Legalectric

Here they are, the two County Attorneys bookending the three developer reps, probably congratulating themselves on the County’s granting of the “Juhl Energy Development in partnership with Agri-Energy/GEVO” Conditional Use Permits for Sections 17 and 19 in Rock County.

What’s the big deal? Well, let’s start with the application, which was “fluff” — incomplete to put it mildly, and yet it was forwarded to the Planning Commission, a hearing was held without necessary information and documentation, and then it went to the County Board. Really, no exaggeration. Here’s the full board packet:

And what’s odd about this? The “conditions” proposed in the Board packet:

These are things that are to be included with an application, and if not, the Ordinance says that the application is not complete. FYI, this Ordinance was adopted in 2018, but is NOT posted on the County’s Website with the other Ordinances — really — check the link. WTF? Here it is (the County Attorney sent me a pdf, but it was only the even pages! Another WTF! Thankfully a little birdie sent the full Ordinance.):

NOTE in the heading: “An application to the County for a permit under this section is not complete unless it contains the following…” with all those 1-19 requirements constituting “the following.”

Take another look at the “application” in the board packet, two “applications” and a total of 10 pages! What a farce.

On behalf of the Jarchows, I’d sent a letter to the County Attorney, Administrator, and Zoning/Land-Use Administrator, and the County Board, laying out the problems, particularly stressing the egregiously incomplete application, together with an Affidavit of John Jarchow explaining their concerns with the potential nuisance coming to their property, a pre-existing permitted use:

And a Data Practices Act Request:

On to yesterday’s meeting. The County Attorney admitted that the Board had only the materials of the posted pack in front of them. As to the many missing items necessary for a complete application, one Commissioner asked about the Ordinance requirement of completeness, and the County Attorney said (not exact quote, but close) at least twice:

Oh, I wouldn’t be concerned about what the Ordinance says.

Really… I’d reminded the Commissioners of their Oath of Office, and I wonder if they thought about that. What’s the point of an ordinance if it’s ignored by the Board, the Planning Commission, and the Zoning Administrator who referred that incomplete application forward?

There were unstated claims that the biofuel plant needs this project to be able to sell to a California company. There’s a deadline approaching as the developers say this will be operational by year end.

IF THIS PROJECT IS SO IMPORTANT TO THE PLANT, AND TO THE COMMUNITY, why would the developer submit such an inadequate application? It’s on them, if they want to grease the skids and make it sail through, to do it right. But they didn’t.

Why would the Zoning Administrator forward such an inadequate and non-compliant application to the Planning Commission to review? Why would the Planning Commission hold a hearing and recommend it be approved when there is no record on which to base its “Findings.” Why would the County Board approve a CUP with so little record, and make a decision that has no record to support it? Why would the County allow a developer to put it in this position?

It’s on the developer to provide a complete application. If this project is so important, why would a developer make this strategic decision not to provide what’s required in an application?

Because they could? Because they couldn’t/can’t provide the information required? Because they knew the County wouldn’t make them follow the County Ordinance?

“Oh, I wouldn’t be concerned about what the Ordinance says.” Don Klosterbuer, Rock County’s County Attorney

Follow up Data Practices Act Request #2: