Phantom permit baffles commission
United Ethanol timeline
April 2005: The Milton City Council approves a conditional-use permit for the ethanol plant.
January 2006: Rock County Judge Daniel Dillon declares the permit null and void because it violates the city's storage restrictions for flammable materials.
February 2006: The city council incorporates the terms of the voided conditional-use permit into a developer's agreement with the plant. It also changes zoning ordinances to remove the limit on storage of flammable materials and make ethanol production and storage a permitted use for industrial zones. The plant no longer needs a conditional-use permit.
May 2007: The city council approves a conditional-use permit for a carbon-dioxide recovery facility on the United Ethanol site.
February 2009: City Attorney Mike Schroeder tells the city council that the plant could be violating the 2005 conditional use permit. He doesn't realize the permit is void and tells the council it has no recourse to change or revoke the plant's permit.
May 2009: The city council approves an ordinance allowing it to change or revoke conditional-use permits when the permits have been violated.
July 2009: Council member David Adams files a formal complaint alleging the ethanol plant is violating its conditional-use permit by creating objectionable odors.
Aug. 24, 2009: An incident at the plant causes what a state Department of Natural Resources official declares an objectionable odor. He says the odor gives him a headache and queasy stomach. The plant says the odor came from a "bake-out" it conducted after grain got trapped in a piece of equipment.
Monday: The Milton Plan Commission holds a public hearing about whether the plant violated its conditional-use permit. Attorneys for the plant and the city tell the commission the 2005 conditional-use permit is invalid. The plant holds a conditional-use permit only for its carbon-dioxide recovery facility.
MILTON — David Ostrowski still was upset Tuesday morning.
He believes Milton staff rushed to invoke a new ordinance against United Ethanol without making sure the ordinance even applied, resulting in a pointless public hearing Monday night.
"I've been mulling this over all morning," he said Tuesday. "I'm at a loss as to how we got to where we got."
Ostrowski and the rest of the commission listened for two hours Monday to testimony from plant officials, employees and neighbors in a public hearing called to find out if United Ethanol violated its conditional-use permit.
But a key piece of information came early in the meeting, when attorneys for the plant and city told the commission that the plant doesn't have a valid conditional-use permit covering ethanol production.
Permit voided in 2006
The city approved a conditional-use permit for the plant in 2005. But a Rock County judge declared the permit null and void in January 2006 because it violated the city's storage restrictions for flammable materials.
Instead of creating a new conditional-use permit, the city council incorporated the conditions of the old permit into a developer's agreement. It also changed its zoning ordinances to remove the limit on storage of flammable materials and to make ethanol production and storage a permitted use for industrial zones.
The plant does have a conditional-use permit for its carbon-dioxide recovery facility.
Officials didn't know
City Attorney Mark Schroeder, who started working for the city this year, admitted Tuesday he didn't realize in February the permit was void during city discussions of the plant's conditional-use permit.
At the time, he told the city council the plant could be violating the permit because it requires the plant to follow state and federal regulations, including those regulating odor. But the city had no ordinance allowing it to change or revoke the permit, he told the council then.
Based on that information, the council in May approved an ordinance giving it the power to change or revoke the permit.
In July, council member David Adams filed a written complaint alleging the plant was violating its conditional-use permit because of odor. Public Works Director Howard Robinson investigated the complaint before handing it over to Schroeder.
Schroeder wouldn't specify Tuesday exactly when he realized the permit was invalid, but he said it was after an Aug. 24 incident at the plant that produced what a Department of Natural Resources official called an "objectionable odor."
He said he didn't investigate the status of permit before because, "I don't like to spend the city's time looking at things that aren't active."
Mayor Tom Chesmore said he didn't realize the 2005 permit didn't apply until Monday afternoon, even though he was on the council when the judge declared it void.
"I probably should have (known), but I didn't," he said. "Or I knew it and I didn't remember."
Recourse still possible
There's still a chance the carbon-dioxide recovery facility has something to do with the odors, in which case the plan commission could recommend the city council change or revoke that conditional-use permit, Schroeder said.
"I know that the plant, United Ethanol, has taken the position that none of the odor complaints originate from that facility, but that's not yet certain, so the city needs to investigate whether or not that is the case," he said.
If the alleged odors don't come from the carbon-dioxide facility, Schroeder said the city has two options:
-- The city could find that the plant is violating the developer's agreement. In that case, the city could seek an injunction in court to bring the plant into compliance, Schroeder said.
