Posted 10/18/00
Concern about Springvale zoning draws crowd to public hearing
By Greg Hunt
An interesting debate is brewing in Springvale Township between some residents and the Town Board regarding the implementation of its own zoning ordinances. The residents had their chance to speak about the townships newly-penned Comprehensive Plan at a public hearing on Oct. 10.
- Background on the Springvale land control debate: Late in 1997 and in the beginning of 1998, the Springvale Township Board, which at that time was comprised of Burt Coleman, Richard Coleman and William Friedland, began researching the process for drawing up the Township's own comprehensive plan and land ordinances after a group brought up subdividing concerns at the June '97 meeting. At the heart of this direction was instituting a one residence per 40-acre parcel policy that would
restrict growth and preserve agricultural land in the township. The referendum, stated "Shall the Town Board put a Planning and Zoning Board in place for the purpose of controlling residential density in Springvale Township?" was on the ballot for the March 10, 1998 election and was passed by the voters through a 44-29 vote.
After counseling with North Branch lawyer Barry Bloomquist, the Town Board posted its interim ordinance in April '98 prohibiting the splitting of 40-acre parcels. While the Isanti County Zoning Ordinances allows a two-per-40-acre split in rural areas, townships can implement their own ordinances if they are more restrictive than the county's.
The Town Board had itself named as the Planning and Zoning Board until the present three-person boardñmade up of Tammy
Smith, Paul Edstrom and Loren
Lindbergñwas appointed in August '98. Smith was appointed for a one-year term, Lindberg a two-year term and Edstrom a three-year term. This group has been delegated the responsibility of drawing up the Township's Comprehensive Plan and the permanent ordinances, which they say should be completed in November or December of this year.
In March 1999, Roger McNear replaced Richard Coleman on the Town Board, with Coleman opting to not run again for his seat.
Prior to the referendum and since its passing, however, some Springvale residents have voiced their displeasure with the thought of the township operating its own Planning and Zoning Board and ordinances, and for the 1-per-40-acre restriction.
At the July 5, 2000 Town Board meeting, resident Gordon Hillstad presented a petition with 225 signatures saying the undersigned "do not wish to have separate zoning and subdivision for the Town of Springvale."
"I presented the petition, but the board just sat thereñno response," relayed Hillstad two weeks ago. "And this is typical of the curt replies we usually get from them. Back in May of '98 when I first brought up that I thought the original referendum was not publicized enough and questioned them about the interim ordinance which came out before the Planning and Zoning Board was even in place I was told, ëIt was legal; if you don't like it, move.'"
"My main concern is that the county has all of the zoning covered in its Comprehensive Plan and ordinances, and it's a good plan," said Springvale resident Peter Clay. "But the Board is not really listening to the people, and they don't conduct a well-rounded meeting."
A public hearing was called for Oct. 10 as the residents were allowed to react to the Springvale Comprehensive Plan.
- The Oct. 10 Public Hearing on the Springvale Comprehensive Plan: It was a packed Springvale Township Hall on Tuesday evening with a standing-room only crowd which spilled out to the entry when residents met to hear the reading of the Comprehensive Plan. At the start the two town board members present, Coleman and Friedland, turned the meeting over to the Planning & Zoning Board members. After a read-through of the six-page Comprehensive Plan, residents who wished to speak were asked to sign up on sheets stating whether they were for or against the plan. Of the 16 who spoke during the formal speaking period, 14 were opposed.
Peter Clay, the first to speak, raised objections that the Board did not have sufficient or accurate support for the Comprehensive Plan. Attacking the Plan's statements that the Springvale area was under the attack of an increased growth rate, Clay pointed out the decreasing pattern of building permits requested over the period of 1989-99. From 13 residential building requests in '89, the number topped out in 1995 at 20, dropped to 14 in '96 and eight in '97, with 10 requested in '99.
"We have a good alternative to this Comprehensive Plan, and that is Isanti County's Comprehensive Plan," said Clay.
Clay, Laura Brandenburg, Gordon Hillstad and Tom Biggins all brought up concerns about how they felt the P & Z Board misrepresented the findings of their June survey in the Comprehensive Plan. In the "Community Vision and Values" section of the Plan, it was stated that through the survey "More people preferred the Interim Ordinance restriction than those wanting no ordinance." However, pointed out the above residents, in the six-question survey, none of the questions directly asked whether or not the interim ordinance was supported. Adding up the "comments" section of the survey results, said Brandenburg, there were 487 negative comments to the ordinance and 114 positive comments.
