To be granted this permit, Faulks Bros. must be in compliance with County Ordinance Chapter 34.14.5.1(b).

Conditional Use Permit review criteria: If an applicant for a Conditional Use Permit meets or agrees to meet all of the requirements and conditions specified in this ordinance and conditions imposed by the Planning and Zoning Committee the Conditional Use Permit shall be granted. It is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate that the application and all requirements and conditions established by this ordinance and by the Planning and Zoning Committee are or shall be satisfied. In its review and action on each Conditional Use Permit application, the Planning & Zoning Committee shall find that all the following standards are or will be met, unless a particular standard is inapplicable to the proposed conditional use, and shall include such findings in writing as basis for approval:

First Requirement:

• 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.

So where do you start with this one? Will the sand mine be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible and have the same character as our vicinity? It’s going to be a 40-foot pit in an area surrounded in every direction by a homeowner. In fact, Town Chairman Gary Marx said it is being “shoehorned” into this 59-acre lot. The 500-foot offsets from the seven homes that surround this area have reduced the legal mining area to under 21 acres. Even a shoehorn couldn’t fit that in.

Will this use not change the essential character of the same area? It will change everything about our neighborhood. Show me substantial evidence that it WON’T change the character of our community.

But here’s the big one: The conditional use permit can’t substantially impair or diminish the use, VALUE, or enjoyment of existing or future permitted uses in the area.

Here’s our substantial evidence of this last one: The sand mine will DEFINITELY lower the value of homes in this area and beyond. I know the county and Faulks Bros. doesn’t want to talk about it, but this is the substantial evidence you need to prove this one doesn’t fit.

There is a one-year old survey from Marquette County that shows the effect of home values within a one mile area of a sand mine and it is entered into the packet. Part of the analysis for this survey uses a Realtors Survey from realtors in Wisconsin. And if you don’t believe that people who buy and sell homes in this state have the facts, then please provide substantial evidence that disproves this.

Here's the published data and the loss of home values based on distance near a sand mine:

• Abutting the mine: Loss of 25%

• Within a quarter-mile: Loss of 23%

• Within a half-mile: Loss of 15%

• Within a mile: Loss of 7%

There are seven homes that abut this property and 14 that are within a quarter-mile. You have dozens and dozens of more homes within a half mile and a home of this sand mine.

To finish that one off, will the conditional use diminish the use and enjoyment of permitted uses in the area? Of course. The Snowmobile Club uses that land in the winter and people walk on the grounds all year long. But all of the homeowners in that area will also be unable to use their land as they did before, not with all of the noise, dust, runoff, traffic and the rest going on there.

We will show this substantial evidence with the loss of property values. Can Faulks Bros. show the same substantial evidence that home values WON’T go down? Can they back it up and agree to pay the difference of appraised values if any of us want to sell? Let’s put that in the guarantee if you really believe you have met this standard. Back it up and guarantee our appraised home values during the next 5-8 years, okay?

Second Requirement:

Here’s the second requirement from Waupaca County Ordinance Chapter 34.14.5.1(b) that Faulks Bros. must be in compliance with:

• 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.

Christa Westerberg, Laura Scott’s lawyer from Pines Bach, LLC, said this: “The CUP cannot meet this standard. Mines typically emit significant noise from blasting and crushing, both of which the application admits may occur at the site. (FBC Plan at 3.) Even if these activities do not occur, however, neighbors will still have to deal with banging truck grates, backup beepers, engine and equipment noise, as well as dust. Again, these noises and activities will likely exacerbate Mr. (Ron) Scott’s PTSD. The Scotts do not anticipate that 10-foot berms, with gaps for traffic, will reduce these effects.”

It’s hard to imagine that there’s substantial evidence that the mine “will not materially impact the established character and quality of the area…and is compatible with surroundings.” All five board members toured the 59-acre lot and can see how this is not true. This mine will change the character of not only that area but the area along Highway J, along Olson Road and beyond.

This is another requirement that seems hard to meet for this permit. Any thoughts?

Third Requirement:

So to be granted this permit, Faulks Bros. must be in compliance with County Ordinance Chapter 34.14.5.1(b). I listed the criteria in another post, but here’s the third requirement:

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

Now to get the answer to this one all the board had to do was invite Town Chairman Gary Marx to the podium to ask this question. He was a member of the Township of Scandinavia Planning and Zoning Committee that unanimously voted to deny this permit and he was a member of the Township of Scandinavia Board that unanimously voted to deny this permit.

In fact, within the county’s packet is a 61-page explanation of all the ways this permit is not in compliance with the Township’s Comprehensive Plan. And even the 28 conditional uses that the staffers added to this permit do NOT allow the permit to be consistent with ALL RELEVANT ASPECTS of the Town Comprehensive Plan.

Let’s start with the verdict. Here was the Township’s answer to the three questions that Waupaca County put on their recommendation form:

• What are the existing uses of adjacent lands to this parcel and are they compatible? Answer: NO

• Is the proposal consistent with the Town Comprehensive Plan? Answer: NO

• Is the proposal consistent with the Town, Goals, Objectives & Development Strategies as found in the Town Comprehensive Plan? Answer: NO

You can add the conditional uses to the permit if you want, but it doesn’t change the existing uses of the adjacent lands to this parcel, which is home ownership. SEVEN HOMES surround this parcel. And the conditional uses don’t come close to complying with the Town’s Goals, Objectives and Development Strategies. In fact, a sand mine that close to a residential area is exactly what the Town’s Goals, Objectives and Development Strategies say they don’t want. It stymies growth in that rural area.

The answer to this County Ordinance requirement is right in the county packet. And it’s NO, the permit is not in compliance with the Town Comprehensive Plan. End of case.

Conclusion:

Gary Marx wrote a detailed 61-page report on it and yet the County board never once asked Marx a question or asked him to speak on this topic. It’s as if the County didn’t care about the Township’s response and recommendation; they have their own agenda on this sand mine permit. But in a court of law, the 61-page detailed document denouncing this permit as being non compliant with the Township’s Comprehensive Plan is more than substantial evidence.

Again, Faulks Bros. should prove with substantial evidence that they are in compliance with the Township’s Comprehensive Plan. Where are those facts? The conditional uses aren’t enough the way this requirement is written. This one is a slam dunk NO.