Today I would like to thank the County Attorney for explaining what Act 67 is to the board at the last meeting. Act 67 was never fully explained to the board or even mentioned in the packet the board received in July and yet at the August 22nd meeting Diane and Chairman Nygaard told the board they MUST approve the permit because of Act 67.

In fact, she is quoted in the Faulks Bros. suit as saying, quote “by not approving the CUP with the 29 conditions attached, this body is not complying with the statute.” Unquote.

That was false and bad legal advice. Act 67 says: Quote “If an applicant for a conditional use permit meets or agrees to meet ALL of the requirements and conditions specified in the county ordinance or those imposed by the county zoning board, the county shall grant the conditional use permit.” Unquote.

See, Act 67 has two parts to the equation. The applicant MUST meet ALL of the requirements in the county ordinance and agree to the zoning board conditions. If they do both, not just one, then the county MUST grant the conditional use permit.

But if they don’t meet all of the requirements in the county ordinance, the county MUST deny the CUP. It works both ways. That’s why Diane read all seven requirements from Waupaca County ordinance Chapter 34.

Number 3 among those requirements is a slam dunk AGAINST this permit. It says: Quote “The proposed conditional use will be consistent with ALL RELEVANT ASPECTS of the Town and County Comprehensive Plans.” Unquote.

Town Chairman Gary Marx answered this for you on pages 50 through 111. This board even provided the questions and the Township answered them. They are:

No. 1. What are the existing uses of adjacent lands to this parcel and are they compatible? Answer: NO

No. 2. Is the proposal consistent with the Town Comprehensive Plan? Answer: NO

No. 3. Is the proposal consistent with the Town Goals, Objectives & Development Strategies as found in the Town Comprehensive Plan? Answer: NO

This is substantial evidence that this permit does NOT meet the standards of your county ordinance. And there are other examples in your packet that show substantial evidence against requirements 1 and 2 as well.

Number 3 will never be in compliance with the Township’s Comprehensive Plan because of the location of the mine. It also will never be compatible with the uses of the surrounding land or be consistent with the Town Goals, Objectives and Development Strategies.

Not only is this un-American to go against the municipalities’ decision, it’s not legal. You can not approve a permit that is not in compliance with your own county ordinance. If you approve this permit, every Comprehensive Plan in the county and the state will be worthless. Legally, you MUST deny this permit based on your own county ordinance. Thank you.

You have approved the minutes of the meeting on Oct. 30, so I need to address inaccuracies from that meeting to correct the record.

At approximately minute 38:30 Chairman Nygaard states, quote:

“While we’re looking over the conditions again, in in my estimation, I believe they’ve got it all covered as far as this, complying with this number 1. Uh, its an open field now with some patches of woods for the most part, and uh, when restored, that’s what it’ll be with different topography.”

Let me remind the Board that what you are considering is a Conditional USE Permit, not a reclamation permit. The issue is NOT how it will look, but what disruption the USE itself will cause to the existing uses.

Here is the USE. This photo was taken by a former Faulks Bros. employee while on the worksite. This is MINING, and it hasn’t changed in 100 years. Mr. Nygaard refers to Requirement #1, so I will use the language of that requirement: WHERE is the applicant’s substantial evidence, that is, evidence seen as compelling in the view of a reasonable person, that the design, construction, operation and maintenance of this mine is compatible and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of this vicinity??

They have none. Does not MINING completely change the essential character of the area? Of course it does!

To further correct the record, you were instructed by Ms. Muelmanns that the copious testimony regarding the current uses we enjoy is merely evidence, not substantial evidence. This is not true. Case law provided to you in testimony from Attorney Westerberg last July sets precedent: that eyewitness testimony of long-time residents is in fact exactly the substantial evidence used to define what the existing uses, values and enjoyments are!

Again, where is Faulk’s substantial evidence that this mining “will not substantially impair or diminish the use, value and enjoyment of existing uses”? And again, there is none, because the established character and quality of this site is in NO WAY compatible with MINING. And no number of conditions slapped onto this CUP can alter this basic truth.

Because remember, the list of conditions is not, and cannot ever be, a SUBSTITUTE for the 7 requirements. Conditions may be added, but DO NOT REPLACE, the exact language of the 7 requirements by ordinance. They are not “factors.” They are REQUIREMENTS. Read them, do what they instruct, and your way is clear: vote NO.

Thank you for the time to make these corrections to the record.

I know you approved the minutes from the October 30th meeting, but I would also like to correct the record on a false statement made by Chairman Nygaard at that meeting. When he admitted that not all residential wells were located on the permit, he said, and I quote: “After looking through the notes from the Town of Scandinavia, well identification and property owner unwillingness to respond in a few instances kept them from getting locations of every well and the type of the well. That was in the notes that there was, at that time, that some people didn’t want their well looked at. That was in the Town of Scandinavia report.” Unquote.

