IS PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW A VALUABLE THING?

The Planning Commission is an independent body. It has a duty, among many other things, to review building applications for zoning code compliance and to render recommendations to the Board. This is advisory only; the Board will always vote how it determines. Although the Board is wise to consider the Commission's input thoughtfully, it is not bound by it.

 

To endeavor to put the Commission "under the thumb" of the Board as I believe is currently being proposed under Ordinance 2, Chapter 3, Sections 8 and 9 (See website Town Board packet part 2.) is to ignore the Commission's independent value. Ideally, the Commission is made up of five people who do their homework and consider the Ordinances as the underlying laws that they are. Many Commissioners take this very seriously and do their best to advise the Board as appropriate, keeping the good of the Township citizens in mind always. More perspective is a good thing.

To attempt to negate Commissioners' ability to make a recommendation within the constraints of our laws, to advise that they have their duties unless "otherwise directed by the Board" is to beg the question of do we need a Planning Commission. If the Board is free to "direct" the Commission to a specific outcome, why doesn't the Board simply take on the whole load? The Township has for decades utilized the Planning Commission to review building permits to streamline the approval process for the Board and the applicant. The Board has many other duties and considerations that take its time without this proposed change. What would be the reason for the Board to "direct otherwise" than for a permit to go before the Commission? Does this open a door for possible future Board majorities to walk through for their own private agendas without initial scrutiny by the Commission? Be aware that if the Planning Commission does not render a recommendation within 60 days, the Board can go ahead and act on its own. This is already in our Ordinances, and is there to deal with the 60-Day Rule. (State Statute)

The Board doesn't have to agree with the Commission, nor does the Commission have to agree with the Board. It has been ever so. Each body has the responsibility and has the authority only to follow the Ordinances. To reach a decision that is contrary to what is clearly spelled out in the Ordinances, no interpretation, especially no "rounding" up or down when a specific numerical amount is given, is to reach an arbitrary and capricious decision in my view. "Arbitrary and capricious" is a big red flag, and, again in my view, puts the Township at risk. All citizens are entitled to a fair and even-handed application of the laws we have enacted as a community. Ordinances apply to everyone, all the time, every time. There is no other way to do this fairly. The Ordinances can be changed through public process under the State Statutes, but in the here-and-now we must abide by what they state today.

Changes to the Ordinances are not good in and of themselves. A recognition of the bigger picture and a considered, deliberate approach is always called for when making changes to our laws. Disagreement with the other body's conclusion is not a valid reason to change the ground rules. Further, all Ordinance changes can, and often do, have unintended negative consequences that come to light later and must be fixed. Therefore, let us consider and act in a thoughtful, not a reactive, manner. 

More specifically, to decide that the Board can "otherwise direct" Planning Commission's role in the review of a change or amendment in zoning as proposed in Ord. 2, Ch. 3, Section 9 is actually in conflict with the State's planning statutes. As a municipality, we simply do not have the authority to detour from that.

As a last point, it is also proposed to change the "Purpose" section (1) to address the functions, powers, and duties of the Planning Commission. The Purpose section serves its own purpose (!) and it is advisable to state purposes for various ordinances to make intent clear. Section 6 of the Ordinance actually addresses the functions, powers, and duties of the Commission and uses the term "shall" which legally means "mandatory."

Let the Planning Commission do its job.

NEVER LET IT BE SAID...

...that I don't try to give credit where credit is due.

AT THE LAST BOARD MEETING, I (also following the Citizen Input Policy as did Jeff Otto!) put myself on the agenda as "Ordinance Item."  Frankly, I was hesitant to put "Accessory Building Size Ordinance," which is what I wanted to talk about, for fear that someone might try to delete me from the agenda again because "We've already talked about that."  Boo.

At any rate, I first asked the Board what uses it envisioned in these buildings. "We" had the correct answer this time (Credit Alert #1): personal storage, that is all that is allowed under Ordinance.