-- The city could find the plant in violation of city ordinance prohibiting noxious odors. In that case, a citation probably would be issued by Robinson, either at the council's direction or by his own authority as building inspector, Schroeder said.
The city could fine the plant $50 to $500 for a first offense, he said. The case would then go to municipal court.
Ostrowski said he believes the issue can only be settled through the courts, where experts could give sworn testimony about the effect of plant odors or emissions on neighbors.
"There are recourses in the courts to deal with those issues," he said. "I don't know if city government is the place to do it."
He said city staff should have realized that the new conditional-use ordinance doesn't apply to the ethanol plant before the issue came to a public hearing.
"My only assumption at this particular point was there was a rush to get this on the agenda and in front of the planning commission and get this decided," he said.
Oct 3, 2009 at 9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
facts101,
You're Right. Tom Chesmore attended those ethanol hearings as an elected City Council person, not as the Mayor. I guess that allows him to not remember the discussions or closed door sessions he attended? From the City of Milton Website:
Years on City Council: 2006 - 2009, Elected Mayor 2009
Term Expires: April 2011
Oct 1, 2009 at 6:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
ghostofgoodrich you made the comment that the poor mayor can't recall what happened in closed door meetings. Our current mayor came to the council after the fact.
Sep 26, 2009 at 12:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
OPTION 6:
Truth in reporting of emissions. The DNR has yet to release just what sort of monitoring they are conducting to assess the level of VOCs being released from the plant. Instead of rushing out when it smells bad (which is no indication of pollution - many VOCs aren't detectable by the nose alone).
The DNR needs to state: 1. How they are monitoring the daily air quality from the plant. 2. If UE is self-monitoring, considering their past disregard for the rule of law, real monitoring efforts need to be put into place. 3. If the UE monitoring is only being done by calculations (they just plug in their #'s for operational capacity and use a formula to estimate rather than truly measuring the actual output) real, tamper proof monitors need to be installed. 4. Community members who are concerned, should be provided with information on how they can implement citizen monitoring techniques; preferably with DNR provided air sensors. Real numbers as to the type and volume of VOCs and all pollutants need to be shared with the community.
WE DON'T CARE IF IT SMELLS LIKE BEER::: JUST LET US KNOW THAT IT ISN'T CANCER CAUSING!
Sep 25, 2009 at 10:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
OPTION 5:
Declare the WI Southern Rail line that goes through Milton unsafe for the transport of flammable materials. A recent tragedy in Freeport, IL, could easily happen in the decrepit tracks that pass by the Milton House, Milton Police Headquarters, and Milton East High School.
A derailment would equal a catastrophic explosion, within half a football field of the nerve center of Milton's Emergency Response and one of the cities largest schools.
Illinois just began enforcement against Canadian National. http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2009/...
Check out the damage that could happen to the Rock River watershed.
How long will Wisconsin & Southern find it within their insurance rates to haul this explosive freight on tracks that are failing?
Sep 25, 2009 at 10:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
OPTION 4:
Don't buy Ethanol at the pump. If you live in Milton, go to Arndt's self serve. Outside of that, Caseys' General Stores usually also have a non ethanol choice.
Sep 25, 2009 at 10:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Option 3:
Governor Doyle and the State Legislature are doling out millions to retrofit gas stations for E85 pumps; and awarding grants to build more ethanol plants.
Where is Kim Hixson? Why is he not attending Milton town halls and supporting his constituents?
Where is Steve Nass? Where is Debi Towns? (besides waiting to run again...) Where is Judy Robson (a prior big pusher for a WI 10% ethanol mandate!)? Where is Michael Sheridan? Where do they stand? Silently in the corner; don't let agribusiness win. Email them, and force them to state where they stand.
Sep 25, 2009 at 10:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Option 2:
The DNR has obviously failed in their leadership to protect Milton and Janesville residents from enforcing the Clean Air Act. Plants in Jefferson, and Monroe have also caused citizen complaints that have gone mostly unreported and not addressed by the DNR. Citizens should forward complaints to the DNR and the Regional EPA air quality officer:
800-621-8431. 9:00 am - 4:30 pm Central time (312-886-2395 for callers outside IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, and WI)
United Ethanol, city officianls, and erudite Gazette posters have dismissed the number of citizen complaints. Let your voice be heard. If you smell it; call the plant, leave the time, date, place where you smelled it. The DNR is not interested; contact the EPA directly. They've already fined and forced 12 ethanol plants in Minnesota into compliance. Let's not be 2nd fiddle to our neighbors to the West.
