EUREKA TOWN BOARD BUZZ!

                                   November 13, 2018

                            Eureka Town Board meeting

     The Dakota County
Sheriff attended the meeting.
He reported minor thefts are
happening due to cars left
outside unlocked. Remember
to secure your vehicles.

    There continues to be illegal
dumping in the Township
ditches. This includes dirt as well as 
miscellaneous items.

     The Sheriff advised to secure the license number and
vehicle description when reporting an incident to the Sheriff's
Department.

     The Sheriff will address with the appropriate County
department the reported dumping of loads of dirt in the
Township ditches.

                                   
                               
                                                  
 ILLEGAL MOVING OF BUILDINGS WITHIN OR 
INTO THE TOWNSHIP:  A citizen attended the meeting 
regarding buildings he moved onto his property.
Unfortunately it seems he was not aware of the Eureka
Ordinance that addresses this issue. The citizen was 
required to obtain permits for each building and pay
a double fee of $1,400. 

     Refer to the Ordinance Book, Chapter 4, Section ll - Moving
 Buildings Into the Township.

                                 
                                                                     
COMMERCIAL ZONING UPDATE:  Mr. Hansen and 
Ceminsky presented a map and information regarding
the work they, along with Commissioners Novacek and 
Fredlund, the latter a voice of reason, have done at the 
"workshops." Mr. Hansen stated "We worked very hard 
to get this done in a short amount of time because the 
Township is notorious for dragging things out for months,
months and months." There was no information available 
to hand out to the public.

     Housing to industrial or industrial to housing is included in
the draft language and it "can go either way." Mr. Hansen stated,
"This is draft language that literally can be PLOPPED down any
place in Eureka Township." (Really????) Types of industries,
impact, building heights, designs, septic systems, water tower 
and possible grant money was incorporated into the draft language.

     Mr. Hansen stated, "According to the Lakeville Comprehensive
2030 Plan, Lakeville is going to annex portions of the Northern 
corridor.".
(In my opinion, it might be fun to play in the sandbox
building water towers etc. with no experience in planning; 
however, at what expense to the Eureka citizens? Once all the
work and money has been put into
this Commercial/Industrial endeavor, it is very possible
Lakeville will annex areas of the Northern Corridor. This
perhaps makes the area more attractive. Perhaps there might
be consideration for portions of the draft language along 
Cedar Avenue).

     Questions were submitted to the Township attorney.  The
attorney stated that the Township could not prohibit sexually
oriented businesses but can put conditions on the business.
The questions and answers were not available to the public.

      Supervisor Barfknecht inquired as to how many open houses
were being proposed and if there was enough pertinent
information to hold an open house.

     The workshop group asked the Board to approve a budget for
post card mailings and a minimum of 2 open houses and 1 with a
Planner or possibly 2 with a planner.  Hansen stated, "This is
a minimum." There is also the cost of printing postcards and
any materials needed for the open houses, attorney input, maps
and perhaps special meetings.

If this presentation had been done correctly,
 a proposed budget would have been submitted for the Board to 
consider and act on at the meeting.  (My opinion).

     Clerk Finke tried to explain the process utilized for 
addressing post cards which also includes email notices
which the Board decided on previously.  Mr. Hansen could
not resist loudly and rudely excoriating Mr. Finke
during the postcard discussion. (This happens too often
and is unseemly and very unprofessional).

     Chair Murphy, utilizing common sense and his experience in
business, suggested that because the information
is new to the Board, another meeting should be utilized
to discuss the budget, number of meetings and how much
should be invested in the total process.

     Mr. Hansen and Ceminsky disagreed and were adamant 
regarding holding an open house regardless of the busy
Holiday season.

     An open house is scheduled for November 27, 7:00 p.m., at the
Eureka Town Hall.

(Information was gleaned from the November Town Board
meeting CD which can be purchased for $5 at the
Town Hall).

     If you are interested and plan to attend the November 27 
meeting, I suggest you might want to read the previous blog 
"YOU MAY WANT TO APPEAR - OPEN HOUSE." The blog offers
many very good questions that should be considered when
addressing the possibility of Commercial/Industrial and the
$$$$$$'s that might be spent possibly for naught!

