Complaint policy revamp

Chairman Storlie

Isn't it interesting that Chairman Storlie told the Planning Commission that the Board had been misinterpreting the Complaint Policy.  He informed them that it was really up to the Board to decide if a complaint had merit.  Then they would decide if a complaint should be followed up on.

Letter dismissing complaint.

The timing of this "discovery" is what interests me most.  You see, it turns out that Supervisor Ceminsky was the object of a complaint regarding the use of his outbuildings.  It was decreed that the complaint had no merit apparently, as stated in this letter that was sent to the person making the complaint (and who will remain anonymous, according to Township policy--at least as long as the Board continues to adhere to that part of the policy).

What do you think?  Does Mark Ceminsky run his construction business out of his home and not his outbuildings, as Township rules require?  If he is using his outbuildings for this business endeavor, that is in violation of the ordinances.  These rules are being enforced with others in the township by the current board.

Reprinted below for your consideration is the text of the original complaint.  You decide.  Did it have enough merit to at least be followed up upon by a NEUTRAL party like the Building Inspector?
________________________________________________________________________________

With recent, stepped up enforcement of the home occupation ordinance, it would be hypocritical for our Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission members to be in violation this ordinance.  They should conduct their businesses so that they are above suspicion.

I request that the building inspector view the contents of accessory use structures (including the temporary storage building) at the home of Supervisor Ceminksy to make sure that Beaver Creek Construction http://www.beavercreekco.com/ does not operate out of, or store equipment in, his accessory use structures.  If this were the case, it would be in clear violation of the ordinances as they are being enforced against other residents and potential buyers.

Over the past few years, there has been an expansion outdoor storage at the home of Supervisor Ceminsky.  The company website does not give a specific street address but it has a Farmington city address.  Mr. Ceminsky advertises his work , that is, that the landscaping was done by him, with signs at his property.  Many companies do this immediately after a project is completed.  But if the sign is permanent it requires a permit and a broader discussion about its legitimacy.  Mr. Ceminsky parks a business trailer outside his accessory building with the company name on it in a way that makes it visible to passers by.  The Township has had discussions on this in the past.  Does it constitute advertising or is it inadvertent?  How can we make the distinction? 

Mr. Ceminsky’s company’s business is remodeling, construction and landscaping, according to his website.  It is possible that everything he uses is contained within the trailer , but this seems unlikely.  Unidentified materials outside his temporary structure (beams of some sort) appear to be related to the business, as do some pieces of equipment that sometimes parked outside his buildings.

It is confusing to residents who are trying to abide by the ordinances when they see Supervisors and Planning Commission members skirting or violating the ordinances they have been elected to enforce. 

Photo of temporary structure, accessory use building and trailer at the Ceminsky residence.

Not included here, but part of the original complaint, were a series of historic airphotos showing an expansion of the use at this site under the ownership of Mr. Ceminsky.

AND THE LUMP OF COAL GOES TO...

The topic of this post should be of concern to all in the Township, no matter what your philosophy or political leanings, in my opinion.



As I hope you know, the Township has a "Citizen Input Policy" which is stated on the website under "Policies." Citizen Input Policy  This Policy states in brief:

Citizen Input

Individuals or groups wishing to address the Township Board are encouraged (emphasis mine) to complete an Agenda Request Form and request that an item be put on the agenda for discussion at a regular Township Board Meeting (emphasis mine).  The deadline for such requests is noon on the Thursday preceding the meeting of the Township Board.  Public comment at Board meetings is defined by the following procedures.

It is requested that anyone bringing written materials to the meeting have seven (7) copies available--five for the Board, one for the public, and one for the official record.

As I have done in the past, I submitted a request in writing to Linda Wilson during the Planning Commission meeting on the Monday before the Board meeting, more than satisfying the deadline. Receiving no further

communication on this, and the agenda not being posted on the website as is the normal procedure, I arrived at the meeting and took an agenda.  I had asked to be put under "Citizen Business, Land use information."  There was no such agenda item.  However, under "Public Comment" near the top of the agenda I saw my name! "Public Comment"(very brief opportunity for public for speak before the rest of the meeting) has always been determined by asking those in attendance if there is any public comment.  Those indicating they wish to speak are given a few minutes to do so. This is done on the spot; no one "signs up" for it ahead of time.