Hillstad also pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan offers conflicting statements regarding the amount of agricultural land in the township, which is central to the Town Board's argument for maintaining not splitting 40-acre parcels. In the "Growth Management Strategy" section, the Plan states, "that Springvale is primarily an agricultural community with residential growth pressure from the Twin Cities." But in the "Existing Land Use" section, it stated only "28% is registered crop land according to the USDA." Hillstad also told the audience that the ordinances supported by the Comprehensive Plan was already in place (April '98) before the Planning & Zoning Board was in place (Aug. '98). "The Town Board already had the ordinance completed, then they asked for input. There were no public forums held on the subject at all," said Hillstad.
Biggins and his sister, Wendy Johnson, spoke of the trouble they had with the Springvale P & Z when Biggins requested to purchase land from his parents which would have involved splitting two 40-acre sections. "Do we want Barry Bloomquist and the Board to tell us what we can do? Is that right to limit our parents' opportunity to sell their land, even to their own son?" asked Johnson.
Also, asked Biggins, why was the survey sent only to those residing in Springvale Township and not to all owners of acreage in the township?
Lester Fluth wanted to know how much township funds have been put into the plan and how much will it cost to operate the ordinances each year. "I really see very little accomplished from it," he added.
Two proponents of the ordinance who spoke were Jack Durham and Michelle Kleven. Durham said he would rather see control of land density at the local level instead of the county's Planning Commission.
"I would rather have our own viewpoint instead of someone living in town who doesn't have a clue where we live. We need to look at the plan further and make some arrangements," said Durham. He later pointed out that the March '98 referendum was talked about at Town Board meetings and was listed in the legal section of the paper, pointing out that residents failed in their civic duty to keep themselves abreast of what was happening with their local government.
Kleven, who also owns 40 acres near East Bethel, said she moved to the Springvale area to get away from all the growth that is swallowing up that area, from golf courses to too many houses to rising taxes. "I would like to see us hold up a value for wildlife and a protection of the land. I was brought up to preserve the natural areas we have. What we lose with more development is worth more than the dollars gained," she said.
Glen Lood told the audience he attended a Town Board meeting when the initial discussions were underway, and through his father's involvement when Isanti County was first starting its Comprehensive Plan, advised the Board, "Don't do it. It's too expensive and you don't know what you are doing." He went on to say, "This Comprehensive Plan is nothing more than ecological drivel. What we need to do now is reject this plan as a township, and go to the County. We can't do this locally; we can't afford it."
Nancy Godeen followed Lood by stating, "This Comprehensive Plan is an insult to all of us. It gives us no credit to how we already support the wildlife in this area. It takes away our basic rights, and I feel really insulted by all of this."
Roger Selin, Eddie Main, Mary Anderson and Mike Warren added comments on how they were disgusted with how the interim ordinance takes away landowners' control of their investment.
The P & Z Board took a few questions, but when things began to heat up a bit more and with at least two more hands raised, the P & Z Board adjourned the meeting.
- Board responses:
An interview meeting with the three Town Board members was attempted to be coordinated later last week but fell through when McNear's schedule was full. Friedland was reached by phone on Oct. 16, but Coleman was not available that evening.
"My take from the Public Hearing was that most people there did not want zoning," said Friedland. "We (the Board) still have to hold our final vote on the Comprehensive Plan and permanent ordinances and see how it comes out in the wash over the next few meetings." Friedland added that the board may be looking at another March vote to see who wants the 1-per-40 restriction.
Smith, who was the moderator at the Oct. 10 forum, was confident the Planning and Zoning board is still going in the right direction.
"I was fairly happy about the turnout. Even though most of the comments that came out were against the Comprehensive Plan, it was still a small amount of people that responded, not enough to overturn the process," she said. "And generally, people who agree with what is being presented don't speak up. I've had many people call me and, regarding the Planning and Zoning Board, tell me ëKeep up the good work.'"
"We had the Public Hearing to gather more visions of what the township should look like, but we really didn't receive any other visions that night," Smith continued. "Some of the speakers spoke about misconceptions. Regarding some of the statistics in the Comprehensive Plan, we used statistics from the Minnesota Bureau of Statistics for the plan. As far as the response to the survey, we had no reason to put in a question about whether or not a person favored having a Planning and Zoning Board or the township's own ordinances because that was already decided in our March 1998 vote. It was time to move on to the next step, and the survey was designed to gather more visions of what people want for the township."
As far as the July petition to the Town Board, Smith said she was told the petition was hung in EC's Express and that non-Springvale residents had signed it, lessening its impact.
Smith went on to say she was pleased with how the Town Board selected the P & Z members to represent three different regions of the township, and how they were assigned because they had similar ideas to how the referendum vote came out. "I did this (volunteered for the P & Z) to be involved in the process, and it's been a learning experience for me. The way I see it, most who want to subdivide their land want to move, and the ones who support 1-per-40 plan on living here."
- The next Springvale Planning and Zoning meeting will be held at 7 p.m. on Oct. 24, and the next Springvale Town Board will be held 7 p.m. on Nov. 1, both at the Springvale Town Hall.