"GOOD FENCES MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS?"

There was a little "fencing" going on at the October Board meeting, as in parrying and thrusting and feinting. The Planning Commission had recommended that the new language for the Fence Ordinance be adopted and that the Ordinance NOT be repealed. (There were two separate public hearings on these topics and in that order.)

There were four Supervisors in attendance at this meeting as Supervisor Barfknecht was out of town and, according to MAT attorney, could partake in the meeting only by means of "interactive TV.”




Mark Ceminsky moved that the Ordinance be repealed. He suggested that the Board vote on that motion first and then there could be another motion to adopt the new language.

EXCEPT it was clear to me and others in the audience, I'm sure, that with a 2-2 vote in the offing on the adoption--Hansen and Ceminsky have been bucking this ordinance since the start--this was a little disingenuous. At least I could clearly see that coming and thought so.

Over the next few minutes, Ceminsky put forth that the motions had to be in the order of the hearings. When it was established that the hearings were actually in the reverse order as the motions Ceminsky was  proposing, then it was argued that it just didn't make sense to adopt new language when the old language was still there. However, the adoption of the new language would supplant the old. Ceminsky objected to this notion. This had been raised and discussed at the public hearings, which I attended along with a few others. At that time, it was argued by Butch Hansen that the current Ordinance "has a hole in it." He also alleged that the current Ordinance was in conflict with State Building Code. When, at the October meeting, Attorney Chad Lemmons helpfully suggested that this could all be done in one resolution by stating the stricken language go away and the underscored language be adopted in its place, that was met with a non-reaction. (Just ignore it and it will go away?) All this was in the name of "We have to do things right." RIGHT. And it went around and around...

Eventually, the motion to repeal died 2-2 and the motion to adopt failed 2-2. (Thus bearing out the thought that Ceminsky and Hansen had no intention of adopting the new language anyway.) If they had snowed the other two Board members into the repeal since it was "just doing things right," that would have been the end of it, I believe, in their minds.



But Chair Murphy stated, "OK, we'll bring back again." As in when there is a full Board. Ceminsky and Hansen and Novacek have been against this very reasonable Ordinance from the beginning. It has been characterized it as "manipulative" and "over regulation." The argument that the Township couldn't regulate fences seven feet or less because of the Building Code has been made repeatedly. It has been repeatedly shot down, too, as the Building Code doesn't affect ANY fences until they reach more than seven feet. At that point a building permit must be procured. For fences up to six feet, an administrative approval from the Township must be sought first.

That was another thing: The Commission worked on the language with the idea that residential fences not requiring building permits be limited to six feet. However, Hansen argued that this wasn't to his liking. When it was pointed out that the Commission had put that limit on fences as it aids law enforcement to see over the fence, Hansen said he was at the hearings and that wasn't brought up. A Planning Commissioner in the audience corrected him saying, "Butch, I was the one who said that!"


It was discussed if not including fences between 6 and 7 feet actually meant that those fences were not allowed. The attorney said that was exactly what that meant. In support of his comment, I pointed out that Ordinance 3, Chapter 2, E. Prohibited Uses and Structures states that "All other uses and structures which are not specifically permitted as a right or by Conditional Use Permit or Interim Use Permit, including public stables and boarding of dogs, shall be prohibited in the Agricultural District. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007)

Unfortunately, this isn't the first time I found it necessary to mention this provision to a Supervisor in office. One such Supervisor from the past made the statement during a meeting that "If it isn't in the Ordinance Book, that means it's okay." When I pointed out that portion of the Ordinances to him at a break, he said, "Well, I didn't know that." Obviously. I don't know about you, but I expect our public officials to read the Ordinances and to become familiar with them. Hasn't always happened, folks. That's a little scary.

As I have stated before, "Anyone who wants to get along with his neighbor would have no problem with this Ordinance." This sort of ordinance is common and the Township has the right to enact such language.

ALL ABOARD FOR POUGHKEEPSIE!

