THE GANG THAT COULDN'T SHOOT STRAIGHT?

As reported earlier, the Township Clerk/Treasurer, Nanett Sandstrom, resigned not long ago.  The Deputy Clerk, Linda Wilson, was made Clerk, but was not able to do the CTAS bookkeeping as she hasn't been trained in that.  There were TWO Special Meetings on this topic. The Board at its December meeting, or more precisely, Supervisor Brian Budenski, asked Linda what she needed to help her
.

Linda replied that she had talked to Nanett and Nanett was willing to stay on for a couple of more months and perhaps might even stay on after that.  Linda had already sworn Nanett in so that the December Financial Reports could be done. She said she would like to work with Nanett for at least this transitional period.


However, three Supervisors, Storlie, Ceminsky, and Madden, appeared to have a problem with that. Chair's Storlie's "impeccable" logic presented publicly was that, since, Nanett had been both Clerk and Treasurer before, and would now have reduced responsibilities as just Treasurer, she should take a cut in pay!  She was paid "x" to do "a" and "b."  She did either "a" or "b" at one time, right; she didn't do both at once?  So now she could do just "b," thus having fewer hours and thus earning less money, but Storlie wants to also dock her hourly pay by, as I recall, roughly 20%!

So you have an employee who has been here for 14 years.  Is she suddenly less experienced to do "b?"  Has she suddenly forgotten all her training on CTAS? Has she suddenly not been here at Eureka for as long as she has? What real justification does Mr. Storlie have to reduce her hourly pay? How insulting is that!? Personally, I think the three Supervisors who voted to reduce her pay figured she wouldn't accept their "New Deal," and this was a way to seem "reasonable" (?), leaving her to make the call.  

Well, she did.  "No Way!" was her reported answer.  Can you blame her? I surely do not.

So now we have no Treasurer.  A very nice person (I have met her) from Castle Rock has agreed to fill in in that capacity for a while, but she does not want the job.  Linda Wilson does not want the job; in fact, she is looking for another job. She has stayed on for now because of concern for the citizens of Eureka. She doesn't even live here, but SHE has concern for the citizens of Eureka!  Where is the Board's concern, I wonder?

Oh!  Lest I forget! Who told Nanett she no longer has a job here after the Board's vote?  NOT CHAIR STORLIE!  NOT SUPERVISOR CEMINSKY!  NOT SUPERVISOR MADDEN!  Not even Supervisors Budenski and Miller who would have liked to see her stay.  Oh no, not the Fortitudinous Five! They let Linda be the bearer of the bad news!  Isn't that nice? Really stand-up.



In fact, as of one o'clock on New Year's Eve, it was believed that not one of the five has yet even called Nanett to get the password for the website from her.  They HAVE called another citizen who did work on the website in the past, but not the logical person, Nanett! This is the reason the Agritourism Task Force minutes have not been posted as requested and as has been done for other task forces! No call to Nanett: no password!  Is the Board doing its best to inform the public here?  I would say, no, definitely not.

Also, as of one o'clock on New Year's Eve, there still has not been an ad placed in the newspaper seeking a replacement even though that request has been made a few times.  The current temporary replacement doesn't want the job! There are end-of-year reports to be done as well as the usual monthly work.  Shouldn't we start looking for someone new since we have chucked away the person who has served us well for the last nearly decade and a half?


Related but different: You recall the Conditional Use Permit for Living Waters Church on Dodd Boulevard? You might recall that I reported on that public hearing, including Commissioner Hansen's testifying as a member of the public AND serving as Planning Commissioner!

Hansen was to assist Linda with drafting a letter to the applicants, explaining what else they have to submit for a complete application. There has to be another public hearing.  The Township is picking up the tab for that. Well, as of one o'clock on New Year's Eve, Hansen has not been by to get this letter finished and sent.  This made me wonder has ANYONE contacted the applicants or the realtor at all? The answer was that to the best of knowledge, no one had yet called them  to let them know where they stood on the matter. If that is true, how are you being represented?  Remember, the first public hearing was on December 5th.  New Year's Eve was three and one half weeks later!

Put yourself in the applicants' shoes.  What would be your impression of Eureka Township? Sure you still want to be here?
Put yourself in the realtor's shoes. She has already expressed real concerns regarding the Board's actions at the November meeting. She would like the sale to go through.  Time is money.
Put yourself in the bank's shoes.  You finally have a buyer for the property.  Is the Township going to handle this so poorly that your buyer decides it's not worth it and goes to look elsewhere?

The gang that couldn't shoot straight?  I think their aim is straight--straight into their collective foot!

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!

