REAL--LY???

I'll admit it: my jaw dropped. Really. I was sitting at the June Planning Commission meeting near two other "ever-faithful" attendees when he said it.  The quorum that evening was made up of the three men on the Commission: Novacek, Cleminson, and Hansen. Before the group was a couple who had been trying since last fall, September, I believe, to get something done.  They had come across various stops and starts.  They were again before the Commission with their latest plan to be able to do what they wanted under the Ordinance.



During the discussion, one Commissioner made some comments I could hardly believe: "You're going to have to force this issue," he told the couple. "If you have split attorneys and a split Board in a sense...sometimes Fear runs the show." [Really? A Planning Commissioner who opines publicly that the Board must be afraid (at least sometimes) to do the right thing, to grant citizens what is theirs by law?  If I were on the Board, I would be deeply offended!] 
He went on, "You're going have to push it to make it happen.  I don't know how else to say that. My suggestion is force the issue, make it happen, have something to back up your stand before you get there (the upcoming Board meeting).  That's the Board's job- to make it happen for you, so don't feel bad about forcing the issue."

Gee, I always thought the Board's job was to enforce the Ordinances.  If one is entitled to receive something under the Ordinances and meets all the requirements, not only does the Board give it to him, they can't NOT give it to him!  FEAR has nothing whatever to do with it!  Enforcing the law does.  How does a Commissioner "help" a member of the public by stating such advice? Yes, an applicant should "have something to back up his stand," but to prove his point, not to instill fear in the elected officials.  Really.

It REALLY doesn't make much difference which Commissioner said it (Al Novacek), as the other two didn't contradict him in his assertion that "Fear sometimes runs the show." In fact, Hansen stated that Al's suggestion was " a good" one.  Cleminson had no comment that I remember, jotted down at the time, or can now discern from the disc recording..  Are we (the audience and the Township) to take this as the other two Commissioners agree that "Fear runs the show?"  That a majority of the current Planning Commission sees no problem with advising applicants thus? I wouldn't know what else to think.  As a former, respected Board Chair once said, "Silence is acquiescence."  I will tell you that this "outspoken" Commissioner has publicly made several statements before along the lines of his not liking ordinances, thinking Eureka would be better off without (any) ordinances, and that people should get to do "whatever they want" on their land.  Why would a Board appoint such a person as your Planning Commissioner? Planning Commissioners have an important duty working with and within the Ordinances.  Those laws have been passed properly, by public procedure, remember. Is this what we are getting for our tax dollars? Is this the best we can do?  Eureka Ordinances, Ordinance @, Chapter 3, pp 31-37  Note especially Section 6.


The one thing where I agreed with Commissioner Hansen was when he stated that Board liaison Behrendt's  suggestion of conferring with the BUILDING OFFICIAL as to what makes an addition part of the same building as a residence was a "good" suggestion. Without going into all the details, since a home occupation must be conducted within a residence under Eureka's laws, it would seem logical that the Building Inspector is best equipped to address this Code issue. Why a Planning Commission wouldn't understand this on their own, however, I can't figure out!  Really.


Giving what credit where credit is due, Hansen was willing to take the Board liaison's informed advice on this matter, even though, in my opinion, he seemed "unclear" as to why he should do so on an earlier matter at this same meeting.

I, for one, expect a lot more from public officials.  A certain level of professionalism for starters. Barfknecht and Jennings certainly provide that, I am happy to say.
As Hansen stated when he started the meeting: "The Commission is an information-gathering body.  We assist citizens in their application processes, answer any questions they might have, and prepare them for the Board meeting."  That all sounds great, but where does advising applicants that they "have to push...force" an issue because the "show" sometimes runs on "fear" come in? Is this "professional" advice?  Is this really what you expect to hear when you come before the Commission?  Eureka deserves more.


If you are a history buff (no one alive could be of that "certain age"), you might recognize this next picture as
the Virginia reel.

 

But maybe I should have made it the two-step. I do know my mind was reeling....

IT GIVES ME NO JOY---HOLIDAY OR OTHERWISE...

...but you, as a Eureka citizen, should know how you have been represented lately.  There was a public hearing held recently concerning an application for a church Conditional Use Permit (CUP) on what is a residential site.  These things ought to go smoothly, but that was not the case.

I spoke about this during the "Public Comment" time at the most recent Board meeting, but I know, as you blog-followers should know by now, that those remarks will not be transmitted to the public via the minutes.  "Nancy Sauber made comments" doesn't quite capture it.

When I make a public comment, I am certainly addressing the Board, but sometimes I am also addressing the rest of the public, not just those at the meeting, but all of you. Since the Board will not enter public comments into the minutes the way the Board used to do, I guess I shall have to do it here.

First, let me say that the "price of admission" of five dollars for a CD recording of the meeting is worth it, if only to listen to the three public speakers from that evening.  Jeff Otto's comments, in particular, would be of interest to blog followers. Listen hard, and you will hear the thunderous, silent applause from the audience during and after his remarks!

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON LIVING WATERS CUP PUBLIC HEARING by Nancy Sauber, 12-09-13:

I would like to express concerns regarding the public hearing for the CUP for Living Waters church.

