Jump to content

Letter from Lt. Governor on dairy proposal


Recommended Posts

Everyone, I have been working with Mike Clifford and others regarding this proposal and wanted to post a letter that Lt. Governor Pat Quinn is sending today to the Jo Daviess County Board. Thanks for your continued work on conservation:

 

 

February 10, 2008

 

Mr. Marvin Schultz, Chair

Jo Daviess County Board

330 North Bench Street

Galena, IL 61036

 

Dear Mr. Schultz:

 

As chairman of the Mississippi River Coordinating Council, I am writing to oppose the dairy proposed by A.J. Boos and to urge the Jo Daviess County Board to vote “no” on the proposal to create a “mega-dairy” near the Apple River.

 

The Mississippi River Coordinating Council is a state commission established by the General Assembly and charged with the responsibility of protecting water quality of the Mississippi River watershed.

 

The proposed “mega-dairy,” and the animal waste lagoon that would be created by a facility of this size, would endanger area groundwater and streams. These wastes, if recycled responsibly as agricultural fertilizer, would cover a massive acreage of farmland; if concentrated over a smaller area, the over-application would result in serious environmental hazards. When runoff carries animal wastes into streams, the nutrients in the wastes promote excessive algae growth that dramatically alters the biological environment. In some cases, the algae overgrowth lowers oxygen levels, causing fish kills.

 

This proposal would place the “mega-dairy” at the headwaters of the Apple River, which is designated as a biologically significant stream by the State of Illinois. Within the county, the state also recognizes the Driftless Area as a Resource-Rich Area. The area also is part of a regional U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Fish Habitat Initiative.

 

Jo Daviess County is a tremendous resource for our state. Tourism and outdoor recreation opportunities in the county create jobs and yield long-term economic benefits. The businesses and the residents of Jo Daviess County are counting on you to protect the beautiful, healthy environment around the Apple River and ensure that your county remains an attractive tourism destination and a pleasant, wholesome place for families to enjoy the great outdoors.

 

Because I believe this proposed “mega-dairy” will harm the environment and the economy of Jo Daviess County, I hope you will vote “no” on the A.J. Boos proposal.

 

Sincerely,

 

Pat Quinn

Lt. Governor

 

Cc: Sen. Todd Sieben

Rep. Jim Sacia

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark Miller great letter from Lt Governor Pat Quinn, I see that if they took out the Animal Waste Lagoon it may fly. Is this a good idea. Would a proper waste disposal system make this a viable operation or would it still pose a threat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary, I don't know what is proposed as an alternative, so it is hard for me to comment. Can you provide me with some details? marc.miller@ illinois.gov

 

I have heard from IEPA that there is some promising work with methane digesters at swine facilities that create power from methane and create dried fertilizer pellets.

 

-MM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Digesters are not in the original plan.

That is a consideration penciled in for years down the road.

 

Any time a CAFO is on the table, there are 8 criteria that must be addressed, and this meeting did just that.

 

Here are the meeting minutes from January 31, 2008.

 

Hope this helps to make things clearer.

 

These minutes are not the official record until final approval at the next board or committee meeting and all

minutes may be changed until officially approved.

G:\County Board Committees\Development & Planning\MINUTES\2008\013108 Special Meeting.doc

- 1 -

COMMITTEE REPORT

COMMITTEE:

Development & Planning

CHAIRPERSON: Ron Mapes

DATE/TIME:

January 31, 2008. 6:00 p.m.

PRESENT:

Beth Baranski

Merri Berlage

Dorte Breckenridge

Ron Mapes

Marvin Schultz

Ron Smith

Sally Toepfer

Other Board members: Yerda Potter, Jody Carroll, Allan Kent

Others: Dan Reimer, Pat Leitzen-Fye

Chairperson Ron Mapes of the Jo Daviess County (JDC) Development & Planning

Committee, called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 31, 2008 at the

Jo Daviess County Board Room, Jo Daviess County Courthouse, Galena, Illinois.

1. Citizens Comments (30 minutes total)

Ron Mapes introduced the guests who where invited to the meeting - Richard

Breckenridge, IEPA Agriculture & Rural Affairs Advisor, Warren Goetsch, Illinois

Department of Agriculture Bureau Chief of Environmental Programs, AJ Bos, Dairy

Owner, Terry Feldmann, Agricultural Engineer from Maurer Stutz, Inc., Larry

Lyons of Lyons Well Drilling and Lester Johnson, JDC Resource Conservationist.