WHAT'S THE USE?

Land use, that is!
During the latest Agritourism Task Force meeting, at which I was one of four members of the public, it was stated that those on the committee thought that "most people" do not know much about the different types of land use that Eureka allows or the sections of the Ordinance that refer to them.  They had been debating whether, at the upcoming open house on December 12th, to even bring up the topic of possibly allowing agritourism under different "levels" of use, such as a Conditional Use Permit or an Interim Use Permit, or whether that would just confuse people at this stage.

 So, assuming they may be right, I will attempt to simply spell out for you some of the uses and regulations as I understand them after six years in public office and many training/informational sessions.

First, there are the "permitted uses," those that are allowed as long as they conform to any parts of the Ordinance that are intended to regulate them. Pages 48 and 49 of the Ordinance list eleven different uses and structures that fall into this category.  Some people call these "straight" permitted uses.



For example, think of a house.  It is allowed under our Ordinance that a house can be built in the agricultural zone (which is all of the Township) under certain restrictions such as density.  As to another regulating part of the Ordinance that would apply, think setbacks or the Minnesota Building Code, which has been adopted in our local laws. One can apply for a building permit for most houses without any special procedure or outlay of cash, such as with a public hearing; just Planning Commission and Town Board review and approval (along, now, with VRWJPO approval for those in the Vermillion Watershed), and accompanying Building Inspector involvement are required.

Another type of allowed or permitted use is a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).  It was stated at the Task Force meeting (and then, mercifully, corrected by a couple of other members), that "a CUP is not a permitted use."  Yes, it certainly is a permitted use (Ordinance allows it after all!), but is a category of use with the provision for attaching conditions which are deemed needed to mitigate the negative impacts of these types of uses.

Page 49 (use link above) lists eight of these "special" uses that Eureka allows. Although one current Board member took great issue with me in the past when I mentioned the "negative impacts" of certain uses, (He apparently didn't think there was such a thing!) CUPs are for uses that by their very nature may involve such things as greater traffic, noise, and so on. These negative impacts may occur at a greater intensity for conditional uses than those accompanying the "permitted uses" mentioned above.  (A school generates more traffic than a residence.) Because of that, the Township is able to place conditions on conditional uses so as to lessen these impacts. These conditions must be related to the negative impact and reasonable.

It is important to note that the Township has, practically speaking, one shot at affixing conditions, and that is when issuing the CUP.  After that point, conditions may be applied, but the CUP holder must agree to them. Not always, if ever, a likely scenario. 
However, if any already existing CUP is altered, the Ordinance provides another opportunity to attach conditions as if it were for a new CUP. (pages 80 and 81 of the Ordinance)


As an example of this type of use, a school may be granted a CUP under our Ordinance.  The Township would apply the usual items such as Building Inspector review, but can (and should) also attach conditions, such as a certain amount of off-street parking or bus drop-off and pick-up sites on the property.  Provisions such as those would alleviate congestion on public roads, thus positively affecting the public as well as school families and staff.


OTHER IMPORTANT FACETS OF CUPS:
*A public hearing is required for any CUP to allow for public input.  The public has the right to speak at these hearings, unlike at public meetings, where one has the right to observe decisions being made.
*It is also important to note that, since a CUP IS A PERMITTED USE, if the applicant agrees to abide by the related and reasonable conditions proposed by the Township, the Township MUST grant the CUP.
*Another feature of a CUP is that it does not have an expiration date, in the normal course of things.
*It also "runs with the land."  If the property is sold, the new owner receives the CUP along with the acreage.
*A CUP cannot be transferred to another piece of property, although this request has been made of Town officials in the past. (The person in question was correctly told "no" by a Planning Commissioner.)
*One last item here, is that there actually are a few CUPs in our Township with no conditions attached at all!  Figure that one out!
*Pages 89-83 outline the requirements and procedure for granting CUPs.


Another type of use is the Interim Use Permit (IUP), currently used for gravel mining and personal airstrips.  This type of allowed use is very similar in many ways to a CUP: it also requires a public hearing, conditions are also to be attached, it also "runs with the land," and it has a similar provision for criteria to be used in granting one. (Pages 83-86)  If the applicant agrees to all reasonable and related conditions, the Township must grant it.

The one thing that is noticeably different with an IUP is that it has a sunset date or event.  This is most easily seen in the case of gravel mining.  A gravel IUP would sunset when the gravel is gone- a sunset event.  It may instead have a sunset date for when the gravel might be expected to run out.  If the gravel has not all been mined by that date, the IUP could be applied for again, providing the use is still allowed.