     

                                 

                              

YOU MAY WANT TO APPEAR....

The Commercial/Industrial Open House is going to be held as proposed by the "work group" of Hansen, Ceminsky, Novacek, and Fredlund, even though that means it will be the Tuesday after Thanksgiving, November 27, at 7:00 p.m.  Not the best timing, but do come and let your opinion be known.
The truth as I have known it is that the Township has had the common sense to have NEVER held an Open House during the holidays. So, even though I suggested to the Board that this was not a good time to get public input, the Board went ahead and scheduled then anyway.

Following are the public comments I made at the last Board meeting on Tuesday, November 13.

Nancy Sauber, 9445 225^th St. W., Lakeville

I have a few comments about the Commercial/Industrial (C/I) “work group.”

1. By Ordinance, since this group was appointed by the Board, this should be a Special Committee of 5 people, minimum. (Ordinance 2, Chapter 4)
2. As such, it is subject to the Open Meeting Law. Contrary to that, there have been no recordings of the meetings per Township policy. There are no posted agendas or minutes on the website. Not all currently scheduled meetings are even on the website at present. A meeting was held last night (November 12) on a federal holiday, which is not allowed. Even more important, there have been no public copies of documents being discussed. These have not been “open meetings.”
3. How much money has been spent by this group? Was it all pre-approved by the Board (as is necessary in the normal course of business)?
4. It is quite something to listen to comments such as: [Should this C/I area] be on the section lines? Maybe the quarter-quarter lines? Let’s go up to the railroad. Should it go to 235^th or all the way to 250^th? Do you ever envision a C/I area around Town Hall? Based on what? A planner is sorely needed.
5. There has been mention of setbacks, but not of performance standards generally. Anything goes?
6. There has been mention of new roads, curb and gutter, sewer and water, water towers, uses ranging from sexually oriented businesses to fast food restaurants and so on. Where is the factual basis for these discussions? To blindly act on the “Everybody knows that such-and-such is going to happen” rule is irresponsible.
7. “Market forces” have been mentioned several times. Instead of listening to amateur and largely uninformed opinion, the professional market study from the earlier C/I Task Force should be updated. That would be responsible leadership.
8. Do we have a realistic idea of the costs and benefits to the Township? As outlined in the earlier C/I Task Force document, a fiscal impact study should be conducted to get a clearer picture of this. That would be responsible leadership.
9. It is premature to hold an Open House at this time, not to mention it would be during the holidays. If the Board intends to go through with this, professional guidance should first be sought. With zoning authority comes certain responsibilities to all the citizens of Eureka.

Thank you.

In case you need a reminder, look at the earlier blog on this. The "work group" is talking about all the way across the northern border of the Township, down Dodd Blvd., and down Cedar Avenue, even to 250th St. W.

Some of the costs incurred could be construction of streets, maintenance of streets, including plowing and patching or resurfacing pavement.

What other questions occur to you? Come and ask them.

AMATEUR HOUR IN EUREKA!

+

Once again, I attended the (November 5th) meeting of the "work group" on Commercial/Industrial uses that the Board appointed a couple of months ago. This time, I was joined by three other citizens. After going through the document that the group has been editing (and the public has not seen), the group moved on to looking at maps of the Township for placement of the Commercial/Industrial zones.

Since these maps were laid out on the side table, I moved forward to stand to observe the discussion and the locations pointed out. As the meeting went on, I took notes of what was being said. (Although Mark Ceminsky has previously told the Board that these meetings are being recorded, this one was not, nor has any other one I've attended.) I will give information in bullet points as it was delivered and as I took notes.

*The group looked at a map of the Township that had sticky notes of different colors stuck to it. The different colors denoted the different levels of intensity of use. Note that they originally had industrial as "Heavy Industrial" and then changed it to "just Industrial." I would suggest that "Light Industrial" is the term they perhaps intend and should be using.

*It was stated that "there are two ways to do this." One is to say this is the area in which we will "allow" C/I, but only when and if the landowner requests this use. The other is to say, "All this area is zoned commercial."