Ron Mapes stated that citizen’s comments would be limited to a total of 30 minutes

and asked that individuals state there name and where there were from. Written

questions would be collected and read at the end of the meeting. Several citizens

spoke. Jim Heidenrich stated that a business which receives more than 50 people per

week is located 3,550 feet from Tradition North not 4,840 feet as outlined in the

application and a letter referencing this would be sent to Mr. Goetsch. Rev.

Jacqueline Zeigler referenced criteria 6 and stated that it had not been met; given the

current state of odor technology, the potential for health hazards, and the amount of

animal waste to be generated, one of the many available digester technologies should

be required. Martin Hippie criteria 5, does not minimize environmental hazards, also

there is no road improvement or road maintenance plan and criteria 6 and 8 are not

being met, urged Committee to vote no so there is leverage for compliance. Joe

Otello lives outside Apple River State Park, the water quality of the Apple River is

excellent, large rain events could overflow the manure ponds and jeopardize the

recreation on the river. Kim Francis, criteria number 8, who is gaining from the

economic development, factory farms hurt small farmers, communities, and quality

of life. Bill Holland owner of a family farm stated that many Jo Daviess County

dairy farmers support Mr. Bos in his plans to locate here. John Claudette Illinois

Environmental Councils stated he is worried about the effects of such a large facility

on the environment and should be sent back to the state to take a closer look. Robert

Kepner Nora Township Road Commissioner discussed a letter to Mr. Goetsch

regarding road concerns and impacts and a petition with over 70 signatures from

Page 2

These minutes are not the official record until final approval at the next board or committee meeting and all

minutes may be changed until officially approved.

G:\County Board Committees\Development & Planning\MINUTES\2008\013108 Special Meeting.doc

- 2 -

residents of Nora Township who are opposed to upgrading Mahoney Road to an

80,000 lb road. Recommends an alternative that the owner construct own road to

connect with Hwy 78. Chris Beck, criteria 4, concerned with karst characteristics in

the area. Carol Pouzar a farmer on Cording Road stated the County’s

Comprehensive plan does not include factory farms, until a new zoning ordinance is

adopted this facility should not be grandfathered. Tom Bergstrom, county wide

tourism accounts for $157 million in economic impact, urged Committee to vote no

on this CAFO. Ron Mapes stated that question cards are available and would be

collected and addressed at the end of the meeting.

2. Unfinished Business

a)

Discussion and possible recommendation regarding a proposed livestock

facility in Nora Township – Tradition South/Tradition North Dairy

Warren Goetsch reviewed the status of the project and the application process to date.

The County’s next step is to render a non-binding recommendation to the IL Dept. of Ag

within 30 business days of the January 10 public hearing, meaning it is due at the Dept

February 25

th

. Once the Dept receives the County’s recommendation the Dept has 15

calendar days to make a final determination. During that time the Dept must receive from

the applicant detailed plans and specifications as to how each structure will be built

according to the design standards. The issue of karst has been brought up, the Act does

provide for enhancements in design standards. The County’s recommendations are very

important to the Dept especially questions and concerns in areas of the 8 siting criteria.

Once all information has been provided the Dept will make a final determination.

Ron Smith asked the difference between a lagoon and a pond. Warren Goetsch stated that

the Act is divided between lagoons and non-lagoons. Originally in 1996 the Act was

targeted at treatment in anaerobic lagoons. The Act was amended in 1999 to include all

types of holding structures. This proposal is for manure storage ponds. The design

standards are different in volumetric capacity. The liner standards for hydraulic

conductivity are pretty much the same. The big difference is no treatment in a waste

holding pond and the volumetric capacity is different. Ron asked about additional

requirements and financial responsibility of lagoons vs. non-lagoons. Goetsch explained

the provisions in the Act.

Richard Breckenridge Representative from the IEPA explained the role of the IEPA in

addressing air, water and land pollution. He has been asked -how will we inspect and

monitor this operation? The Pollution Control Board regulates such things as lagoons,

land application and applications that would potentially contamination waters of the state.

