TOWN OF COOKS VALLEY
CHAPTER 19 MINING ORDINANCE
December 17 , 2008
Ron Fanetti, Chairman, convened the Public Hearing on Chapter 19 Mining Ordinance at 7:30 pm on December 17, 2008 at the Cooks Valley Town Hall 15748 40th Street. See the attached list of people present at the meeting.
Copies of the proposed changes to the Chapter 19 Mining Ordinance were dispersed to the delegation.
Earl Hassemer commented on #7 in the mining ordinance for an addition of restrictions on truck routes on town roads to be added on page 3 of the mining ordinance.
The suggestion of a referendum vote for each permit would not be legal. Notification of a mining application to adjoining landowners would be by certified letter sent by the clerk and a class 2 notice would be published for the notification of a public hearing on the mining application.
David LaGesse wanted clarification on the activities listed in Wis. Administration Cod NR 135.02(3).
There was discussion of the limit of one acre committed to mining on the total amount of acres that a person owns without the requirement of obtaining a permit. A permit is not required if the material taken from a person’s land is for their personal use. There were questions concerning the cost of an application and a permit. An application costs $500.00 initially and a permit costs $200.00 yearly. There was a question if new businesses come into Cooks Valley are they going to be permitted every year too? The answer was no. There was discussion there are differences between a new farm, a craft shop and a sand mining company. It was emphasized that a mining company would impact so much land, so many people, and everybody around is going to be concerned that there is a need for regulation. Loren Zwiefelhofer talked about possible expansion of a million and a half dollar operation with 400 semis coming in and asked how big a business would have to get before a permit would be needed ie. volume that the town is looking at. It was reiterated that the town is doing this ordinance because no one else is-state, county, or DNR. David LaGesse’s concern was the mining ordinance is not fair as other businesses do not pay a permit every year and have the regulations. There was a discussion about a large dairy operation would need permits but the county only has reclamation permits. There was discussion if a new person coming in would have to have a permit but a resident would be exempt. Anyone new or existing residence would have to get a permit if they extend over an acre. Building sites are exempt for the removal of dirt and do not need a mining permit.
There was discussion on section 2.06 on the procedures on applications and considerations of the board in granting a permit to protect public health and safety and promote the general welfare of the town and its citizens.
There was discussion about having 25 copies sent out containing the federal ID number of the applicant. The federal ID number and state ID number section will be removed from the application form.
There was a question about the requirement of an impact study. This issue is addressed under (8) Environmental section (B).
There was a question about changing the conditions of the permit after it was granted during the first year. The conditions of the permit can be changed by mutual agreement but once the permit is granted the conditions are fairly set. If there were complaints that were not addressed in the permit, the town board may work on these complaints from a public nuisance aspect or the town board could work with the complainant and developer to agree to modify the condition. There are two different issues: one is compliance with the permit and the other is adding new requirements. The town board can not add new requirements to a permit that is effective, but the board can require compliance. As this is a new ordinance, it is a learning experience and all issues may not have been addressed. But the board will try to work with problems in a fair and reasonable solution for the developer or mining company and residents.
Glenn Stoddard explained the legality of the motion to rescind village powers at the November 12, 2008 at the special meeting of the electors budget meeting. The motion was made and passed 18-10 to rescind village powers. Based on his research, it was not a valid decision of the town’s village powers as it was not noted prior to the meeting to the public. The law is if there is an action to be taken at a town meeting or annual meeting it needs to be noted in the public notice to the residents of the town. The village powers were not rescinded and are in effect.
David Clements made a motion to close the public hearing at 8:28 pm. Gary Yakesh seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0.
Draft Victoria Trinko
Typed December 28, 2008
Approved: January 12, 2009