I went up to Chair Pete Storlie before the meeting started and very nicely told him I had requested to be placed on the agenda and this was not done. He said I was on the agenda under "Public Comment."  I said I had asked to be placed on the agenda per the policy. He looked me right in the eye and said, "I am following the Citizen Input Policy." (Note the use of the first person!) I told him that a citizen can request to be placed on the agenda, I had done so, yet I was not on the agenda.  He restated that he "was following" the policy. (No, Mr. Chair, you are not.) I told him him he needed to amend the agenda to include my request.  He then started the meeting.

At the end of my "regular" public comments already posted on this blog concerning the CUP application, I added the comment that I had requested the agenda item and this was not done or corrected.  I felt this was a blatant attempt to silence me (or restrict my input) and said so.  I said I had information about land use on a property adjoining my own and this affected my property and demanded to be able to speak on the topic as requested. "Thank you, Nancy" was my bland "response" from the Chair.

Later in the meeting, the property in question and its building use came up.  I raised my hand and told the Chair that this was the matter that I had requested to speak on the agenda about. Since it affects my property, I said, I ask that I be heard before the Board takes any action on the matter. The Chair did not respond to me. As it happened, the Building Inspector had not yet filed his report (which I understand now has been done) so the Board was not able to take any action and the item was put off until the January meeting.

So we don't know if Mr. Storlie would have eventually seen fit (the rest of the Board?) to allow a citizen to speak concerning the effect on her own property when an adjacent land use was discussed.

How does a public official seemingly see himself as so powerful that he can apparently single-handedly attempt to ignore and thwart adopted public policy?  I subsequently learned from another citizen that he had also requested to be placed on the agenda the preceding month and had been told by the Clerk that she "wasn't sure she could do that."  Has someone directed the Clerk to NOT place people on the agenda as requested and as covered by policy?  This has always been done as a matter of course in the past. Whose "agenda" is at work here?  Is it the public's agenda or an individual's agenda? 

Pete Storlie has already admitted publicly that he told Commissioner Hansen to tell a property owner he could "ignore" the Building Official's letter on a closely related topic even though Pete does not have the authority to do so. ("Closely related" because although the use has remained, the ownership has changed.) If you haven't listened to the meeting recording accessed through the "Your Public Officials At Work" post, you really should do so.  It is eye-opening about some things that have gone on in this Township.

If an elected public official can do something like this unimpeded, no one should rest comfortably!  If you are "out of favor" with a Board Chair can you be gagged from speaking about your own property? What would the Minnesota Association of Townships advise the Town Board to do?  What would its insurance branch advise the Board? Do you as a Eureka citizen wish to be subject to this?

This action by the Chair rates not just a lump of coal, I think, but a whole scuttle's worth!

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!

A POLL ON THE POLES

At the November Board meeting, Supervisor Budenski moved that the Township seek an injunction against Great River Energy (GRE) to stop work regarding the installation of powerline poles in Eureka Township.  His thought was that, just as the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) granted a local deviation in the route near Dodd and 245th, perhaps they would grant a formal Township request for a change in the pole material.  That is, to switch from the rusty brown they want to install (think Pillsbury Avenue) to the silvery galvanized poles found elsewhere that would blend in better with the Minnesota sky and might be a little more palatable to Eureka citizens. (Since we're stuck with them no matter what.) Budenski volunteered his time to go through the request process.

OR 

Remember, these power poles are 15 or 16 stories tall.  You might notice them! As you may imagine, this matter of the power line and the poles has been discussed a number of times at the Board level.  Citizen Ray Kaufenberg, who will have the poles right in his own neighborhood, has been active on the topic for some time. He has previously suggested to the Board that a change in the pole material is a reasonable request for the Township to make. 

The Board has requested that a representative from GRE be present each month to give the Board (and presumably the citizens?) an update on the work being done. 

At the October meeting, Ray was denied his request to ask a question during the part of the meeting that the GRE rep was before the Board. Chair Storlie informed Ray that it wasn't the public comment time, and he was not allowed to speak..  