Next, I addressed the Non-ag properties that are greater than 11 acres.  You may recall that I had seen and brought this omission of regulation of accessory buildings on such properties to the Board's attention. When they rewrote the Ordinance, they had failed to address this even though it had been addressed under the original Ordinance they wanted replaced. (I still hear officials saying that properties greater than 11 acres "are ag."  Wrong; it's the USE that makes it ag. By state statute one must have a minimum of 10 acres, or 11 with buildings, to qualify as ag. Then you have to "DO ag.") The Board had decided to address this acknowledged omission (Credit Alert #2!). They determined to do so by granting 10,000 square feet of accessory buildings to such properties as a given, with the option of having a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for those property owners desiring even more.  When they did not place any restriction on the CUP size other than meeting setbacks, I had stated that I felt that was certainly excessive.  The attorney had suggested the 25% limit, and the Board had concurred.


So, I asked at the last meeting, why not have a cap to the CUP other than 25%?  Under the 25% rule, a property of twenty acres could have five acres of accessory buildings, also as long as setbacks were met.  I again expressed the opinion that should, I thought, have seemed obvious: that's a LOT of accessory building space!  I suggested why not settle on a square footage limit, even under the CUP--say, 25,000 square feet?


Next, such a CUP would have to be added to the CUP list that is in the Ordinances.  Without that addition, such a CUP could not be granted!  Further, the matter of "opening up" the CUP list, I suggested, goes beyond what was presented at the public hearing on this topic.  I commented that I thought perhaps, because of that, an additional public hearing might be required.  They never got as far as soliciting an attorney opinion on this as, ultimately, (Credit Alert #3!) they decided not to have a CUP option at all and to limit the size to 10,000 square feet on those parcels, plain and simple.


Still not finished.  The original Ordinance had limited the size of NON-ag buildings, even on ag properties, to 200% of the primary structure, presumably a house.  (Ag buildings were never included in the total of accessory buildings.) After several reiterations, I finally got across my point that I was not talking about tractor storage, but personal storage-- yes, on an ag property.  To do so, I resorted to actually reading them the pertinent Ordinance portion. (Imagine that!)  It states: "Permitted Uses and Structures, B. 6: Accessory structures to single-family dwellings such as detached private garages, decks, swimming pools, non-illuminated signs, fences, tool sheds, and other such structures, for the storage of domestic supplies and equipment."  Even farmers might have out-of-season clothes, Christmas decorations, extra furniture, and similar items to store.  A personal storage building would be the place.


When it was argued by a Supervisor that the original Ordinance did not address ag properties, I then read the language the Board put forth as the change: "The maximum total area of all accessory buildings shall not total more than 5,000 square feet on 2 to 5.999 acres and not more than 10,000 square feet on 6 to 10.999 acres 200% of the primary structure total area. There shall be no maximum limitation to total area for agricultural buildings, and agricultural buildings shall not be considered in the total sum of accessory buildings on an individual parcel."  That's any parcel, even those greater than 10.999 acres, which is as far as the new language went.  You may have noticed that it was actually nonsensical to speak about agricultural buildings when addressing only those parcels 10.999 acres or smaller, as they could not have ag anyway by the Board's calculations!

I asked the Board had it been their intention to have no limit on personal storage buildings on agricultural properties? I did not receive an answer from any of them, even though I repeated the question.
Okay, if it is NOW your intention, I queried, what is your rationale for that? Again, no answer to my question.

   

 


 Hopefully, you do not have a headache by now, because I am still not finished..                                


.

Last point: The Board has been considering language to allow agritourism.  If this goes through, I stated, there could conceivably be buildings on ag properties which would be used for the agritourism part, allowing the public inside.  This would render such buildings NON-ag.  Hence, they would be accessory buildings to the ag use, but not ag themselves, and thus fall under this Ordinance, yes?  Had they given any thought to that, I asked?  Only one Supervisor was "brave" enough to answer, no, he hadn't (yet).

The Board did not have any real conversation with me on the points I raised. The item was coming up later on the agenda. I said, "Okay, so you'll have answers for me then.  Please keep in mind my questions regarding intent and rationale for the change."