*Ceminksy said he thought the group should map the different areas of intensities. Hansen stated that the Township is "not going to have that step-down every time." (See earlier post.) Fredlund stated that the whole southern edge of the area looked at north of 225th St. would have to be "neighborhood commercial" as there are residences there, north and south of the street.

*Hansen stated that there is already heavy industrial [sic] in Lakeville. The question is are we going to allow it in Eureka. If there is a house there, then can do only neighborhood commercial (next to the house).

*Ceminsky again offered that the group should set up the different areas. Hansen disagreed and said that (the way he is proposing it), "We're still in the driver's seat." Novacek tried to clarify by saying Mark is saying we're going to set up a zone here. Hansen replied that the group has been agreed that landowners will be able to decide when and if there might be C/I uses. "We can't say you can't build a house."

You should note that one of the questions that the group is submitting to the attorney is whether instating these uses can be done in the way they have described- that is, leaving it up to the individual landowner when and if C/I is requested. Given the number of times Hansen emphatically stressed that the group is agreed that it will not "force" zoning on anyone, I have to say that the idea popped into my head that the onus might be shifted to the attorney in his response to their question. "We wanted to leave it up to the landowner, but the attorney says no."
Again, repeating what my colleague stated in her post, the group might be well advised to learn about spot zoning. During a meeting, Novacek said he didn't get why spot zoning was so bad. Fredlund countered with, "I think it is illegal." Hansen then stated that HE has "never seen in writing" why spot zoning would be illegal to do.

*Ceminsky commented that the Township is zoned ag now and that the long-term plan "has to be more defined."





*Novacek said there is an "element of chaos" and that the other side of that is that there is the "element of forcing it. We want something in the middle." (I wondered what THAT might be!)

*Then there was a discussion during which it was suggested that this "would figure itself out." (REALLY?) Ceminsky stated that he was uncomfortable with Hansen's statement that this "would figure itself out." Hansen replied that otherwise "then you're going to force people into rezoning their property." Just say we're going to "allow" C/I uses in this area.

*Fredlund asked what if a certain parcel is already put into industrial uses and then an adjacent landowner wants houses? Hansen replied, "First come, first served." Fredlund again stated that the edge along 225th would have to be neighborhood commercial as there can be more houses along 225th in the future.

*Ceminsky stated that he and Hansen are "in the same trade" and "people need visuals." He wanted something more defined on the map. He had transparent sheets that he wanted to place over the map to draw in the different areas of use.

*Novacek said that the 225th area is the most likely for C/I development. "It's coming anyway...It could all go to houses...(depends on) if the market forces bring it." It was suggested 2,000 feet either side of Cedar Avenue could be C/I as well.

*The group pointed out the borderline that it had discussed at one of its first meetings. To the west, it was delineated along just the northernmost quarter-quarter lines, then dropped  down to include Scotts Miracle-Gro and the airport property, and then back to northernmost quarter-quarter lines to the east.

* The thought was expressed that four businesses could effect the step-down just among those four businesses.

*The group stated that there are 1080 acres along the "northern corridor," 1400 acres possible along Cedar Avenue, possibly 560 acres in a gerrymandered area along Dodd and over to north of 225th and west of Dodd. Hansen stated that (these) are "the three that everybody wants to do." In adding up acreage, the group included the airport property that at this point remains in Eureka. Since this is MAC property, I didn't understand the sense of this. (Not to mention Hansen wants a friendly annexation of that area to Lakeville anyway. Regardless of what he wants, the airport will be annexed to Lakeville, even if it is in chunks as allowed by law.)

*Novacek again stated that the Township has to manage the "market forces or it'll run over us."

SAY, HERE'S AND IDEA!: HOW ABOUT UPDATING THE MARKET STUDY FROM THE EARLIER TASK FORCE ON C/I? This was done professionally by Jon Commers of Donjek through TKDA. Mr. Commers met with various commercial real estate brokers in the area and got their feedback on the possibility of C/I uses in Eureka.
Someone who doesn't see studies as roadblocks thrown in the way but as the smart way to do something like this would perhaps agree!





*At this point, Hansen offered something very interesting. He alluded to "the three people who've really put pressure on me to do this." He said he has told these individuals that "this has to be done in phases."