First, let me state that, during my public testimony, I supported the change of use to a church at 22222 Dodd Blvd. This is a permitted, allowed use of the property, something my husband and I are all for!  It is also probably a good use for this property, given that Uponor is to the north and apparently a commercial use is to the south.  Not your typical 2-million-dollar housing site by any means, in my opinion.

Second, this application was submitted without a site plan, which would be highly

recommended from the Township’s point of view.  A plan that details uses in specific buildings, parking, lighting, and the like would hold until the applicants may wish to make changes.  At that time, because of the site plan, an amended CUP would need to be applied for.  This would give the Township the opportunity to place conditions as if for a new CUP, an important benefit to Eureka. An informal site plan came through via i-pad at the hearing; it needs to be formalized and be made very specific.  I would recommend that the CUPs for Glory to Glory and Prairie Creek School be looked at to assist the Commission and the Board. There is a list of "Documents Required for a Complete Application" on the website. This should be consulted.

Third, it would appear to me from comments made at both the Board and the Commission level, that there is a lack of understanding that, if an applicant is willing to abide by any and all reasonable, related conditions, the Township MUST grant the CUP.  I learned that at the very first training session I went to as a Planning Commissioner: “Your Role as a Planning Commissioner,” presented most ably by John Shardlow, currently a senior planner at Bonestroo. The Township cannot require the applicants to paint everything red because that is the Board’s favorite color, but it can require downward-cast, hooded lighting and sufficient parking spaces, for instance.  If the applicants agree to these and other reasonable, related conditions, the CUP is theirs.  At the public hearing, the applicants expressed real concern over what happened at the last (November) Board meeting,  I believe they have been made to feel, unnecessarily, that they are on shaky ground.  They should be assured that they are not.  The Board and the Commission are bound by the Ordinance, which permits the use.

Fourth, I was dismayed to hear Commissioner Hansen move at the hearing to “recommend approval of the change of use.”  This was without any discussion of possible conditions, no formalized site plan, and no Finding of Facts.  I was allowed by the Chair to quickly inform him that the Township approves the change of use through means of granting the CUP.  Hansen stated  “I'm not talking about the CUP, just approving the change of use.”  This makes no sense.  What are we about?  Public officials making decisions about people’s property need to educate themselves about the ramifications of what they are voting on.  Thankfully, the motion was thwarted.

Fifth and last, I need to bring to the Board’s attention something that occurred at the hearing.  Commissioner Hansen signed in as a speaker at the hearing, came around to the podium, spoke as a member of the public, and then proceeded to go back around to his Commissioner’s seat and resume his role there!  This is not at all appropriate.  I ask the Board and the Attorney to take measures to assure that this does not happen again.  Again, where is the understanding of proper procedure and roles?  Surely, we can do better.

There was no response from the Board at that time. When the CUP hearing came up later on the agenda, Commissioner Hansen told the Board that there had been "a lot of interaction" during the hearing.  He had Clerk Wilson pass out papers to the Board which contained his motion.  He again made "his case" to the Board that he was "not talking about the CUP, just about approving the change of use." He said the applicants would still have to come in to get the CUP, but approve their change of use to a church now. (You can lead a horse to water...) He then suggested to the Board that they "ask me questions."

The Board was quiet for some little time, whether because they understood and agreed with my points, because they weren't sure themselves, because they weren't sure what to ask him, or for some other reason, I couldn't say.  Finally, Chair Storlie asked the attorney, Chad Lemmons, for comment.

I will not quote Mr. Lemmons, but he stated that (1) a church is a Conditional Use under Eureka's Ordinances which allows the Township to place conditions, (2) the granting of the CUP and the approval of the change of use take place as one, and (3) it appeared the application was not complete.  

When asked whether, once the application was made complete, would there have to be another public hearing, Chad replied, "Yes, there would." Now a public hearing costs the applicant some money for Commissioners' time, letters sent to adjacent property owners, publication in the newspaper, and possible other fees such as attorney consultation.  Here, I agreed with Mr. Hansen when he said something along the lines of, "This is our mess and we should clean it up.  They shouldn't have to pay for another public hearing."  The Board eventually agreed as well.  (I think the church representatives' and the realtor's dealing with the frustration is enough of a price to pay.)

It should be stated that these have been some tough times for the Township of late.  Clerk Nanett Sandstrom has resigned and Linda Wilson has been doing her best to fill the position, which is a big one, until a replacement can be found. I acknowledge Linda's efforts and certainly sympathize with her. She is doing her best without a lot of training-in.  Knowing this, perhaps those who have been around much longer than she could step it up and see that things go a little more smoothly by advising her. Everyone benefits from an understanding of what is involved in granting a CUP, how the process works, what the applicants' "rights" are, what is the proper role of Commissioners at the hearing, and so on.  

I know it is not easy up there; I've been there.  It can be a little scary, folks. It should be; it's serious stuff! (Fortunately, I had some great, experienced people to rely on while I tried to find my way.  I was very thankful for that!)  But that is precisely why those who put themselves forward to fill these positions must be willing to seek advice and to go to training sessions provided by non-profit organizations to help them do their jobs.  When one is making decisions about peoples' properties that can even last "forever," he needs to act very carefully. 