Here are some further details from the September Board meeting.

 The representative from Progressive Rail (PR) attended the meeting and updated the Board on the issue of the side rails and grant, etc.

First, PR has declined to purchase the property that Butch Hansen was advocating for at 225th and Highview. I guess they are not interested in spending that much or more money.

The grant application was to be submitted on September 17th as it was originally drawn up. That is, with the side rails between 250th and 240th for car storage. The rep didn't rule out a possibility of adjusting, but that is how the application was to be filed.

Hansen raised the issue of the amount of land the railroad would need to accomplish its plans as submitted. The thought was that PR will need to use eminent domain to acquire more land along the tracks there. That issue was left basically unanswered.

Chair Tim Murphy asked Jason, the PR rep, point blank whether this was being done to relieve Lakeville of the problem. Short answer: yes. Hardly a surprise, right?
Stay Tuned for updates as they become available!

On another issue, Ceminsky and Hansen have proposed that the Township issue Interim Use Permits (IUPs) for storage of non-pit products in a gravel pit. We are talking about such things as bagged mulch from another use within the Township.

You may recall that such product from that use appeared in a gravel pit on 235th St. W. There was a complaint filed and the Board directed that the material be removed as this use is not allowed under the Ordinances, which it was eventually.

 Hansen and Ceminsky apparently have held the idea that an IUP can be issued for this use even though the Ordinances do not provide for it, based on their comments at past meetings. The idea of  needing to alter the Ordinances in the proper manner seemed to be rejected. That got straightened out even though Ceminsky's latest attempt involved reading a portion of the MAT Township government manual that he argued meant an LGU can give out an IUP during a moratorium on such IUPs! Of what use would a moratorium be then?

The basis of the reason given for this storage was that bagged mulch is an ag product "if anything ever was." (Not sure I agree with that, but I'm personally not really in favor of storing other businesses' products in gravel mines.) Why would we be storing ag products (grains or anything else in addition to bagged mulch) in gravel pits?

It was presented that it could be done for “six months” when the pit is idle. That makes some monetary sense, at least from the pit owner's point of view if not the neighbors'. However, an IUP can be issued for various lengths of time (even 30 years or more), depending on the Board and the applicant at the time, unless restricted by Ordinance.

It was also stated that the product stacks “wouldn’t be seen” from the road.  Will there be a limit on height? Visibility?

And there would be no noise or traffic. Not sure how THAT is guaranteed! Presumably the product could be moved in and out at various times.

At one point it was discussed that storing other things, as long as they were inert, would be a possible use to be allowed as well. Pavers? Concrete block? Manhole covers? What else?

You may recall that the Mining Ordinance was put in place with the intent that the gravel be excavated and the land returned to ag use as quickly as possible.


The idea was that as a community we would be doing our part in getting a precious and needed resource for the state and the area out of the ground for use, but then would reclaim the land for ag use. That is also the reason things like concrete crushing and asphalt recycling were not allowed. The thought as I understood it was that the Township didn't want to become a repository or staging area for recycling other communities' waste products even though it was recognized that this is a necessary function somewhere. We don't really produce these products for use within our community much either. Further, this sort of use would be industrial in nature and not a good fit for Eureka. (Even one pit owner said that himself at the time!) That is the rationale presented and I have since heard reasserted and defended by those from that task force at public hearings on adding uses. In some cases, this rationale was heard as sufficient to keep things as they were, and in others it wasn't .

            I’m not sure how this storage issue might extend the life of mines.

Language will be looked at soon. If this topic is of interest to you, be on the lookout for the topic on Board agendas and for an eventual possible public hearing. Make your input heard.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM ANYWAY?

The September Board meeting stretched into two nights, ending at 11:45 pm Monday night and continuing for a few MORE hours on Tuesday evening. Part of the reason for this was the addition to the agenda of many items by "one or two" Supervisors, as I understand it. Some of these additions were what I would call "cryptic" in that it was very unclear by the one- or two-word addition where such items were intended to go. But more on that later...

