Comprehensive Plan Threat to Destroy 369 Unused Housing Rights of 200 Property Owners in Eureka

 

This topic involves how few new houses would be allowed in Eureka under the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and why Housing Rights matter.

Neither the Board, the Planning Commission, or planning consultant Nate Sparks presented any data detail to understand the massive impact of their over-simplistic “clarification” statement in the Comp Plan amendment.

Without knowing how many houses already existed in Eureka or how many housing rights may still be legally available, the Board changed the terminology to a simple planning term of houses per acreage, with “1 per 40” as a baseline.  One of the problems is that this does not directly correlate with the Public Land Survey system on which all property surveys are based.

 The Amendment language further asserted: “In no case will the average density of the Township exceed one dwelling unit per 40 acres.”  This is the wording that destroys 369 of the 374 currently unused housing rights.

Mr. Sparks asserted that this was a requirement of the Met Council across all agriculturally zoned townships.  This is clearly false as shown in a table in the approved Eureka Comp Plans of both 2018 and 2008 that recognized potential housing counts far above this simplistic number. The estimated numbers for Eureka in fact were provided by me from my database in 2006. There are State guidelines, driven by a Minnesota Supreme Court case, protecting usage rights of landowners from overreach by a zoning authority to significantly reduce those rights. This is referred to as grandfathered protection of rights.

Another sentence asserts that “1 per 40 zoning” is necessary to allow participation in the Agricultural Preserves program. This is incorrect and has never been true. The program as defined in Minnesota Statutes and administered by the Department of Agriculture specifies that the owner’s actual acreage in the program cannot exceed 1 house per 40 acres in the program. The program has no control over acreage, zoning, or development not in the program. An owner also may have four 10-acre properties in four different quarter-quarter Sections and may participate in the program if all four properties are farmed together as a unit.

Current Eureka zoning permits transfers to allow up to a combined total of 4 houses and Housing Rights in a quarter-quarter Section. As long as no actual houses exist in the specific program acreage above the 1 per 40 formula, its Ag Preserve restriction is met.

Housing Right Transfer capability is an unusual zoning feature that evolved from the April 12, 1982, Ordinance Amendment that established Agricultural Zoning across the Township. Such zoning allows only one “single family dwelling” (house) on a quarter-quarter Section of the Public Land Survey system used in the United States. This was done due to concerns of more high-density developments like Eureka Estates (platted in 1973) swallowing up more good farmland, increasing traffic, and changing the character and beauty of our rural setting. Existing houses at a higher density were of course recognized and allowed. One of the quarter-quarter Sections within Eureka Estates, for example. has 17 houses. There are 75 overall in the development.

This 1982 change effectively set a cap on the total number of houses that could be built in Eureka.  This cap also meant as “new” parcels were created by lot splits, new housing rights would not be created automatically as is more common in other jurisdictions that are not under a density restriction. This was approved and likely encouraged by the Metropolitan Council within their responsibility to coordinate and oversee balanced growth in the region. Oversight considerations include local planning for necessary supporting infrastructure such as improved roads, water and sewage plans, fire and safety support, schools, and  projected population growth.

Housing Rights that can be transferred to more desirable locations or SOLD to another party for values in the range of $30,000 or more each, based on a history of private transactions between buyers and sellers. Most moves in Eureka have been within family farm property and did not involve an actual cash payment. Eureka has 374 unused Housing Rights among  the 200 owners, having a total value of over $11 million if sold or taken without compensation.

$30,000 or more to buy a Housing Right from another owner?  Ask any realtor if a property that can be built upon is worth more than if that property cannot be built upon. Part of real estate value is the famous location, location, location. Being able to transfer or sell a housing right adds to its value to make a different property buildable. Most of the Transfers involved families where there was no cost charged for the Housing Right move.  And of course, there is no charge for a Housing Right already present on a property. The Township does not sell or get any percentage if an owner sells a Housing Right to another property owner.  

I created a computer database of Eureka properties in 2006 and updated it a 3rd time just this past April, 2025.  It is based on actual data recorded with Dakota County and now freely available on their website (previously it required a formal Board request). I have from the beginning enhanced this data with Eureka records not tracked by the County and the application of Eureka zoning regulations to determine the status of each of the 953 properties in Eureka. I had a direct role in implementing some of the zoning features such as the 2013 Transfer program upgrade to the old Cluster move feature enacted in 1990.

When I point out numbers such as 374 unused rights and 200 owners, they are not guesses. My report of the 374 rights gives the names, addresses, and Property ID numbers from the public data on the County website augmented by my analysis applying Eureka Ordinance, such as identifying the type of each Housing Right. Another report I made from the data lists all 953 current properties, whether they have a house (and year built), what tax classification the County Assessor has assigned to each property, and other public details.

1/28/2025 - Joint Roundtable meeting of the Board and Planning Commission at which then Board Chair Pete Storlie asserted “Transfers are a disaster.”  He added that it is terrible that a resident should have to pay $30,000 or even $5,000 to get a housing right. None of the other 9 members of your “leadership” team said a peep. Lack of historical knowledge and Ordinance understanding matters.

Since 1990, there have been 60 housing right moves benefiting 2 families each: The original owner and the family or relative now able to build at a preferred location. A program that has benefited 22% of the families in Eureka does not seem to me to be a disaster.

5/27/2025 - Public hearing on the Amendment  at which I had provided all the key data with summary totals to show the actual impacts, but the Planning Commission could not be bothered to look at one of the 150 pages of detail and historical explanations I presented. The Amendment was rushed to the Board who also made no changes and sent it out to start the outside review and Met Council consideration process.

I also sent an email to Mr. Sparks 6/4/2025 with two of the reports pointing out a problem with his map purporting to show current Residential Housing by color code, no total.  My count of his map showed only 42% of the actual houses in Eureka. He said that wasn’t the map’s purpose, but the map document made no such explanation. He made no public correction or explanation.

Current zoning by quarter-quarter Section authorizes a few more houses overall than the simplistic 1 per 40 measurement. Where is a 40? What shape is it supposed to be? Many quarter-quarter sections are slightly less than 40 acres because, by the way, the earth is not flat.

There are also partial quarter-quarter sections leftover from part being annexed into Lakeville.  The Eureka portion of a quarter-quarter Section will still have a full Housing Right.  There is no such thing as a partial Housing Right and Lakeville does its own zoning, of course.

Is this all supposed to be conscientious leadership? Is that the quality of research you’d expect from a $218 per hour consultant? The overall incompetence of all involved is an embarrassment and risk to all of us.

As information, I did not ask for or receive a penny for my programming, data research, or training over the years. In 2023, I had planned to donate the database program with free training to Eureka. A Eureka Town attorney pointed out in a meeting that because I was not a contractor, any related issue caused by a Eureka mistake that rose to a lawsuit could pull me in and I would have no liability insurance coverage from the Township. I formally removed my database from a Eureka computer and subsequently offered a contract rate of $1 per month to license my software and $1 per month for technical support and training.  The 2023 and subsequent Boards did not pursue the subject.

                                                    by Jeff Otto