That statement is false and misleading. Town Chairman Gary Marx consulted with Jason Snyder after that October meeting and Jason admitted that information didn’t come from the Township. I believe the Chairman was going to clean up that false statement today and he should. We demand that he does.

Now let’s get to the facts. Four of the seven homes that surround this proposed sand mine did not have their wells identified by Faulks Bros. when the July 12th meeting was held. Think about that, 4 of the 7 homes within 500 feet of this proposed sand mine still have not had their wells identified by Faulks Bros. And they still want you to approve the permit that way. That’s unacceptable.

At the May 3rd Town of Scandinavia meeting, Chairman Gary Marx chastised Faulks Bros. for still not having those wells identified. He said all the wells should have been identified long ago and told them to get it done. Two months later when the permit was finalized with the county, those same wells were not identified.

Chairman Nygaard admitted that the wells still weren’t identified, and he turned the blame on the residents, while stating that the Township said it was the residents’ unwillingness. In fact, it was Faulks Bros. who wrote to the Chairman and said that. He told all of you, the board members, that the Township said this when they didn’t, and he said the residents were at fault when they weren’t. This is the error of the operator, not the residents. Faulks Bros. have continually failed to comply with this requirement. As Gary told them in May, “It’s not that hard. Get it done.”

Consideration of groundwater quality impact is crucial. The hydrologic effects of land-use changes from sand mining include reduced recharge to groundwater over distinct phases of active mining. Mining should be limited to areas where there will be little to no impact on water resources. We are concerned about this precious resource in the present and for generations to come. Sand mining should be restricted to above the water table, no on-site washing or sorting, no use of ground or surface water in mining operations, and no discharges into area wetlands. Pits and quarries disrupt the existing movement of surface water and groundwater; they interrupt natural water recharge and can lead to reduced quantity and quality of drinking water for residents and wildlife near or downstream from a quarry site. Destroyed ecosystems and source water aquifers are irreplaceable. This is not an interim land use. How can the board approve a permit when 4 residential wells still are not identified? The board should know the location and depth of the wells within a quarter mile of this sand mine before approving it or face potential liability later. Again, it was in a letter from Faulks Bros. that blame was placed on the residents, it was not the Township of Scandinavia and that should be clarified on the record right now. Thank you.

I also would like to go ON RECORD to correct false statements made by Chairman Nygaard and Jason Snyder at the October 30th meeting. Here is what Nygaard said: “The Town did state that should Waupaca County Planning and Zoning decide to approve the application, they submitted a list of recommendations for consideration and every one that they submitted…… is completed within the application to my understanding.”

Zoning Administrator Jason Snyder then said: “That is correct.”

This is NOT correct and that’s the exact reason why we are here today. At the last meeting, Cindy Hardy pointed out that Conditional Use # 3 from the Town of Scandinavia’s Comprehensive list of recommended conditions was NOT added as one of the 29 conditional uses in Jason Snyder and Ryan Brown’s report. The condition (found on page 74 of the packet) says: “Permit shall expire in five years from commencement date. Per Town of Scandinavia Comprehensive Plan (LU18), a time limit should be defined for completion of the project. This time is determined by the 10-acre limit and extracting 2-4 acres per year. Town recommends a time limit to be established, and, at minimum, a review in 5 years.”

It has been pointed out by Hardy that the condition lists prepared by Snyder and Brown did not include this timeline. In fact, at the August 22nd meeting, Hardy asked Snyder and Brown “So we are not looking at a time limit on it at all?”

Brown said: “Well, we didn’t provide a recommendation for it.”

And Snyder added “if the committee feels that’s in the best interest they can certainly apply that.”

This is just ONE example of how the 29 conditions WERE NOT ALL of the conditions suggested by the Township of Scandinavia… and… our community has been trying to say this since Aug 22nd and we continue to be denied the right to make public comments.

I also would like to correct on the record the same false statement made by Chairman Nygaard. There is another important condition that was NOT included by Jason and Ryan.

That one is number 6 from the Town’s list of conditions on page 75 of the packet. It reads: Quote “Any significant change to or expansion of the business operation, designated mine area and/or of its facilities shall require a new Conditional Use Permit. There are at least 4 additional parcels in the Town owned by the Old Car Show. Town recommends that these parcels shall be addressed by County Zoning with OCS NOW to determine any future CUPs.” Unquote.

As Gary Marx stated at the Township’s meeting in May, he did NOT want any Highway jumping of this permit across Highway J IF the County approved the permit. Gary suggested it should take NEW permits to jump to NEW sites. Not only should this have been Included in the staffers’ recommendations, but the Scandinavia Township was asking the board to deal with it right away so that there would be no confusion going forward.