Sep 25, 2009 at 10:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Attention Milton City Council:
So United Ethanol has turned the tables on you once again. Your poor mayor can't remember the details to closed door meetings from three years ago. Your City Manager, is either too business friendly or dreads admitting his failure in opening open the city coffers to United Ethanol, that he's ineffective in tackling this problem.
For those on the Council who are new, or interested in finding away to ameliorate the damage done to Milton's "down home" feel, may I suggest the following?
1. It takes approximately 5-6 gallons of water to produce a gallon of ethanol. http://www.startribune.com/local/1447198... You just raised taxes on Milton residents for the new Storm Water Utility, about $55 per household per year. According to UE newsletter, in 2009 they've made 20,600,000 gallons of ethanol, which if they used 5 gallons of water for each gallon of ethanol is a whopping, 103 Million Gallons of WATER. Institute a new INDUSTRIAL Level "ERA"; Right now as structure United Ethanol only pays $5,800 per year and counts at 106 households - about the same as neighbor Ott Schweitzer. Change the rate for any industry that uses to something much higher. Add on a penny per gallon INDUSTRIAL USE TAX. Right there, a new million dollar tax burden, and goodnight UE. Of course, maybe get a few more lawyers; I bet UE may have locked in a water usage/tax rate too? If past is precedent.....
Sep 25, 2009 at 1:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Well Ollie-That's another fine mess you've gotten us into. What a flippin' mess.
Sep 24, 2009 at 6:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
call1, United Ethanol never said "none of the odor complaints originate from that facility." I believe they said "some" of the odor complaints originate from other sources. This could very well be since there's an asphalt plant, waste treatment area, serious highway construction, etc. in town.
Sep 24, 2009 at 3:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Wow.. Great timing for running this story. I was actually thinking of scheduling a second walk through of a Milton home my wife, & I are considering purchasing, not far from that plant. I'm sure that appointment will not be scheduled. And it also bothers me that Councilmen or women, conduct city business this way. It actually makes me wonder about their ethics. Lets face the facts. That permit was pushed through in the beginning to get the plant to Milton for the tax revenue. I can't believe all members of the council, had no idea for over 3 yrs the permit was voided by a Judge. I wish, just once a politician would just tell the truth! "I don't recall", "I didn't know", is old and in these kinds of cases its unbelievable that all of you, "didn't know." And regarding the odor neighbors have been complaining about since the Opening of the plant. For United Ethanol to say that, "none of the odor complaints originate from that facility" is just ridicules! AND for the city to say, "but that's not yet certain, so the city needs to investigate whether or not that is the case," PLEASE.. Its just coincidental the odor just popped up right after the plant was up & running? Before the plant opened, the neighbors in that area had complained about nasty odors? Instead of paying some desk jockey thousands of dollars to bring his clip board out, along with his little hand held scientific gizmo that smells odors.. pay me $200, I'll come out, use my car, and my nose. Drive towards the plant sniffing, determining at what point I smell the offending odor. When my nose locks on to the smell, I'll drive to where the smell over powers me (maybe $300), right up to the epicenter (Oh wait.. thats earth quakes). Anyways.. Once I reach the offending odor's central location. I'll get out of my car, investigate until i have the criminal odor in exact location. Once thats completed.. just to make sure.. I'll drive away from said location.. again using my nose.. snif, snif, snif.. & determine how far you can actually live from the offenders location, without being offended. I'll type up a report for you guys. Oh.. BTW. I want the payment before the work gets done. Its not that I don't trust you guys.. its just good business.. On my part *wink*
Sep 24, 2009 at 2:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Leadership wise, following the law doesn't seem to be Milton's strong suit.
Sep 24, 2009 at 5:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
David Cramer scored big-time when he secretly sold his corn-doggle scheme to the city back in 04-05. City officials were clueless then... This most recent fiasco proves their still clueless…
ww
Sep 23, 2009 at 10:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Welcome to the brilliant reporting by the famed Janesville Gazette team. Good job on getting the facts straight. By the way I will be spending another 75 cents on tommorrows edition.
Sep 23, 2009 at 5:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
I read a few times here that the conditional-use permit was revoked because the city counsel had too many secret meetings. Today I read it was revoked because it violated the city's storage restrictions for flammable materials. I must have missed something somewhere.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.