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.

WHO'S MINDING THE STORE?

 At the Town Board regular meeting on May 28, a citizen, who I believe lives in the southernmost part of Eureka, spoke during the public comment period. She stated that her family has been having a hard time keeping the farmland that has been in her family for some time. Her suggestion to alleviate their difficulties was for the Board to increase housing density and to allow commercial uses. She expressed that this would allow her family to be able to farm the land together. She suggested ten-acre lots and rural residential zones as the solution and passed out some language on that topic to the Board. More on that below.

Sheriff's deputies once again urged citizens to call 911 if they have any concerns. Deputy Puls emphasized that one is not "wasting the deputies' time" to do so. That's their job and what they are here for. A new hire was accompanying the  veteran deputy. Thank you, Sheriff's Office!

Apparently someone is pulling traffic signs out of the ground in Eureka Estates and leaving them in the ditch. Every time this happens, these important safety signs must be replaced ASAP at another cost to the Township. 

The Road Committee has had one response from a potential new member and one response from a member willing to continue. The Clerk stated she will send out the request again.

The matter of the Mining Superintendent came up. Currently, Dr. Carrie Jennings, an experienced geologist in these matters, has been hired the last two gravel seasons to provide knowledgeable oversight. The cost is a "pass through" for the mines, who have agreed to pay the fee.

Supervisor Novacek read portions of the Ordinance that references the mining superintendent position. However, he stated he sees no mention of a requirement to have such a person working with the mines to ensure their compliance with the conditions on their use. Novacek promoted eliminating the position, and even went so far as to declare that he is against the mines paying for this; instead it should be a Township cost (paid for by taxpayers). !!! Note again that all mines have said they are okay with paying for Dr. Jennings' oversight. I believe it works in their best interests as part of our community getting along with the rest of the community to do this. The cost is certainly minimal compared to profits.

Supervisor Barfknecht raised the issue that a qualified person needs to review this sort of use. There have been problems over time with some of the uses, and the Board/Commission aren't really qualified to provide this technical oversight. 

I might add that the Township Engineer would be qualified to do Dr. Jennings' job, but at twice the cost. Mining's neighbors have expressed their concerns with mining practices vs IUP conditions and Ordinance language over several years -even recently.

Supervisor Storlie stated he questioned "the gaps" in how we got here (to have a mining superintendent position). He stated other agencies monitor the mines. He asked if we are saying as a township that we are "too stupid" to know what we are doing, so we hired someone.

At an earlier meeting, Supervisor Storlie admitted he hadn't "been at a Board meeting in ten years." So what does he know about recent problems with the mines, I wonder?

He also seems to gloss over the fact that THE TOWNSHIP is the entity issuing IUPs for gravel mining (CUPs formerly). As such, Eureka places conditions on such permits to mitigate any negative impacts. Another agency does not inspect for the mines' compliance with OUR conditions.

In fact, in the past when Storlie and I were in office together, I explained to him at a public meeting that the reason there even ARE CUPs and IUPs is to allow the Township to place conditions to mitigate any negative impacts for these particular uses. He demanded, "WHAT 'negative impacts', Nancy??" I don't think I would have to explain negative impacts to the citizens complaining about the mines over the past several years. Perhaps there is something to be said about keeping up with Township issues...

At this point, Supervisor Novacek stated he thinks the Board should get rid of CUP reviews as they exist now. Start there and then move on to mining reviews, he said. HE forgets such reviews are a condition themselves to ensure that the other conditions of the CUP are being met. Citizens with complaints against CUPs can complain at any time, but having the reviews gives a formal opportunity before the Board at its meeting to bring up problems affecting neighbors. Supervisor Storlie even said that he saw "no value" in the two CUP reviews that occurred earlier in this same meeting; that it boiled down to just an opportunity to "say hi." I would argue that the fact that there were no problems makes those reviews a success! Do he and Novacek need to be reminded that this hasn't always been the case by any means?

Supervisor Storlie then raised the fact that Dr. Jennings lives in the Township. He mentioned that it has been brought up by some in the past that no one who lives in the Township should ever be hired for any Township job. 

1. This was a non-binding recommendation to the Board from some citizens many years ago at an Annual Meeting. 

2. Whether followed or not, this recommendation has not been encoded, and I don't believe it was ever even written up as a Board policy. Storlie recommended this be done now. The question was raised as to what "the true purpose of this position" really is. ???

3. Under State Statute there actually is a provision for this very thing to happen under certain requirements. The Township has even hired residents (a Board Supervisor, no less) involved with road work under this statute not very long ago! It wasn't a problem then...