At one point Ceminsky referred to "giving landowners more options/opportunities with what to do with their land along the northern border." Does this include landowners who want to live there, I wonder, or just a "chosen few?"

* Lakeville and annexation is an issue. Has it occurred to the "work group" that landowners along the northern border could still request annexation once they are deemed C/I and thus perhaps more attractive to Lakeville? At a Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Funk mentioned this very idea that came out of the earlier C/I Task Force. Hansen did not agree.

I have a few further comments of my own:
First, I believe this "work group" of four appointed by the Town Board is really a Special Committee as referred to under our Ordinances. See Ordinance 2, Chapter 4. As such, it should have a minimum of five members, is subject to the Open Meeting Law which means copies of documents under discussion for the public, perhaps recordings since we do that in Eureka, and minutes to be published for the public to see.

This "work group" is going to request money from the Board to send out notices for an Open House to be held before Christmas. I find this very premature. They don't have much that is clear even to themselves at present, and more importantly, the Township hasn't even engaged a planner yet. Hansen says this "work group" is saving planner money as they are doing the groundwork first. In my opinion, they are WAY out of their depth and wasting their time. The "work group" wants answers from the attorney before an open House, but although it has said this will go to the planner, haven't presented it to the Board for its input or to send to the planner as yet. I believe they plan to tell the Board at its November meeting what they want to present to the public at this Open House.

The group has spent money on maps. Has this been pre-approved by the Board? That money cannot be spent without that approval. Has this been done? How much oversight is the Board exercising over this group?

ADDENDUM TO "ATTN. ALL CITIZENS!"

As the only audience member, I attended the Commercial/Industrial "work group" meeting on October 31st. At the meeting the next meeting dates were set:

Wednesday, November 7th

Monday, November 12th and 

Tuesday, November 20th.

All meetings start at 7:00 p.m. and typically last until around 9:00 p.m.

IT IS, PERHAPS, OF SPECIFIC INTEREST TO THE CITIZENS ALONG THE ROADS MENTIONED IN THE TITLE OF THE LAST POST THAT THE INTENTION FOR THE MEETING ON THE 7TH IS TO START LOOKING AT MAPS TO "PLAN" THE AREAS  AND THE TYPES OF C/I THAT WILL GO THERE. THESE WILL BE IN THE DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE TOWNSHIP TO BE CONSIDERED.

Also, it was discussed at the last meeting that the intention is to not rezone until and unless the landowner requests it. HOWEVER, it was also said that the "ugly truth" is that it may come down to imposing the zoning anyway. As I said, everything is debatable.

You may want to show up sooner rather than later!

ATTN: ALL CITIZENS, ESPECIALLY THOSE ON 225TH, DODD, AND CEDAR !

Did you know that there is a work group that has been meeting and discussing the idea of forming some commercial/industrial areas/uses in Eureka? This group has already met for at least five meetings. The most recent was scheduled for and held on Monday, October 22, from 7-9 p.m. Another is scheduled for October 31, 7-9.

The work group consists of Planning Commissioners Ralph Fredlund and Al Novacek, as well as Board Supervisors Mark Ceminsky and Butch Hansen. This group, notably, was formed during a Board meeting with the latter three "diving in headfirst," and Commissioner Fredlund volunteering to round out the group.

There has been mention made several times in the last few meetings that the other members of the Planning Commission were never even given a chance to indicate an interest in being a part of this work group. That's because if they weren't at that particular Board meeting when this was discussed, they didn't even know about it yet! (In fact, since this blog post came out, a Commissioner reminded me that the whole topic was added to the agenda the night of the meeting. Therefore, most did not know ahead of time it was even going to come up that night!) This did not sit well with the other Commissioners. They have asked for more "transparency."


It has also been discussed that "nobody" knew when and where this small group was meeting. I have attended three meetings to date, along with one other Commissioner and two other citizens who attended October 22. Other Commissioners have wanted and even tried to attend an earlier meeting, but were told there would be quorum issues or that the meetings still were not posted properly to allow them to attend. The posting should have allowed them to attend the meeting on the 15th, but it wasn't done properly, it was decided by Hansen and Ceminsky. Thankfully, this appeared to be rectified for the October 22nd meeting.


