BREAKING NEWS: JACKSON COUNTY, WISCONSIN - PROPOSED FAIRCHILD RAILROAD LOAD OUT/TRANSLOADING INDUSTRY “It’s the wrong application” After amending the original motion, Jackson County Zoning Committee memebers finally agreed to table the conditional-use permit re-quest filed by Joan Will, Michael and Patricia Greisback, Clifford and Richard Boullion and agent Fairchild LLC, represented at last Thursday’s (June 13) meeting by Travis and Matthew Segerstrom. The property is located in the town of Cleveland. The Cleveland Town Board denied the request. The request was to allow for the “construction of a railway siding and for a staging area for the loading of nonmetallic miners and ag products within the A-1 (Agriculture) District.” Standing room only resulted as the conference room filled with those wishing to speak in favor of or in opposition to the request. Adams explained to the committee the applicants’ intentions. “We have been working with the neighboring landowners and railroad for the past seven months,” explained Adams. “We have been looking for a suitable site and the railroad is eager to work with us. The majority of the tracks we would be using are on the original rails. There are five homes within 1,800 feet of the site. We feel there are good buffers with trees.” Adams explained up to 100 trucks would be hauling sand from Trempealeau County. Conveyors would transfer the sand from the truck to the rail cars. Five to 10 jobs would be created at the site in addition to 15 to 20 trucking jobs. Jackson County Zoning Administrator Terry Schmidt told the committee he had received a number of phone calls in support of the project. A letter of opposition, submitted by Midwest Environmental Advocate (MEA), a nonprofit environmental law firm, was read. It noted 200 to 250 rail cars per week would be loaded and hauled out; concerns with dust and noise, road deterioration and light pollution. MEA also indicated in its letter the conditional-use application was not complete and failed to include information required per the zoning ordinance. Attorney Daniel Bach of Bauer and Bach LLC spoke on behalf of five town of Cleveland residents he represents. Reiterating the conditional-use application was incomplete. Bach ;pointed out one of the biggest issues will be getting driveway access to the site on USH 10. “I’ve worked with the DOT (Department of Transportation) and one of the biggest fights we have is getting access. There is no alternative. If dealings with DOT don’t pan out, what’s the alternative plan? “This is not an appropriate use of the property sought through a conditional-use permit,” concluded Bach. Cleveland resident Christopher Underwood spoke in opposition. “You need to sit back and thin,” he said. “This entire process involves the industrial process of moving sand from point A to point B.” Speaking in support of the request, Vicki Boullion shared, “This project would bring life to our community. We believe in taking care of our needs as well as everyone else’s needs.” Marie Anderson opposed the request. “It’s the wrong application,” shared Anderson. “It should have been a zone-change application. A railroad yard is industrial, not agricultural. Industry isn’t agricultural. They are leaping over the zoning application and the life expectancy of this operation is perpetual.” Anderson said the applicants told those attending Cleveland’s public hearing it would be loading ag products. “They also obtained false signatures and submitted them to the town board, misrepresenting those who had signed the sheet. Trying to manage the time allowed each speaker, committee chairman Gaylord Olson reminded, “This is a public meeting, but, we don’t have to go on forever.” Speaking in opposition, Bonnie Vance said Cleveland’s comprehensive plan requires land in the town of Cleveland be rezoned agricultural prior to passage of a conditional-use permit application. Vance also questioned why the county had approved the rezone of conservatory land to agricultural just weeks earlier. Town of Cleveland Board of Supervisor Joe Egloff shared with the committee and those attending the public hearing there was very little information regarding the application and the board questioned how this could be a conditional-use permit. “They did misrepresent people with the sheet they had them sign.” Schmidt explained he made the decision that a zone change was not necessary because the application was for a rail siding and staging area. “No where [sic] in the zoning ordinance did we have language which addressed a rail siding or staging area, either as a principle use or conditional use,” Schmidt said. “Based on that, I used section 17.19, which allows the zoning committee to review an unspecified or unclassified use through the conditional-use process. If the committee makes a decision and you don’t like it, there’s always the right to appeal.” “The letter we all signed was acknowledging they had talked to us,” explained Jeanine Smith, whose husband is also a Cleveland Town Board supervisor. “Every person that signed that paper signed the petition opposing the request.” “As a committee, we have some of the same concerns as you do,” said Zoning Committee member Ray Ransom. “No stockpiling; the number of cars, up to 100 at some time; structures, there will be belly dumps where trucks will drive up, dump into conveyors and covered conveyors dump into train cars. There will be minimal sand dust. We’re aware of the wetlands. We approve on condition all requirements are met. We also have to look at the use of that property and jobs.” Zoning Committee member Marge Rewald said she has concerns with the completeness of the application. She also reminded the committee the county’s corporate counsel was the same legal firm retained by Fairchild Rail LLC. “I would like answers before we vote on this,” Rewald said. “It’s difficult to make a decision without knowing how many of those issues will be cleared up,” Ransom said. Rewald moved to table the request, seconded by Ransom. A tie vote resulted with votes not to table the request coming from committee members John Chrest and Olson. “We asked what else we needed for us to be on the agenda, and we were told we were OK,” said Adams. “If we accepted it as a completed application, we have to approve it,” said Chrest. However, Chrest withdrew his motion to approve the request, noting, “We can get more information, and a legal opinion would be a bad idea. “We need a complete application,” said Rewald. “It’s hard to vote on something when we don’t know what’s going to be there.” Ransom told the applicants they could bring the request back to the committee after it had gotten a legal opinion. “That will take more time,” Ransom advised, “since our counsel also represents the applicant.” Source: Article written by JoDee Brooke, of the “Banner Journal,” a weekly newspaper in Jackson County, Wed., June 19, 2013. Transcribed by R. Melissa Reininger for use on “Frac Sand Industry Sacrifice Zones,” a Facebook page covering Frac Sand news.
Posted on: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 14:01:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015