The Waupaca Planning and Zoning Committee made all of the information pertinent to the Iola Car Show sand mine permit available to the public. They put the entire 159-page packet on their website on Thursday, July 13th, one day after the meeting. You can click the button at the bottom of the page to find it.

The first 111 pages were read into the record, but when we downloaded the packet we were shocked to see what was in the next 18 pages. There was an already written Recommendation from the Waupaca County Planning and Zoning office, which was bizarre because Chairman Jim Nygaard said the five board members would take the next month to analyze the information and meet in early August to discuss in private the permit application. So who wrote a lengthy opinion to approve the CUP for Faulks Bros., complete with 28 steps that Faulks Bros. would need to take AFTER they get the permit?

It is signed by Jason Snyder, Zoning Administrator, but I was told by Director Ryan Brown that they wrote it for the board. Not only that, but they sent it to the board on July 6th, six full days BEFORE the public meeting so the board could review their recommendation. While he said this is common practice to send the staffers’ recommendation, what likely isn’t common is that the two staffers completely go against the Township of Scandinavia’s recommendation to deny the permit. Both staffers were at the 14+ hours of Informational Meetings and board meetings that the Township of Scandinavia held to come to this decision, and in a matter of 18 pages they made a complete 360 degree turn from that recommendation.

The board didn’t ask any questions of the applicants or of Township Chairman Gary Marx, which was surprising to everyone who attended the meeting. Chairman Jim Nygaard even said the packet was “very thorough” when he said he had no questions for Faulks Bros.

So what is going on here? Are the staffers setting the policy for the board with this strongly worded recommendation or does this opinion hold little weight for the board? Is it common for the board to get this recommendation BEFORE they hear from the applicants or the citizens? Excuse me for the comparison, but this feels like the judge telling the jury that he thinks the defendant is guilty before the trial starts and what the sentence should be, but then saying feel free to listen to the evidence if you’d like!!

It is our opinion that even after this case, Waupaca County officials should look at this procedure and ask for staff recommendations AFTER the public meetings are held. Yes, a lot of work has to be done after the decision is made, but this sure feels like two staffers made the decision for the board already and the public meeting was just for show. I’m not saying that’s what it was because the board has yet to weigh in, but the perception is there and a lot of people are questioning the process.

So let’s look at their decision making to see if the board should agree with it. It starts on page 121 under Conclusions.

Let’s start with the category that says “Town Comprehensive Plan,” and remember that the Township of Scandinavia denied this permit because it was not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. This is what the staffer recommendation says:

“Town Comprehensive Plan: The Town has made a determination that the proposal is inconsistent with their comprehensive plan. The Town also included conditions that it felt would be appropriate to be included should the Planning and Zoning Committee decide to grant the conditional use permit application. It is in our opinion that through the use of recommended conditions that the factors associated with inconsistency will be mitigated to become consistent.”

Basically, Brown and Snyder agree that Faulks Bros. is not in compliance with the Town Comprehensive Plan, but THEY can make them compliant with some changes. Like change the 23.7 acres that Faulks Bros. said it wanted to mine to 10 acres, which is what the Comprehensive Plan requires. But making that change and other changes FOR Faulks isn’t right. Faulks chose not to be compliant with the 10 acres and there is no plan right now to approve that shows what 10 acres they would mine. The staffers want to approve the permit if Faulks agrees to changes within the conditions that were set, but Faulks Bros. should have changed their second application if they wanted to do that.

Secondly, this is PVRF zoned land, which stands for Private Recreation and Forestry land. Now you can get approval for non-metallic mining on PVRF land, but that’s not the desired use of the land. That being said, Land use policy number 11 gives the following criteria to be considered with a conditional use permit application:

1. “Proposed conditional uses shall (means MUST) meet the following criteria in order to gain county approval:

   a) Complies with the requirements of the applicable zoning district.

   b) Use and density are consistent with the intent, purpose, and policies of the applicable preferred land use classification.

   c) Use and site design are compatible with adjacent uses in terms of aesthetics, scale, hours of operation, traffic generation, lighting, noise, odor, dust, vibration, and other external impacts.

   d) Does not diminish property values in the surrounding neighborhood.

   e) Provides assurance of continuing maintenance.

Let’s just touch on two points here: 1) Gary Marx talked about the density of homes around this proposed sand mine and how it was NOT consistent with the sand mine. And it’s not. Also, this is PVRF land and not the desired intent of this land. And 2) the sand mine will DEFINITELY diminish property values in the neighborhood. There’s no way this permit should be approved until an independent property assessment is made to either prove property values won’t go down or to prove how much they will go down. Marquette County did that and an independent property assessor out of Appleton found that property values will go down by as much as 25 percent within a quarter-mile of the site and even 10 percent within a mile of the site. The staffers later say that an independent assessment isn’t needed, but if someone determined that property values WOULD go down it would make it impossible for Faulks Bros. to get this permit, which is why nobody in power wants to hire an independent property assessor. The permit would HAVE to be denied once that information is proven and the county should get that information before approving any permit application.

Here’s another one from page 123: “The proposed conditional use will not materially impact the established character and quality of the area, architecture and aesthetics, and is generally compatible with surroundings, traffic impact and circulation, environmental impacts, the demand for related services, the possible hazardous, harmful, noxious, offensive, or nuisance effects resulting from noise, dust, smoke, or odor.” The staffers write: “Some of these standards are regulated through Chapter 38. Additional conditions may be necessary to satisfy these standards.”

Sorry, but there are no conditions that will allow the sand mine to blend in with the established character and quality of the area, or even the traffic. The staffers believe that additional conditions will make it right, but again Gary Marx said this sand mine is being “shoehorned” into a 58-acre lot with seven homeowners surrounding all areas of the mine. How is the mine compatible with those homeowners?

The county says that “The proposed conditional use will meet all applicable standards of Chapter 34 and Chapter 38” and Brown and Snyder say that “All required standards of Chapter 34 and 38 shall be maintained for the operation.” But do they?

Chapter 34. 15 1 (b) says:

1. The proposed conditional use will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible, and be appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity, and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area such that the use will substantially impair or diminish the use, value, or enjoyment of existing or future permitted uses in the area.

2. “The proposed conditional use will be consistent with all relevant aspects of the Town and County Comprehensive Plans.”

Again, the sand mine WILL substantially diminish the use, enjoyment and the value of the homes and homeowners in the area. And for the last time, this permit application is NOT consistent or in compliance with the Town Comprehensive Plan. The two staffers WANT to make it compatible through conditional uses, but again that’s not how this should work.

Let’s go to “Conclusions Based on Findings” that they wrote: “The proposal is consistent with and will have no unreasonable adverse impact on the public health, safety, and welfare. Granting approval of the conditional use permit request will not adversely affect the uses of surrounding properties.”

That is an insane conclusion. The board heard from two of the seven homeowners who live within 500 feet of the proposed site — Ron Scott and Kenny Mentzel — and both talked about their health problems since the sand mine was announced. It has NOT made their health problems better as was told at the public meeting. There is also no “substantial evidence” supporting that statement at all.

You can find the 28 recommendations needed for Faulks to comply with the approval of the Conditional Use Permit on pages 126-128.

Again, this is just the staffers’ recommendation, but we will find out when the full board votes on the permit application how much these two staffers impacted the final decision. If it reads just like this and has a conclusion just like this, then we will know. But as of today, no decision has been made and this is just a recommendation, one that came six days BEFORE the board even heard any evidence or testimony on the CUP. Pretty amazing that this recommendation came before the public hearing. Pretty amazing.