I have in an earlier post outlined how I think some of this would apply to Agritourism.  (See "The Postman Cometh.") You may be interested to know that the committee has decided to go with the "principal use" and "accessory use" designations at this time.  These will be some of the items that you will be asked to give feedback on.

I hope that the explanation above makes things a little clearer for those of you not familiar with these things.  Perhaps, feeling a little comfortable with them, one might be more inclined to attend the open house on December 12th, Thursday, 6:30-8:30, at the Town Hall.

See you there?!

THE POSTMAN COMETH....

JOIN THE AGRITOURISM DISCUSSION TO BE HELD ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 12TH, 6:30-8:30 AT THE TOWN HALL. You will be receiving a postcard very soon inviting you to this event.  The Board granted the Agritourism Task Force's request to hold an open house and seek input from the public. That's you! 
Don't miss the opportunity to say your piece-- plus, negative, or neutral-- regarding this use to be started through Ordinance in Eureka.

The Task Force has been working on a definition, which they have broken down bullet point by bullet point for you to comment on.  A list of possible uses under the heading "Agritourism" was streamlined by the group by removing those items not related to agriculture. This list will be presented at the open house for your reactions. Some of the items that remain are farm dinners, fee hunting and fishing, bed and breakfast of five or fewer guest rooms, corn mazes and fright houses, and more.

It is important to note that, thus far, both public hearings on the formerly proposed texts, as well as the Task Force's current efforts, have all been coming from the standpoint that agritourism cannot exist here unless there is first the agricultural use to which it must be related.  This is a very important foundation.  Without it, agritourism uses could stand alone and could literally pop up anywhere in the Township.  Personally, I do not think that the Metropolitan Council would accept an Ordinance change that would allow what amounts to commercial enterprises dotted around Eureka.  I believe the Council would be more amenable to the idea that agritourism is secondary to the agriculture, as we are zoned ag.  (The Commercial/Industrial Task Force recommended not to advance that discussion at the time.  Thus we have no commercial zone.) But then, the Metropolitan Council has not yet even come up in the Task Force or Board discussions except for my submitting to the Board an email reply from the Council and Jeff Otto's mentioning the Council review in his public comments--- to which Supervisor Ceminsky objected so much.

The Task Force has been wrestling with how to state the relationship between agriculture and agritourism.  I lean toward simply using the already-defined definitions of "principal use" and "accessory use."

Principal Use: A principal use relates to the main purpose of the zoning district, exists independently of any other use of a property, and is allowed as a permitted, conditional, or interim use. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007, Ord. 2010-1, 6-15-2010) AND

Accessory Use: A use of a parcel that is subordinate to the Principal Use of the parcel, is located on the same parcel as the principal use, is customarily associated with and incidental to the principal use, and does not change the character of the principal use. There can be no accessory use on a parcel without a principal use. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007, Ord. 2010-1, 6-15-2010) 

That means there would have to be a principal use of commercial agricultural operations for an accessory use of agritourism to exist.  If/when the farm goes away, the agritourism goes away.
This is why I favor an Interim Use Permit (IUP) instead of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for agritourism at least of a certain level of intensity or greater.  Both require a public hearing and both can be tailored to the particular use being sought.  The difference is that a CUP "runs with the land" and does not go away unless conditions are violated and this is not rectified.  There is no time restriction on how long a CUP continues.

An IUP, on the other hand, also "runs with the land," but has a sunset date or event. Not being an attorney, I would like to hear what Chad Lemmons, Township Attorney, might have to say, but I think that to grant a CUP to agritourism, even though we mean to restrict it to being attendant to an agricultural use, would mean that the farm could cease to exist, but the agritourism use would still continue, basically as a strictly commercial use. From all discussions so far, I do not think that is the intent. The "event" for the agritourism IUP to terminate could be the end of the agricultural use.  That would still be controlled by the farmer.  If she wants to continue the agritourism, she continues the farm. If it is possible to make the termination of the farm the terminating event for the IUP, that would do away with the part of an IUP that businesses do not like compared to a CUP; namely, that it sunsets or ends.
.

These are some of the thoughts than run through my head as I continue to attend the Task Force meetings as a member of the public.  Since my last report, there were three members of the public and one supervisor in attendance at one meeting, three members of the public at another, and at the last meeting, back to just one member of the public, me, with two supervisors poking their heads in after their Special Meeting.

At the last meeting, I think the group gelled and moved forward, instead of going in a circular discussion as I felt it did during its first meetings.  There was more consensus of opinion on the committee than I would have suspected, and a consensus that I found myself in basic agreement with as well.  I hope this bodes well for theTownship.

