inquired whether he had asked the Clerk to show him the agreement, including the landscaping plan. There was no response to this. A simple drive by the property would reveal the trees that obviously need replacing, and there are many of these screening trees that qualify for replacement. All that was said was, "Thank you, Nancy." No discussion by the Board on this duty of theirs during public comment time. The Chair had spoken and that appeared to be that. The others on the Board didn't seem to understand that they could ask for discussion later in the meeting or simply didn't care to.
Yet their duty remains. It remains unfulfilled. Your taxpayer dollars paid for attorney advice in the lawsuit and in coming to the agreement. The Board should want to avoid “nonfeasance.” MN Statute defines this term.
To walk without stumbling might be considered a requirement before running with major zoning changes.