One such item was the price of disc recording copies to the public. The discussion was to require/allow only one meeting per disc (wasteful) and Hansen proposed charging $20 per disc copy!
Having raised my hand and being graciously called on by Board Chair Tim Murphy, I came forward and gave the Board a short recap of the history of this whole matter. If you are a longer-time blog reader, you may recall that first certain Supervisors in the past, including Mark Ceminsky, tried to keep the public from even receiving these recordings. WRONG! was the opinion given by then-Township attorney Patrick Kelly. (Mr. Kelly practices municipal law and has been voted a "Super Lawyer" by his peers for years.) Then the attempt was made to charge more, again with Ceminsky's involvement. ARGUED AND WON for lesser amounts. There was also an attempt to have just one meeting per disc. Guess who? There is ample room on a disc for a whole month's meetings, including public hearings. I argued that one and thankfully good sense prevailed. There were enough Supervisors on the Board then to vote in favor of you, the people.

So now Hansen and Ceminsky try yet again! Ceminsky suggested that the public be invited to record the meetings themselves. HOW GENEROUS OF HIM! The public already has the RIGHT under Open Meeting Law to record meetings in any fashion it sees fit and the Board or Commission do not even have to be aware that the meeting is being recorded!!

I asked what is the difference if someone is present at the meeting recording or someone else in the Township can't make the meeting but would like a disc copy to hear the discussion? I suggested that the only reason I could see to proceed down Hansen's and Ceminsky's proposed route was to make it less convenient and more costly for citizens to stay informed!

Hansen hastened to declare that the citizens should receive the information, but proposed by motion that the cost be the afore-mentioned twenty bucks. Ridiculous! I reminded the Board that it is not allowed to make money on fees, which twenty dollars would surely do. Why would a Supervisor try to make a month's worth of meetings cost from $40 to $80 or more, depending on the month? Does this seem right to you? Hansen also wanted just one meeting per disc. Again, a ploy to make it more expensive? You might be interested to know that only a couple of people consistently ask for these copies right now. How pointed, in my opinion.

Ceminsky chimed in with "This has continued to be an issue." I whispered to a person next to me, "That is because he keeps MAKING it an issue!" Well, my goodness! One might have thought something really terrible and disturbing had just happened! Ceminsky very emphatically: "Mr. Chair, this has got to stop!" (He repeatedly says this when I speak. He and Hansen are visibly unhappy when Murphy calls on me and I offer information that no one on the Board has put forward on procedure or what-have-you. I just want to be sure for everyone's sake that things are fully understood. I would not be okay with just sitting there and not clarifying things when the Board hasn't acknowledged or pointed out the finer points of facts, proper procedure, etc. Believe me, I have waited many times as long as I felt I could.)

This very same reaction happened when Steve Madden was on the Board and I whispered something to the person ahead of me about Ceminsky's having called the attorney not once, not twice, but three times without even going through the proper channels to receive permission to do so. Madden loudly declared that there was a "disturbance" in the audience. Then-Chair Budenski stated (I believe tongue-in-cheek), "Disturbance? Disturbance? I must have missed it. What disturbance?" 

It was stated at the meeting that the only thing the Board is obligated to give the citizens is the approved, written minutes. This is incorrect. Under Data Practices Law anytime the Local Government Unit stores or retains data this falls under the law, even if the intent is to destroy the data later. (The discs are destroyed once the minutes are approved under Eureka's retention policy filed with the State.)

Finally Supervisor Lu Barfknecht moved that the cost per disc be continued at $5.00. Hansen said, "Per meeting?" Barfknecht said, "Per disc." Well, citizens, let it be known that her motion passed 3 to 2 with Ceminsky and Hansen voting "no." Are Ceminsky and Hansen looking out for your best interests? What ARE they looking out for? Do they not appreciate that this blog can state that what is reported here is backed up by the disc recording? No question in my mind.




