MY LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNRESPONSIVE ?????

 At the last Eureka Town Board meeting on August 14th, I made the following public comment:

Town Boards have a duty and a responsibility to maintain settlement agreements in place when they assume office. 

These settlement agreements often follow litigation and involve considerable time and resources by Township attorneys and officials at taxpayers’ expense. 

These agreements are compromises reached by both sides, hopefully to the benefit of the public. To not uphold such agreements is to let your public down. 

In April of this year, Chair Pete Storlie declared that certain unfinished items kept on the agenda as a reminder until taken care of were to be removed immediately. As a Board Supervisor, he should know that among all the business conducted, certain items can fall through the cracks and not be followed up on. 

In April I explained that the settlement agreement with Country Stone that goes with property to Scotts Miracle-Gro includes the replacement of any screening trees that are dead, dying, or diseased. This spring would have  been an ideal time for replacement. There are currently a goodly number of trees at this site that need such replacement. 

Pete Storlie’s answer at the time to my input? “I’d have to see that agreement.” That was months ago, Mr. Chair. Has the clerk shown you that agreement? Have you even asked to see it? Or are you content to let this “fall through the cracks?”

It is now August. Fall is another favorable planting season. Please act on your obligation as the current Chair and Board to get these trees replaced. There is a landscaping plan specified in the agreement map. Trees are to be replaced by the same specimens as noted there. September is fast approaching. 

Thank you.

I WAS ON THE BOARD WHEN THIS MATTER WAS NEGOTIATED. JEFF OTTO WAS ONE OF TWO DIRECT BOARD NEGOTIATORS WITH THE OTHER SIDE, BUT I WAS PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR INCLUDING THE TREE REPLACEMENT LANGUAGE. I RECOGNIZED THIS AGREEMENT CONTINUES INTO THE FUTURE. FOR SCREENING TO BE PROVIDED BY THE TREES TO CONTINUE THEIR REPLACEMENT SHOULD (WHEN) THE TREES DIE WAS NECESSARY.

WHAT RESPONSE DID I RECEIVE?

An essentially meaningless, "Thank you, Nancy" from Pete Storlie. I say "essentially meaningless" because this is the Chair's usual response to anyone making a public comment, followed by no action on the point made by the citizen. No action, no discussion, even. No placing the item on the agenda for discussion that night, which the Board is fully able to do. A Board can discuss ANY topic at a regularly scheduled meeting, which this was. (Special meetings are a different case. Besides, the Board takes no public comment at special meetings.)

So, not only did CHAIR STORLIE not add this item to the agenda, the OTHER THREE SUPERVISORS PRESENT--CEMINSKY, NOVACEK, AND POPE were totally silent. None of them apparently thought that the current Board should discuss this upholding of an agreement that cost you, the taxpayer, to resolve. 

Where is the responsiveness to citizens? WHY did they refuse to deal with this matter that night? Are they picking sides in a long-ago, already settled, litigation issue? By not acting that night, the earliest this will be dealt with by this Board is in the spring. And since it is no longer on an "unfinished business" item on the agenda, do citizens have to keep showing up to remind them TO DO THEIR JOB?

THE MAP

Saving you a trip to Town Hall and a quarter...this is the map discussed at the Planning Commission meeting referenced earlier.

Apologies that it isn't clearer. Maybe you have the tech magic to fix that: I don't. 😇

The key says green line is "Industrial/Heavy Commercial."

The blue line is "General Commercial."

The yellow line is "Neighborhood Commercial."

The orange line is "High Density Housing."

When asked for the definitions of each category, the Deputy Clerk told a citizen that there weren't any. I'm not quite sure about that as how can one discuss this issue if one doesn't even know what the categories mean? 

Maybe it's just me and my opinion, but this sure appears a lot like spot zoning on first look. That may have to be determined through a legal process. Spot zoning is not allowed.

What is the explanation of how these areas were determined in the first place? Did some landowners request them? So I guess we pick "winners" then? Maybe some landowners don't want this zoning and/or were never asked? Are we picking "losers" then? Can their property rights be tampered with in such a way in our small community? Do you see that as being a "good neighbor?" I would set aside for the moment what CAN be done in favor of WHY this would be done. What are the different rationales?