When it did come up on the agenda, (Credit Alert #4), Supervisor Miller told me not to "fall off my chair," but he told the Board that I had made some good points.  (I just about did fall off my chair!)  As mentioned above, they decided to limit the total square footage of accessory buildings on all non-ag properties to the maximum of 10,000 square feet if over 6 acres, and further, to limit the accessory buildings on agricultural properties to the same amount.  Again, understand, farmer-followers of this blog, that does NOT apply to ANY ag buildings.

I thanked the Board for listening.  I do believe in giving credit where credit is due.

EVER HAVE ONE OF THOSE DAYS WHEN YOU JUST CAN'T SEEM TO GET IT RIGHT?

Well, in my estimation, the Board just did at their last meeting when it comes to the "ever-popular" (read still-resurfacing) ordinance on accessory building size.

You are going to have to bear with me, please, as this gets a little complicated.

As you might recall, there was a public hearing a few months ago on what the Board was proposing then, since they evidently didn't think that 200% of the primary structure gave citizens enough room for their personal storage, which use is what is allowed under our Ordinance in such buildings.

Think about that for just a minute. Whatever size your house's footprint is, including your garage's if it is attached, you could have twice that size in storage building(s) for your out-of-season clothes, extra furniture, holiday decorations, etc. If you have even just the minimum-sized house currently required (960 sq. ft.), along with even just the minimum-sized garage currently required (484 sq. ft.), you could still have 2,888 sq. ft. in storage building(s), or the equivalent of 2.98 four-car garages. I think even for a pack rat like me, that would surely be a lot. 

One person mentioned to me that he knows someone in another township who has lots of collector cars.  That would be personal storage.

At one of the Board's meetings, one Board Supervisor mentioned he would like a building to store his boat.  That would be personal storage.






Okay, that's an issue, and probably people naturally would like the cheap way out and store them here rather than at facilities that are built for such items.  I get that, too.

However, it did not seem to enter the Supervisors' heads that PERHAPS the cleanest way to amend the Ordinance was to increase the percentage, leaving aside for the moment whether the definition of "accessory" is blown going beyond the 200%.  (By Ordinance definition, such an "accessory" structure is "subordinate to" and "does not change the character of" the principal use.)


Instead, they came up with language allowing up to 25% of a parcel, so not related to the primary structure square footage at all, even though "accessory" is related to "primary," could be covered with impervious surface, presumably one's house, garage, driveway and "accessory" buildings. (Be aware that under the former and the then-proposed language, agricultural buildings were always exempt, so that issue does not enter in.)

This proposal met with strong resistance and protest from various quarters, including former Planning Commissioners, former Board Supervisors, the VRWJPO, and "just 'plain' ol' citizens!" 

Do the math and you will figure out that it would mean that on a 10-acre parcel, not unusual in Eureka, 2.5 ACRES, or 108,900 sq. ft., could be covered, mostly by "accessory" buildings. Subtract for a house/garage and a 1,000-ft. driveway, and you still have enough left over for 109 four-car garages!

Even on a 2-acre parcel, the minimum currently required, that would still allow 0.5 acres or 21,780 sq. ft. to be covered, mainly in "accessory" buildings.  If one deleted the footprint of a house/garage and an additional 1,000 sq. ft. for a driveway, one would still be allowed roughly 20 four-car garages!  On 2 acres! Does any of this seem sensible to you?

Okay, all that is water under the bridge. (If it looks like I am having way too much fun with clip art, I probably am!)

Because of the reaction from the above-mentioned public hearing, the Board, outside of any further public hearing, then came up with AND ENACTED INTO LAW their "brainchild" that for acreages that were too small to qualify as ag under state statute, that is, 10.999 acres or less if a house is involved, they would allow 5,000 sq. ft.of "accessory" buildings on parcels 2-5.999 acres, and 10,000 sq. ft. of "accessory" buildings on those of 6-10.999 acres..  The principal use would in most instances be a single family dwelling. So 5,000 sq. ft. divided by 968 sq. ft. for a four-car garage would leave one with more than 5 such garages on even 2 acres, while 10,000 sq. ft. divided by 968 sq. ft for a four-car garage would leave one with the equivalent of more than 9 such garages on even 6 acres.  Ordinance  Better, (I certainly don't say good) but there is still a problem with what is now LAW, which I then pointed out to them!

