|
Muck's application has been challenged by several neighbors to the
property: Blane Olson and his family, Steve Schreiner and his
family, and Don Ludwig and his family. The previous mine in Logan
County, also operated by Hanson, has run out of limestone. As a
result, the plant is being shut down and 18 workers are out of a
job.
The families living closest to the proposed site have said at
multiple meetings of the zoning board of appeals that they are not
against a quarry in Logan County. They want to see that proper
procedure is followed in deciding if the land should be rezoned, and
they would like their safety and water concerns addressed.
Following the meeting Monday, the appeals board forwarded a large
volume of information concerning the data that has been gathered by
both sides of the issue. The board also provided information on the
process of attempting to create a contract between all of the
parties involved, which has not been successful.
In lieu of a contract, Muck has repeatedly provided verbal and
written assurance that all of their concerns will be taken care of,
or the land will not be mined until an agreement is reached.
Todd Turner, attorney for Blane Olson, noted that there is no
requirement in the county's zoning code for a contract of such kind
to be on file prior to a zoning decision. Turner also said that
information should be provided by the mining company to potential
neighbors as to how the operation will be run.
The petitioners against the rezoning claim that they have had
little contact with Hanson, and what they have been told is that
without a contract, their questions cannot be answered.
The zoning appeals board was not able to come to a recommendation
as to whether or not the land should be rezoned. The decision now
comes to the Logan County Board without a zoning board
recommendation.
Zoning officer Will D'Andrea said that for rezoning, there is no
requirement to have an operator, in this case a mining operator, but
that having one would have made the decision process easier.
He listed "some of the issues that were brought out and things
that were testified to, referred to, in this balancing act that you
all have to make:"
"In terms to public benefit: It would retain jobs; provide
limestone, which is necessary in the ag industry; provide rock;
decrease transport costs for hauling in road materials for county,
city and township projects, with a potential impact to taxes in the
county.
"On the other side, there are potential impacts to wells and the
water supply, truck traffic and the road system, dust, noise,
vibration issues, general aesthetics and property values."
D'Andrea said that the owner submitted a letter to the zoning
board that seeks to provide assurance that any potential impacts to
adjoining wells would be mitigated. The board was split on whether
it was provided an adequate assurance to mitigate any of those
potential impacts.
A protest petition that was filed by Blane Olson represents at
least 20 percent of the adjacent property owners and meets the
requirement to trigger a three-quarters vote by the board to approve
the rezoning.
D'Andrea summarized: "So, the issue before the board is whether
the rezone guidelines, which calls for a balancing act between
public benefits and potential impacts, have been addressed in a way
that the board would vote to grant this application."
On the advice of State's Attorney Jonathan Wright, both sides
were given time to reiterate what has been said at previous meetings
of the appeals board and the regional planning commission, to bring
the county board members up to speed on the situation. Members of
the public were then given a brief period to make statements.
Stan Komperda, project director for the Sugar Creek Wind Farm,
said the need for limestone is great for their project. Up to
400,000 tons of rock will be needed by Sugar Creek in building each
of two wind farms planned for southwestern Logan County. Komperda
also pointed out that just because a permit to rezone is approved,
it does not mean an applicant's work is done in filing paperwork.
Bob Pharis said the county board is now learning of the
difficulty that the zoning board faced when making their decision.
Pharis also said that the Farm Bureau supports the creation of a new
quarry.
On another note, Pharis said this issue should make the board
realize that better zoning regulations need to be in place. "We need
zoning that will allow you as a board to have power to put
specifications (on an application)," he said.
Laurie Muck, wife to Doug, told the board in her comments: "The
issue here before all of you is, ‘Is it suitable for zoning? Is this
the right thing to do for the community?'"
After these comments and a few others from the public were made,
the discussion turned inward to the board members.
Terry Carlton said: "I believe the part of this board, our duty,
is not to determine who might be leasing the land or the renter or
who might be downstream. Our responsibility solely tonight or
anytime when it comes to this level of zoning, is purely to look at,
"Is this property correct for what it is being requested for?' To go
beyond that, oversteps our boundaries of authority.""
