Potential concrete business gains traction in rezoning

MT. PLEASANT — After several months of meetings and conversations, Henry County Board of Supervisors worked out a conditional land use agreement for the development of a concrete plant on a parcel of land in need of rezoning.

While the supervisors initially approved a change to the county's land use map at the beginning of July, they rejected the proposed ordinance to rezone that parcel of land from Agricultural I to Industrial I following concerns raised by an attorney representing an “undisclosed resident.”

When Chad Ebleling, the party interested in erecting the concrete plant, returned to the Board of Supervisors with his own attorney, however, the conversation was reopened and a new public hearing on the topic was scheduled for Tuesday, Aug. 15 at 9:30 a.m.

During this new public hearing individuals with interests in both approving and denying the rezoning once again filled the supervisor’s meeting. Ebeling’s attorney William Jahn accompanied, however, the attorney for the “undisclosed resident” did not return.

“Basically, we're doing this public hearing over again,” County Planning and Zoning Administrator Joe Buffington stated. “If there's any more information that the public would like to give the board before they move on, they can do that in the public hearing.”

According to Buffington, the Board of Supervisors and Ebeling needed to come to an agreement on a land-use agreement before the adjournment of the public hearing.

The land-use agreement that the supervisors and Ebeling eventually agreed upon included the following provisions:

All plant vehicles and aggregated delivery vehicles with more than two axels may only travel on Hickory Avenue between the plant entrance and the intersection of Hickory Avenue with exception for specific delivery locations.

Ebeling must establish a line of trees for the purpose of dust and noise control from the northwest corner of the parcel near Greg Knight’s property to the west end of the western most building.

The property owner will participate in dust control and road maintenance per the county engineer’s instruction.

Aggregate piles and buildings must be set back 400 feet.

While neighbors spoke up about concerns of diminished property values and dust control, the term of the land-use agreement to change from the original presented at the beginning of the public hearing was the distance for the set back.

Originally the supervisors proposed a 750 feet set back, but Ebeling’s attorney Jahn expressed concern about the additional expense that would place on his client.

“I asked Chad [Ebeling] to quantify the additional cost between the 400 feet and the 750 feet,” Jahn said.

According to Jahn, the additional 350 feet would cost Ebeling approximately an additional $85,000.

As far as dust control, Jahn offered his understanding for dust and sound control with his experience as an attorney in Mediapolis which has a similar business in the center of town.

“We have a cement plant right there in the middle of town right on Highway 61,” he said. “I measured it with our GIS website and it is about 340 feet to the nearest building, which is a church, and about 480 feet to the nearest residence.”

“For over 25 years I’ve never heard a complaint about dust or noise and that is a pretty active business right there in the middle of town,” Jahn said.

Supervisors Marc Lindeen expressed that he felt the 750 feet was not as big of an issue, but he wanted to see more than a 400 feet set back. Supervisor Greg Moeller suggested a 500 feet set back.

“I want to work with you guys,” Ebeling responded. “Originally at the P and Z meeting I told them I could do between 300 and 400 feet and they chose 400 … I think that batch plant as is, is 600 foot from Greg’s house. ”

As they discussed the setback with Ebeling, Lindeen went back to what the Planning and Zoning board recommended.

“We have what the P and Z board recommended and that is our county people giving us what they think is best,” Lindeen said.

After asking neighbors of the property if the 750 feet made a difference to them compared to the 400 feet, one land owner responded that it was better than 400, but “ … it’s pretty much going to affect us the same.”

Armed with that information and relying on the recommendation from Planning and Zoning, Moeller motioned to changed the setback from 750 feet to 400, Lindeen seconded, and the amendment to the land-use agreement passed with a 2-1 vote.

Without any additional adjustments to the agreement, the supervisors passed the amended agreement with a 2-1 vote.

Ebeling and the supervisors signed the agreement and set the first reading for the proposed ordinance change for Aug. 29 at 9:30 a.m.

Comments: AnnaMarie.Ward@southeastiowaunion.com