WHAT is that?  Not all parcels over 10.999 acres are agriculturally used! (Note that their ordinance language still mentions the former language saying that agricultural buildings are not included in the sum of accessory buildings on a parcel. This is NONSENSE because a 10.999 parcel with a house cannot be ag in the first place.) I myself have a non-ag parcel equal to or greater than 11 acres which is 17 acres in size, of which I informed my elected officials.  It also has a grandfathered housing right.  I could build a modest home with a modest garage and still cover nearly the whole thing, just as long as I met the setbacks!  How can that be?  Well, there is no provision for such a parcel, so there is no limit for such a parcel.  All I have to do is to tell them that I am going to use it for personal storage: Trust me.






Supervisor Miller stated publicly that, yes, he guessed there is a problem.



I suggested that perhaps there needs to be a cap on such non-ag parcels of 11 acres or more.  That seemed to be thought a good idea, except when it eventually came back again at yet another meeting (the last meeting, and here we are getting to the "just can't get it right part" of my headline), it was then proposed that such a parcel would automatically get 10,000 sq ft of accessory buildings, but could receive even more, with a Conditional Use Permit or CUP.  Okay, a CUP is a good thought because it involves a public hearing, except that it was still left without a cap under those circumstances, which I protested.  We would be back to the "just meet the setbacks" situation. A Board could allow up to that "setback amount" if it desired. Or not.  Seems arbitrary to me, I said. Township Attorney, Chad Lemmons, then suggested to the Board that he could write it so that in no instance would there be more than 25% of the parcel used in this manner, with which the Board agreed..

Back where we started from, right?





Still wondering how someone can have that much personal storage?  I am. When pressed further on USE for larger-than-10,000 sq ft., Supervisor Miller mentioned a horse arena.  He said "someone" had spoken to him.  That "someone" was interested, he said, in purchasing a 28-acre parcel and wanted to put up "a horse arena," that would be large and, Miller said, horses are not ag so it wouldn't be exempt. Currently, we do not give CUPs for horse arenas. Look at the list of uses for which one can receive CUPs.  "Horse arena" is not on it. So what is the Board going to do about that?  What else might they do? Still no additional public hearing?  As a member of the public, do you feel informed by your Board of Supervisors?


AND YET, there is STILL ANOTHER PROBLEM that no one has seemed to have thought of yet.  That is, under the agritourism ordinance that has also been down a rocky path under this Board's watchful eye, but which seems likely to be enacted in some form, even large ag properties could have buildings that the public might tour.  If the public is admitted, then they are no longer ag buildings!  They would be accessory buildings, but they would have to be permitted for public use.  AND we HAVE NO LIMITS there, either, whether under this ordinance language for non-ag properties or under the "definition language" which the Board in its wisdom thought was adequate for the use of agritourism!


                                 HELP YOURSELF.

Eureka Town Board meeting

Town Board meeting tonight, September 10, 2013!  7:00

Business of interest:  Citizen complaints, Text Amendment - Agri-tourism, Accessory Building size, Road Maintenance Contract, Eureka Sand and Gravel, Building Inspector Contract and other items.
                                                      
                                          KEEP CURRENT ON TOWNSHIP ISSUES!                                   

What's in your outbuildings?

When I bought my farm, built  in the 1880s and still owned by the descendants of the homesteaders, there was over 100 years of stuff in those outbuildings.  It was all laid out for every one to see at the auction.

The good stuff went fast.  There were horse-drawn sleighs; an anvil and blacksmith tools; a fainting couch. We were left with the stuff that no one wanted.  There was a chicken coop with its roof held up by twine-tied stacks of Farmer's Wife magazines.  The next coop was a museum to the history of vacuum cleaners.  A room in the barn was filled with bread bags stuffed in other bread bags and jars of straightened baggie twisters. The hayloft was a church with  lectern, two pianos, dozens of pews, and boxes of psalm books in Norwegian, plus lots of pigeon poo. The milking parlor archived hundreds of windows and extra panes of glass; straightened nails, tin ceiling panels, and doors from somewhere else entirely. You get the picture, and there were over a dozen buildings.