These meetings are open to the public (now that you know about them!). Audience members are allowed to listen and observe, but so far have not been allowed to contribute any input or comments during meetings. It is in the work group's ability to request this, especially in its early stages. At the end of the last meeting, a citizen asked a few questions which were attempted to be answered.

You should know that at some point, there will be Open House(s) held to gather public input. Of course, I would hope that the group's work would first be presented to the Board for its input before going to the public. The work group has said that it will present its work to the Attorney as well as to a Planner------yet to be contracted for this project. (TKDA is the Township Planning/Engineering firm.)

Watch for postcards to be sent regarding the Open House(s).

Since you will be asked for your opinions, and since this affects the entire Township, it would be a good idea for citizens to educate themselves about the work this small group has done and the topic before us. I am hopeful that at some point this will be available on the Township website for your convenience. Thus far, nothing has been available for public view during the meetings even though documents are being worked on and discussed.



To quickly summarize some of what has been discussed thus far, I will attempt to give some information on two points: different levels (and zones?) of commercial and industrial activity and whether or not the Township is going to ask the Metropolitan Council to be allowed to hook up to sewer and water. Anything reported here is not written in ink yet and may change, perhaps drastically.

The levels of use that have been looked at are light industrial, heavy commercial, general commercial, and neighborhood commercial. I will give a couple examples that have been mentioned of each:
light industrial: distribution center, lumberyard, trucking companies, bulk mail
heavy commercial: 24-hour gas station, optical manufacturing, cabinet shop, auto painting
general commercial: bowling alley, pet shop, mortuary, furniture upholstery
neighborhood commercial: doctor's office, barbershop, gas stations that are not 24-hour

It was reported that up to 1500 acres north of 225th from east to west across the Township, or acreage along Dodd, or along Cedar, or south and near Jacquard Avenue when/if extended by Lakeville into the Township, or along the railroad tracks from Lakeville south to 240th St. W. are all being considered as possibilities.

It has been said at the group that land will not be zoned C/I unless and until the landowner asks for that change. The first question that pops into my mind upon hearing that is how does the Township deal with the issue of spot zoning. Spot zoning, as you may know, is not permitted. Uses should be together and buffers next to adjoining uses are needed to separate the uses and mitigate negative effects.

It has also been stated that the only C/I use that can abut residentially used land is neighborhood commercial. And that commercial buildings may not be any closer to a residence than 250', similar to agricultural buildings now.

The uses would "step" thru the four categories of intensity according to the "plan." In other words, the uses wouldn't go from a machine welding shop to a residence right next door. Or from a lumberyard right next to a doctor's office. These juxtapositions are missing a level of intensity in between them and thus are not "stepped." How much and where area is taken for each level of use is open to question in my mind. These are all topics being discussed.

Butch Hansen has indicated that he thinks sewer and water would still be desirable for any of these uses. He is of the opinion that a proposal has never been formally submitted to the Met Council. Well, that is probably correct insofar as the Met Council representatives (including the gentleman in charge of sewer issues) who attended the March 29, 2016, joint Planning Commission and Town Board meeting have told us what is necessary before they would even consider such a proposal. This meeting centered to some extent around the airport annexation possibility, but touches on sewer and water as well. FIND MINUTES HERE. Since these requirements were never addressed, there could be no formal submission to request sewer and water.

The Council representatives have also submitted details to the Township as to what such a request would require. You may have heard some talk of 1,000 acres set aside for much higher density housing (possibly 3/acre) and other uses and NOT just commercial/industrial. In other words, the government unit requesting sewer and water hookup is proposing making a definite move toward urbanization. Of course, the Met Council, which has Eureka as agricultural and without urban services until some time after 2040, can always turn down a community's request. They just won't even start to consider it until the acreage location, along with sewer plans, etc., have been submitted, which hasn't happened yet. A "sort-of" attempt was made a year or so ago, while Hansen was pushing for it, but the Met Council indicated that what was submitted was insufficient and the forms were not even filled out entirely--as I remember it.

"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.