Supervisor Budenski asked why Ray could not speak.  Storlie replied that he, Storlie, is the Chair, it is his job to keep the meeting moving and the public comment period was over: Mr. Kaufenberg would have to be quiet.  While it IS TRUE that Pete is the Chair, he needs to keep the meeting moving, and the public comment period was over, the Citizen Input Policy states under "During the Meeting" that the BOARD can allow citizen input during a meeting if it, the Board, at its sole discretion, decides it is necessary.  

It is also true that the Chair does not have any special powers beyond those of the other supervisors.  His vote doesn't count more than the others'. His sole additional obligation here is to run the meeting.  That's it. 

THEREFORE, it is my belief that Chair Storlie should have properly asked the Board whether it would like to hear Mr. Kaufenberg and not unilaterally made that decision himself, especially when his decision was challenged by another Supervisor.  (Maybe the others don't agree with you?) It is at the Board's sole discretion, not the Chair's sole discretion re the Policy, after all! 

Apparently, the other three Supervisors (Miller, Ceminsky, and Madden) are fine, however, indicated by their TOTAL silence on the matter, with Chair Storlie's dictatorial (my opinion) decision on whether one of their constituents would be given the courtesy of a comment or question about this topic which affects us all.

I view this in much the same manner as the Road Contractor part of the meeting or the Sheriff's part of the meeting.  If they are there to report on roads (which affect us all) or on public safety (which affects us all) and citizens are allowed or even encouraged to ask questions, why can't a citizen be allowed to ask a question on the power lines (which affects us all)?  I don't get it.

At any rate, Supervisor Budenski tried to pick up the banner at the November meeting as described above. What happened next, you ask?

WELL, Supervisor Miller had to recuse himself because of a potential financial conflict of interest. You may remember that he is being paid by GRE for use of his property as a laydown yard.  Any possible delay in the project could result in more money for him, so he shouldn't vote on this matter which affects his constituents.

 

Chair Pete Storlie, refreshingly in my opinion, voted with Brian to seek the injunction and the possible change in the poles.

Supervisors Ceminsky and Madden, however,.voted against Budenski's motion.  Don't ask me to explain why, because I don't get that either.  What, really, is there to lose?  Well, some money in taking the action. A few hundred, perhaps? How long will the effect of their votes, which caused the motion to fail, be with us?  How long does a power pole last?  How long will the power line be in place?  Personally, I don't think this was a good economy. Do you ?

VS.

Freedom of Speech; Still Allowed In Eureka?

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: The right  to express one's thoughts and opinions without government restriction, as guaranteed by the First Amendment 

 (Black's Law Dictionary).

Mr. Otto attended the September Town Board meeting and submitted what he believes is the "proper procedure and process to study a subject of complexity to communicate issues and recommendations effectively to audiences large and small, and to manage legal and technical guidance for maximum benefit and value to the Township."

The appointment of a Task Force to study Agri-tourism was the issue addressed.(see Eureka Engages an Agri-tourism Task Force.) Task Force candidates were present in the audience.

 In my opinion Mr. Otto's presentation, based on his expertise and experience, was submitted with the best of intentions. It was certainly worthy of serious consideration by the Town Board members and the Task Force and was not intended to be a threat
.
On October 20 Supervisor Ceminsky sent a written statement to the Township Board and Task Force making the following statements.

"While I appreciate Jeff Otto's knowledge, I believe it is the Board of Supervisors who are directing
the committee on Agri-tourism.  I do not recall where the Board authorized Mr. Otto to be giving direction to the Agri-tourism committee. Second, why is this (Mr. Otto's written comments) being sent to the committee before it is reviewed by the Board of Supervisors? As at this point we have not authorized the use of a planner or the expenditure of any funds for this committee. If Mr. Otto is going to be directing the committee without the authorizatiuon of the Board of Supervisors, why did we setup a committee in the first place? It seems
Mr. Otto does not have confidence that the committee is going to see things his way. The committee was established to review the information that has been presented to the Township up to this point, and for them to come back with what they have for recommendations to the Board based off of what the committee has reviewed. As a Supervisor of Eureka township, I feel that the input from Mr. Otto is inappoppriate, as it was not directed by the Board of Supervisors and the Agri-tourism committee has not submitted any reports to the Board as of today. To continue, I feel we need to let the Agri-tourism committee move forward as I have confidence that they will do the job presented to them without outside influence." (emphasis is mine)

The Eureka Policy on Citizen Input and Conduct at Township Meetings states:
"Citizens are welcome and encouraged to attend any and all meetings of the Township Board of Supervisors. To allow Township citizens and members of the general public the opportunity to provide input and comments on Township related issues. Individuals or groups wishing to address the Township Board are encouraged to complete an Agenda Request Form and request that an item be put on the agenda for discussion at a regular Township Board Meeting."

