Tuesday afternoon 11 citizens from Granite Falls Township silently filed out of the Chippewa County Commissioners meeting following a unanimous vote by the commissioners to approve a controversial Conditional Use Permit for the Asbury asphalt cement storage tank facility.
Duininck Bros. Inc. may now go forward with construction of the facility in Section 10 of Granite Falls Township.
Once outside the meeting room, the residents voiced their frustrations. Disappointment, frustration, anger and sadness were evident.
“I think we need to start campaigning for new commissioners,” said one.
“Nobody knew (the Aug. 4 hearing before the county planning commission) was our only chance to be heard by our commissioners,” said another. “And only one (commissioner) was there. We had hoped to present new evidence today and it was not allowed.”
The new evidence was a 19-page letter sent to each commissioner Monday evening from attorney Tom Casey of Mound, on behalf of the Haroldson and Muhl families, owners of two of the closest residences to the tank site.
The letter addressed numerous areas of concern which neighbors of the proposed facility felt were not given proper attention or consideration by the planning commission.
Scott Williams, county land and resource management director, advised the commissioners that the planning commission’s recommendation was to recommend approval of the CUP.
Williams told the commissioners the planning commission had based its decision on citizens’ testimony and also had placed a great deal of weight on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) when reviewing odor, air and water quality issues.
He reminded those present that the MPCA Citizen’s Board was satisfied with the EAW and did not require further investigation in the form of an Environmental Impact Statement.
“The EAW satisfactorily identifies potential risks and the long-term potential effects,” said Williams. “Those issues were studied in depth (in the EAW process) and the planning commission took those results and applied them to the findings in those matters.”
He also provided commissioners with a written summary of responses addressing the issues cited in attorney Casey’s letter. The letter stated the conditional use did not comply with the county’s comprehensive “Land and Related Resources Plan” which was a violation of the ordinance.
The letter cited Section 3.3.3 of the county ordinance which states, “A conditional use permit may be allowed on any soil class provided the proposed use is directly related to, or promotes agriculture in Chippewa County.” Casey maintained that the standard was not satisfied.
A number of other references were cited professing noncompliance including use of prime ag land; dwindling property values; safety issues with regard to fire hazard; and many others.
Williams said the planning commission believed the 10 conditions of the permit satisfied the rules of the ordinance.
The commissioners asked questions regarding issues brought up in the letter and seemed satisfied with William’s responses. Commissioner Jeffrey Lopez asked about the prime ag land.
Williams explained that because it is a very small amount of prime ag land the planning commission felt it would not impact the county’s overall goal of protecting ag land.
Commissioner Jim Dahlvang brought up the fact that the township board did not oppose the facility.
Commissioner Gene Van Binsbergen asked county attorney Dave Gilbertson if he believed the conditional use permit conformed to the county’s comprehensive plan. Gilbertson responded that it did.
After a few uncomfortable moments, Van Binsbergen said, “I know in the past we had a little different practice in these meetings of opening up more to the public, but we’ve been told several times that isn’t something that’s acceptable any more.”
It was at that point that one member of the audience spoke up and asked, “What’s not acceptable about having public input?”
Gilbertson responded, “That was the purpose of the public hearing.”
The audience member replied, “Yes, but there’s new information.”
Gilbertson said, “The commissioner’s meeting was not published as a public hearing to reopen the whole can of worms all over again and they don’t have to … they don’t have to call on anybody. They can if they choose.”
“So it’s not that it’s not recommended, it’s that they are making a choice now, not to hear public input,” said the audience member.
Gilbertson explained that the opportunity to give testimony was at the planning commission hearing, and that the purpose of this meeting was for the commissioners to make a decision as to whether or not they believe the proposed conclusions fit with the findings as submitted by the planning commission.
Commissioner Mark Dahl commented that everybody should have been heard at the planning commission hearing and that “it was now up to this board to accept it or not.”
VanBinsbergen then moved to accept the recommendation of the planning commission and Dahlvang seconded. The vote was unanimous, and there was no offer of additional discussion.
Once outside the meeting room observers took issue with the procedural issue of the commissioners receiving a letter from an attorney outlining differences in points of law that the conditional use permit was in violation of the county ordinance, and they did discuss the findings.
“They are not even living up to their own zoning regulations,” said Jeff Muhl. “In their opening zoning requirements its says when there is a conflict between disparate sections of the zoning ordinances, the more restrictive section of the ordinance will apply.”
“They could have at least looked at the issues point by point and let the public weigh in on the planning commission’s recommendation,” said David Haroldson.
Another citizen said, “It’s unfortunate that they wanted to shut off debate on this issue when it’s going to impact the neighborhood for 40 or 50 years to come.
