IT FELL ON DEAF EARS

 The public hearing last evening saw 12 different people going on the record on the proposed elimination of first class mail notification of changes in zoning and mining uses. 

No one on Zoom was allowed to testify. Apparently, Ceminsky’s decision. This is an unfortunate turn of policy under this Board’s tenure. Why shouldn’t someone who can’t attend in person be able to weigh in on subjects that affect them? CONTROL?

Also, evidently a deadline of noon that day was put on any written comments submitted. That is a deadline without a purpose, except perhaps making it difficult for citizens to be heard. My opinion. One former Commissioner and Supervisor actually had to drive to Town Hall after submitting his comments after noon and being told that wouldn’t work, and he couldn’t testify on Zoom either. Why?

After each testimony, Mark Ceminsky, filling in for absent Pete Storlie, said, “ Thank you, Zelda” in a tone that one might almost mistake for sincerity, if one hadn’t sat through this farce before. Butter wouldn’t melt. Again, my opinion. 

Only Lu Barfknecht weighed in favoring continuing mail notification. Al Novacek said he “has struggled” with this on grounds of transparency. But when push came to shove, he opted to discontinue notifying you by mail. So much for “transparency”. Ceminsky’s motion to change the ordinance was approved 3-1.

THANK YOU to all those taking the opportunity to weigh in. NOT ONE citizen supported the change. Did that make any difference to the majority of the Board? No!

Nor did they give any substantive reason for supporting the change. No real rationale. It was a knee-jerk response to having been caught out on the subject during the agritourism hearing, I believe. This was pointed out by others to no avail. 

If you are not on the News and Notices email list, send your email and request for notification to the Clerk ASAP. That option is provided you by law and may be the only way you can stay on top of things. 

Many citizens also mentioned the ongoing effort to rezone landowners’ properties to commercial/industrial. Only Commissioner Brian Storlie asked at a PC meeting why they are spending all this time and effort (and taxpayer money) on this rezoning when many affected landowners are AGAINST it?

GOOD QUESTION. 

REMINDER AND AN INVITATION

This Tuesday, September 10, at 6:30, is the public hearing regarding the Township notifying all citizens by first class mail of any proposed changes to the zoning and mining Ordinances. While it is true that some changes to zoning, for example, may be quite minor, others can be far-reaching and affect the entire Township. Under current law outside of Ordinance 57.2, the Township is required to place such notice in the official newspapers (which are not read by many in today's times) and posting the notice on the outside bulletin board at Town Hall (necessitating checks to see if anything has been posted).

The Board seeks to do away with such notice by first class mail outside of newspapers n bulletin board. They want to change Ordinance 57.2 to eliminate mailed notice to you. 

To alert citizens of such changes is a relatively minor cost in our large budget and would go a long way toward transparency, not to mention any trust one might have in the current officials. Currently, the Planning Commission and the Town Board are looking to rezone ag property as various levels of Commercial/Industrial use. Many of those landowners affected by this do NOT want their property rezoned. Yet the Board doesn't seem to care and has pushed aside any suggestions that they start with the landowners affected, asking for their input up front be4fore spending t5ime and money pursuing this. Then there are the others who would live much closer to such development if the rezoning goes into effect even if their property itself is not rezoned.

You can attend the Public Hearing in person, via Zoom. You can also send your comments to the Town Clerk via email at clerk@eurekatownship-mn.us and ask that your comments be read into the record.

Below are two such comments already sent to the Clerk:

ONE

9/10/2024 Hearing re: Ordinance 57 Notifications

 My name is Jeff Otto. I reside at 25580 Dodd Blvd.

The Zoning Ordinance 240 and Mining Ordinance 165 have the greatest and most wide-spread impact on all the residents and property owners in Eureka Township because traffic and visual impacts may occur far beyond the immediately surrounding neighbors.  It is for that very reason these two Ordinances were specifically identified to require full direct communication to ALL property owners of record at the time of any proposed amendments to them.

There was a long period in history when an official newspaper was the only mass media and so was widely read. That clearly is no longer the case with the result that newspapers no longer assure wide audiences and even less-so with non-resident property owners.

Both of the Ordinances should have had the direct mailing requirement within them.  Now the current Town Board is using the technicality of the requirement being in a separate Ordinance 57 to change the requirement to reduce the visibility and potential greater resistance to zoning changes this Board is advocating. There also could be more support. This is a significant change to the Zoning and Mining ordinance amendment processes, so why was there not proper full notification for this proposed change?  Technicality trumps transparency.

