RIVER FALLS – The River Falls City Council approved a special use permit Jan. 23 for an anaerobic digester, located at W10322 Highway 29, despite citizen pleas not to. Council members made …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in, using the login form, below, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account and connect your subscription to it by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
RIVER FALLS – The River Falls City Council approved a special use permit Jan. 23 for an anaerobic digester, located at W10322 Highway 29, despite citizen pleas not to. Council members made clear they must approve the permit if requirements are met, due to state law.
The recommendation was forwarded to the city council by the River Falls ETZ Committee. The Extra Territorial Zoning district is the area lying outside of the city. Its purpose is to provide proper zoning for land use control over the area and to allow for orderly growth and development.
The proposed facility will be located on the parcel immediately north of the existing Peterson dairy farm in the town of River Falls, adjacent to a sand extraction area. The Peterson family owns the majority of the land around the 11-acre project, said Emily Shively, assistant director of community development.
The 80 acres to the east and 160 acres to the north of the proposed facility are zoned Exclusive Agriculture in the City of River Falls ETZ and the approximately 160 acres to the southwest of the proposed facility are zoned Farmland Preservation in the Town of River Falls.
The facility will combine manure from the farm’s operations with organic food waste brought to the facility from food producers, restaurants, grocery stores and other organic food waste, a city memo states. No manure from other farms will be used.
“The anaerobic digester process creates biogas (for use as an energy product), a dry waste product that may be used as compost or animal bedding, and liquid fertilizer that may be applied to crop land in accordance with nutrient management guidelines,” the memo states.
The facility will have eight to 10 full-time employees working onsite Monday through Saturday. The company, Vanguard Renewables (working in conjunction with Peterson Family Real Estate), had originally proposed allowing food waste material deliveries 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. Due to citizen concerns provided at the December city council meeting, the hours have been changed to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Vanguard estimated approximately 20-25 trucks will enter and exit the site per day via an improved, commercial grade access driveway from County Road FF immediately west of the River Falls Dog Park. The memo said the Peterson family prefers access via County Road FF to minimize disturbance to the farm’s existing operations and sand mine lease area. According to Vanguard’s application, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation estimates there are 530 annual average daily trips on County Road FF and 3,300 on Highway 29 in that area.
The proposed lease is for 20 years with five-year extension options. The Peterson Family Dairy would be responsible for the organic material’s use and sale, while Vanguard would be responsible for the operations and emergency response related to the digestion facility.
Neighbors’ opinions
During public comment, many residents spoke about the project. First up was Dick Rinehart, who lives on Steelhead Drive.
“The project is fantastic. I’m all for it. I’ve been recycling and doing things since 1980, long before many of you other people even knew about recycling … But what I am very concerned about and I hope everyone takes heart in what I’ve got to say, is that finding out about what was going on just across the street from where I live at the 11th hour, many people over there were shocked to find out about it,” Rinehart said. “I am not here to place blame on the city or the township or the ETZ, but I would like all three of you to examine how this came about, that all the people that are involved on FF, around this wonderful project that’s going to transpire, we were never really notified where we could at least express our feelings about different things about it.”
Scott Erickson, who lives on Highway 29, said changing the hours of delivery from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. is nice, but with up to 30 trucks per day, that’s a truck every 12 minutes with a third of those being semis.
“I’m still worried about toxic gases and odors and also the impact that’s going to have on property values, more so, that’s really the bigger thing. But it’s really the issues around County Road FF as the primary entrance. After reviewing some of the documents that came from Vanguard Jan. 16, they offer really no significant changes to the previous request and they don’t address the concerns that your constituents were expressing back in December,” Erickson said. “They say vital to their mission is to help improve the quality of life, but in fact it’s actually harming the property owners that are on that road.
“I think the very first condition that should always be at the forefront of everybody’s mind is ‘do no harm,’ regardless of whether it’s environmental or harm to individual’s properties in the form of livability or a reduction in the values of those properties.”
Aurora Circle resident Paul Boespflug said he realizes there’s not much the city can do, but believes the township and ETZ Committee didn’t look into the possible noise pollution factor.
“My property, my neighbor’s property, the value is going to decrease,” Boespflug said. “Doesn’t matter. What am I going to do about that? What is Vanguard gonna give me? I don’t know. Probably nothing. Was there a noise study done, a noise pollution study? No. Was there a traffic enforcement study done? I don’t believe so because I think that the data that they used was from 2021 and I know for sure that there’s more traffic there now. The 35 mph speed limit can’t be enforced, or can it? From what we understand from the county it can’t. So what do we do as concerned citizens? What do we do as taxpayers of the city of River Falls? We’re left in a lurch.”
