ALL ABOARD FOR POUGHKEEPSIE!

Here are some further details from the September Board meeting.

 The representative from Progressive Rail (PR) attended the meeting and updated the Board on the issue of the side rails and grant, etc.

First, PR has declined to purchase the property that Butch Hansen was advocating for at 225th and Highview. I guess they are not interested in spending that much or more money.

The grant application was to be submitted on September 17th as it was originally drawn up. That is, with the side rails between 250th and 240th for car storage. The rep didn't rule out a possibility of adjusting, but that is how the application was to be filed.

Hansen raised the issue of the amount of land the railroad would need to accomplish its plans as submitted. The thought was that PR will need to use eminent domain to acquire more land along the tracks there. That issue was left basically unanswered.

Chair Tim Murphy asked Jason, the PR rep, point blank whether this was being done to relieve Lakeville of the problem. Short answer: yes. Hardly a surprise, right?
Stay Tuned for updates as they become available!

On another issue, Ceminsky and Hansen have proposed that the Township issue Interim Use Permits (IUPs) for storage of non-pit products in a gravel pit. We are talking about such things as bagged mulch from another use within the Township.

You may recall that such product from that use appeared in a gravel pit on 235th St. W. There was a complaint filed and the Board directed that the material be removed as this use is not allowed under the Ordinances, which it was eventually.

 Hansen and Ceminsky apparently have held the idea that an IUP can be issued for this use even though the Ordinances do not provide for it, based on their comments at past meetings. The idea of  needing to alter the Ordinances in the proper manner seemed to be rejected. That got straightened out even though Ceminsky's latest attempt involved reading a portion of the MAT Township government manual that he argued meant an LGU can give out an IUP during a moratorium on such IUPs! Of what use would a moratorium be then?

The basis of the reason given for this storage was that bagged mulch is an ag product "if anything ever was." (Not sure I agree with that, but I'm personally not really in favor of storing other businesses' products in gravel mines.) Why would we be storing ag products (grains or anything else in addition to bagged mulch) in gravel pits?

It was presented that it could be done for “six months” when the pit is idle. That makes some monetary sense, at least from the pit owner's point of view if not the neighbors'. However, an IUP can be issued for various lengths of time (even 30 years or more), depending on the Board and the applicant at the time, unless restricted by Ordinance.

It was also stated that the product stacks “wouldn’t be seen” from the road.  Will there be a limit on height? Visibility?

And there would be no noise or traffic. Not sure how THAT is guaranteed! Presumably the product could be moved in and out at various times.

At one point it was discussed that storing other things, as long as they were inert, would be a possible use to be allowed as well. Pavers? Concrete block? Manhole covers? What else?

You may recall that the Mining Ordinance was put in place with the intent that the gravel be excavated and the land returned to ag use as quickly as possible.


The idea was that as a community we would be doing our part in getting a precious and needed resource for the state and the area out of the ground for use, but then would reclaim the land for ag use. That is also the reason things like concrete crushing and asphalt recycling were not allowed. The thought as I understood it was that the Township didn't want to become a repository or staging area for recycling other communities' waste products even though it was recognized that this is a necessary function somewhere. We don't really produce these products for use within our community much either. Further, this sort of use would be industrial in nature and not a good fit for Eureka. (Even one pit owner said that himself at the time!) That is the rationale presented and I have since heard reasserted and defended by those from that task force at public hearings on adding uses. In some cases, this rationale was heard as sufficient to keep things as they were, and in others it wasn't .

            I’m not sure how this storage issue might extend the life of mines.

Language will be looked at soon. If this topic is of interest to you, be on the lookout for the topic on Board agendas and for an eventual possible public hearing. Make your input heard.