However, it is not up to the Task Force to say what the public wants, which at least some on the committee have openly acknowledged.  It is up to the public.  That is why it is very important that the public come forward and give its reactions and comments to the Task Force.

This blog is "Engaging Eureka in Governance." That's what we are trying to accomplish.  By informing you of what is going on in our community even if you can't make the regular meetings, we hope that you will make the effort to take part in what happens here.  If you don't, rest assured someone else will! Make a difference.

"MIXED BAG" ON AGRITOURISM---PLUS and MINUS

The Board meeting on Monday, September 9, 2013, was fairly well-attended by more citizens than usual who wanted to see their public officials at work. Both a Sheriff's Deputy and the Township Attorney, Chad Lemmons, were in attendance along with the five Supervisors.   The discussion and decisions of the Board that night were a mixed bag.  This post will address the agritourism issue; more to come on the rest soon!

On the plus side, the Board finally seemed to listen to what many, including this blog, have been trying to tell them regarding the proposed agritourism ordinance. After much discussion, they decided at last to send out a call for citizens interested in being appointed to a committee which will examine this ordinance and make a recommendation to the Board. Hopefully, this recommendation will be just an initial task in the process, although that is far from certain at this juncture.

Negatively, however, it appears from what they said that Supervisors Storlie, Ceminsky, and Miller remain largely unconvinced that having a planner to advise us would be a desirable thing. It was stated once again that having a planner would "just slow things down."  I cannot understand why they are in such a rush on this!  Can you?
Further, indicating a planner is not needed, Supervisor Miller made comments that this is a "down home issue," and "this is Eureka, not Wayzata or Stillwater."  Really?  That escaped me!

What has apparently escaped Mr. Miller is a report this blogger made YEARS ago from a Government Training Services session on writing ordinances.  One of presenters, John Baker, an attorney well-respected on the state level, asserted that rural communities regulate the same types of things that urban ones do.  Just because the community is rural does not mean its ordinances should be less well considered or detailed, he stated.  Nuisance is nuisance, for example, wherever you find it. At that time, I had, following the presenters' invitation, presented language then being considered for the nuisance noise ordinance. What had been criticized here locally by Planning Commissioners such as Pete Storlie and others out of the limelight now as being "too detailed" and "over the top" was, Mr. Baker said, reasonable.

He went on to say that those ordinance challenge cases that get thrown out of court are largely those coming from rural communities because, he said, of the "amateurish" (his word) manner in which they approach writing ordinances. This is precisely why many who have been on the Planning Commission, the Board, and previous Task Forces have spoken passionately about having a planner and more opportunities for public input and information.  We want to do this right in a reasoned, thoughtful manner, not slapdash to just "get 'r done!"

The Board has also received the message from the Attorney, because he reiterated that evening what he had already recommended to the Planning Commission, that the "but not limited to..." language regarding prohibited uses that many at the hearing protested has to go.  Why?  Because it doesn't really limit the uses sufficiently.  The Attorney suggested  naming all prohibited uses would be a way to approach this.

To the negative, the Board did not even mention that the Attorney had also strongly recommended to the Commission that this land use be permitted under a Conditional Use Permit, which makes me wonder whether or not they had all carefully read the results of the public hearing.

What did the other Supervisors have to say on this topic that evening?  Supervisor Budenski was silent on the matter of the planner during the discussion.  However, he was very negative toward the ordinance itself, stating he did not see why it was even necessary.  He referred to statements made by then-Attorney Oliver that "that is what apple orchards do," implying it is a use by right.  One major problem he had as he expressed it was why, if Ms. Petter had withdrawn her application for the ordinance, was it still being sought?  Chair Storlie replied that it was so because of a 4-1 vote of the Board to pursue it.  Not surprisingly. Supervisor Budenski had been the dissenting vote on that one!

Supervisor Madden, who was characteristically quiet most of the night, and has been in favor of the ordinance pretty much in lockstep with Ceminsky and Storlie, did do us a favor by calling on Jeff Otto, former Board member, Comprehensive Plan Update Committee (CPUC) member, Citizens' Advisory Committee member, Commercial/Industrial Task Force (C/ITF)  member, and Transfer Task Force (TTF) Chair, (!!!) for comment.