Generally, my thought is that every newly elected Supervisor would benefit greatly by attending the New Supervisor Training offered by the Minnesota Association of Townships insurance and general attorneys each summer. (It's been very aptly titled "New Supervisor Or What Have I Gotten Myself Into?")  These attorneys offer sound advice to keep the official and the township out of legal difficulty. Even those officials who have been around a while would benefit from attending the sessions designed to keep them up to date. Planning Commissioners would be well-advised, in my opinion, to go to at least "Your Role as a Planning Commissioner," and the "Basics of Planning and Zoning," both of which are offered multiple times each year by Government Training Services. Some of Eureka's Supervisors and Commissioners, including some currently in office, have availed themselves of this information; others have done little or nothing along these lines.  Perhaps Commissioner Hansen might consider this so he can be better prepared? In the past, while in office, I attempted twice to make what I suggest above required for new Supervisors and Planning Commissioners.  The response was always, "Well, it certainly would be good for people to go, but we don't know that we want to require it."

Why not, I ask?  Grassroots government is great in theory, but can get a little messy in

practice.  At the Township level, let's just all acknowledge, as some humbly have, that we are amateurs who would be wise to seek advice from professionals.  We are very limited in staff compared to other local government units, such as cities and counties, which grant the same kinds of permits we do.  That means that the Planning Commission and the Town Board actually act, in large part, as their own staff. This is a big responsibility and can be difficult and time-consuming.  Yet it needs to be done and done well.

By the way, the fellows from the church, including the pastor, and I struck up a few conversations sitting at the Town Hall.  They seem very friendly and engaging.  I welcomed them to the neighborhood!

Heeeeeere's Johnny!!!!

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Eureka Planning Commission, here is a brief introduction:

Lu Barfknecht

The current Chair of the Planning Commission is Lu Barfknecht, who is serving her second term which expires on April 30, 2016.  She grew up in Anoka, 7th in a family of 12 children. She has been married to her husband, Dan, for 35 years; has 4 children and 3 grandchildren; and lives in Eureka Estates.  Lu has held a variety of jobs over the years, from waitress and secretary, to various positions in the banking business, to different roles in the insurance business.  She is currently employed as a Field Agent in Marketing at Blue Cross Blue Shield, where she has been for nearly 13 years.  Lu loves fishing and being outdoors.

Dr. Carrie Jennings

Vice Chair Carrie Jennings is a geologist, with degrees from Northwestern and the University of Minnesota, the latter including an M.S. and a Ph.D. She enjoys teaching and has done so at various institutions, such as Carleton and Macalester, including 20 years' instruction in glacial geology at the U of M.  Carrie has worked for the Minnesota Geological Society, the National Center for Earth Surface Dynamics, and is currently employed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Lands and Minerals. She and husband, Charlie Mahler, live on the former Borg farm in the southernmost part of the Township. Having been among those facilitating the purchase of the Chub Lake Wildlife Management Area by the DNR in the late 1990's, Carrie went on to file an application for her own property with the Farmland and Natural Areas Program, resulting in a 110-acre easement acquisition by that program in 2010.  Carrie has also served as Board Supervisor; her current term as Commissioner expires in April, 2014.

Fritz Frana

Frederick "Fritz" Frana has been a resident of Eureka Township for over 25 years.  His educational background includes a BA in Sociology at the University of Northern Iowa. Now retired, Fritz has over 35 years in the defense industry in a high-tech environment, with extensive Human Resources management, project management, and consulting experience. Currently a member of the Agritourism Task Force, Fritz lives in Rice Lake Heights on the western side of Eureka. His term is until April, 2014.

Butch Hansen          Al Novacek        

Charles "Butch" Hansen is a self-employed business owner and farmer who lives on Highview Avenue, south of 250th Street.  Butch served for two years on the Planning Commission at an earlier time; his current term expires on April 30, 2015.  Butch was a member of the Town Hall Task Force, which worked on the planning and construction of the "new" Town Hall. He was also a member of the Transfer Task Force and is currently on the Agritourism Committee.



Allen Novacek (pictured above) is the owner and president of the family business Nova-Chek Auto Body. It is located in Lakeville and employs several people.  Relatively new to local government, Al served as member on the Transfer Task Force. He resides in Eureka Estates; his term as Commissioner expires on April 30, 2015.

ALICE (AL is?) DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE?

     Another "transparent" moment or perhaps "imaginative twist" unfolding
at Eureka's August 12, 2013 Town Board meeting. 



"Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?"  "That depends a great deal on where you want to get to." "I don't think...." then you shouldn't talk." Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland                        

                                                                                     

      Public comment from two Planning Commissioners addressed to the Town Board on August 12, 2013. (Refer to the Township CD of the 

Al Novacek

8-12-2013, Town Board Meeting for the entire discussion of the issue.)     Listen to Commissioner Al Novacek's seemingly "transparent" moment; 
and Commissioner Barfknecht's well-prepared recollection and response.                          

            

                     Click below to view Clip

                                                                 Board Meeting Clip