AND let's not forget that the Commission is also tasked with looking at extended home business. How does this all fit together? 

What is the effect of zoning certain areas for certain uses vs. allowing a use Township-wide?

The Deputy Clerk reportedly told a citizen that this is "way in the future." I don't think that is correct information to be given out. Perhaps she misunderstands the Board's intentions. Why would the current Board not want to put this in place while it is in office? This effort has been around quite a while and forestalled before. Other Boards may see it totally differently, surely. 

Again, if "high density housing" means anything more than four houses/rights in a quarter-quarter, this can't be done under ag zoning. The only reason it works at four per quarter-quarter now is that some of those rights can be transferred in, leaving the sending parcels non-buildable. Thus, the average is the same.

What would these designations do to tax status? To land values?

ARE YOU IN THE ZONE...OR OUT OF IT?

 The Town Board has tasked the Planning Commission with work to allow commercial and home extended business. Not whether we should allow it and where. but to allow it and in certain areas. This post is about the commercial use.

A few years ago, a task force made up of Mark Ceminsky, Allen Novacek, Butch Hansen, and Ralph Fredlund met to come up with a proposal for the Board regarding commercial/industrial (C/I) use. This was a second attempt as the concept had been examined a few years before that. The task force had access to TKDA planner, Merritt Clapp-Smith, to help guide them. I attended their meetings, even addressing my Christmas cards as I sat through one of them! I was not allowed to speak, but they couldn't stop me from attending. The committee was created by the Board and was therefore subject to Open Meeting Law. I should say that I did not believe Ralph Fredlund was in agreement with the others.

The other three of this group were in favor of zoning the north end of the Township as commercial/industrial use. At one point, the planner sent a letter to the Board about steps going forward. Three of these committee members were very unhappy that she chose to do so as the recommendations she submitted were not what they wanted to happen. That got walked backward. In my opinion, they more or less dictated to the planner their will and ignored her advice.

An open house was eventually held and there was very good attendance. Nearly all those present were against commercial/industrial use in the Township and let their opinions be known. I was one of those at the open house. When I started to make my comments, Ceminsky and Hansen who were sitting on the side while Clapp-Smith was presenting, said, "Oh, here we go!" They did not like my commenting. They did not like my relaying information from the earlier, larger, and much more professional task force studying this same use a few years earlier. TKDA Sheri Buss was the planner who assisted us, and she was excellent. So I'm at an "open" house and they don't want me to talk! I pointed out this irony, and then I went ahead and said what I needed to say, as did others.

The implementation of this use in the Township hit a dead end at that time.

Now, the current Planning Commission just met to once again discuss this same issue. Interestingly, I was told at the meeting that the map they were using was the same map that Ceminsky and company had generated. (You can get a copy of this map from Deputy Clerk, Amy Liberty.) Whether it is an old map or not, the map shows what I consider similarly arbitrarily placed zones for industrial, "neighborhood commercial," even high-density housing areas, and other uses.

1. If we want to set up and encourage annexation to Lakeville, the easiest way to do that is to place commercial/industrial uses along the northern border. This was oft-repeated in the Buss committee. For some strange reason, the thinking on the "other side" has been and seemingly continues to be that doing so would prevent annexation! Which would you think would bring higher income, commercial/industrial use with the oft-pushed but unrealistic community well and septic, or being able to hook into the MUSA line currently just inside the Lakeville border? As can be seen from recent annexations of the Ruddle and Adelmann properties, being annexed and thus having access to municipal sewer and water brings much higher-end C/I uses. Without sewer and water, uses such as contractor yards and other low-revenue-generating uses would prevail. Higher quality uses would not be interested in investing all their money without sewer and water provided. So even the argument that allowing C/I in the Township (with no municipal services) would bring in significant funds to the Township is false. So why move to this? Are we talking about private agendas?

2. I asked at the recent Commission meeting whether any actual citizens who own property in those proposed zones had even been consulted or offered a chance to express their views on this topic. Of course, the answer is NO, because that was never the intent of the earlier Ceminsky group. Basically, they just wanted to shove it down people's throats-my opinion. I own property near one of the areas, and I heard all sorts of outrageous ideas concerning my property, but I was never asked for my opinion. Same with my neighbors. Nor is the intent of the current Board to ask for landowners' input at the beginning stages before even spending the time and money on something that people arguably do not want.