Of note, when I was Chair of the Planning Commission for three years, I always called on anyone and everyone, including Hansen and Ceminsky, who raised his hand. This same practice has been followed by the Town Board. I have noticed that anyone else who has his hand raised at meetings is called on and no fuss is made by the "Tag Team." Sometimes people have just spoken without raising their hands, and no big deal is made about it. Sometimes others have whispered to each other at meetings and even louder making it hard to listen, but no big deal is made about that either.


MUST HAVE BEEN SOMETHING I SAID...?

"I HEAR THE TRAIN A-COMIN', IT'S ROLLIN' 'ROUND THE BEND..."

At the August Planning Commission meeting, a representative from Progressive Rail (PR) made an appearance before the Commissioners. The intent was to inform the Township about the company's plans that affect Eureka.

Many of you may know that the citizens of Lakeville have expressed their dissatisfaction many times about the (often longer-term) parking of railcars along Highway 50 and the nearby houses. Since the railroads are federally governed, going back to the post Civil War era, there really wasn't anything that the citizens of Lakeville, nor the city government of Lakeville could do to change that.

Well, brace yourselves, because now Progressive Rail plans to have this storage in Eureka Township! It presented the plan to add side rails in its rights-of-way north of Cedar Avenue and 250th St. W. It was my understanding that this area would end at 240th St. This would most likely entail the removal of trees. PR would park its idle cars on those side rails until they are needed and can be moved for use. Of course, the rep stated that their plans are to have these cars move a lot as they hope to have their business pick up. And also of course, there are no guarantees about any of that!

Members of the Commission and the Board present expressed their discontent with this plan. The Progressive Rail rep seemed to indicate that since these cars would be parked next to "your farm fields," he didn't see a problem exactly. He had intended to come before the Board at its August meeting as well, but now would be out-of-town. He said he could come to the September Board meeting. However, the grant application for this endeavor is due mid-September, so this didn't meet with much in the way of what I would call trust that anything would be any different or that there would remain enough time to change anything in the application before its submittal.

As a member of the audience that night and of the Planning Commission when Progressive Rail had other dealings with the Township, it seemed very clear to me that the rail company had no intention of changing any of its plans. And why would it?  It was simply doing "the courtesy" of a notification and it wasn't even obligated to do that. There is nothing that the Township can do to require them to change their plans.

At the Board's August meeting, Supervisor Hansen proposed the idea that Progressive Rail purchase the property northeast of the intersection of Highview and 225th St. W. and use that to park its idle cars. It was mentioned that the property is industrial property in AirLake Industrial Park. If it is the parcel I believe it is, that is NOT in the industrial park. It is zoned agricultural, as is the rest of Eureka.

Hansen mentioned a property near Cedar and 250th that could be affected by the cars under PR's plan. He stressed that if the train cars were stopped or stored there, they could block this property's driveway. The driveway is the only access to the property. This could pose a serious predicament as anyone can see, but I am not so sure that Progressive can do that.

A couple of questions were asked including can PR block a private resident's only access indefinitely or at all? No answer on that one.

Hansen asked the attorney what power the Township had to stop this. Lemmons answered, "None."
Hansen made an off-the-cuff comment that we have "the last president to thank" for this. I'm really not sure what he is talking about as the railroads have been federally regulated for way over a century-going on two pretty soon!

A point I would explore is whether it is even the Township's role to advocate for a change that may relieve some citizens  of the "burden" of the cars, but would necessarily subject others to it instead? How is that decided fairly? Who chooses who is who? Is one resident more important than another? Based on what?

A similar situation came up during my first term as a Commissioner. A citizen came before the officials asking that the Township advocate that a pipeline be rerouted away from that citizen's property. That citizen had a very solid reason for such a request, at least of the pipeline company. Of course, that would have meant that utility would then go by another person's property instead. At the time I commented that I was uncomfortable with Eureka as an entity advocating for one citizen over another. Ultimately, the citizen successfully accomplished the rerouting on his own behalf without any Township intervention. In this sort of situation, I believe that the government should seek public comment, especially from all affected parties. This would help it arrive at a better, informed decision consistent with the community's interests as a whole.