Under the Act the dairy would be held to zero discharge standards and must contain all

contaminants onsite. This compares to municipalities and septic systems that are allowed

to discharge within standard water quality regulations. Breckenridge explained that the

Agency responds to all citizen complaints. The dairy must maintain a manure

management plan. The agency does monitor livestock operations with a priority on large

Page 3

These minutes are not the official record until final approval at the next board or committee meeting and all

minutes may be changed until officially approved.

G:\County Board Committees\Development & Planning\MINUTES\2008\013108 Special Meeting.doc

- 3 -

CAFO operations. If this facility is built there is an inspector in Rockford who will work

with MR. Bos. The goal of the agency is to protect the environment of the State of

Illinois and protect the water and air in the state.

Beth Baranski asked if siting is approved, does the approval go with the land or the

applicant? Warren Goetsch responded that approval is given to an applicant for a specific

site. There is a requirement that applicant must start construction within a certain period

of time. From date notice of intent to construct applicant has one year to gain approval

and initiate construction. Approval does not go with the property. Only information

related to the Act is used to evaluate an application to construct. Once the facility is built

the owner is only required to provide notification of change in ownership. Beth asked

about set backs once a facility is built. Warren stated that set backs only apply to the

original submittal. If you want to expand an existing facility, construction has to be closer

to your facility than your neighbor.

Yerda Potter asked about the frequency of EPA inspections during construction and after

it is up and running. Richard Breckenridge responded that during construction a storm

water runoff permit is required and the EPA does monitor the application. This operation

will probably be inspected on an every other week basis, maybe weekly to start then

monthly. Richard stated he is aware of the public interest and sensitivity to the watershed.

Alan Kent asked if the IEPA receives a detailed waste management plan. Richard stated

the IEPA does not receive a copy of the manure management plan, however during

inspections the Dept does require the plan to be maintained on site.

Sally Toepher asked about karst areas, does that mean higher standards of construction or

does it eliminate construction. Warren stated that the presence of karst does not eliminate

a site from construction but design enhancements may be required.

Larry Lyons began by addressing karst areas. Commonly available maps do not identify

this area as karst, maps show it to be about 11 miles away. As a well driller Larry stated

that he was going to address ground water. The glacier did come through this area. The

rock formation around this site is not present to produce a karst situation. There are

multiply aquifers present in this area. Local wells are 175 to 200 feet deep; a well for this

facility will be approximately 500 feet deep so groundwater will not be an issue. There is

an issue with older wells in the Nora area some of which allow contaminates to leak in

and seep down. A well constructed properly will prevent this from happening. Another

issue is seepage of holding ponds. Lyons stated that most Jo Daviess and Stephenson

County communities have one or multiply waste treatment ponds or lagoons that have

been there 40 to 50 years. His company monitors most these ponds quarterly without any

problems.

Page 4

These minutes are not the official record until final approval at the next board or committee meeting and all

minutes may be changed until officially approved.

G:\County Board Committees\Development & Planning\MINUTES\2008\013108 Special Meeting.doc

- 4 -

Beth Baranski asked about seepage concerns and asked Warren Goetsch to explain.

Goetsch stated 1X10(7) is a design standard and equal to 11/4 inch per year. In a

livestock facility with manure that has significant amount of suspended solids the rate

would be even less into a clay liner. It is not considered a seepage rate it is a standard to

which the applicant is required to build the clay liner. Engineer Terry Feldmann stated

that the applicant took 15 borings at each site and ran tests on the soil. Permeability

results were very good and all exceeded the standard with the best ones 10 times better

than standard.

Lester Johnson stated that he received a detailed copy of the soil borings from Terry

Feldmann and had with him the state geologic survey map from the late 1990’s. The map

showed both highly sensitive soil conditions and low sensitive soils in the same area and

the soil borings corresponded. The North site has a bit shallower soil to bed rock. The

south sight has some dolomite lime stone rock which maybe considered aquifer material.

Warren discussed design standards for clay liners.

Beth Baranski asked Warren Goetsch for definition of a karst. Goetsch stated that if the

geological information meets the definition of a karst area per the LMFA then design

must be modified consistent with the Act. If everyone just feels it meets a karst area that

does not do it, it has to meet the definition. Beth asked again about the area versus the

site. Warren stated that the geographical extend of what the Dept looks at when applying

this definition is the foot print of where the facility will be built. The Dept has not yet

taken a position on this site and needs the submittal of more information for this specific

site.