Getting back to the issue raised during public comment, the Board discussed wanting to increase housing density, allow commercial uses, allow extended home businesses and to allow agritourism. In the interest of your time, I will have to revisit this topic for more details, but let me now minimally say that NO ONE raised the issue that, since we are zoned agriculture, that level of development necessitates a one per 40 (or in our case one per quarter-quarter) housing density. The whole idea from the Metropolitan Council's perspective is holding the area open for future development, including sewer and water. Sewer and water is economically feasible only with a much higher density than even one residence per two acres, much less ten.

I have it on good authority that Eureka has 380-400 unused housing rights as it stands now, so what is the push for more density?

Increasing housing density MUST go before the Met Council and would necessitate a change in the Comprehensive Plan. The Council was surprised at one point in the past that Eureka, with grandfathered lots, has much more housing eligibility than they had thought. What are the odds that they will okay an increase in density before sewer and water and with all those unused housing rights?

Who IS minding the store?

BRRRRRRRRRRRR!

Several former Eureka Supervisors and Commissioners attended the last meeting of the Board on April 23rd. As a citizen in the audience, I again found the atmosphere significantly chilled.

Under the Open Meeting Law, the public has the right to observe and listen to all discussion and any decision making. This is unlike a public hearing when the public has a right to speak. Every Board and Commission during my 20 years' experience of being very much involved in Township meetings of all kinds has known this. However, the practice has always been to allow the public to ask questions and have opportunity for input, even outside of the public comment period of Board meetings.

I believe this was the practice in the spirit of transparency and even a sort of respectful neighborliness in our small community. Yes, it doesn't have to be allowed, but the Board always has the option to allow it. At times, the Chair of either body would ask if the entire body were open to calling on audience members with their hands raised. I do not recall an instance where this was denied. I believe those audience members appreciated the chance to speak. It seemed the right thing to do. Even with a thorough explanation of how not allowing comment is actually within officials' ability would have surely left a disgruntled citizenry.

Now under Chair Storlie's term the practice has been abruptly changed to a very definite "no" to giving opportunity for input outside of three minutes of public comment. Even from experienced people who would have something informative to offer. Again, let me stress that I understand this is within the Board's authority under the law. Unfortunately, this has recently resulted in a trend to what are to me several troubling decisions or near-decisions.

In an unprecedented move, this Board made the Clerk the primary liaison for most of the entities for which supervisors have always volunteered to be the primary or secondary contact, such as the Building Inspector, fire contractors, or the Sheriff. What was the motivation for this change? To limit your elected officials' workload? To increase that for the already very busy Clerk? 

When the matter of liaison to the North Cannon River Watershed Management Organization (NCRWMO) came up, everyone shied away from that commitment. Storlie said the Clerk could do that. I stated, "I know you don't want me to speak, Mr. Chair, but if Liz is to be the liaison for that, SHE has to go to the meetings and vote." Storlie basically ignored my comment. I'm not sure if a non-elected clerk can even fulfill this role for the citizens. Without a liaison present at those meetings, Eureka has NO representation and no say in how that watershed is managed. Perhaps there is a failure of understanding what a WMO actually is. 

Supervisor Pope moved that all recordings of meetings be kept for 20 years. This is the latest of his multiple attempts to do so. He was already informed several times by Supervisor Barfknecht and Yours Truly on the former Board that the Minnesota Association of Townships (MAT) has specifically recommended that boards do NOT do this. Those recordings have been available for citizens to request any copies they are interested in up until the written minutes, the actual official record for meetings, are approved. At that point, the recommendation is to erase the recording itself. This what the Township has done. (As a supervisor, Pope could himself request such a copy for every meeting during his term without charge.) It's possible that this changed practice could leave the Township open to lawsuits. No matter, the Board approved his motion.

At this juncture, I could have informed the Board to check into a required filing of an amended retention schedule with the Secretary of State's office. I remember then-Supervisor Cory Behrendt bringing this to the Board's attention in the past after he went to a MAT training. In the current chilled atmosphere, I opted to send an email to the Clerk. We'll see what happens. Maybe.

Another example is Supervisor Ceminsky's suggesting that citizen complaints be limited to those living within 1,000 feet of the "offending" property. No one else would have any business complaining about a property clearly in violation of our Ordinances such as a junkyard unless one were close by. He said he thought he remembered that this used to be in the Citizen Complaint Policy. He admitted it has been "a long time," but that was his asserted belief. I could have informed the Board that this has never been the case. There is a requirement to notify property owners within 1,000 feet of a property applying for a Conditional Use Permit or an Interim Use Permit. Perhaps Supervisor Ceminsky confused this. Having already been shut down in recent meetings, I did not attempt to correct his statement.