So in the current situation, I questioned the propriety of such a move now. For one thing, I asked, what if the owner of the property did not want to sell to PR?

WELLLLLL... Hansen rushed to say that he had already talked to the owner of the empty parcel about this! Some may think that is enterprising to do so, but what about the areas that then would be affected instead? Would you want your elected official to advocate for something unwanted by pretty much everybody to be moved near you to satisfy another resident or even to help a property owner sell his property for that matter, especially without your knowledge or opinion? Is that a proper role for a Board Supervisor? How about exploring further what is allowed by law and what isn't? It would seem unlikely that the railroad could or would even want to block a private driveway keeping someone from emergency care, don't you think?

Whether Progressive Rail would even consider such a move as spending money on a property when it isn't necessary since it already owns its rights-of-way, is open to question.

The Board designated two Supervisors, Murphy and Hansen to meet with the railroad representatives. Hansen reported at the September Planning Commission meeting that the two who actually went were Hansen and Ceminsky. Since this was a Board designation, I am not so sure it is kosher to change who is representing the Township in this outside of the Board designating again. The three of them should not decide this on their own in my opinion.

Hansen described the alternate affected area as reaching from the tracks from 240th all the way to the Lakeville line. The Vermillion River runs through a portion of this area. Depending on the influence of the River (the exact dimensions have not been discussed at this time), this could potentially affect the property values of a greater area of present and future homes than the area the railroad outlined. Have those property owners been contacted for their input, I wonder? If so, no mention has been made of it.

 The question of whose interests are really foremost crossed my mind. Again, I do not feel that the Township Board should step in as a representative body if the result is now someone else has to view the undesirable rail cars, at least not without a thorough airing of the subject publicly. Would YOU want to be that person that is now stuck with this? And this won't be going away anytime soon or perhaps even ever. 

It's too bad that the opportunity to seek public comment was not made available due to the short notice given by Progressive Rail in relation to its grant deadline of September 17th. The Board will be discussing this further at its meeting on Monday, September 10th.

"...And I'd let that lonesome whistle blow my blues away."

ED. YOU. KAY. SHUNNNNNNNN!!!!!

At the August Board meeting, a motion was made by Chair Tim Murphy concerning training sessions open to all Board Supervisors and Planning Commissioners. His purpose was to pre-approve the attendance costs for any and all members to go to any and even possibly all of the three sessions most recently sent in an email from Government Training Services (GTS).

GTS is a non-profit organization that has been around for a long time. It offers informative sessions with excellent, experienced presenters who are experts in various areas about which public officials need to be educated. I have personally attended many of these sessions and have found them to be of great help in understanding the jobs of Commissioner and Supervisor. They are instructive on issues of governmental law and function. I have always felt that without such exposure, what is essentially a local, amateur volunteer in a public office is apt to flounder and make errors along the learning curve. This is unacceptable. Those applying for or running for office have an obligation in my eyes to know what they are talking about and to correctly base all decisions on facts. Trainings such as these and those offered by the Minnesota Association of Townships and other organizations are vital to doing a good job and serving the Township as it should be served.

Do you know that there are Supervisors/Commissioners now and in the past who have NEVER taken even ONE such class? As a Supervisor I endeavored twice to make at least two sessions during a three-year term mandatory for all of Eureka's public officers. I failed both times as others on the Board shied away from the idea of "mandatory." Puzzling to me, but there you go. So there were and are still those who did not avail themselves of any training or any to speak of.