Marvin Schultz asked AJ Bos if there have been any changes in plans since the public

hearing in Warren regarding the holding ponds. AJ stated that he plans to build the south

site first and getting it up and running good then if or when the north site is built it will be

built right and environmental friendly. Tourism may be underestimated, told of a friend

in Wisconsin who gives a lot of tours. AJ discussed his research on digesters. He did not

want to say if he would or would not put one in, he did discuss green energy and carbon

credits. He discussed his commitment to manure management, being a good neighbor and

doing it right. Marv asked about the depth of the ponds (up to 20’) and if they are dug

below ground level. Terry Feldmann explained that the design is balanced by cut and fill

and particularly dug in the ground and particularly above existing grade.

Alan Kent asked if AJ is applying for one or two sites and if the proposal is for holding

ponds or lagoons. Terry Feldmann responded that they are proposing holding ponds

which will be periodically pumped completely down. AJ stated that he would build the

south site first and is applying for two sites now so he doesn’t have to go through the

process again. He stated that the permitting standards he is applying for are above the

minimum standards, he wants to get all the operational aspects going first and wait until

Page 5

These minutes are not the official record until final approval at the next board or committee meeting and all

minutes may be changed until officially approved.

G:\County Board Committees\Development & Planning\MINUTES\2008\013108 Special Meeting.doc

- 5 -

the second or third year to decide on the type of a digester. A digester on each facility

will cost $3-3.5 million dollars. He has also looked at other technologies.

Ron Mapes asked about the timeline to build the second facility. Goetsch responded that

AJ would have, if approved, one year to start some construction and still maintain the

permit and then must finish construction in three years with up to a two year extension,

totaling five years.

Merri Berlage asked which type of manure holding facility is preferred, an above ground

storage unit or a holding pond or lagoon. Richard responded that it is all about

management. Both can be operated in a very neighbor friendly manner and function

correctly and Mr. Bos brings a high level of management to this operation. Warren stated

that he does not have a preference; both can be managed and operated properly. Merri

asked Terry and AJ if they have looked at above ground structures. Terry stated they have

and agreed with Warren and Richard on the pluses and minuses of both and that AJ has

looked at just about everything currently available.

Ron Smith asked AJ if he built the first facility and then decided to build the second and

put in a digester or burner would he also construct a digester at the first facility. AJ

responded if he decided to put in a digester he would put one in at both facilities.

Dorte Breckenridge asked what changes would be needed if the facility is built with

holding ponds and then a digester is added, what system changes would need to be done?

AJ stated that the design plans have room to install a future digester. AJ described the

process that would be used if a digester is installed. Richard Breckenridge pointed out

that there are two larger dairy operations in the area that are currently using digesters and

explained the type of product produced from a digester.

Beth Baranski discussed expansion requirements. Warren stated that there is a practical

limit to size, whereby the facility reaches a point where it is not practical to move feed,

animals, manure and/or people in and out. In the State the largest facility is currently

6,000 animal units, the largest dairy is 4,000, and this facility would be the largest. AJ

stated that construction of larger facilities are based on efficiency and expansion may not

be efficient especially in moving cattle to the milking parlor. Beth stated that she

understands there are practical limits but no legal limits. Warren stated this is true and

that under the 50 % limit in two years you could expand but would be subject to all the

requirements and that bio-security and land for manure management purposes may be a

limiting factors.

Page 6

These minutes are not the official record until final approval at the next board or committee meeting and all

minutes may be changed until officially approved.

G:\County Board Committees\Development & Planning\MINUTES\2008\013108 Special Meeting.doc

- 6 -

Ron Smith stated for the record that he has two maps showing heavily karst areas and an

old 1800’s map showing mining and karst areas. Ron feels that if you take enough soil

samples you will eventually find some of those worst areas.

Dorte Breckenridge inquired about the siting and what is included in the proposed site

plan boundaries. Terry Feldmann stated that the area labeled Tradition North is a facility

boundary and all the holding ponds, barns, and milking parlor most be included within

this area. Other ancillary or non livestock waste management could be located outside of

this area. Alan Kent asked if the buildings and lagoons are within the foot print?