Supervisor Ceminsky had already said something along the lines that the public was heard from at the hearings, rejecting the idea that open houses might still be held as has been done in the past for other ordinance matters.
Supervisor Miller had just stated that he felt that planners might have their own viewpoint and that what is needed is a variety of opinions, seemingly oblivious to the fact that the citizens on the Task Force represent the different opinions; the planner lends experience and expertise.  (In just this way, the Board represents differing opinions in its deliberations, while the attorney advises them based on his knowledge. Surely, Supervisor Miller would not say that the "attorney tells the Board what to do," would he?)  In my experience, having also been on the Commission, the Board, the CPUC, the C/ITF, and the TTF, the planner has never "told us what to do."  Instead she has always acted and advised at our request and direction.  ALWAYS.  I wanted to say this at the meeting, but Chair Storlie would not call on me on this issue. (In fairness, he did call on me otherwise.)
FYI, Supervisor Miller has been down this contentious road with the planner before, even back on the CPUC.  Others on that committee agreed with me that her role and that of her assistant was only ever to advise as requested.

Having thus been called on, Jeff Otto tried to explain to the Board that this ordinance matter will take substantially more time to resolve than the Board is suggesting. He said that the public hearings were opinions vs. citizen meetings being more data-oriented.  This data is then analyzed and processed.  He stated that planners do not try to steer communities in a particular direction, if for no other reason than it would affect their future business!  It was clear to me that Mr. Otto believes that the Board should address this ordinance matter in the same fashion that it has others, such as the Transfer of Housing Rights, which he chaired.  His, among others', is a voice of experience and fair-mindedness.  Hopefully, your Board will listen, as the committee's recommendation in part could be to move to a "full" Task Force status, including the services of a planner.

Time for a result!  The Board has stated various opinions on the size of this committee to be formed.  Ceminsky wanted 6; Storlie said the Ordinance calls for [at least] 5; Miller suggested the odd number of 7 for voting purposes.  They ended by saying that they could be flexible on the size if it is felt necessary to balance the make-up of the group: pro, con, neutral. What is important is that different viewpoints be represented.  Ceminsky stated that he felt it was important to have those currently engaging in some form of agritourism on the committee.  That seems reasonable.

This invitation to apply has gone out via the website, the email alert list, and, via this blogger's input, the official newspaper, to ensure that all have an opportunity.
Please consider whether or not you have something to offer, if only from a neutral position in this discussion.  What ultimately is decided will affect all of us in Eureka.

To indicate your interest, respond to this posting notice from the Clerk:

The Eureka Town Board is issuing a call for residents of Eureka Township to join a committee to consider and provide a recommendation of proposed changes to Eureka Township Ordinance concerning Agri-tourism.  

Please submit a paragraph with your qualifications and interest to the Clerk by October 5, 2013, at 2:00 pm. Applicants must be present and will be interviewed at the Tuesday, October 15, 2013, Town Board Meeting, starting at 8:00 pm. at the Eureka Town Hall , located at 25043 Cedar Ave. For more information contact the Township office 952-469-3736. Send letters of interest to: Eureka Township P.O. Box 576, Lakeville, MN 55044 or e-mail to: eurekatn@frontiernet.net

STAY TUNED FOR MORE FROM THE MEETING...

CLEAR AS A BELL, PLAIN AS THE NOSE...

At a well-attended public hearing on September 3rd, the Planning Commission heard loud and clear as a bell once again from the public regarding the proposed Ordinance language on agritourism.

The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of those tesitfying who had given the subject any critical thought, as evidenced by their comments, were against the Ordinance language as currently written.

Time and again, it was stated that the person was not against agritourism as a concept and that it could be a plus for the Township.  What was problematic for people was:
1. Overly broad language, "but not limited to..." leaves the Township wide open to many uses that may not be to our benefit and which could drastically change our way of life.
2. Minimal regulations included in a definition.. Highly irregular; if you're serious about it, do it right!
3. Agritourism to be allowed as a "straight permitted use," which allows little recourse for the public when problems arise.
    a.As it is, alleged lack of Sheriff enforcement of loose dog ordinance has been a problem for some!
    b.Board has had complaints on the agenda for years at a time and has appeared to some unwilling to move forward in a reasonable time frame. Many in Eureka feel there is a big problem with ordinance enforcement already; why add to it when we don't have the staff for it?
    c. In the ensuing discussion by the Commission, Township Attorney, Chad Lemmons, advised them that, under a straight permitted use, any enforcement falls under whatever ordinances are in place for noise, nuisance, etc., generally. He further stated that this scenario of enforcement can lead to further legal bills for the Township
4. Allow only under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).  This follows a public hearing and the placement of reasonable, related conditions tailored to each specific use for the protection of all, including the permit holder.  (We have a CUP for cemeteries, folks.  When was the last time you heard about a problem with a cemetery?  Shouldn't we have a CUP for this complex land use?)
Again, Chad Lemmons later advised the Commission that a CUP would allow conditions that would streamline enforcement.  A permit holder must abide by the conditions attached.
5.. Board refused multiple requests from a majority of the Planning Commission for more in-depth study, a task force as been used for other Ordinance changes,  planning assistance (we have an escrow with money in it just for that), legal advice.  Why didn't they listen to the Planning Commission that they, themselves, appointed and grant this repeated request ?
6. Little opportunity for public comment and discussion outside of a "it's a done deal" public hearing.
7. No mention of this topic in the newsletter to alert citizens.  It's not that ordinance matters haven't been addressed there before.  Is the Board selective in what it directs the editor to include for the public?  Why not be as sure as you can that people know what's going on ? That was the rationale used before for putting ordinance issues in the newsletter.  Makes sense to me!

