• Attorney Diane Meulemans stated that an “agreement” had been met that allowed them not to respond to the Faulks Bros. appeal/suit in 20 days. She did not say who the agreement was with or what was in the agreement, but there continues to be no response to the appeal and Faulks Bros hasn’t taken it up with Judge Huber.

• In order to have a “reconsideration” vote, one of the board members who voted to deny the permit had to request it. Cindy Hardy requested it, but the other two board members who voted with her to deny the permit did not second the motion. It took Wayne Federwitz, who is a strong opponent of the sand mine permit, to second the vote. Once the “reconsideration” vote was seconded, the previous decision is wiped out as if it never happened. We are now starting this process all over at the County level, but the public isn’t allowed to testify or even point out factual errors.

• Act 67 wasn’t mentioned once in the board’s packet of information, but at the August 22nd meeting it was Chairman Jim Nygaard and Meulemans who told the board that they had to approve the permit if Faulks Bros. agreed to all of the conditional uses created by the staffers. There was no language for the board members to read about Act 67 or anything; just this mandate from Meulemans.

• At this meeting, it was obvious that Meulemans realized that Act 67 says “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.” She realized since the August 22nd meeting that the operator must agree to the conditional uses (which Faulks did) AND be in compliance with all of the county ordinances. We’ve specifically said for a year now that this permit can NEVER comply with County Ordinance Chapter 34.14.5.1(b) because of the location of the mine.

• There are seven points in that statute that Meulemans lectured the board members on and she said that the board had to find “substantial evidence” that the permit was not in compliance with any of them. Points 1, 2 and 3 seem clear cut and we’ll discuss them individually later, but there was little to no discussion on them by the board members. That was crazy.

• When it came to Point 1, Hardy did ask why there was an open timeline for the permit when the Township of Scandinavia specifically asked for a 5-year limit on the permit. After some discussion, the board did suggest a 5-year limit on the permit with a possible 3-year extension, leaving up to 8 years for this sand mine. Hardy also said the hours of operation as suggested by the Township was 9 am to 5 pm, whereas the staffers’ recommendation was 9-6 pm. Again, the staffers said they included all the conditional uses requested by the Township of Scandinavia, but these were just two of the examples that they somehow didn’t include. In fact, at the August 22nd hearing, Director Ryan Brown admitted there was no timeline or end date as the project could take 10-15 years or longer. Having no timeline is against the Township’s Comprehensive Plan and they knew that.

• Since Faulks Bros. would have to agree with those new suggestions, no vote could be taken and it was agreed to postpone the meeting until late November when the board could ask Faulks Bros. questions on those two topics. So once again, the meeting was postponed to a later date, where a new vote to approve or deny the permit will take place.

• Since no board member brought up any reason or showed any evidence that the permit was still not in compliance with the first three statutes, it’s unlikely that any board member could vote against it. Evidence needed to be given to show substantial evidence that the permit was not in compliance and thus the outcome seems pre-determined with a one-month delay.

What are the requirements for Faulks Bros. and the Iola Old Car Show to be granted the CUP permit?