Feldmann answered yes and that any feed storage could be located outside this area. Alan

asked the size of the foot print for each facility. Feldmann stated about 100 acres each.

Goetsch stated that anything regulated by the LMFA must be located within the foot print

area. Richard stated that the IEPA regulatory authority goes beyond the foot print and

includes all the land associated with the entire operation.

Ron Mapes asked County Administrator Dan Reimer to explain the requirements of the

Livestock Management Facilities Act as they apply to the County Board.

Reimer explained the responsibilities of the County Board and read the following from

the Livestock Management Facilities Act:

The Livestock Management Facilities Act establishes eight criteria that must be

met by a new livestock management or waste-handling facility.

(B) The county board shall submit at the informational meeting or within 30

days following the meeting an advisory, non-binding recommendation to the

Department about the proposed new facility’s construction in accordance with

the applicable requirements of this Act. The advisory, non binding

recommendation shall contain at a minimum:

1) a statement of whether the proposed facility achieves or fails to

achieve each of the 8 siting criteria as outlined in subsection (d).

2) a statement of the information and criteria used by the county board in

determining that the proposed facility met or failed to meet any of the

criteria described in subsection (d).

(d) At the informational meeting for the proposed facility, the Department of

Agriculture shall receive evidence by testimony or otherwise on the following

subjects.

Ron Mapes asked the members of the Committee for direction as to how they would like

to proceed. Baranski stated that she would like to address each criterion one by one and

take a vote on each one. Merri Berlage stated that the Committee should give the

Department recommendations according to the Act and tell them where we feel we have

questions and what we want them to look into further. Mapes asked the Committee to

begin with criterion number one.

Page 7

These minutes are not the official record until final approval at the next board or committee meeting and all

minutes may be changed until officially approved.

G:\County Board Committees\Development & Planning\MINUTES\2008\013108 Special Meeting.doc

- 7 -

1)

Whether registration and livestock waste management plan

certification requirements, if required, are met by the notice of intent to

construct.

Ron Smith did not feel he had enough information on the waste management

plan. Sally thought this met the notice of intent to construct. Merri felt that

notice of intent to construct had been met and that the waste management plan

would fall under the second criteria. Ron Mapes asked Goetsch for clarification.

Goetsch stated that the design of facility falls under number two. Number one is

focused on waste management plan certification requirements; this facility is

required to have a waste management plan that is reviewed, approved and prior

to operation but statute does not require at this point. Goetsch said he felt a bit

uncomfortable, happy to answer questions but does not want to tell the Board

what they should or should not do; this is the County Board’s opportunity to

make recommendations independent of the Dept and not influence in any way.

Beth asked about a business and definition of a populated area. Warren said past

interpretation has been 50 different people, didn’t have to be there at same time,

at least once a week when the entity is open. Berlage questioned if the business

referred to in the letter might be in violation of the zoning ordinance. Discussion

followed

Beth Baranski made a motion that criteria number one has not been met. Ron

Smith seconded. Motion passed, 5 yes, 2 no.

Committee concern – whether or not there is a business located within the set

back requirements allowed for a populated area.

2)

Whether the design, location, or proposed operation will protect the

environment by being consistent with this Livestock Management Facilities

Act 510 ILCS 77.

Merri Berlage stated that given the facts it will be consistent with the LMFA.

Beth discussed the facility near Bloomington with good management, the sites

are environmentally different, the letter of the law may be met but questioned the

spirit of the Act and questioned the design of the facilities given where it is

located and the technologies available. Ron Smith said we are making comments

on two sites not just one and our determinations are for two sites so no the

proposed locations will not protect the environment. Merri reread the question

and reminded the Committee that is not what you think rather is it consistent

with the Act. Ron Smith stated that construction is still open-ended. Ron Mapes

discussed interpretation of the question and that there are some environmental

questions in the area. Berlage stated that it meets the LMFA. The Committee

discussed several environmental issues such as karst areas, wetlands, tile

drainage and design issues.

Page 8

These minutes are not the official record until final approval at the next board or committee meeting and all

minutes may be changed until officially approved.

G:\County Board Committees\Development & Planning\MINUTES\2008\013108 Special Meeting.doc

- 8 -

Beth Baranski made a motion that criteria number two has not been met. Ron

Smith seconded. Motion failed, 3 yes, 4 no.