The policy also requests that anyone bringing written materials to the meeting have seven copies available; five for the Board, one for the public and one for the official record.  Mr. Otto followed the proper procedure and requested the Township clerk to add his name to the agenda.

Is Supervisor Ceminsky suggesting that the information presented by Mr. Otto will be utilized by the Board and Task Force, but only if they agree with the content?
                                            
I believe freedom of speech means the freedom to communicate ideas without unwarranted government suppression and restriction and to protect the individual's ability to think and express one's thoughts; not to control. Does anyone find this applicable when referring to Supervisor Ceminsky's comments above?   Supervisor Ceminsky has taken the liberty to exercise freedom of speech; I believe he should respect every other citizen's right to do so as well. I also believe criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy are almost always permitted. What are your thoughts?                                                

    

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.

IS CAPX2020 DRAINING YOUR ENERGY?

Many Eureka citizens are dealing, in one way or another, with what many might see as the disfigurement of the Township by fifteen-story-high power lines.

But did you know that the Town Board had a possibility to soften the impact, at least in its early stages of the installation, but passed up the opportunity?  This is a story you would not necessarily know from the minutes, but would know if you had been in attendance at a recent Special Board Meeting.

First, you need to know that, at a Special Meeting as opposed to a regular one, the Board can discuss only those items that have been listed under the agenda in the posting of the meeting.  The post has to be up at the Town Hall bulletin board (the official posting site) in time to give citizens a three-day notice of the meeting, not counting the day of the posting and the day of the meeting.  It happens that, at the eleventh hour, "CAPX2020" was added to then already-published agenda.  This is actually okay by procedure, but requires that citizens are alert for such last minute changes if they want to be fully informed.

[If you have certain items that are of interest to you, be advised that the best way to stay on top of things is to ask to to be placed on the "alert" list that the Town Clerk maintains.  She is to send you all agendas, notices of public hearings, Special Meetings, and the like, saving you from having to check the bulletin board or the website. (The latter is NOT the official posting site.)  BE AWARE, however, as mentioned in an earlier posting, the Board can add items to a regular meeting agenda as late as at the meeting itself.  Refer to the "Housekeeping" addition of two controversial Ordinance items; Chair Storlie made these additions at the "agenda approval" time during the beginning of the June meeting that night.  Unless a person was in attendance, he would have had no idea that these items were to be discussed.]

Second, you should know that Supervisor Miller recused himself from the vote I am about to tell you of because he is being paid for the use of his property for a lay-down yard for the utility's equipment/materials needed for the installation.  It was proper that he do so, since he has a financial interest in the matter...

Third, the permit application and its representatives at the Special Meeting asked for Monday thru Friday hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., with an additional half hour on each end, and Saturday hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., again with one half hour on either side.

Supervisor Budenski moved to limit the hours to Monday thru Friday only, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Not one of the remaining other three Supervisors seconded Brian's motion.  Therefore, it died from the lack of a second.

Chair Storlie then proceeded to move to approve the application as presented; Supervisor Ceminsky (perhaps serving as earlier described as Storlie's "right hand man???") seconded that motion.  The motion passed, 3-1.  Supervisor Budenski was the dissenting vote, while Supervisors Madden, Ceminsky and Storlie voted in favor of the longer hours plus Saturday work as described in the Great River Energy application.

You can form your own opinions of this maneuver, but we wanted to you to know the full story as we understand it. What is required to be recorded in the minutes is all motions, seconds, and votes.  Supervisor Budenski's motion would not be listed as it died.

FYI, very few "regular citizens" were in attendance at the meeting.  



Is your property on the CAPX2020 Route?  Are you negotiating property values with them right now?

Know your rights.

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?