We eventually dealt with most of it, finding appropriate homes, renting dumpsters and trying to learn  how much could be amassed in a lifetime or two and keeping an eye on our stashes of yarn, washed ziplock bags, wine corks, canoes, bikes and yes, straightened baggie twisters.

Why does the Township get involved with what we have in our outbuildings?   Well, the short answer is, they don't if we are an agricultural property or if we are using them for personal storage.  What we keep, hoard or save for a rainy day is our business and our childrens' problem (or embarrassment at the auction).


But are all accessory-use structures used for personal property?  Even the really big (and getting bigger) ones?  Can we trust the current Board to enforce our ordinances and make sure that they remain for personal use?  What do they keep in their outbuildings?  What are we to think when a current Planning Commission member said that, as long as what's being done is under the radar, its okay."?  Or when a long-time Board member said,  "We don't want to know about that.  Don't tell us that.  That has been a 'problematic' property."   with regard to how to represent a well-known property to prospective buyers.  The real estate agent was present at the June Board meeting with two potential buyers when that statement was made.  Everyone knew that the place for sale had been operating commercially as a number of things over the years...most recently as a furniture and second-hand store with food for sale.    Even the County acknowledged it was a commercial interest and had been taxing it as such.  So why do we allow this to happen?  Why should we care?


The Township should care because it has ordinances that protect the health, safety and welfare of its residents.  Home occupations are allowed but are to be limited to the home.  Businesses are not to be run from accessory use structures. Even storing business equipment or materials there, as recently clarified at the June meeting by the Township Attorney, Chad Lemmons is not permitted. We do not have sewers, fire response, road infrastructure, or the setting to allow businesses to operate from accessory use structures.  We do not have a commercial zone that isolates and separates people's homes and backyards from back-up beeps, delivery trucks, motorized equipment, bus parking lots, waste piles....  There are simply things that should not go on, be stored, used, heard or dumped on the ground in a non-sewered, rural community.  We lay it all out in the ordinances and comprehensive plan.

It is also laid out for display at those auctions.  We can't pretend to not know what's going on.   If you have a complaint, use link to the form on the right side of the blog.  Your name will be protected and the complaint will have to be addressed by the Board.

SILENCE! OR "What You'll Never See in the Board Minutes..."

Any Eureka citizen can place him/herself on the Town Board agenda (or the Planning Commission agenda, for that matter) to discuss an item of concern. See Public Agenda Request Form.  That is what I did for the July Board meeting.  I asked to speak about 1) Data Practices, 2) Complaint Policy, 3) Agenda Items, and 4) Non-Ag>11 Acres and Accessory Buildings--all in regard to what I viewed as some very unfortunate happenings that occurred at the June Board meeting.

But then something even more egregious in my opinion happened before I even had a chance to open my mouth at the July meeting!  WHAT was that?

Supervisor Mark Ceminsky tried to DELETE MY items from the agenda during the agenda approval time!  I viewed this as a very high-handed attempt and said so at the Public Comment period.  Why would he think he is able to silence a citizen who wishes to appear before the Board and requested to do so through the proper channels under the Board's own policy?  Wisely, the rest of the Board let my items stand, and I received my chance to address them.

HOWEVER, you will never know from the minutes WHAT I SAID!  Why not?  Because the Board has elected to have my and other's comments reduced to the likes of "So-and-so, 12345 Nowhere Avenue, made comments" when it comes to the minutes.  They are able to decide what "level of detail" they would like in the minutes when it comes to non-motion items, so they can do this.  In the past, they have had the practice of including the gist of what an individual said, even during the public comment period.  Somehow, what I have said on two former occasions and what another stated on another occasion, seems to make them uncomfortable, to the point of "sanitizing" us out of the minutes.  What does it say when the Board can broker no disagreement, when they do not even respond to the comments of the citizen before them, when they keep the content of a person's statements from the public minutes, when one of them even puts his fingers in his ears while I am speaking to him as an elected public official?  I can scarcely believe what we seem to have come to.  I think we still live in America--don't we?  Engaging Eureka in Governance : Steve Madden--Listener:

What did I say that was so controversial?  Well, in brief, I let them know they need to do a much better job:

1) Data Practices:  At the June meeting, Chair Storlie had demanded that the "citizen who put the exotic animal complaint on the agenda" step forward publicly.  The Data Practices Policy protects that person's identity, unless he chooses to reveal it.  Why did Chair Storlie think he could demand that the person "out" himself?  Why did he refuse to discuss the matter unless that person did?  Why did others on the Board just sit there and not point out his error?