Merri Berlage made a motion to approve criteria number two that the design,

location, or proposed operation will protect the environment by being consistent

with this Livestock Management Facilities Act, with a recommendation that there

are concerns with the environment. Motion seconded by Ron Mapes.

Merri Berlage amended the motion to add concerns regarding karst areas,

wetlands, geological maps, and the tile drainage. Motion seconded by Ron

Mapes. The amendment passed, 7 yes, 0 no. The motion passed, 7 yes, 0 no.

3)

Whether the location of the facility minimizes any incompatibility

with the surrounding area’s character by being located in any area zoned for

agriculture where the county has zoning or where the county is not zoned,

the setback requirements established by this Livestock Management

Facilities Act are complied with.

Marv Schultz made a motion that the location of the facility minimizes any

incompatibility with the surrounding area’s character by being located in any

area zoned for agriculture where the county has zoning or where the county is

not zoned, the setback requirements established by this Livestock Management

Facilities Act are complied with. Merri Berlage seconded the motion. The motion

passed, 7 yes, 0 no.

4)

Whether the facility is located within a 100-year floodplain or an

otherwise environmentally sensitive area (defined as an area of karst area or

with aquifer material within 5 feet of the bottom of the livestock waste

handling facility) and whether construction standards set forth in the notice

of intent to construct are consistent with the goal of protecting the safety of

the area.

Sally Toepfer stated it was her understanding this site is not located within the

100 year floodplain and that they are proposing to meet the building standards

according to the karst area definition so it meets the criteria. Discussion

continued that this is not being built on a karst. Ron Smith stated that this is an

environmentally sensitive area and karst has to be looked at as we are looking at

two facilities not just one and there are other environmentally sensitive areas in

the area like Apple River Canyon State Park. Berlage read the definition of an

environmentally sensitive area from criteria four and asked Ron Smith to add his

environmentally sensitive areas to his motion.

Ron Smith made a motion that due to the fact that this is an environmentally

sensitive area, the criterion submitted has not been met. Dorte Breckenridge

Page 9

These minutes are not the official record until final approval at the next board or committee meeting and all

minutes may be changed until officially approved.

G:\County Board Committees\Development & Planning\MINUTES\2008\013108 Special Meeting.doc

- 9 -

seconded the motion. Ron Smith amended the motion, due to the fact that this an

environmentally sensitive area further investigation is needed on this being a

karst area that could have impact on the Wolf Creek, the Apple River, and

adjacent property wells. Dorte Breckenridge seconded the motion. The

amendment passed 6 yes, 1 no. The motion passed, 7 yes, 0 no.

5)

Whether the owner or operator has submitted plans for operation that

minimize the likelihood of any environmental damage to the surrounding

area from spills, runoff, and leaching.

Berlage stated the manure management plan presented in testimony at the

hearing in Warren had met the criteria. Baranski stated she felt that more things

could be incorporated into the plan like a methane digester that would minimize

environmental damage and for that reason it does not met the criteria. Toepfer

asked if plans call for one year holding capacity and the requirement is 150 days

and this is double the requirement. Answer given was yes.

Merri Berlage motioned that criteria number five has been met. Ron Mapes

seconded the motion. The motion passed, 4 yes, 3 no.

6)

Whether odor control plans are reasonable and incorporate

reasonable or innovative odor reduction technologies given the current state

of such technologies.

Baranski stated this is the place for methane digesters. She reported on her

research regarding the effectiveness of digesters and the technologies that are

already out there and the political climate supports. Due to the karst nature and

sensitivity of the general area and given the current state of technologies this is

even more important that this is part of the plan of the facility and it is our

responsibility to make sure it is part of the plan.

Baranski made a motion that criteria number six has not been met. Dorte

Breckenridge seconded the motion. Marv Schultz amended the motion that the

odor control plan has not been met because it does not incorporate any new

technologies such as methane digesters or burners and in keeping with the

comprehensive plan of encouraging growth to the communities we do not want to

hurt the Village of Nora. Beth Baranski seconded the motion. The amendment

passed 7 yes, 0 no. The motion passed 7 yes, 0 no.