3. This current Board makes a lot of ado about "property rights," ordinance "over-regulation," and getting to "do whatever you want" on your own property. The rationale is that landowners pay taxes so they should get to do whatever they want. (This whole subject was dealt with on this blog years ago when Novacek suggested it back then and stated as a public official at more than one public meeting that we'd be "better off with no ordinances at all." The logical next step is to consider what happens when one's neighbor does whatever he wants, and it is disruptive to the neighborhood and quality of life. But logic escapes. Current Board Chair Storlie also once said as a public official at a public meeting that "ordinances are guidelines." No, actually, they are laws. There's an earlier blog post about that as well.)

I asked the Commission if they considered the fact that by creating zones for these uses, they would be taking away landowners' property rights to use their land otherwise going forward. I got blank stares, but at least three of the four Commissioners in attendance seemed willing to listen. They even reached a consensus that meeting with property owners in different areas first would be a good thing.

Will the Board allow them to even do so? Some supervisors have stated the Planning Commissioners are their "employees!" That's a very odd stance in my opinion.

4. Curious who owns the designated "high density" housing zones? Although it has been repeated many times by many people, including Wendy Wulff and Patrick Boylan from the Met Council, that agricultural zoning means one residence in 40 acres, or as  Eureka has it, one per quarter-quarter section, this fact just somehow doesn't register with some current officials. The Met Council has also repeatedly informed us at our meetings that they do not see our zoning changing or sewer and water being available until 2040 at the earliest. Again, this falls on deaf ears with some current officials. They can complain about the Met Council all they want (which they have), but that doesn't changes the facts, Folks. The Council still has oversight. So why are certain areas on the map designated as high density housing which isn't even currently possible? Are they picking winners and losers? Who's who? Where will YOU end up?

So, are you as a resident and taxpayer who enjoys our quality of life even aware that this life-altering direction is in the works? Would you like to live across the road from such uses even if your own property isn't directly involved? It will still affect you. Would you like an opportunity to offer your thoughts before the time and taxpayer money is spent on this? 

Maybe the time for your involvement is now.

I WISH IT WEREN'T TRUE...

 I post this entry because there were a total of six people, three on Zoom and three in person, at the Town Board Special Meeting "Workshop" on Agritourism on June 27. Not a lot of oversight. Things troubling at least to me were said at that meeting. Perhaps citizens should be alerted to some of what happened.

Without naming anyone, Mr. Novacek alluded to others in the Township as being "SOCIALIST" and "ELITIST." Yes, he did indeed! Having served on the Board at the same time as Mr. Novacek, I believe I know some to whom he was referring, but he was (purposefully?) vague. But ask yourselves, this is how "our" elected official feels about his fellow citizens? Is this how he feels about his former colleagues in public office, one wonders?  Calling your neighbors "socialist" and "elitist" because they don't agree with your extreme ideas (my opinion) is bit much.

                                                         

In the days before the "Deep Freeze" (see earlier post) such comments would not go unchallenged. 

On a personal level, I have had experience with what Mr. Novacek is capable of. Since Mr. Novacek made an extremely crude direct comment to me as a fellow Board Supervisor, IN FRONT OF THE THEN-TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY, he left no doubt in my mind how he feels about me. His comment had to do with "the place where the sun doesn't shine" and my head. No lie. My jaw dropped, not so much at the utter crassness of his comment, but at the rashness of saying such an ill-advised thing out loud and in front of the attorney, no less. No filter? I let several others know of his comment as I don't think anyone should say such nasty things and just get away with it. He couldn't out-and-out deny it. He has no idea how off-base he is. His thinking seems to go that if this fact is true about a person (such as a former occupation), then that person must think these things. I think they call it pigeonholing. Again, he really doesn't know me and he jumps to all these unwarranted conclusions. That's offensive.

He also questioned the Township Attorney in front of me at the time of his outburst if "it was even legal" for a Board Supervisor to assist in enforcing a search warrant under court order. How ignorant is THAT? Did he really think the attorney would expose himself and a supervisor to performing an illegal act? I will say that at the time, there were several total falsehoods put forth on social media about that whole incident. To the point of slander, in my opinion.