City presentation
During a presentation by Shively, she addressed concerns expressed that night and at the December meeting.
“The primary concern at the Dec. 12 public hearing was related to proposed truck traffic on County Highway FF and the associated noise, emission and safety concerns, particularly for people walking and biking along that stretch of the roadway,” Shively said.
She said Vanguard submitted a letter stating that approximately 1/3 of the anticipated delivery vehicles will be larger tanker trucks and the balance is comprised of smaller box trucks and smaller liquid hauling trucks.
“They agreed to in good faith engage in discussions about a bike/pedestrian path to address community safety concerns related to bicycle and pedestrian traffic between the driveway and Greenwood Valley Drive,” Shively added.
As for the permitting process, the DNR has issued air and water permits, and the stormwater permit is anticipated in February. Pierce County granted a driveway permit and the lagoon permit is pending, Shively said.
As part of its Conditional Use Permit (CUP) review, the Town of River Falls outlined the permit’s conditions, which address off-site impacts and groundwater quality, establish inspection enforcement procedures and penalties, and provide a timeline for regular review to ensure compliance.
Town of River Falls CUP conditions:
After the township’s recommendation, the permit headed to the River Falls ETZ Committee, who outlined the following conditions upon its recommendation to the city council:
These conditions are focused on land use, which is the purpose of the ETZ, Shively said.
“So these conditions effectively limit the scale and intensity of the operations as to what has been proposed. Any changes would need to be reviewed by the town board, the ETZ committee and the city council and other permitting agencies.”
Changes in Wisconsin Act 67 altered how conditional and special uses are evaluated and approved, Shively noted.
“In contrast to much of the work of the city council, this permit review involves applying the law and policies that are in the ordinance rather than creating policy or changing the parameters of approval,” Shively said. “While this does not give the council the leeway available for other actions, it can be noted that the proposal has been reviewed through a public process. The operations of the facility are subject to applicable laws, rules and performance standards and multiple regulator partners are involved in ensuring the operations comply with those regulations.”
While reading the ordinance, Mayor Dan Toland wanted to make note of the following.
“Special use permits shall be granted if the applicant can meet or agrees to meet the conditions of the ordinance,” Toland read. “Conditions of approval must also be related to the purpose of the ordinance and based on substantial evidence. Denial of a special use permit would need to be based on a finding that the applicant has not provided substantial evidence that the requirements of the ordinance cannot or won’t be satisfied. Decisions to deny a special use permit must also be based on substantial evidence.”
Alderperson Scott Morrissette said the process involving the special use permit and the ETZ can be frustrating for people outside of that process. It’s not one the council sees often.
“I see we have some town members here and I’m not trying to throw them under the bus, but this was really a town process that started on July 11, and so the communication and so forth came from them,” Morrissette said. “I think we’re getting questioned why we didn’t notify people. The first time that we had any real involvement with this was the Nov. 27 ETZ meeting.”
Morrissette also said he believes a better job of communicating citizen concerns to the council from staff could have occurred. He believes there’s room for improvement.
Only three people attended the Nov. 27 meeting. Plus, the council took a pause after the December meeting because of citizen feedback, so they could be clear on what their options were, Morrissette said.
“To be clear, I’m supportive of the biodigester. I think it’s a needed thing. I don’t think it’s the only answer, but I think it helps with the whole CAFO problem and some other things, but I also don’t like the transportation plan that’s proposed,” he said.
Morrissette described special use permits as a property rights question by the state, which means people don’t always get what they want.
“But the process is clear and if the requirements are met, the permit has to be issued,” he said. “We have no ability to negotiate. There could be no, this was a quasi-judicial action. We have no room to negotiate or ask for a different path or different hours or so forth.”
Morrissette recognized that Vanguard listened and made some adjustments to the plan (the hours and types of trucks) after the December city council meeting. He also directed a comment at the applicant that he expects them to follow their word on adding a pedestrian/bike path and that if traffic counts show more than 30 trucks per day, they will find a way to route traffic onto Highway 29 instead.
Alderperson Sean Downing said he reviewed the permit application with the nonpartisan Wisconsin Municipality League’s legal counsel. He echoed Morrissette’s sentiments.
“We’re here discussing the legality of it, not necessarily the advocacy of do we like it or not,” Downing said. “And that’s probably what makes it very difficult for everyone who’s here today.”
