In the days before the hearing set for this matter on July 12, I will be sending emails to illustrate, using ICS/Faulks own application, how the Applicants seek to circumvent or ignore these laws. For now I will state the obvious: this project comes much too close to too many homes. No other mine operating in our County comes anywhere close to the density of surrounding homes as this mine would. As such, and as I will show by substantial evidence, there really is no set of conditions anyone can specify or stipulate that will make this project acceptable under the laws of the County.

Thank you for your time.

Laura Scott

June 27th

Today I want to address the issue of the wells that surround the proposed mine site. Much has been made in prior meetings about the Applicant's failure to provide adequate information. As we know, Chapter 38 of WCO's states:

26.4.4 A map of all residential, agricultural and municipal wells within one quarter

(¼) mile of proposed mine site boundaries.

This CUP application has never done this. As of the date of the issuance of Notice of Public Hearing, (received by my attorney Christa Westerberg on June 21) this information has not been updated or changed since the matter was voted on at the Town of Scandinavia meeting on May 10, according to Jason Snyder, speaking to my neighbor Greg Ambrosius on June 21.

According to our counsel, after the notice of hearing, no information is allowed to be added to the CUP application, per a decision by the WI state Supreme Court. It seems to me, then, that this application should be denied just because they did not comply with the ordinance shown above.

HOWEVER, in my mind, the real issue behind the well controversy is simply that there are SO MANY WELLS TO FIND. That, in and of itself, should tell the Zoning Committee that the location of this proposed mine is completely inappropriate. Faulks may have had a hard time discerning where all the wells are, but the ordinance doesn't say "provide a map of all wells unless you can't find them." The ordinance seems to stress the importance of peoples' drinking water. The fact that SO MANY HOMES and their wells need to be located within a quarter mile is proof enough of the invasive, inappropriate nature of this proposal.

Thank you for your time.

Laura Scott

June 28th

Good morning,

My subject today concerns the requirement contained in Waupaca County ordinance Ch. 38 for non-metallic mining operations to be set back at least 500 feet from any dwelling or active farm building. The ordinance further states: "16.1 The setbacks in this section shall apply to all Nonmetallic Mining activity including, without limitation, the storage of waste materials, stockpiling, inventory, and equipment."

For reference please refer to the application, Sheet A5, Buildings map. This shows the 500 ft. setbacks. Then, see Sheet A13, Mine Plan Map. The applicants have always claimed that their operations will conform to these setbacks in A5. The truth is that sometimes they do. But as A13 indicates, in the southern end and eastern side of the mine plan, berms conspicuously are pushed to within 25 of the lot line.

While ordinances allow for berms themselves to be exempt from the 500 ft setback, mining operation within the berms must still adhere to them. BUT Faulks has set their exit ramp directly THROUGH the setback for the Mentzel's home and farm buildings, as seen in the Mine Plan Map. Surely, removal/trucking of the sand out of the mine is part of the mining operation! To claim otherwise is completely disingenuous. This is simply a clear, direct violation of ordinance. In and of itself, this is a basis for denying the CUP.

Additionally, as we know, the ordinances mandate (Ch. 34 and 38) that the application must conform in every respect with the Town Comprehensive Plan. As section 8 of the Town of Scandinavia Comprehensive Town Plan unequivocally states (LU 15): "Conditional use permits for mineral extraction operations should not permit extraction operations OR THE USE OF EQUIPMENT within 500 feet of existing residences." The intention here is crystal clear--keep mining equipment away from homes. This equipment would obviously include dump trucks, as well as heavy equipment used in moving or piling sand.

So, why are the berms careful to curve for some 500 ft setbacks, but not all of them? The southern and eastern berms show no such curve or conformity for setbacks identified for my home, the Casey residence, or the Mentzels' buildings. I strongly believe it is because Faulks needs that room in the southern end and eastern side to allow for heavy, large industrial equipment to (illegally) maneuver, or perhaps to provide (illegal) stockpiling space.

All of the above just illustrates, in yet another aspect, that the proposed mine site is too small, poorly located, and utterly unsuited for the industrial activity that is planned.

Thank you for your time.

Laura Scott

July 7th

Good morning:

Today my focus is on property values for homes adjacent to the proposed mine site.  Waupaca County Zoning ordinance 34.12.5 (b) contains this language:

" It is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate that the application and all requirements and conditions established by this ordinance ... 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."

Subpart 1 of the above states: "The proposed conditional 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."

In prior emails I have shown that the use and enjoyment of the area will indeed be changed, diminished and impaired.  But today I will focus on value.

Attached is a property appraisal of our home dated June 7, 2023, done by Akrivis Real Estate Valuation Services, located in Menasha WI. By this professional assessment, our home is valued at $341,000.