When Chair Murphy made his motion, both Supervisors Hansen and Ceminsky seemed to take issue with it. Being uncomfortable with a motion without a dollar amount was suggested as the reason to be against this suggestion. Now, really, even if all officers went to all sessions (Your Role As A Planning Commissioner, Basics of Planning and Zoning, and one about development) would that not be money well spent? Since the motion referenced only these three sessions, it was self-limiting anyway. Until attendance by whom and for which sessions in September would be decided, the dollar figure is not precise. In my mind and as expressed by two Supervisors (Palmquist and Barfknecht) and an audience member (not me) such opportunities are a very positive thing!

Eventually the motion passed with, I believe, an arbitrary cap on the money to be spent. Wonder WHO will actually go?? As a citizen, you can see that information if you look at how your tax money is spent. Such invoices would show up on the financial report.

Recently, I have witnessed and heard many things said at meetings that I believe are way off-base. Things such as two Supervisors pushing for Interim Use Permits (IUPs) to be passed at meetings for uses that are not even allowed! An IUP must involve a public hearing held by the Commission, followed by a recommendation, then and only then followed by a Board decision. The possible IUPs are limited by Ordinance.

Since these proposed uses were not even allowed under Eureka's IUPs, it would be necessary for such uses to go through a Text Amendment process started by the person or persons desiring them. That process also involves a public hearing, etc. If such a proposed amendment to the Ordinances were to be enacted, then that use would be eligible to exist anywhere in the Township-not just for the property of the amendment requester- but anywhere, maybe next door to YOU!

Acting as a legislative body, the Board is totally within its authority to deny such uses in text amendments simply because "We do not want that use in the Township." The courts tend to back up legislative decisions should there be a challenge. A Local Government Unit (LGU) can legislate as it sees fit as long as it is not less restrictive than County or States laws. The LGU can be more restrictive.

Now, if Supervisors don't take classes and try to do something that isn't quite kosher, they could at least learn from that mistake and not try to repeat it. I have seen the opposite occur at very recent public meetings. MAYBE because to do so takes an open mind and the understanding that the Supervisor doesn't know all there is. To know what one doesn't know is a valuable thing.





I have sometimes heard the argument put forth that it is "only common sense" that something be allowed. Fair enough, except if it isn't in the Ordinances, it isn't allowed. Where would we be if the Township just started allowing things simply because someone asked or someone advocates for the supplicant regardless of the interests of Eureka as a whole? The results could be problematic...

It is possible for an LGU to change an Ordinance to reflect a community's evolving sensibilities, but until an actual change is enacted, the Board must make its decisions based on the law in effect at the time of the request.

HERE'S THE SCOOP!

        August Town Board meeting on August 13, 2018.

     A Lakeville citizen approached the Planning Commission

on August 7 regarding purchasing 10 acres on County Road 86

for the purpose of constructing a business building of 

approximately 9,000 square feet to house their distribution of

items for agriculture producers.

     The items they distribute include farm aprons, pouches, totes,

belts, holsters, bags, boots, bibs and pants, children's gear, jackets,

breeding and vet gear, calf blankets and milking supplies.
(Information found on their web site.)

     The Planning Commission stated this is not a permitted use

and is not an agricultural service. They did indicate they could

possibly request a Conditional Use Permit and passed it onto 

the Town Board for discussion.

     Butch Hansen believes it falls under Agricultural Use.

The Ordinance definition of Agricultural Operations is:

"Operations operating for profit which include, but not

limited to, the cultivation, growing, harvesting and processing

of any agricultural commodity, including horticulture and

timber, the raising of livestock, fur-bearing animals, fish or

poultry; or any commercial agricultural practice

performed as incidental to or in conjunction with such

operations, including preparation for market, delivery to

storage, to market, or to carriers for transportation to market".

(I do not see the storage of aprons, holsters, bags, pants etc 

included in this definition).

     Butch Hansen stated "It is an allowed usage under a

Conditional Use Permit."  PC Chair Fredlund disagreed stating,
"A Conditional Use Permit is allowed for Agricultural Services."

Butch Hansen stated "This is an Agricultural Service."