  Not to sound like Tom Cruise, but 
       

        ARE WE CRYSTAL YET ?
         



It is true that a number of what the Commission Chair Barfknecht called "blanket statements" were submitted by one individual to the Commission, gathered by her and signed by residents in support.  First, some signatures were illegible, which may be problematic.  But much more importantly, there were no additional comments made that would necessarily assure anyone that signatories understood the ordinance and what they were signing.  Indeed, the statement read "I support agriTOURS."

Agri-TOURS is not agriTOURISM, and, no, I am not making a mountain out of a molehill.  Agri-TOURS is pretty much one-dimensional; agriTOURISM is highly complex and varied.  Google it and you'll see what I mean.

What is really important about what people say when they testify at a public hearing goes beyond "I am in favor" or "I am against."
What should really matter are THE REASONS that they give for their opinions.  Do they understand the matter thoroughly?  Have they thought it through and are able to offer fact-specific suggestions or comments?  Are they knowledgeable about such matters? (Note that at both public hearings on this topic, former Planning Commissioners and former Board Supervisors, representing years of experience, weighed in on the side of "do this right, have a task force, STUDY this in more depth." Their comments would seem to have been ignored by the Board in its push to get this done.)
Are those testifying against it just because they are against change, even positive change?  A number of longtime residents said they could endorse the change if it were done correctly with adequate limitations and public input.  That's a long way from "If you don't like it, move back to Edina!" as one citizen stated. That comment sure doesn't rank there for me as a thoughtful response.  What about those longtime residents mentioned above?  They are not people who moved here and now don't want change and don't want "those who were here first" to have any opportunity, are they!?  They simply want a responsive Planning Commission and Board who understand their concerns and who have the political will to do this properly.

The Planning Commission, by a 3-1-1 vote to not recommend the current language and to have at least recommended to the Board that this be done under a CUP.  Commissioners Barfknecht, Jennings, and Frana voted in favor of not going with the proposed language, but instead having a CUP; Commissioner Novacek against the motion, thus in favor of the proposed language; while Commissioner Hansen abstained.  The dissenting Commissioner, Novacek, said that adding regulations was taking people's rights away.  Do the people living next to one of these uses have any rights, I wonder?  This is the same Commissioner who rejected the draft agritourism language submitted by two other Commissioners and their ad hoc committee of concerned residents as "too complex."  It had regulations.



THE BOARD CONSIDERS THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION AT THEIR MEETING THIS COMING MONDAY NIGHT, SEPTEMBER 9TH.

IT WILL BE AS PLAIN AS THE NOSE ON YOUR FACE IF THEY ARE FINALLY LISTENING AND WHETHER THEY HAVE THE INTERESTS OF ALL OF US AT HEART...

STAY TUNED...

BOARD GAMES? An Agritourism History Lesson...

AND here's the Open-Book Quiz in Advance:

**Is Your Town Board Listening to Its Citizens? 

**Does Your Testimony at a Public Hearing Make Any Difference?

**Do Non-Residents’ Opinions Count as Much as Your Resident Input?

**Is the Town Board Imposing Its Will on You Despite Overwhelming Public Testimony to the Contrary?

Now Here's the History:

*January 9, 2012: Township receives notice of a lawsuit by an individual concerning her use of an "ag building."  Eureka Building Official, with Town Board support, required her signature on letter outlining what could and could not be done under state statute in such a building, including banning the public from it.

*January 30, 2012: Board votes to counterclaim, stating that the individual’s use on her property was in violation of the Ordinances.  (FYI: This was preceded literally by years of discussion, including Attorney input, by various Boards with the property owner regarding building use and activity on site, especially as shown more recently on her website for the use.)