Back to the meeting.

When the Board was discussing how they favored an IUP vs. a CUP for agritourism, Al objected. One comment was made that it may be less involved and less costly for the Township to enforce compliance with conditions with an IUP. Mr. Novacek asked why would the Township want "more control?" Ask yourself: If the Township is issuing these permits, don't you want it to have the ability to make sure the permit holders are doing what they said they would? The conditions are placed to protect you, the neighbors, from the negative effects of these uses, such as increased traffic, noise, etc. But Mr. Novacek sees this as unnecessarily "controlling." 

Chair Pete Storlie tried several times to keep Novacek on track with discussing only what was on the special meeting agenda, as is required by law.  Novacek kept pushing to disagree with what was included in "livestock" on a farm under agritourism, evidently.  He mentioned "deer farms." Livestock does not include exotic animals. It says so expressly in the definition. See 240-64 {51}. Deer are included in the prohibition of possession of exotic animals. Storlie pointed out a handful of times that the Exotic Animals Ordinance (240-42) was not on the agenda. But Novacek supported "deer farms" since deer "are native" to Minnesota, he said. Well, yes, they are native, but that does not make them ag animals, does it? Think of the various animals that are native to Minnesota that are not part of agriculture. Where is the logic? Does he misunderstand the term "exotic" to mean such animals must come from some other country?  A raccoon is an exotic animal. Google "exotic vs. domestic animals" and see for yourselves. What is Supervisor Novacek attempting to do? Does he want to repeal some or all of the exotic animals ordinance? Chair Storlie even raised chronic wasting disease as a reason deer farms might not be the best idea ever. Storlie advised Novacek that if he wants to revisit exotic animals, he should put it on the agenda for another meeting. We'll have to see what Mr. Novacek proposes...

I remind you that at more than one occasion in the past, Mr. Novacek has asserted that the Township would be "better off" with NO ordinances. And he was a Planning Commissioner at the time! In my opinion, he doesn't understand the whole concept of zoning and why it was started in the 1920's, as I learned at a training session. He has publicly stated that anyone should get to do "whatever he wants on his own property." This doesn't even take into account that that means that one's neighbor, as well as you, can then do whatever he wants. Can you think of any activities you would not want next door to you? Even if your neighbor owns his property and pays taxes? But you own your property and pay your taxes, too, right? Where does this leave you? Could this be taking things too far? Clear thinking?

Comments were also made that "some" (again, unspecified) have tried to "make things hard" for citizens. Does confirming that the ordinance setbacks are indeed met on someone's site plan, a simple example, qualify for "trying to make things hard," or is that just doing your "due diligence," one of Storlie's favorite phrases, to assure that the ordinances are complied with? No official body has any business approving something if they haven't examined if the Ordinances are met. This isn't making things hard for people. It's making things right for people. All the people.

The amended agritourism language that the Board (at least a majority) agreed with will be brought out at their continued meeting on July 3 at 4:00 p.m. I would like to say that it was a good thing that the Board asked for attorney input regarding this matter. That is the prudent thing to do so as to avoid unintended consequences.

STAY TUNED.

KETCHUP?? DOES THIS CUT THE MUSTARD?

 Following are various items from past meetings. With all the agritourism activity, didn't get to them until now.

1. The Board terminated Dr. Carrie Jennings, geologist, as mining superintendent. Chair Pete Storlie rather disdainfully (Yet again disdainful. My opinion) said, "Expert? Where's her resume'?" Now, anyone who knows anything in this Township knows who Dr. Jennings is and of her expertise in mining. Her resume' is longer than your arm! She provided a valuable service for the citizens. In the past, some members of some Boards demonstrated their lack of knowledge in this area---my opinion. There have been many complaints associated with some mining activity and compliance with conditions under the IUP.

The mines pay for her time as she reviews their status onsite once a year before the February mine reviews at the Town Board meeting. To my knowledge, no mine has complained. In fact, one mine owner reportedly said he likes talking with Carrie, she knows the business, and the cost was much less than he expected. Supervisor Novacek stated publicly that he doesn't think the mines should have to pay for this. He checked the Ordinances. Although he found "mining superintendent" in the text, he declared he saw no requirement that such a position exist. Pay attention to your constituents, Mr. Novacek!