It could not be more clear, per ordinance, that the applicant is responsible for meeting the requirement that the value of my home will not be diminished.  Therefore, if this CUP is indeed granted, contrary to all evidence that it should be denied, then the applicant is responsible to ensure (remember, "is or shall be satisfied") that we receive full value for our property when we immediately list it upon CUP approval.  Due to incontrovertible health issues, we will no longer be able to inhabit our home if a sand mine operates next to it.  We will be forced to leave the family home that has been our sanctuary, our "little corner of heaven" for over a quarter century. 

And we will require full appraised value for that heinous intrusion, supplied by the Car Show and/or Faulks Bros., if a full-price buyer cannot immediately be secured prior to mining operations.

Let the applicant show, by substantial evidence, that they stand by the claim that this proposed mine will not harm local property values.

Thank you for your time

Laura Scott

July 11th

Good morning.

I will summarize just some of the CUP application standards encoded in County ordinances that the application fails to meet:

Under Chapter 38, Non-Metallic Mining:

            16.4: No active non-metallic mining operation shall be conducted within 500 ft of a dwelling or active farm building. The CUP appendices and maps indicate that operations including stockpiling, weighing and loading/transporting are planned to occur within these 500 ft. setbacks.

            16.5: No active non-metallic mining operation shall be conducted within 1,320 feet of a recorded subdivision.  As the proximity and density of homes around the site reflects, the intention of this ordinance applies here.  The County surely could not want any mine to operate closer than a quarter mile to where multiple families live, and where a neighborhood has been established for decades.

            26.4.5(5a): Provide a map at 400ft/in scale to show stockpile and storage locations, parking and a “buffer zone.”  None of this information is mapped. WHERE ARE THE 40-60ft TALL PILES GOING?

            26.4.6: Provide a date of cessation of mining activity. Never done. “Market conditions” does not cut it.

            26.4.13: Provide adequate screening. We have shown that on this site, with the closeness and location of homes, adequate screening is impossible!

            26.4.15: Provide safety measures such as fencing. Applicant has stated that they will not provide fencing of the site. Given the closeness of this proposed mine to Iola village and surrounding neighborhoods, it is highly foreseeable that kids will try to sneak in and mess around.  The need for fencing is obvious. On July 16, 1975, Dale Bowie of Menomonee Falls WI, died in a sand mine, buried in a sand pile while trying to climb it.  He was 14 years old. We cannot risk this. Better than fencing, the only true way to safeguard our children against tragedies like this is to allow NO MINE.

            27.1.4(a through e): these are consistent with Chapter 34.14.5 regarding the criteria for NMM application approval, and as those also state, ALL MUST BE MET:

The mine plan keeps the character of the existing use -- FAIL

The mine plan meets the Town Plan requirements -- UTTER FAIL

The mine plan has no negative effects on water or wetlands – FAIL

The mine plan poses no undue burden on services -- Ambulance/fire calls due to likely accidents: FAIL

The mine plan causes no road safety issues -- see above: FAIL

Under Chapter 34, Zoning:

14.5.1 (b) 1 through 6 (ALL MUST BE MET) the proposed conditional use will:

1) not ...substantially impair or diminish the use, value, or enjoyment of existing or future permitted uses in the area.  Per citizens' substantial evidence, OBVIOUS FAIL

2) not materially impact the established character and quality of the area ... in terms of the possible hazardous, harmful, noxious, offensive, or nuisance effects resulting from noise, dust, smoke,or odor. Per citizens' substantial evidence, OBVIOUS FAIL

3) be consistent with all relevant aspects of the Town and County Comprehensive Plans.  OBVIOUS FAIL !
4) not negatively affect wetlands.  FAIL.  The Mine Plan Map still indicates the wetland will be dug up.  Where is the wetland delineation report?

5) not impose an undue burden on any of the improvements, facilities, utilities, or services provided by public agencies. FAIL.  Overall safety concerns, especially regarding children in the area = burden on our Fire and Rescue services.

6) in a location where access to streets and highways is suitable, and ingress and egress is designed to minimize traffic congestion and the potential effect on traffic flow. FAIL.  We continue to have grave safety concerns about the in/out on Hwy J= accidents waiting to happen.

Add to this list the entire contents of the Town of Scandinavia's report  recommending denial of this CUP application, and there is more than enough grounds for the County to do so. 

Given all this, plus the rest of the substantial evidence mounted in our email communications and in our oral testimonies on July 12, the Waupaca County Zoning Board must surely issue a decision denying the ICS conditional use permit.

Thank you for your time.

Laura Scott

N6906 Olson Rd.