Carlton went on to say that whether or not a contract is present
or a mine has been signed is irrelevant; the business of the board
is to determine if the rezone request is valid.
[to top of second column] |
After Carlton's comments, Muck said he wanted to address the fact
that he had spoken with other companies before his application to
rezone, and he selected Hanson due to good relations with them. Muck
also said he chose them because of their history of trying to be
good neighbors. "I am not insensitive to those issues," said Muck.
Olson took the moment to say that just one week ago, he filed the
petition of opposition so that it would require a three-quarters
vote of the board to pass. As part of that process he sent a
certified return receipt letter to Muck. Olson was about to say how
Muck signed for the letter, but Muck answered for him, "It says, "Up
Yours."
Olson continued saying "To me that doesn't sound like someone
that is concerned about myself, my family or my neighbors.
Olson's statement provoked one of the laid off miners present,
who said, "What about me?"
Olson reiterated that he has always been concerned about the
laid-off workers during this long process.
As the speakers calmed down, the board members resumed their
internal discussion.
Kevin Bateman made a motion to table the discussion for a month.
The state's attorney advised against tabling the issue. While the
board has the authority to table the discussion, Wright explained
that the board should not do so if the desire is to see a contract
reached. Wright reiterated that the board's job was to come to a
decision as to whether or not the land in question was appropriate
for rezoning for extraction.
Bateman assured the board that that was not his reasoning to
table for a month. Bateman explained that he would like to see the
board members have the opportunity to think further on all of the
information brought to them for such a large decision. There was
also an absent board member, Andy Meister, and another board member,
Jan Schumacher, who said she would not be present on Tuesday when
the actual vote was taken.
The motion to table was defeated by the board.
Schumacher explained to the public present that "tonight's votes
are straw votes, they are not binding. The official vote is next
Tuesday night at the adjourned board meeting."
Chuck Ruben compared this debate with the similar situation
before the wind farms were approved. "We dealt then with conditional
use permits, which are a lot different than what we are dealing with
here," he said. "In this one, I think what he have to do is follow
the advice of our state's attorney."
Ruben stated what that advice was: "‘The county board and its
members should not be involved in any type of leveraging or
negotiating between the petitioners and the protesters.' Delaying
this for another month is exactly that; it is what we would be
doing."
Wright added to this, saying, "The criteria (a specific list of
requirements for rezoning), that is what needs to be focused on.
It's been mentioned here in testimony that there is no requirement
that the person applying for rezoning have to have a contract in
place before applying for rezoning. … That's really the bottom line,
and I just want to emphasize this because we can have lawyers talk
about this from now until the break of dawn tomorrow. And, they'll
all still be talking, strong."
David Hepler who was chairing the meeting, also commented on
this: "It's a matter of whether this land is well-suited for this
purpose. I think the petitioner has almost given us overkill, over
several months, of information to that effect. My other concern is
that we have a chance to save a business."
Hepler also said: "Not wanting to sound insensitive, but
government is not supposed to be everything to everybody. We're
supposed to look out for the greater good. We're not here to provide
guarantees. I feel that this is a simple issue, the land is
well-suited, and I intend to vote for it."
Bill Martin, who has served many years on the regional planning
commission and is well-acquainted with zoning issues in the county,
said he felt that there are not a lot of companies that would be
willing to enter contracts and negotiations before they have a
certain set of assurances, including zoning.
"I wish our zoning was set up that we had enough that we could
impose some stipulations, but we don't," he said.
He added that he thought trying to go around legal boundaries
would create problems.
A verbal straw vote was taken, and the board members present
unanimously agreed that the land would be rezoned. The final vote
will be taken Tuesday evening.
Board members present for the meeting were David Hepler, vice
chairman; Robert Farmer, chairman; Andy Anderson; Rick Aylesworth;
Kevin Bateman; Bill Martin; Pat O'Neill; Gene Rohlfs; Terry Carlton,
Chuck Ruben; and Jan Schumacher.
[By DEREK HURLEY] |
