Debate on proposed gravel pit begins in Flowerfield Twp.

By Robert Tomlinson
News Director

FLOWERFIELD TWP. — Residents of Flowerfield Township and the Cranberry Lake Road area fully packed the Flowerfield Township Hall Tuesday night for what will most likely be one of several meetings debating and discussing a proposed gravel pit in the township.

The main topic of Tuesday’s meeting, the first of the year for the township, came about over the last month when the St. Joseph County Road Commission approved authorization of a purchase agreement to buy 65 acres of land off Cranberry Lake Road between Day Road and Bent Road for $455,000 with the intention of putting a gravel pit in the area. The purchase was completed on Dec. 27.

In the last two weeks, opposition has risen to the possible pit, with a group led by Cranberry Lake Road resident Linda Mahr sprouting up to go against the potential project, citing impacts to air quality, environmental impact and possible impact to property values and existing farmland as their objections to the project.

Representatives from the Road Commission were also in attendance, including Manager John Lindsey and Operations Director Don Preston.

The board, ultimately, did not take official action with regards to the gravel pit, as the township’s planning commission has yet to discuss a rezoning application to the township for the property in question, which is the next step in the process before anything can be put in. However, the board held around 90 minutes of discussion Tuesday, with people from both sides of the issue speaking, commenting and asking questions of the township, road commission and Zoning Administrator Doug Kuhlman.

Mahr began discussion by presenting a bevy of information to the board to supplement her group’s opposition, including a 2006 Upjohn Institute report on the economic impact of a proposed gravel mine operation in Richland and a report from professional geologist Mike Wilczynski on potential “very serious consequences” of the proposed pit. Mahr reiterated the reasons for opposition in a statement she read to the board, adding that the gravel pit “doesn’t fit existing land use” and that approval of the pit could result in “legal consequences.”

“I will not allow you to sacrifice my well-being or that of my neighbors for the blind ambitions of politicians in Centreville, Lansing or beyond. We are everyday citizens willing to stand up to powerful politically-connected officials in our local, county and state government,” Mahr said. “We are country people, resourceful, tough, unyielding in defending our rights from the overreach of government. … Please vote no to rezoning the land from its current agricultural use. If you vote yes, there will be significant opposition from the residents, which may include legal action.”

Kuhlman spoke next, saying that as of Tuesday afternoon, there had not been an application made to either him or the township regarding the property in question. He also mentioned that when officials from the Road Commission attended December’s meeting of the Flowerfield Township board, they only noted “what we were looking at going down the road,” and that there was “nothing in motion.” He then suggested that the board not discuss the issue too much in advance, as there would be a public hearing in the future prior to any decisions made on allowing the potential project to continue.

“We’ve got the cart way ahead of the horse. I’m suggesting to this board that you do not do a whole lot of discussion on this topic, because it’s inappropriate at this time,” Kuhlman said. “I don’t have an application, the process to take place is that there will be a public hearing, everybody within 300 feet of this property will be notified, it’ll be put on our website, it’ll be put in the newspaper at least 15 days in advance the public hearing, and it’s a public hearing for everyone to attend. For us to sit here and discuss what can happen and can’t happen and what may happen and what may not happen is inappropriate, because it should be in a public hearing sector.”

Lindsey, for his part, brought a folder with the completed application in it to the meeting, and presented it to Kuhlman following the meeting’s conclusion.

Kuhlman continued, slightly changing topics and mentioning bills in the legislature that could potentially strip local control from townships on siting of gravel pits, similar to legislation that was passed a couple of months ago regarding the siting of large-scale renewable energy facilities. He said it was a “hot-button topic,” but if the pit gets denied, the project would sit in Lansing as “a prime case of NIMBY [Not In My Backyard] theory” and an example of why such legislation would be needed.

“It’s a vicious circle, so I suggest you work with us and hopefully keep local control than keep raising such a stink that it goes to Lansing and it gets taken away from us completely,” Kuhlman said to a couple of groans from the audience.

Flowerfield Township Supervisor Ron Shaver then commented, saying it was “a fact that roads need gravel,” and that such a pit could potentially help the northwest portion of St. Joseph County, which includes the township. However, he said at this time, he wanted the planning commission to make a decision before passing judgement himself on the project.

“We probably will leave it to mostly the planning commission, because that’s the process,” Shaver said. “They deal with zoning issues and so forth.”

Kuhlman said he does not anticipate a lot of discussion of the issue at the planning commission’s Jan. 18 meeting, saying the soonest a public hearing could take place is February.

