Marc Miller Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary L Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Miller Posted February 11, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jude Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 Thanks for posting the letter Marc. That made my day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Clifford Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 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. ( 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.