*December 5, 2012; December 12, 2012; January 14, 2013: Minutes of closed Town Board meetings with Township and Minnesota Association of Townships (MAT) Attorneys regarding the lawsuits disclose that:
1. A summary judgment in the case could have been obtained on January 30, 2013.  (If the judge found in favor of the Township, as many believe would have been likely, this would have ended the matter.)
BUT
2. The Town Board then in office (not the same one which had filed the counterclaim) voted to go into a “working session” with the litigant regarding her use and decided to not go forward with a summary judgment in its own lawsuit.  Q: WHY?

*March 7, 2013: At Public Hearing, Litigant applied for a Text Amendment allowing "agritourism." Limited language is provided. (See website minutes; allow ample time for the numerous attachments to appear.)

Fifty-five people sign in for the hearing, but not all testified. Of residents testifying in person or by submitting written testimony, the overwhelming majority (24 plus several others not named but represented through the statements of their attorney) were against the Text Amendment, citing such reasons as public safety, the overly broad proposed definition of agritourism, lack of any regulations or performance standards for the use, permitting the use on a “straight permitted use basis"  rather than under a Conditional Use Permit, impacts of such businesses on neighboring properties, and other thoughtful objections.

Thirteen residents testified in favor of the amendment.  There were other emailed opinions from people outside Eureka such as from Minnetonka, Columbus, and Bloomington.  (At later Planning Commission meeting, Board Chair Pete Storlie stated that were as many for as against the proposal, even after Commission Chair Carrie Jennings pointed out that some of the statements he was referring to were from nonresidents.) 
Q:  Should someone from Minnetonka be able to tell Eureka citizens what to do in their own township? Does the Board give nonresidents' opinions equal weight as a residents' opinions?

*March 22, 2013: Special Planning Commission (PC) Meeting to discuss the hearing testimony so as to give a recommendation to the Board on the ordinance change. The Township Attorney was present at that meeting at the Commission’s request.  The meeting ended in a split (2-2) vote, one Commissioner having recused himself.

IF YOU ARE STILL WITH ME, HANG ON; IT GETS EVEN BETTER....

*April 8, 2013: Board announced that the applicant had withdrawn her request.  The Board then discusses the Township itself taking on the task of amending the Ordinances to include agritourism. Now, isn't that interesting?!  The citizens at the hearing were against the amendment, the person proposing the amendment withdrew her request, yet the Board is now going to do it itself!?!?  Remember, the Township's counterclaim lawsuit is still sitting there... Q: What Is Going On Here?

*May 6, 2013: Draft minutes of the Town Board Report given by Pete Storlie at the PC meeting state "Due to litigation the Township is involved in, it is imperative we have this put together in a timely manner. By the July Town Board Meeting, they [the Board] would like to see something of substance to move forward on."
Q: Why Is It Imperative?"
Draft minutes for same meeting state, "The Planning Commission members all felt that they need a committee to include the whole Planning Commission and some impartial citizens or professional help in writing this language and a longer time frame to complete the task."  Q. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it, to ask for longer than two meetings to come up with Ordinance language on a complicated subject?

*May 13, 2013: Board meeting, request for Task Force for agritourism delivered to Board.  Delayed until Round-table meeting agenda.

*May 20, 2013: Roundtable Meeting minutes state: "6. 200% Rule & Ag-Tourism
When a task is given to the Planning Commission a report or recommendation should be sent
back to the Town Board, even if it is just a request for more meetings or attorney time. [All italics mine.} The report should be a summary that includes: The information received from the public hearing,
research, what still needs to be done and the tools needed to complete the task."  Q: Didn't PC ask for more time and "tools (task force and professional help) needed to complete the task?"

*June 3, 2013: Commissioner Butch Hansen presents language nearly identical to litigant's; Fritz Frana submits different language from his research.  Discussion ensues, including a few motions back and forth, too long for here. Please see "Agritourism," p.3 at eurekatownshipminutes//PlanningCommissionJune 3, 2013

*June 10, 2013: At Board meeting, Jennings conveys PC's request for task force with professional assistance, which Board rejects. Storlie reads his definition for "agritourism" into the record. Board by 3-2 vote sends this definition and a directive back to PC to come back with something and move to [another] public hearing. Minutes do not state, but believe that Budenski and Miller were the "nay" votes.

*July 1, 2013: Commissioner Jennings presents draft document drawn up by group of Eureka citizens, which includes lengthier language and which gives some regulations.  Long discussion follows, ending with motion to send newest language to the Board along with statements made at the meeting, including that this task is not completed yet and a [yet another] "strong request" is made by the PC for professional assistance.  The last passed 3-2, with Commissioners Novacek and Hansen voting "nay." eurekaPlanningCommissisonJuly1,2013 See pp 3-5  for many more details if interested.