There is growing evidence of this motivation to reduce transparency by the actions and inactions of the Board and its directives to the Planning Commission.  The decades long friendly culture of allowing input in public meetings from residents known to have valued experience as well as concerns about certain agenda subjects has been blocked. The alternative of knowledgeable written input has been completely ignored  to the detriment of residents and property owners.  Board and Planning Commission actions directly violating clear Ordinance language have occurred in spite of such violations being pointed out, in one case in writing in addition to verbal. Recent Planning Commission resignations are also evidence of frustration with this Board’s actions.

Again a Town Attorney has unfortunately given incorrect advice based on a general State statute instead of reviewing actual Eureka Town Ordinance. The recent example was on hearing notification of a zoning change. No person or Town official or Town body may arbitrarily override written Ordinance.   Ordinance language may only be amended by proper procedure.

So now the Board is suddenly pursuing clean-up duty on Ordinance 57.  Why would this be done now if they hadn’t recognized that the process of advancing the Tourism Ordinance amendment was handled improperly?  Even the applicant commented that the 2014 amendment proposal should be reviewed, but neither that nor the improper hearing notification was reported by the PC to the Board. Two Board members were present at the “open house” (since it wasn’t a proper hearing)  and neither of them reported either of those two significant points.

This is another example of hiding behind broad State language designed to enable local government units to then tailor more specific limits important to their circumstances.  This includes counties and municipalities as well as townships. To not understand this distinction is to impose local ordinances far too wide-open to follow individual Comprehensive Plans.

A reasonable compromise on the “first class mail” requirement is a less expensive postcard mailing. Surely a few hundred dollars in postage once a year or less often can be managed in a nearly half-million-dollar budget for the sake of true transparency. Eureka has been spending far more than that by continuing to use the company named “General Code” to “review” amendments, an over-rated service no longer needed in our township and used by only 4 other local governments in the entire State of Minnesota.

 Thank you.

 

TWO

Sent from Yours Truly:

Please read my comments into the record. 

Nancy Sauber, 9445 225th St W, Lakeville

I believe the Township should notify citizens by mail when there is a proposed Township-wide zoning or mining amendment of significance. 

Changing a minor detail in the zoning ordinance is one thing, but considering commercial zoning as is now going on merits such notification of all citizens. 

This sort of zoning change affects people’s property values, use of their land in the here-and-now (not just for the future as has been professed), taxes, quality of life, and so on. These are weighty matters and the public should be given full disclosure of such very substantive major changes. A transparent government FOR the people would do that. 

I ask you to be such a government. 

LET YOUR BOARD HEAR FROM YOU.

• 

The following was sent from Jeff Otto to Amy Liberty, Deputy Clerk/Treasurer, who works with the Planning Commission.  In spite of his honest effort to be of assistance based on lots of experience on this topic, there was no response of any kind received.

Of additional note is the attachment Jeff sent regarding Lakeville annexations of Eureka properties. I was in attendance at that PC meeting. Chair Melanie Storlie was unclear on exactly what properties have been annexed and asked Amy Liberty if there was a map. The Deputy Clerk replied she did not have one. Apparently, Mr. Otto had no difficulty in procuring one.

From: ottojs@frontiernet.net <ottojs@frontiernet.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2024 12:12 PM
To: 'Eureka Township Deputy Clerk' <deputyclerk@eurekatownship-mn.us>
Subject: PC Zoning Study

Hi Amy,

Please share with all PC members.  Note attached 2023 map and legend from Lakeville showing Eureka properties that have been annexed.

The population of Eureka is approximately 1600 with about 900 of voting age, not all owners live in the township.

You all would be better served and save time by first having a detailed discussion with the Met Council representative assigned to the townships of Dakota County to understand the change thresholds that would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. This includes the plan detail requirements (sewer, water, road infrastructure) for such an amendment.  You are likely to get up-front information of some aspects the Met Council may not consider since they have at least four times that I am aware of over the past 18 years indicated that they do not want Eureka to increase density or change zoning until 2040.  Two major reasons for this is still available housing rights and the concern to protect gravel resources for the metropolitan area.  They do not want to repeat the mistake of allowing major gravel resources in Apple Valley area to be lost to massive development of all types covering them.