Commissioner Funk indicated that it is a warehouse for storing

merchandise. Butch stated "They manufacture it there."

(I have seen nothing to indicate this statement is accurate.)

Hansen stated, "People are doing the exact same thing all over
the Township." 

The Ordinance states, "Agricultural  service is permitted

as a Conditional Use. Agricultural Service is described as

establishments primarily engaged in performing agricultural

or horticultural services on a fee or contract bases."

(I do not see where a warehouse utilized for storage of aprons,

holsters, pants, children's gear, jackets and sleeves, holsters and

bib pants is an Agricultural Service on a fee or contract

basis. (Mr. Hansen, if you do not have access to an Ordinance

book, please request a copy from the Town Hall.)

     Butch Hansen felt the Board needed to discuss the issue.

     Mark Ceminsky stated "The Statute under Agriculture allows

that even if you only have one acre, that if you are doing things

that provide to an Agricultural industry or supporting Agriculture,

it does not matter if you repair tractors or whatever you are allowed

under the Agricultural State Statute." (Not sure where this incoherent

statement by Mark was pulled from).

     Under the Ordinance definition of Agriculture: "The use of land

for the production of farm crops as well as for the raising of

livestock."

     Under the Ordinance definition of Commercial Agriculture:

"The exclusive use of ten (10) or more contiguous acres of

land for the production of field crops, livestock products,

or livestock, not counting one acre for homestead." (It then

goes on to define the above. I did not notice any reference to

aprons, bib pants, children's gear etc.) 

     (This would not be a permitted Accessory Structure.) The

Ordinance states, "There can be no Accessory Structure without

a Principal Structure existing on the same parcel."

     Commissioner Larson stated she felt the Planning Commission's

hands are tied when they do not have access to the Township attorney.

Chair Murphy stated "The Attorney prefers to have questions from

the Planning Commission Chair in writing rather than coming to the

meetings." He also stated "If the Planning Commission would

like to have the Attorney attend a specific meeting, they can 

request his presence."

(In the past, the Attorney attended the Planning Commission meetings

which makes sense because citizens' questions can be answered

or their permit requests can be addressed, recommended for approval or

turned down at the Planning Commission meeting. Possibly

saving the citizens another fruitless meeting).

     A citizen reminded the Board Supervisors that Agricultural

Services such as tractor repair and machinery repair is a service.

Products such as aprons, bib pants etc. are  NOT a service

for a fee or on a contract basis.

(The Attorney remained silent on this issue. Why???

This seems to be a time at a meeting when an attorney 

with expertise in municipal law needs to weigh in

to educate the Board and the Planning Commission.

Supervisors and Planning Commissioners have

a responsibility to reference the facts before making 

definitive statements.")

(Imagine if the Township issued Conditional Use Permits

willy nilly to anyone who would like to utilize

10 acres, or more or less, as storage for manufactured 

products or even worse, manufacturing, anyplace in

an agriculturally zoned Township.")

(If previous Planning Commissioners and Board Supervisors
have made mistakes in the past, current members are
not obligated to make the same mistakes, nor should they.)

 

     

The information is taken from
the August 13 meeting CD.  My
opinions are indicated in italics.

PERSOID METEOR SHOWER AND DRONES!

     On August 14, a
citizen in the Northwest corner of

Eureka Township stepped outside to view the Persoid 

meteor shower around 10:30 p.m.

     When he looked south, he noticed a drone hovering roughly

 1/2 mile or so from his location. It was a bright light, relatively

stationary for 20 minutes or longer. As a licensed drone pilot, he 

was very aware that flying drones at night is against FAA

regulations (unless you're law enforcement and have a waiver).

     When the incident was mentioned to another resident in the same

area, she mentioned that several nights before, when she was sitting

on the deck late at night, she noticed a drone passing over a 

neighbor's house. The light was bright enough to reflect off the

house.

     This is ILLEGAL activity. Call 911 if you see one. You will not hear

it unless it is right over you.