It was Completely left off the list of staffer recommendations.

Is the Iola Car Show/Faulks Brothers planning Future expansions from this permit they are trying to get now? We won’t know unless the board deals with this immediately as the Township recommended.

This is proof that Not all of our conditions were included!

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT!!!!

This Condition Must be fully discussed by the board before any action can be taken! Thank You.

My name is Helene Pohl and I know these Comprehensive Plans first hand. I have worked on the Comprehensive Plan in 1978, again in 2004 and I hope to work on it again in 2030. I would like to reiterate what Greg Ambrosius said earlier: If the County approves this permit after the Township of Scandinavia emphatically said that this is not in compliance with their Town’s Comprehensive Plan this will not only undercut Scandinavia’s power to regulate itself, but it will undercut EVERY Comprehensive Plan in the County and even in the entire state.

What Township in Waupaca County would take the time, effort and money to do the next Comprehensive Plan when they know that the County can just go around them and pass any sand mine permit they want with some staffers’ conditional uses? And if Waupaca County can do it, what’s to prevent any other county in the state from seeing this example and doing it themselves?

This is a slippery slope the Planning and Zoning Committee is going down and it could affect every Comprehensive Plan going forward and not in a good way. I’m sure the state, which provides a lot of money to the communities to create these Comprehensive Plans, will not be in favor of the County over-ruling the Township’s decision.

I hope each of the board members understands the ramifications of their vote today. This is a huge, huge decision that will impact more than just Scandinavia. This would be setting a precedent that the County knows best and is willing to tell every Township in the County how to handle their business. It’s a huge over-reach and for what? 21 acres of gravel? In a Town that doesn’t want it?

I know firsthand how this works when a permit is passed. In the town of Saint Lawrence, a CUP was duly and legally passed, but was later amended with less stringent conditions at a time, when public scrutiny waned.

I beg of you to follow the law, follow your own county ordinances and understand this permit does not pass the legal test of County Ordinance Chapter 34. You MUST vote to deny this permit. Thank you.

I have a quote from when the County Attorney addressed the board at the August 22 meeting. She said, “By not approving the CUP with the 29 conditions attached, this body is not complying with the statute.”

This is NOT consistent with how other counties have viewed such compliance in the same situation. I would ask the board to please know that in two other WI counties – both Marquette County and Green Lake County — sand mine permits were denied recently with Act 67 on the books.

First, in March of 2022, Marquette County denied a sand mine permit for property in Packwaukee, That county hired an independent forensic property assessor who used a survey of over 1,000 WI realtors to determine that all property values will go down within a one mile radius of a sand mine, and that those within a quarter mile would go down 25%. While Faulks Bros may disagree with the data, it is substantial evidence and is documented on p. 95 of your packet. In December of 2022, Green Lake County also denied a sand mine permit.

Both permits were denied because, just like the Car Show Sand Mine, they did not meet their county ordinance standards. Those applicants were given the facts and they did not appeal. That is the precedented denial that we seek from this board that has been appointed to serve our citizens here in Waupaca County. Thank you.

I also would like to thank the County Attorney for reading the definition of Act 67. She mentioned that both sides must provide substantial evidence to the board to prove whether this permit is in compliance or not in compliance with the county ordinances. I just want to read what substantial evidence is from Act 67: Quote “Substantial evidence means facts and information, other than merely personal preferences or speculation, directly pertaining to the requirements and conditions an applicant must meet to obtain a conditional use permit and that reasonable persons would accept in support of a conclusion.” Unquote.

Requirement 1 of your Chapter 34 ordinance says: Quote “the conditional use will not diminish the use, value or enjoyment of existing or future permitted uses in the area.”

Can any reasonable person accept this conclusion that the sand mine won’t diminish the use, value – like property values -- and enjoyment in the area? Really? Our substantial evidence was in our testimony. Our substantial evidence is in the Marquette County property assessment that shows property values will go down. Our substantial evidence is in my testimony on how this sand mine could affect my life. What substantial evidence has Faulks Bros. given to show that this sand mine won’t diminish the use, value or enjoyment of this area?

I haven’t seen any substantial evidence from Faulks Bros. And these conditional uses don’t replace the fact that this permit isn’t in compliance with Chapter 34 of your own county ordinances. There is substantial evidence to say that this requirement is not in compliance with requirement 1, so this permit should be denied. Thank you.