For many years the Met Council rep assigned to Eureka was Mr. Patrick Boylan.  I don’t know if he still is. One general point I remember is if they would allow us to do anything significant, they required a “sustainable development plan” of at least 1000 acres that includes details for adequate services for sewer, water, and roads. Multiple zoning categories, for example,  encourage high density housing to be within walking distance of neighborhood services such as drug store and groceries.  If anything requirements may be more stringent now, but I don’t know. This is why a fresh dialog is essential.

Lake Elmo was sued by the Met Council about 25 years ago for not having a Comprehensive Plan that the State-authorized Met Council approved.  Lake Elmo spent $200,000 in legal fees ($400,000 in today’s dollars) fighting and was forced to change half their zoning area to match the Council’s oversight directive.

Even in 2006 when I made my first (of 3) thorough study of Eureka properties and cataloged them in a computer database, our Council representative was shocked that Eureka had 80% more housing rights than they had assumed from our common “Agriculture” zoning of 1 house per quarter-quarter section of the Public Land Survey system. Zoning in Minnesota (and most states) is derived from the survey grid done when becoming a territory. Incorporation into a municipality authorizes much more flexibility for area zoning with many zoning categories to enable very high density development with thoughtful buffering from high-impact development to less intrusive. Lakeville is a good example and obviously Minneapolis is a classic big city.

While it can be more convenient to describe township zoning by acreage, it is misleading and can result in poor land use choices such as thinking going to 10-acre lot sizes is a good idea (which is properly described as 4 houses per quarter-quarter section, known as “Rural Residential”).  Actual 10-acre minimum size is one of the worst choices for the long term for reasons too lengthy to describe here and clearly contradicts goal of critical preservation of ag land.  This also would automatically make 104 currently buildable lots (between 2 and 10 acres in size) fall into the Grandfathered protection category (by State law), meaning they would still be buildable but then those owners would have to go through the process of obtaining County property record documents to prove grandfather status before being allowed to apply for a Eureka building permit. We already have about 180 housing rights in this category that must be accurately tracked as used or transferred.

ALL property owners should of course receive a postcard (doesn’t have to be more expensive letter) for a MAJOR ZONING CHANGE survey and open house describing both and response deadline, encouraging use of web survey (with website and link highlighted on postcard) with option to instead get paper copy from town hall or by mail if desired. Besides some owners not using computer communication, there are also some property owners located outside the area or out of state.    

To cherry pick who you think should be informed and trust word of mouth on something of this wide potential impact is to invite a significant lawsuit. Hiding behind simple legal publication requirement will not sit well with public when some discover too late what may be allowed next to them. Transparency.

A proper survey must have unique ID  traced to owner name whether via web or paper (not PID since there are many owners with more than one property) to avoid ballot stuffing. I guarantee some will want to do it because I witnessed it at a previous open house when people could place stars on images.  A couple people took a full page of stick-ons and used them all on only a couple options as in NO-NO-NO.

Attached is the southern portion of the July 2023 Lakeville Zoning Map showing Eureka and airport land now part of Lakeville.  Starting with the airport in the right center, next east is 97-acre Hat Trick property taken about 2009 (my Board era), then the recent Adelman property and about the same time to the far left is the group of parcels on the west side of Dodd.  The legend image is the entire list of zoning colors and classes for all of Lakeville.

Using the same zoning class names as Lakeville where the definition may fit could be a benefit to a potential buyer. Does anyone really think the Lakeville professional planner is too dumb to see parallels in descriptions that might be used here?

By the way, it is understood that a major negotiating mistake with the 1973 plat proposal to establish the 75 lots of Eureka Estates was to not include the cost of paving 240^th Street from Dodd to the Eureka Estates entrances in the developer’s cost plan. Eureka taxpayers have instead been paying for higher gravel road maintenance for 50 years and counting. 

Jeff Otto

Town Board 2007-2010, twice Chair and attorney liaison

Member or Chair of several zoning-related task forces and Zoning Ordinance amendments

 

 

MY LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNRESPONSIVE ?????

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

WHAT RESPONSE DID I RECEIVE?

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

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

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

THE MAP

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

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

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

The blue line is "General Commercial."

The yellow line is "Neighborhood Commercial."

The orange line is "High Density Housing."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe the time for your involvement is now.

I WISH IT WEREN'T TRUE...

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

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

                                                         

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

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

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

Back to the meeting.

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

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

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

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

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

STAY TUNED.