*July 8, 2013: In spite of PC request for a Task Force, Ceminsky moves to send slightly amended definition of agritourism back to PC to hold public hearing on it. Sunday hours were extended from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. and on-street parking was allowed, despite argument against the latter by Supervisor Miller. Storlie seconded motion which passed (surprise!) 3-2; Budenski and Miller dissenting. Q. OK, now we are having a public hearing on a definition?  Hours of operation and parking are part of a definition?  This is unheard of, folks.

August 5, 2013: PC sets date for public hearing on the definition as directed by Board. Hearing was set for 8:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 3, 2013. This, despite Deputy Clerk Wilson's passing on of a message from Supervisor Storlie to the PC: Hearing should be no later than August and only three Commissioners are needed.  Now, it IS true that only a quorum (3 of 5) is needed to conduct a meeting or hearing, but allowances were made (by the Commission itself without any help!) for setting the March 7th hearing, so that ALL Commissioners could be present as they had expressed the desire to be.  Further, it is well-remembered by some how kindly then-Commissioner Storlie took to anything he saw as Board interference in Planning Commission business, such as scheduling public hearings.  Remind you of a Bob Dylan song?  Extra credit for those answering with the correct lyrics!!

Where we are Today:

SO, although there has been NO DEMONSTRATED MAJORITY OF PUBLIC SUPPORT by the citizenry of Eureka, and although the litigant withdrew her request for the text amendment, the Board has directed the Planning Commission to hold another hearing anyway - and, can it be said often enough? -  on a definition.

Instead of just a definition, there should be proper regulations and performance standards that would limit the use in such a way so as not to create any adverse impacts on neighboring properties.  It surely should be allowed only under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), so that appropriate, reasonable conditions (such as hours of operation, lighting, off-street parking) could be placed on and tailored to each permit. Under Ordinance, granting a CUP would follow a public hearing, so that the public could have its input.  It would be allowed only as an accessory use to a commercial agricultural use, not as a primary use by itself. 

Note that, legally, such an amendment to the Ordinances would allow such uses anywhere in the Township, not just on the litigant's property.  As currently proposed, this means that a property near you could have hundreds of people visiting it every day, year-round, creating traffic, noise, light pollution, and so on with very little in the Ordinance to restrict or mitigate those negative impacts.  Next to nothing.

“Agritourism” is a very complex subject which encompasses numerous uses, generally for educational or entertainment purposes.  Just a few of these are tours, rodeos, restaurants, concerts, pick-your-own-fruit, corn mazes, festivals, playgrounds, farm vacations, dude ranches, roadside stands, horseback sporting events, bed-and-breakfast accommodations, and barn parties.  Some of these uses are fairly benign, while others are probably not appropriate for Eureka.  Unless this Ordinance is carefully crafted with public input and professional assistance, the quality and nature of life in our Township could change dramatically!

There have been Task Forces or Committees conducted in the past for other changes to the Ordinances, such as for Mining, Commercial/Industrial Use, Transfer of Housing Rights, and also one for the Comprehensive Plan Update.  This is the reason Eureka has an escrow fund set up for planning assistance. These committees/task forces are provided for in our Ordinances and represent the Minnesota Association of Townships’ (MAT’s) recommended process for changing Ordinances.  Yet the Board will not allow one for this complicated use.  Say it with me: WHY NOT?

Previous Task Forces have included (1) a minimum of five members (minimum number required under our Ordinance), meeting for a number of months to carefully examine the change, (2) public interest surveys so citizens have a voice, (3) open houses for information and citizen questions and input, (4) valuable professional assistance by planners from the Township’s Professional Services firm, TKDA, (5) Township Attorney assistance in wording the Ordinance properly (MAT also advises that the attorney write ordinances as this is one of his/her areas of expertise.  MAT goes on to say that, at the very least, the attorney should review any ordinance put forth), and (6) input by the Metropolitan Council and others such as the Soil and Water Conservation District of Dakota County.


If You Take the Quiz Now, Do You Think You Can Self-Score It?
Move to the Head of the Class!

Field Trip Opportunity: You can testify in person, send an email or snail mail to the Township Clerk in time for the 8 p.m. hearing on Tuesday, Sept. 3rd.  Request that your mail be made part of the record. Let the Board know that RESIDENTS are the ones they should be listening to.

Let them know how you feel about this use, about this ordinance language, about taking more time to do this right (if you think we should do it at all).  Ask them why they didn't listen to you the first time? Ask them why they are pushing this forward.

If you attend the hearing, you will hear what goes on, but if you don't testify, you probably won't be counted.