At the July 12th meeting, Jon Faulks in his rebuttal said that he acknowledges that this is not an ideal spot for a mine, but they are pursuing it anyway. He said, and I quote: “There were some comments about homes near sand pits. I realize this is in regards to Location, Location, Location. This isn’t particularly a spot where we would choose to do an actual sand pit. But considering the opportunity that’s in front of it with the resources that are there and the opportunity for the Iola Car Show and all the benefits to develop the land and have a rainy day fund and give back to the community, it’s a unique situation. That is why we are pursuing it.” Unquote.

I mean even Jon Faulks agrees this is not a normal location for a sand pit. Look at the maps in your packet on pages 57 to 64 that we provided you because it’s substantial evidence. There isn’t a sand pit in the state with seven homes abutting all areas of the sand mine.

Because of the 500-foot offsets for those seven homes, the mine is only 21 acres in 59 acres of land. Town Chairman Gary Marx said this mine is being “shoehorned” into the area. Well, even a shoehorn couldn’t fit a size 11 foot into a size 4 shoe. That’s what you’re trying to do here and even Jon Faulks knows it’s not ideal.

The maps are substantial evidence against requirements 1 and 2. Please deny this permit. Thank you.

The Faulks Bros. suit says in it and I’ll quote: “Faulks submitted substantial evidence to support its CUP application, which County Staff and Corporate Counsel specifically acknowledged.” Unquote

Can the staffers and Corporate Counsel please show all of the substantial evidence from Faulks Bros. that shows this permit is in compliance with the Township’s Comprehensive Plan and the Waupaca County Ordinance?

Where’s the substantial evidence? Please show everyone that information before voting on this permit. Thank you.

After hearing from my fellow neighbors today, I’m left with a sour taste in my mouth about this whole proceeding by the county.

In summary, the staffers’ recommendation is a complete reversal from the Township’s recommendation to deny this permit. The staffers did NOT include all of the conditions recommended by the Township, leaving out several very key ones like a timeline for the mine.

The County Attorney told the board members on August 22nd they MUST vote to approve the permit based on Act 67 when that’s NOT what Act 67 says.

And the County Attorney made an “agreement” with Faulks Bros. after they filed an appeal and were due a response in 20 days, rather than fight the proper decision of this board.

In addition, the Chairman falsely blamed the Township for four residential wells still not being on the permit. When you read through the requirements needed to be in compliance with Chapter 34, nobody could show any substantial evidence from Faulks Bros that they are in compliance. There are pages and pages of substantial evidence to prove that this permit is NOT in compliance with your own county ordinance or the Township’s Comprehensive Plan, which is critical. All you have to do is look at the packet again.

The evidence is overwhelming that this permit should be denied. Not only that, but the Village of Ogdensburg and the Township of St. Lawrence have written to this board supporting the Township of Scandinavia’s decision to deny this permit. The County SHOULD respect the Township’s decision; in fact it should respect all of the decisions by local municipalities.

If Faulks Bros. wants to appeal again after you explain why you voted to deny the permit, then let the courts decide. That’s what one board member said in August and it should be said again. Deny this permit and explain fully why you denied the permit and it will be over with. And if Faulks Bros still wants to appeal, then let the courts decide. But right now, this looks like a slam dunk against the permit. Please follow the law and deny this permit. Thank you.

This sand mine project is being forced on us. It does not belong here, squeezed in between all of us residents. It seems to be complete disregard and disrespect for how this is affecting all of the property owners and our rights to enjoy our properties and lifestyles in the future.

Common sense tells you that a sand mine literally on the edge of town, in the middle of a bunch of residents, where because of set-backs can only mine 20 acres out of 60. This does not belong here, not needed and definitely not wanted here by the majority of people. Location, location, location.

Property values WILL go down, no matter what some may say. It's just a question of how much! We, as the owners, may need that extra value in the future to live off. We may need to borrow off that to live, please don't take that away.

Much attention has been on these conditions, which, by the way, we did not agree to some. Why would we agree to things that hurt us or make it easy for them? We wouldn't.

But the attention should be on the requirements. The very first one says, the use will be compatible and appropriate in appearance with existing area and NOT impair or diminish the use, value or enjoyment of the existing area. A big hole in the ground will change the look, use, value and enjoyment of all the neighbors. As well as our community, it just will. Can not comply. Deny.

My name is Joanne Mentzel. I live at the south end of the proposed sand mine.

When the sand mine mess was first started, the car show people said, we are one weather event away from failure.

They claim they are doing this for the good of the community.

The sand on the 21-acre site WILL run out. Then how are they going to deal with the weather events?

Are they going to ruin other family’s homesteads like they are going to do to ours?

Faulks Brothers are requesting an unreasonable amount of time because they want the most value from that sand in market value.

Well, what about my house property value over those 10-15 years?

Does anyone care about us neighbors, who will have decreased market values for 13 plus years?

The board should think about this and deny this permit. Thank you.