2) Complaint Policy: I stated that the Board's own policy has time frames within the procedure to be followed, yet one complaint is nearing its third-year anniversary!!!  I questioned why the exotic animal complaint on the agenda was not discussed as was proper at the June meeting, and how the Board can justify not moving ahead on complaints in a more timely manner.  Supervisor Budenski had tried unsuccessfully to get the Chair to address the complaint. The Township Attorney had even drawn up and submitted materials for the Board's use regarding the exotic animal complaint as he (quite naturally) had thought they would address it and told them that they could address it.  STILL Chair Storlie would not allow the Board to address it and no one else on the Board spoke up.  Don't you wonder why not?  The Ordinances are worth less than nothing if they are not enforced. 

3) Agenda Items: At the last meeting, the agenda had the item "Housekeeping" on it.  At the time during the meeting that night that the agenda can be amended, the Chair stated that he wanted to add the 200%-25% Ordinance and the Agri-tourism Ordinance to the agenda under "Housekeeping."  Again, they can do this, but I asked where is the transparency and the forthrightness in government that the citizens of Eureka have an expectation of and, I believe, a right to?  I further stated that, since both those items were somewhat controversial topics as was shown through public hearings input, the public might see this manoeuvre as an means to avoid discussion by not alerting them ahead of time by having those items on the published agenda.

4) Non-Ag > 11 Acres and Accessory Buildings:  I again for surely the fourth or fifth time (at Planning Commission meetings, at Board meetings, and during the public hearing) pointed out a big loophole in the new ordinance the Board pushed through at the June meeting, even though the Planning Commission as a whole had not completed its work on it.  That loophole, which did not exist in the ordinance that was replaced, is that there are no limits on accessory structures on non-ag parcels greater than 10.999 acres.  I stated as I have before that just because a parcel is greater than 11 acres does not make it ag; its USE makes it ag.  Is anyone there???  Supervisor Kenny Miller asked permission from the Chair to speak to me  (Did I notice a reluctance?) to tell me that he (at long last) has recognized my point and is working to address it. 

What does all this say to you?  To me it says "Exercise the right that others have fought for."
VOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTE
Submitted by Nancy Sauber

Water, Water Everywhere

For those of you that still don't know what to believe as far as climate change goes, let's at least agree that we've sure had a lot of intense rains lately.  Here are the totals from last Saturday's storm.  Your rain gage was right.  The Cannon was running through streets, parks and golf courses in Northfield.

I heard a talk given by Dr. Mark Seeley a few years ago and he said our trends were for higher summer dew points (more tropical humidity) and more frequent, but localized, high-intensity precipitation events.  He also mentioned higher winter minimum temps--doesn't get as cold, change in the seasonality of temperature--cooler springs and warmer falls, and higher summer minimums too--we don't have those great sleeping nights as frequently.

So how does this impact the  Township?  Last Saturday we had road damage in the Township in many places and repairs are underway.  Maybe you reported the damage to the Road Supervisors (pete.storlie@gmail.com 952-469-3668 or  MarkCeminsky.eurekatn@frontier.com 612-819-1334).
Last May's damage was so bad that we qualified for FEMA funds for the repairs.

In any given year, the majority of our budget goes to roads.  We spent more than the budgeted amount on snow plowing last winter and are dipping into other pots to cover the overage.  We grade, apply dust control, add crushed rock or gravel, fix culverts, maintain ditches...we care about how water is managed because it affects our bottom line.