Lindsey then discussed the Road Commission’s perspective on the issue, noting that the agency had been looking for property to have a new gravel pit for quite a while. He also discussed the process and timelines of what would occur on the property if the pit is approved, saying they would crush gravel on the property for three weeks every five years during the daylight hours, and would not involve mining or putting wells in the pit. He also said they would not be selling gravel to outside entities.

“To think that we were just jumping on this to disturb people’s property, we don’t want that. We have other gravel pits in the county; these only serve your roads, these are for the purpose of fixing your roads. We don’t sell gravel to the neighbors,” Lindsey said. “We try to be good neighbors, and we’ve had zero complaints [about gravel pits] in the 15 years I’ve been at the road commission. … We’re way ahead of the timeline for letting the process take place.”

Citizens then asked Lindsey a few questions, including whether or not he would want a gravel pit on his road. He responded that gravel “is the first ingredient to a road commission.”

After Lindsey spoke, Mahr accused Lindsey of “not doing homework” and “putting your horse before the cart,” asking if the agency had done studies from the Department of Environment Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE) on the property as of yet – Lindsey said they would go through the planning commission process first – or if they were aware there were wetlands on the property – Lindsey said there were.

“We’ve done our homework, you process gravel, but you haven’t done the proper homework for this location,” Mahr said, asking Lindsey if he’s prepared for a possible legal fight. “I speak for myself, but I’m prepared for a long, drawn-out legal fight. Are you willing to go all the way to District Court?”

Shaver then responded, saying, “We’re not starting a fight,” and that the township is “not planning to fight at all.”

“We’re going to go through the process that is required of us, which includes a public hearing in which all the facts will come out,” Shaver said, then addressed Mahr herself. “If you really want to know the truth, I think you’re starting fires. Nobody else is starting those fires. Doug is correct, we shouldn’t get too far down this road until we know what’s really going to happen, and we shouldn’t be getting ourselves in legal trouble by trying to explain something we haven’t been through the process about.”

Later on in the discussion, Preston, the Road Commission operations manager, addressed concerns about big trucks going down the road to pick up gravel from the proposed pit. He said that they would mainly be road commission dump trucks coming to get those, not larger-size trucks. He also mentioned that they would start the gravel pit on just one acre of the land in question.

As to concerns about silica dust from the gravel, Preston said that is regulated through EGLE, and that companies that assist them in processing the gravel have to have air quality permits and follow regulations. He also said they weren’t planning on running what he called a “wash operation,” using water to get the gravel, adding that the plan is to not go where the water table is in the area.

Another resident, Mike Waterman, then read a statement of his opposition to the gravel pit, saying that Cranberry Lake Road is “more residential” than a lot of roads in the township, noting that there are 15 houses on their particular stretch of road and opposed mining in a residential area like the road.

“I just don’t want you to think that we’re just a lonely dirt road,” Waterman said. Shaver said he has made that point clear to the road commission.

When asked what would stop the county from supplying other entities other than the road commission with gravel, Kuhlman said the planning commission could implement conditions on the rezoning effort to prevent that from happening.

Near the end of the meeting, some of the residents, including Mahr, attempted to accuse the board members of already coming to a decision on approving the gravel pit based on some of their comments. The board members refuted that despite heavy jeering from the crowd at one point.

Overall, Shaver said the township will try to “separate facts from the fiction” on the issue of the gravel pit and come to a decision once a review has been completed by the planning commission.

“Our people will try to do that the best we can. But, remember, they’re citizens just like you and I,” Shaver said. “It goes to the planning commission; Doug puts together a very impressive document to take to the planning commission on the issues surrounding it. The public’s invited to it, they study the issue. … The planning commission will then have a public hearing February at best, they do their work, and that’s where the work gets done, then they bring a recommendation to us. I can assure you I will listen thoroughly to their recommendation and we will make a final decision.”

In other business…

• Shaver said the township is currently looking at land a half-mile away from the current township hall to construct a new township hall in the future. He asked the board to look at the land, and indicated he would call a special meeting in the future to potentially purchase the land in question.
• The board did not take any official action, but indicated a willingness to change or remove what some residents in attendance called an “offensive” history blurb on the township’s official website. Currently, on the township’s homepage, there is a short paragraph titled “Historical Information” about the township, which references that, among other things, “the local Indians would loot the vegetables from the garden and slide in the chimney hole on the roof of houses and steal bacon and flour.” While some board members said they were unaware of the statement on the website, all of the board members agreed that the statement was in poor taste and offensive, and said they would welcome assistance in creating a more accurate historical information section.

Robert Tomlinson can be reached at 279-7488 or robert@threeriversnews.com.