Of course, Mr. Novacek stated publicly that he thinks we should do away with CUP reviews. He said let's start with the CUP reviews and then move on to mining!!

2. Road superintendent, Mark Henry, resigned pretty much right away after the present Board was elected. 'Nuff said.

3. The dust coating was actually placed on roads AT FIELD APPROACHES! No house in sight! I've never seen anything so hare-brained! What IS the point? It escapes me. Your tax dollars at work.

In keeping with this same issue, after the three-inch rainfall we had at the time, there was a water truck on site on a Township roadway. A citizen asked the driver why the water truck with all the rain we had yesterday? Driver replied that all that water ran off the road! Folks, if that logic would hold, WE'D ALWAYS NEED A WATER TRUCK TO DO ANY WORK ON THE ROADS! A water truck probably costs in excess of $100/hour, whether it is used or not once onsite. Is this a wise expenditure of your tax dollars?

4. One of the reasons Pete Storlie cited for firing Dr. Jennings was that she lived in the Township. There is no constraint against this in the Ordinance. It was never an adopted Board policy. Yet, at the very same meeting, the Board hired Supervisor Tim Pope to do tree removal and trimming. Note that the latter is certainly legal under the statute, provided certain things are met. However, it wasn't until the special Board meeting on June 20, more than a week later, that the Board after the fact adopted a resolution allowing them to hire Mr. Pope for this work in the first place. Cart before the horse. Yours Truly could have told them at the time what they needed to do; refer to "BRRRRR..." post. No more comments from the public during a meeting, even if it could b helpful.

CATCH-UP TIME

MANY THANKS TO THE DOZEN OR SO CITIZENS WHO SUBMITTED TESTIMONY AT THE AGRITOURISM TEXT AMENDMENT HEARING!

They covered your backs! All the points raised on the last blog post were made again  The landowner even said maybe she didn't need a text amendment. All testifying supported Applewood Orchard and its activities; that wasn't the problem. All the added language and the infrastructure paragraph were.

Thankfully, Planning Commission heard us, the people. They recommended that certain terms such as "mechanized rides," "camping," "music," and "sports," etc. should be looked at and maybe eliminated from the proposed definition language. They recommended that the Township consider again the Agritourism ordinance language that was proposed in 2014. That task force included the late landowner of the apple orchard and qualified others.  

       

At the follow-up special Town Board meeting on the Thursday following the public hearing on Tuesday, the Board evidently realized they needed to be responsive to the Commission's recommendations and not dismissive, as many feared they would be, considering their premature support.

You may be interested in knowing that, at the special meeting, Chair Pete Storlie said, "I haven't looked at the [2014] ordinance." Are you prepared sufficiently for the discussion, Mr. Chair? In the past you have frequently said, "...doing our due diligence..." Seems missing this time around, especially for a Supervisor who inappropriately voiced his support of this change to our zoning ahead of the hearing and Commission recommendations.  He also (rather disdainfully in my opinion) said "if it [the 2014 ordinance which he admits he hasn't even looked at] was so good, why wasn't it adopted?"

Regarding the public's concerns about this proposed text amendment opening the doors for amusement parks, rock concerts, etc., Mr. Storlie said he thought "some of the concerns are 'the sky is falling'" issues. Perhaps Mr. Storlie doesn't understand the Pandora's Box he was so willing to support. You put that proposed text amendment into law as submitted, and those uses are ACTUALLY ALLOWED! No lie, Henny Penny! Remember that Supervisor Novacek and Supervisor Pope also indicated support prematurely at the last regular Board meeting. Can we logically follow through to conclusions?

Do we understand the implications of what we are doing here? Again who's minding the store?

The Board has scheduled a meeting to work on the issue for June 27 at 7:00 p.m. They have forwarded some info to the Township attorney for review/comment. Another meeting will be held in July to address the issue.

HERE'S A POINT OF INTEREST:

Under Hearings; notices, 57-2 in the Ordinance states that in the case of zoning or mining text amendment applications "Notification shall be given by first class mail to all owners of record with the Dakota County Department of Taxation of land located in the Township at the time the application was filed with the Town Clerk...The Planning Commission shall make its report to the Town Board at the next regular meeting of the Town Board following the hearing..."