We also care about how water is managed (or should) because it is the neighborly thing to do.  We may have sighed with relief if that 4" rain did only minor damage to our driveway or crops and if our roof shed the curtain of rain (mine leaked).  But we should also be thinking about how water leaves our property.    Eureka residents are lucky to be near the headwaters of two different watersheds, the Vermillion and the North Cannon.  The water that falls on our properties makes its way to one of those two rivers, affecting everyone downstream.

If we let the water soak in like it always has, the groundwater will be recharged and the streams buffered a bit from extreme fluctuations.  And we know that they are getting extreme!

If we alter the way water soaks into the ground, make it run off more roofs, paved areas, through new ditches, tiling, accommodate it by increasing the size of culverts, we have to expect a response in the stream.  Those folks living along the rivers and their tributaries will tell you its already happening.  Stream banks are caving in, rivers meanders are on the move, floods are higher and more frequent and ironically, the low-level periods for the river are lower.

That is why when Supervisor Ceminsky wanted to increase the size of Accessory Buildings to up to 25% of the property area I laughed initially.  It was an absurd proposition for me, as a geologist working on water issues.  Making 25% of the Township impervious, the extreme result of the proposed ordinance language, would have had such a huge impact on the rivers that the Vermillion Watershed Administrator responded immediately.  He testified at the public hearing that if such an ordinance were to pass, they would have no choice but to require that every land owner making a change in impervious cover to hire a consultant to model the pre- and post-modification runoff amounts for 10-year average high rainfall events.  They would then be required to design a system to capture all excess runoff and keep in on the property.  Sound expensive and confusing?

Thankfully Supervisor Ceminsky retracted his original proposal.  However it still did not stop the Board from passing a still-significant increase in the size of allowed Accessory Buildings, more in line with those in Scott County.  You can now increase your roofshed (water just runs off a roof rather than soaking into the ground) to 5,000 sq ft. if you have up to 5.999 acres and 10,000 sq ft. if you have 10.999 acres.  There is NO LIMIT on properties larger than that.  (That is the gaping hole in the ordinance that we hope they will fix shortly--they didn't run the language by the Planning Commission, ignored public comment on that very point and published the ordinance last month).

Here is what a 10,000 sq ft building looks like.  Hmmm, do you think they have other ordinance changes in mind?  How could this large of a building be something a guy could fill with personal, not commercial property?  How many snowmobiles, boats, cars and toys can a guy own?

So in addition to blocking our view with giant pole buildings, the new ordinance has the potential to impact our watershed--including our road, ditches, culverts, driveways and everyone downstream.

What do you think?  Is this good for the Township?

Mark Ceminsky--Builder

Mark Ceminsky has a Board seat until 2015.  He was formerly a member of the Planning Commission.

Mark Ceminsky

He is Pete's right hand man.

Mark's experience with construction comes in handy when reviewing building plans.  He owns and operates Beaver Creek Companies, an interior/exterior home remodeling and landscaping company.  You can even see some of his work on display at the Town Hall (counter extension).

Mark worked hard to increase the size of allowable accessory-use structures in the Township.  He had hoped to allow up to 25% of a person's lot to become an accessory building (wow, I own 120 acres--what would I do with a 30-acre building?  Indoor golf?).  He settled for the equivalent of 14, 2-car garages on a typical residential lot.

That's a lot of storage space!  Especially when you consider that the only thing allowed in these buldings is personal property for personal (not commercial or business) use.  What could a guy possibly want all that space for?

Mark is the current road supervisor.  He worked hard to get FEMA money to repair Township roads damaged in spring 2012 storms.  Hopefully the money can be used to cover some of his time as well because his second quarter time sheet amounted to nearly $4,000.  Other Board members' pay ranged from $450 to $950 for the Chair.  How could Mark make an order of magnitude more than any other Board member?  He charges $70 (plus mileage) for every inspection of the roads that he makes.  Pete said it was approved and discussed at the Reorganizational meeting.

A quick look at past payroll and our fee structure shows that this is a new policy.  How do you feel about Mark making a projected $12,000 per year?  Maybe its worth it for the job he is doing on the roads. It's your tax money.  Vote.