7)

Whether traffic patterns minimize the effect on existing traffic flows.

Dorte Breckenridge asked for clarification on where traffic will be going once it

leaves the farm. The Committee looked at the map and the distance to Hwy 78.

Baranski discussed how the McLean County dairy built and agreed to maintain

an 80,000lb road. Schultz stated that this is a difficult question to answer, we

Page 10

These minutes are not the official record until final approval at the next board or committee meeting and all

minutes may be changed until officially approved.

G:\County Board Committees\Development & Planning\MINUTES\2008\013108 Special Meeting.doc

- 10 -

have not seen plans and how about the road to Nora. Terry Kurt stated that from

testimony at the public hearing he felt the traffic patterns meant the traffic

coming in and out of the facility and is that going to minimize the effect on

existing traffic flows. Baranski stated that she felt that because it was so close to

Hwy 78 it would minimize the effect on existing traffic flows. Ron Mapes stated

that he did not fell that the taxpayers of Nora Township should have a burden to

maintain the road.

Beth Baranski made a motion that criteria number seven has been met. Merri

Berlage seconded the motion. Ron Mapes made a motion to amend the motion

that the owner is to enter into a contract with Nora Township to upgrade E.

Mahoney Road to an 80,000 lb road. There was no second the motion died. Marv

Schultz made a motion to amend the motion to ask the Dept of Agriculture to

work with the applicant and governing bodies that are affected by the dairies

operation to work together to make E. Mahoney Road an 80,000 lb. road from

Hwy 78 to Stage Coach Trail in Nora. The amendment passed 4 yes, 3 no. The

motion failed 3 yes, 4 no.

8)

Whether construction or modification of a new facility is consistent

with existing community growth, tourism, recreation, or economic

development or with specific projects involving community growth, tourism,

recreation, or economic development that have been identified by

government action for development or operation within one year through

compliance with applicable zoning and setback requirements for populated

areas as established by the Livestock Management Facilities Act 510 ILCS

77/12(d).

Baranski stated that to her not having the appropriate technology such as a

methane digester, a community nearby and the importance of tourism in the

County this criteria has not been met. Ron Smith added that there is a question

on the set back requirement for a populated area which needs to be answered.

Beth Baranski made a motion that criteria number eight has not been met. Ron

Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 yes, 2 no.

Ron Mapes stated that the eight criteria questions have been addressed and we

are down to a board recommendation.

Beth Baranski made a motion that the County does not recommend this facility

as has been applied for. Ron Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed 4

yes, 3 no. Baranski, Smith, Breckenridge and Toepfer voted yes. Berlage, Mapes

and Schultz voted no.

The following discussion took place before the above motion was voted on.

Page 11

These minutes are not the official record until final approval at the next board or committee meeting and all

minutes may be changed until officially approved.

G:\County Board Committees\Development & Planning\MINUTES\2008\013108 Special Meeting.doc

- 11 -

Baranski stated the reason for her motion is specific – there are places where

facilities like this fit very naturally like the one we toured by Bloomington based

on what is below the ground and what is in the area. In this one there is more

complicated geology and we are close to population areas. There are tested

technologies available that will minimize the impact and because of the nature of

our area with tourism and communities close by it is very important that these

technologies are incorporated into the design. It has to be in the notice of intent

and application otherwise there is nothing holding them to anything. If we let it

in we let it in at lower standards than are available and our area warrants a higher

standard.

Ron Mapes reviewed the pros and cons of making a recommendation one way or

another. Sally Toepfer asked if the applicant can amend or revise the application.

Ron Mapes asked Warren Goetsch to expand on this. He stated that there are

provisions in the Act that do allow the applicant to make additions or corrections

to the application once the process is over. However there are limitations, if they

make changes and exceed certain levels that are spelled out in the Act like

changes to volumetric storage facilities or increases to capacity of the facility the

Dept would re-notify the County Board and allow the County to go through the

public information process again.

B)

Greenways & Trails grant agreement

Baranski reviewed the Greenways & Trails grant agreement and reported that five RFQ’s

were received.

Ron Smith made a motion to approve the Greenways & Trails grant. Ron Mapes

seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

3. Citizens’ Comments

Written questions from the audience were read and answered.

4. Board Member Concerns

Ron Mapes thanked everyone for attending the meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...