This requirement was brought to the attention of the Commission before the hearing commenced, the Board regarding its special meeting and the Clerk. It is clear and unambiguous. It's black and white. AND IT WASN'T FOLLOWED! After being made aware of this language, Commission Chair Melanie Storlie still stated, "We're going to go ahead with the hearing." The Board still held its special meeting in defiance of the Ordinance. What do our ordinances mean? They are not "guidelines," as was once famously said by a Board Chair at the time, but our law. Following them is not optional!

One Supervisor allegedly told another citizen after the hearing that people don't understand that the Board can have a special meeting paid for by the applicant. There again, who's minding the store? That works for a landowner wanting to expedite a building permit due to time constraints. That affects that landowner's property. A text amendment affects the entire Township! The Ordinance is worded that way to give time for careful consideration of such wide-reaching legislation. 

HERE'S SOMETHING YOU REALLY NEED TO KNOW....

At the last Board meeting, an applicant representative (attorney? realtor? Not identified to the public in the audience) spoke before the Board concerning a text amendment proposal for agritourism. This person represents a landowner in Eureka who wants to sell her property. Apparently, my surmise, there is a potential buyer who wants to be assured that he/she can do many activities on the property.

Proposed Agritourism language  Read this carefully. It includes A LOT of possibilities.

1. This text amendment , if adopted will apply across the Township. To property next to you perhaps?

2. Supervisor Pete Storlie told the representative that he "would be in favor" of the proposal.

3. Supervisor Al Novacek said he "would like to see more details," but he is in favor of the proposal also.

4. The representative had asked for the Board's opinion as to whether they would support this amendment. HOWEVER, it is very inappropriate for the Board to weigh in at that point as two members did above. They are supposed to remain neutral and not opine until AFTER the hearing and the Planning Commission recommendation! So, ask yourself, what weight will the public input at the hearing actually have? Is your Board committed to listening to you, the Eureka citizens? I believe they need to hear how unacceptable their "pre-approval" is.

5. Until I asked the Deputy Clerk where the proposed language was, it did not appear. I suggested that sending out an email to the "News and Notices" list with only the posting and the agenda attached is not sufficient. I suggested that this information needs to be posted on the website. This was done. I will applaud the resending of an email to let people know the website now had the language.

6. The submitted language is very wide-ranging. It allows "mechanized rides." A Ferris wheel is a mechanized ride. A roller coaster is a mechanized ride. Will there be Valley Fairs  coming to a properties near you? Is this the vision you have for our Township? You need to let the Planning Commission know your thoughts on the subject. Perhaps a corn maze could qualify as agritourism, but what about the rest of it? Again, read the language very carefully. It would allow many, many things...

7. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON JUNE 18TH AT 7:00 P.M. AT THE TOWN HALL.

8. The language allows "site related retail." What might that include? What does that mean?

9. The language allows "rural" activities. What does THAT include?

10. There are no performance standards such as off-site parking, hours of operation, lighting requirements, etc. That means that ultimately this comes down to a Board. two of whom have already indicated support. What conditions might they actually place on this Conditional Use Permit (CUP)? Do you know that there have been CUPs with NO CONDITIONS already in Eureka? A Board at that time did that.

11. Outside of schools and churches and possibly ag service operations (machinery repair, e.g.) the other CUPs are items such as cemeteries, signs over 50 square feet, illuminated signs, etc. Some of the CUPs are of very limited scope and impact. In the past, for churches and schools, the Planning Commission and the Board at those times were appropriately active in requiring downward facing lights to limit light pollution for neighbors, for example. They had the citizens' interests at heart.

12. See Ordinance 240 7 C for further information.     Link 240 7 C

13. Perhaps this amendment would be better addressed in a stand-alone Ordinance with performance standards and more limits.

14. The Board already discussed scheduling a special meeting to address the text amendment language AND a concurrent CUP application. Supervisor Tim Pope stated at the Board meeting that the applicant "probably wants to get this done as soon as possible." Another prejudgment? 

Remember, three is a majority vote.