By Greg Ambrosius

On Tuesday, Nov. 26, Christa Westerberg of Pines Bach, LLP officially filed an appeal in Waupaca County Circuit Court against the Waupaca County Board of Adjustment. The appeal was on behalf of three Township of Scandinavia neighbors regarding the sand mine permit that was given to Faulks Bros. on Oct. 25.

The Board of Adjustment now has 20 days to provide a written answer to the petition and then the case will be assigned to a judge. The plaintiffs are seeking a review of the BOA’s decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a non-metallic mining site on the Iola Car Show grounds.

Westeberg noted four areas why the decision should be reversed on statutory certiorari review: 

a. The Board failed to follow the law because it granted a CUP that did not meet the requirements of the County’s zoning and nonmetallic mining ordinances, including the first three CUP standards in Ordinance ch. 34, section 14.5, and relied on other legal errors, such as concluding that the Board could not consider neighbors’ individual circumstances in assessing whether the standards were satisfied or that the Board could disregard the Town’s comprehensive plan due to its belief the plan was outdated;

b. The Board failed to follow the law because it granted a CUP that did not meet the requirements for a non-metallic mine CUP in a Farmland Preservation area as required by Wis. Stat. § 91.46(6) and County ordinance, ignoring the impact of the operation of the mine while it is in operation, the applicant’s failure to consider alternatives, and the fate of the land as a parking lot;

c. The Board failed to follow the law and appropriately exercise its discretion because it did not sufficiently articulate its reasoning as  to why all of the County’s standards were satisfied, either on the record or in its written decision;

d. The Board erred in approving a CUP application that was not supported by substantial evidence on all applicable ordinance requirements, e.g., Waupaca County Ord. ch. 34, § 14.5, and Waupaca County Ord. ch. 38 § 27.1.4., particularly concerning the impact to property values, and where other substantial evidence showed the standards could not be met. 

We will update this case as it moves forward, so stay tuned here.