A SHARPER FOCUS ON A VITAL POINT...

One important clarification to the earlier blog on Agritourism is that the Township Attorney has recommended to the Board that ALL Agritourism procure an Interim Use Permit (IUP).

The draft Ordinance that the Attorney worked on was submitted to him by the Board. This draft is available on the Township website for your examination. He did what he was asked to do with that, but it is crucial to note that his further recommendation in person at the Board meeting was that all Agritourism get an IUP, thus allowing the Township to place any reasonable, related conditions it feels appropriate to each individual use and circumstance. Mr. Lemmons noted that this issue has already caused costly legal problems for the Township in the recent past.  The best way to avoid this in the future, he recommended, is to require an IUP for any agritourism use. I would agree that this would be a greater safeguard for the common good. If a church, a cemetery, ANY church or cemetery, has to get a special use permit (in those cases, a Conditional Use Permit), then surely a use that would increase traffic, noise, etc,, might logically be required to go through such as process as well.

Citizens should note that if an applicant agrees to all those related and reasonable conditions he or she must be granted the permit.  It is also vital that the Township place ALL conditions that can ameliorate negative impacts on surrounding property values, neighbors' quality of life, etc., when the permit is first granted.

If that is NOT done, then the only guaranteed opportunity that the Township would have to place further conditions on the use would be at a time that the permit holder might need an amended IUP, due to expansion or alteration of buildings and so on.  Otherwise, the permit holder must agree to any additional restrictions that the Township might desire to place after the initial granting of the IUP has taken place.  If, as an afterthought, the Township wants to place additional conditions after they have already granted the use perrmit, it would be unlikely that an applicant--then permit holder-- would agree to any additional regulations when he is not required to do so.  Therefore, this requires a Board that is up to snuff and well-informed.  It also requires an informed citizenry that shows up at the public hearing to let its input be heard.


Your input on how this Ordinance is structured is valuable information to the Board.  If you are unable to attend nextTuesday's meeting, written comments can also be submitted to the Planning Commission/Board.

"MINORITY" REPORT(S), BUT NO TOM CRUISE!

Agritourism Task Force Chair Cory Behrendt reported to the Board at its June meeting on the Task Force's "end product," as far as it went.

The Task Force had had its final meeting and voted on their draft Ordinance language to submit to the Board, although it wasn't entirely agreed upon by any means.  There was a vote of 4 to 2, with noted exception by two members, Fritz Frana and Chair Behrendt.



The Ordinance provides for members of any Special Committee (or "Task Force") to submit a "minority report," which Yours Truly thinks would be the responsible way to take if one had serious reservations about where the majority of the group was headed.  Apparently Behrendt and Frana had strong reservations as they submitted such a report.  (This has happened before: with the Citizens Advisory Committee a few years ago, for example, two members submitted a minority report objecting to an action with which they disagreed that had taken place in their absence .)

Others on the Agritourism Task Force became aware of this minority report and, at the Board meeting, expressed a desire to submit their own reports, one five pages in length according to its author, Mark Parranto.  Atina Diffley stated that she would like to submit her own individual views to the Board as well, one being that perhaps the Board didn't want/need to have an Ordinance at all on this use. The Board then invited all Task Force members, including Butch Hansen and Phil Cleminson, to submit what they might wish the Board to consider.


In my opinion, this parting of the ways just shows what many have said all along-- that this topic is rather complex and that people approach it from very different viewpoints. There is no simple answer.

One item that concerned some was that the Ordinance language suggested relied heavily on a complaint being filed in order that an individual property owner operating at a certain level, but without a permit, be made compliant. This would be at a level of intensity and scope that, under the Performance Standards, would rise to needing an Interim Use Permit (IUP). Other Interim Use Permits and Conditional Use Permits are typically required at any level of those uses, e.g., churches. Since the committee, working from community feedback at the December Open House, was interested in allowing lower-intensity agritourism activity as a use by right, this begged the question of how does the Township get people beyond that level of use to come in and apply for the necessary IUP when the time is right?  Because of limited resources, the Township functions on complaint-based enforcement of its Ordinances. Some citizens would be diligent and apply for the necessary permit; others perhaps not. It is important to note that IUPs are a tool whereby the Township can impose reasonable and related conditions on a particular use in order to mitigate any negative impacts on surrounding properties.  This actually protects all involved, including the permit holder. (Some, however, have argued that requiring an IUP is "restrictive," rather than being "protective," an opinion I don't agree with.)

Many have expressed discontent with the complaint process and how it has been handled by certain Boards. Many have expressed concern about the Ordinance being applied evenly to all, not to just a few. To add another use when these concerns are seen as not being satisfactorily dealt with might be considered to be problematic.

POINTS TO PONDER:
1) There are still no Task Force meeting minutes or materials posted on the Township website for you to read.
2) This may not happen soon as the website is still being updated and there is again no Town Clerk. (The Board dismissed the recent hire, and Linda Wilson is about "out of here," having stayed around much longer than she planned.)
3) It would be beneficial for citizens to have another opportunity for receiving information and asking questions before a public hearing would be held. Another Open House could accomplish that. The Task Force members would be the likely people to conduct such a gathering, at least as far as their discussions have covered the topic. Citizens could weigh in on how the Task Force has addressed their concerns expressed at the first Open House. Ideally, a public hearing is not the time to be first finding out the details of a proposed law.

   

                                           STAY TUNED!   

"COW: C - O - W........E - I - E - I - O!"

The Agritourism Task Force met again last Tuesday night from 7:00 to 8:35 p.m.
Fritz Frana was absent; Atina Diffley participated via conference call; all others were present.  Two members of the public were present.


The members once again further discussed the definitions, "triggers" for Township review, and the various possible uses.  Atina Diffley will do further work on performance standards, while Mark Paranto is going to work on a procedure for an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for agritourism, which may or may not be different from the procedure for other IUPs, such as for mining.

The group also discussed possible registration of such uses for a nominal fee.  This would allow the Township to know what is occurring within its borders, the landowner to state that the Township is aware of her use, as well as the dissemination of information regarding the triggers and when a Township review of the use is required, with a possible IUP, due to higher impact. This was met with a positive reaction by the committee members. It was noted that this is a different sort of use in that it could occur at a level whereby it would be permitted by right, but could also occur at a greater level of intensity, possibly requiring an IUP. This two-level approach is supported by public feedback from the public open house held in December, 2013.



(When I think that, earlier, it was thought by certain Board members at the time, that just a definition would suffice for regulation of this use, I shudder. The Task Force has discovered that it is, indeed, the complex subject that many members of the public said it was at the time of the hearing ON THE DEFINITION!!!)




The group canceled its March 26th meeting, but will meet again on April 3rd.  It will meet with TKDA Senior Planner,  Sherri Buss, on April 8th.  It plans to meet with the Township Attorney, with perhaps one more committee meeting before going to the Board with a recommendation.

Since this added use could affect systems such as traffic, it presumably must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for input before final adoption.





Your faithful reporter has asked that the minutes from all these meetings and other materials be posted on the website now that it is "semi-up" again, but thus far this hasn't happened.  I'll try again!

Remember that your comments on this use can always be sent to Linda Wilson, Clerk, at the Township, and she will forward them to the Task Force for its consideration.  Otherwise, members of the public in attendance at the meetings have been given limited opportunity for such comment.  There will, of course, be an opportunity at a public hearing at some time in the future.

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.