Bluff protection supporters rally

Bluff protection supporters rally (07/20/2008)
By Sarah Elmquist

The first formal public hearing on the county’s new zoning ordinance drew over 100 people Thursday night, many sporting neon green stickers which reiterated what nearly all their comments demanded: protect our bluffs.

The County Planning Commission, which will review the comments and the draft ordinance next week, will make a recommendation on any changes to the County Board. The County Board will hold the final public hearing on the ordinance on August 26 at 7 p.m.

Thursday night’s testimony from the public was met with no reaction from the Planning Commission, which chose to hold off on discussions until its next meeting.

And although chair Garth Zenke urged those at the meeting to refrain from repeating one another, and that commissioners were looking for “quality, not quantity,” from the comments, organized bluff advocates didn’t hold back. “When this many people show up, they deserve to be heard, and counted,” said Todd Paddock.

Paddock said that the value of the bluffs was like that of the wetlands, the lakes and streams -- important to everybody. “That value is greater than the right of a single individual to ruin that value,” he said. Paddock suggested that the bluff protection ordinance require viewshed analysis for development, which can show whether a structure might be visible from the valley below. “That’s what we need in our ordinance. The technology is there,” he said. “I think it would help us a great deal.”

Don Evanson of Minnesota City spoke on behalf of property owners’ rights, one of few who spoke out at the meeting. “If you want to protect the bluffs, buy them,” he told the audience.

“I appreciate the beauty of Winona County, too,” Evanson continued. But, he said, there are others who’d like to live out in the rural parts of the county, and farmers who’d like to sell bits of their land for extra money or to retire.

Steven J. Frank, a junior at WSU, said that the bluffs were great. “When I look up there, I want to count my blessings,” he said. “I don’t want to count the developments.”

Sadie Newman, WSU student, told the commission that younger people, “really do care, too.” She shared an example of what can happen when a community isn’t engaged in future planning. In her hometown of Stillwater, Minn., the historic downtown jail burned down and was replaced by condos. She said that now, Stillwater’s skyline includes tall buildings with satellites. “It breaks our hearts to see it now,” she said, urging the commissioners to, “think about the consequences of building up there.”

Many who asked for stronger bluff protection measures had specifics in mind. Rather than the draft ordinance’s suggested 25 percent slope limit, they asked that the limit be set at 18 percent. And rather than the 100-foot setback from the top of the bluff, they asked for 300.

“Nobody’s saying you can’t build on the bluff,” said Joe Morse. They’d just like a stronger setback, he said.

Many of the stronger bluff protection measures that the audience was asking for were part of a previous draft of the ordinance. The ordinance was watered down after the Task Force reviewed all of the sensitive lands protection standards, and, very generally, questioned them as too restrictive.

Tom Harbinson offered another reason to strengthen the bluff protection standards. The draft version suggests that development could occur with a Conditional Use Permit in areas with an average slope between 18 and 25 percent. But Harbinson said that such nonspecific language would result in decisions that were less black and white, and could prompt lawsuits. Putting a firm limit at 18 percent, he said, could limit liability of the county and ultimately the taxpayers.

Steve Jacob brought up just that -- litigation against the county’s planning department, during the meeting. Although interrupted several times by Planning Director Brian Bender, Jacob told the audience that he’d obtained a ruling against the Planning Department in February, when he said Judge Jeffrey Thompson ruled that the department had failed to enforce the zoning ordinance and had inconsistently applied the ordinance, placing what Jacob called “arbitrary burden” on him.

Jacob said that there was other pending litigation against the department and questioned its competency in writing the zoning ordinance. He said that the department should be overseen in its ordinance update, and that the process should be delayed until the winter when farmers have more time to weigh in.

“The citizens of Winona County deserve better than this,” he said.


Native American burial sites

Many also urged the commission to consider measures to protect Native American burial sites, both those that have been recorded, and those undiscovered.

Ken McCullough, vice president of the Winona-Dakota Unity Alliance, told the commission how important it is to protect the burial mounds.

And those burial mounds are somewhat linked to bluff protection, with blufftops used as scenic burial sites.

Jon Borman, also of the Winona-Dakota Unity Alliance, showed the commission Minnesota law that suggests that archeological survey costs could be placed on the state, suggesting that archeological surveys should be done on developments to check for burial sites not recorded on state archeological maps, like northern Cass County requires.

http://www.winonapost.com/stock/functions/VDG_Pub/detail.php?choice=25829&home_page=1&archives=