Thankfully, Supervisor Barfknecht argued that Eureka is everyone's community and as such every citizen has an interest in the Ordinances being enforced. One may not live next to the junkyard, but perhaps drives past it frequently. Perhaps limiting the citizenry's ability to file complaints results in more junkyards. Interesting that Supervisor Ceminsky has to be tutored in this. Thankfully, due to Supervisor Barfknecht's logic this was averted.

During the Roads portion of the agenda, Supervisor Ceminsky proposed adding eight additional road projects to the tune of over $100,000. There is a law regulating the spending of taxpayer money. This law stipulates that anything reaching $175,000 requires a sealed bid and not a quote. Without getting into the weeds, this limits a board to accepting the "lowest responsible bidder," not a discretionary choice of anyone submitting a quote. His proposal would push the dollar amount for gravel for this year into the sealed bid category as it would have totaled more than $200,000. 

When Supervisor Barfknecht raised this point (The former Board has just recently been through this very issue.) Ceminsky said, well, this addition was "not known" then, so it should be okay because his proposal by itself was under the triggering amount. This ignores the fact that the plan for proposed road projects for the year is discussed before looking for gravel providers. It also ignores the fact that the proposed 2024 projects were the result of the Road Committee's work with Board approval. Ceminsky has stated that this committee is a vauable one, yet he doesn't seem to be aware of the facts of the situation. I believe that the correct process would be to suggest these road projects for the following year as Ceminsky was not in office at the time the 2024 projects were proposed. Barfknecht asked that the attorney be questioned about this. HOW the question is put to him could very well influence his answer. 

Thanks for hanging in there this long. I believe this is just the beginning. Look for more updates from the igloo.

DIVERSITY OF OPINION ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION?

 

At its special meeting on April 9th, the Town Board interviewed five applicants for two openings on the Planning Commission: Debbie Burkhardt, Melanie Storlie, Bill Roske, Brian Storlie, and Dan Heyda.

During the interviews, Supervisor Tim Pope repeatedly said he had no questions of the applicants, although he said he enjoyed reading their applications. 

Supervisor Allen Novacek asked each applicant what he billed as "a loaded question:" Does a Planning Commissioner work for the Town Board or for the residents? In each case he stated that the obvious answer was "both," but since he was already telling the applicants that, he said he was looking for something else. 

Based on his public comments in previous meetings, in my opinion he was looking for the answer that the Commission works for the Board and should work (only) at its direction. Now, it is true that the Board appoints the Commission, but the Commission has several goals and responsibilities under the Ordinances. It must maintain the Comprehensive Plan, review applications for zoning compliance, and hold public hearings, for example. It can also, on its own, suggest text amendments to the Ordinances. It can take on many subjects it believes to be of importance for the Township. Ultimately, their work is submitted to the Board for approval, but the Planning Commission has historically taken on a lot of work for Eureka citizens.

Supervisor Novacek has stated several times in public that the Commission works for the Board. He has appeared not to appreciate any initiative taken by the Commission such as reducing speed limits in rural residential districts, which the Township is clearly authorized to do under State statute. He and Supervisor Pope fought this whole idea of reasonable speed limits in the denser areas multiple times. The Board majority at the time, however, supported the Commission's effort. 

In fact, this reduction in the speed limit was done some years ago in the past on a portion of Highview Avenue when there is sufficiently dense residential use. As I remember it as a supervisor at the time, the citizens in that district were in favor of the initiative.

The Commission under the leadership of Chair Bill Clancy is to be commended for the job it has done. I do believe they saw themselves as working for your benefit, and they saw themselves as an independent body, which they are. Yes, their recommendations are advisory, not dispositive, but the Commission can play a vital part in your Town government.

Commissioner Burkhardt did an excellent job on the Commission. Yours truly witnessed her in action meeting after meeting. She was fair-minded, thoughtful and always did her "homework" and research. She worked diligently. However, she was passed over for other applicants. Not only that, the Board did not even thank her for her three years of service after they appointed others.

Melanie Storlie and Brian Storlie have been appointed apparently by Supervisors Storlie, Novacek, Ceminsky, and Pope. I say apparently as the vote is a paper ballot counted by the Clerk. There was one vote for Bill Roske and one vote for Debbie Burkhardt for the two positions. On the very first ballot cast, all of the other four votes went to Storlie and Storlie.