“Why is there such a rush to judgment when there is new information being presented. To not table the issue and to not allow the public to speak. This goes far beyond the issue of Duinincks. It calls into question the commitment that the county has to transparency of openness of government.”
|
|
|
Tuesday afternoon 11 citizens from Granite Falls Township silently filed out of the Chippewa County Commissioners meeting following a unanimous vote by the commissioners to approve a controversial Conditional Use Permit for the Asbury asphalt cement storage tank facility.
Duininck Bros. Inc. may now go forward with construction of the facility in Section 10 of Granite Falls Township.
Once outside the meeting room, the residents voiced their frustrations. Disappointment, frustration, anger and sadness were evident.
“I think we need to start campaigning for new commissioners,” said one.
“Nobody knew (the Aug. 4 hearing before the county planning commission) was our only chance to be heard by our commissioners,” said another. “And only one (commissioner) was there. We had hoped to present new evidence today and it was not allowed.”
The new evidence was a 19-page letter sent to each commissioner Monday evening from attorney Tom Casey of Mound, on behalf of the Haroldson and Muhl families, owners of two of the closest residences to the tank site.
The letter addressed numerous areas of concern which neighbors of the proposed facility felt were not given proper attention or consideration by the planning commission.
Scott Williams, county land and resource management director, advised the commissioners that the planning commission’s recommendation was to recommend approval of the CUP.
Williams told the commissioners the planning commission had based its decision on citizens’ testimony and also had placed a great deal of weight on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) when reviewing odor, air and water quality issues.
He reminded those present that the MPCA Citizen’s Board was satisfied with the EAW and did not require further investigation in the form of an Environmental Impact Statement.
“The EAW satisfactorily identifies potential risks and the long-term potential effects,” said Williams. “Those issues were studied in depth (in the EAW process) and the planning commission took those results and applied them to the findings in those matters.”
He also provided commissioners with a written summary of responses addressing the issues cited in attorney Casey’s letter. The letter stated the conditional use did not comply with the county’s comprehensive “Land and Related Resources Plan” which was a violation of the ordinance.
The letter cited Section 3.3.3 of the county ordinance which states, “A conditional use permit may be allowed on any soil class provided the proposed use is directly related to, or promotes agriculture in Chippewa County.” Casey maintained that the standard was not satisfied.
A number of other references were cited professing noncompliance including use of prime ag land; dwindling property values; safety issues with regard to fire hazard; and many others.
Williams said the planning commission believed the 10 conditions of the permit satisfied the rules of the ordinance.
The commissioners asked questions regarding issues brought up in the letter and seemed satisfied with William’s responses. Commissioner Jeffrey Lopez asked about the prime ag land.
Williams explained that because it is a very small amount of prime ag land the planning commission felt it would not impact the county’s overall goal of protecting ag land.
Commissioner Jim Dahlvang brought up the fact that the township board did not oppose the facility.
Commissioner Gene Van Binsbergen asked county attorney Dave Gilbertson if he believed the conditional use permit conformed to the county’s comprehensive plan. Gilbertson responded that it did.
After a few uncomfortable moments, Van Binsbergen said, “I know in the past we had a little different practice in these meetings of opening up more to the public, but we’ve been told several times that isn’t something that’s acceptable any more.”
It was at that point that one member of the audience spoke up and asked, “What’s not acceptable about having public input?”
Gilbertson responded, “That was the purpose of the public hearing.”
The audience member replied, “Yes, but there’s new information.”
Gilbertson said, “The commissioner’s meeting was not published as a public hearing to reopen the whole can of worms all over again and they don’t have to … they don’t have to call on anybody. They can if they choose.”
“So it’s not that it’s not recommended, it’s that they are making a choice now, not to hear public input,” said the audience member.
Gilbertson explained that the opportunity to give testimony was at the planning commission hearing, and that the purpose of this meeting was for the commissioners to make a decision as to whether or not they believe the proposed conclusions fit with the findings as submitted by the planning commission.
Commissioner Mark Dahl commented that everybody should have been heard at the planning commission hearing and that “it was now up to this board to accept it or not.”
VanBinsbergen then moved to accept the recommendation of the planning commission and Dahlvang seconded. The vote was unanimous, and there was no offer of additional discussion.
Once outside the meeting room observers took issue with the procedural issue of the commissioners receiving a letter from an attorney outlining differences in points of law that the conditional use permit was in violation of the county ordinance, and they did discuss the findings.
“They are not even living up to their own zoning regulations,” said Jeff Muhl. “In their opening zoning requirements its says when there is a conflict between disparate sections of the zoning ordinances, the more restrictive section of the ordinance will apply.”
“They could have at least looked at the issues point by point and let the public weigh in on the planning commission’s recommendation,” said David Haroldson.
Another citizen said, “It’s unfortunate that they wanted to shut off debate on this issue when it’s going to impact the neighborhood for 40 or 50 years to come.
“Why is there such a rush to judgment when there is new information being presented. To not table the issue and to not allow the public to speak. This goes far beyond the issue of Duinincks. It calls into question the commitment that the county has to transparency of openness of government.”
