How Do You Picture Defiance

5/25/2015

At the May 21, 2015 Village Board Meeting it was announced that Scenic Pit LLC had to get permits from the village to do any filling of the pit at 609 Scenic Rd.

Check out these images of the activity at 609 Scenic Rd the weekend of May 23 and 24. These images were taken on May 25th.

When did Danah get the permit to begin access to the pit?
When did residents get to learn that this activity has begun?
Does Danah or Scenic Pit LLC own the land?

Is this how you picture DEFIANCE?

Are you glad Danah Zoulek did not get elected to the Richfield Board of Trustees?
Just think what she would have done against the will the of residents of Richfield?

64 Comments

Danah

5/25/2015 07:28:10 am

Permits are obtained. Take your witch hunt somewhere else. Who stalks private property anyway? I am the owner of the property.

Kristin

5/25/2015 07:47:22 am

Why would you do this to a veteran and her family on Memorial Day? What enjoyment do you get out of badgering people when you don't even have facts to back up your "claims"?

Lena

6/8/2015 07:29:47 am

Why would Dana try to destroy the property values of all of the other veterans in this area on Memorial Day?

What enjoyment does she get out of injecting into our quiet neighborhood 100 trucks a day, danger and damage to our roads and all the noise that will not allow the other veterans in this area to peacefully enjoy their property without the clamor of a landfill in their back yards?

Cindy

5/25/2015 08:18:15 am

You forgot the pictures of the beautiful horses!

Steve

5/25/2015 08:19:55 am

Those who can, DO, those who can't, BLOG.

Lisa

5/25/2015 10:18:50 am

It's disgusting to see people constantly attacking veterans when they have done nothing wrong. This town is despicable!

Lena

6/8/2015 07:32:51 am

Huh?

Lisa, do you realize that many veterans in this area do not want Dana to destroy their property values with the landfill operation she wants to drop into their back yards?

Do you live next to the landfill she is proposing by any chance? If not, why are you commenting about how we should sacrifice our property values for Dana's landfill?

pat

6/17/2015 03:17:42 am

You are kidding right? She served our country and I say thank you. She followed the rules while she served. What is the problem with her not following the rules of local government? No one is attacking veterans here. So where did that come from?

Doris

6/19/2015 12:01:40 pm

I don't see how Danah's being a veteran has anything to do with this. I work with a lot of veterans on various support services and most are not as vocal about being a veteran as Danah's is. I believe she uses that as a way to get what she wants which is disrespectful to other veterans and everyone else for that matter. I appreciate and am thankful for her service but that has nothing to do with this situation. We need to stick to the issue here.

Shelly

5/25/2015 11:18:08 am

Is this the exemption?

Section VI: Applicant Certification
I hereby request a low-hazard waste grant of exemption under s. 289.43 (8), Wis. Stats., for the use(s) of concrete coated
with lead-bearing paint listed in Section V, above. I certify that the concrete that will be used for the listed purpose(s) will
be processed to the extent necessary to meet all applicable industry specifications for the intended use(s) and be
conducted in compliance with Wisconsin regulations relating to dust, noise and stormwater control. I further certify that
the concrete used under this grant of exemption will not be used in a residential area or disposed of on the land or in
waters of the state for uses different than those listed in Section V, above. I understand that the proposed use(s) of
concrete coated with lead-bearing paint may be subject to limitations under other local, state or federal laws.
I have submitted a short summary of the proposed project along with this application. I will submit a one page summary
of the project to the DNR within 6 months of starting the project identifying the use/s and amounts in tons of lead-bearing
painted concrete used.
I certify that the reuse of the concrete coated with lead-bearing paint identified in this application will not adversely affect
public health or the environment.
I certify that the information provided on this application is true. I also certify that I intend to read the conditions of the
grant of exemption and implement them according to the approval requirements. I will contact the DNR for clarification if
any of the conditions are unclear.

Donny

5/25/2015 11:50:29 am

How nice! She purchases this land, but does not follow local rules and ordinances for the safety of the public. What type of role model do we have living here? Wait, she won't live here and have to endure the noise, dust, pollution, etc she is causing to the local neighbors. What a great neighbor and role model for her kids. Danah does what she wants only for her own financial gain.

Danah

5/25/2015 12:48:40 pm

Donny,

We have followed all of the rules and laws.
I actually spend most of my time at that location. Most importantly, the residents who live on the property are supportive and since it is private property, not public. Although, we do continue to have a lot of trespassers, most recently neighbors picking morel mushrooms and teenagers hiking and throwing rocks.

I can try to pretend that some of the comments we've received don't bother me but I would be lying. I have offered, numerous times, as I still am, to sit down and discuss this issue and answer questions. Instead, we are insulted, verbally attacked, heckled at Village Hall meetings, and frankly bullied.

The problem is that these tactics worked for Richfield politics in the past and sent developers running for 13 years from this property. I don't get scared away by dirty politics and I know what we're doing is safe.

As far as being a role model for my kids, they know never to quit. I'm proud to be their Mom and hope that they will look up to me and my husband the way we look up to our parents. I shouldn't even respond to such a low attack but really?! Questioning my ability to be a role model for my kids? That's a bit much

Lena

6/8/2015 07:35:40 am

Dana, if you think this landfill is so great, move your family into the house you bought that's right next to it, just like all of our houses are.

Danah

5/25/2015 12:35:06 pm

Shelly,

No, we are not requesting a low hazard waste grant of exemption. That is a type of low hazard solid waste that needs permitting by the DNR. We are not interested in any kind of solid waste that needs a low hazard waste exemption permit. The materials we will be accepting are so safe they do not require special low hazard permitting.

The exemption we are operating under is much more simple. The exempt materials are found in NR500.08 (2)(a) and regulated by Wi. s. 289.43(8)

Exemption from regulation under s. 144.44 (7) (g) (now s. 289.43 (8)) preempts municipal regulation. DeRosso Landfill Co. v. City of Oak Creek, 200 Wis. 2d 642, 547 N.W.2d 770 (1996), 94-0440.

If you read the DeRosso case it will be much easier to understand how clean fill is handled as a state interest. The DNR has determined these materials are safe for the public and the environment.

Low hazard waste is like the waste that was disposed of on the east side of Scenic Rd. That waste had higher than acceptable levels of arsenic and lead but was permitted by the DNR as low hazardous waste. It came from the Beaver Creek Lagoon project in Brown Deer and was accepted at the Payne and Dolan site during the restoration of the Jacklin Pit. After learning it was not "clean" Payne and Dolan had the material removed from the Jacklin Pit by the contractor in charge of the Beaver Creek Lagoon project and moved to the abandoned pit on the east side of Scenic Rd. If it wasn't safe at the Jacklin Pit why is it safe in the old Wissota site? (Not our site, the east side). May I remind you that our Village President is the controller for Zenith Tech, a sister company of Payne and Dolan? The owner of this blog was the Town Chair when Payne and Dolan received special exemptions to put additional lots in Timber Stone.

Unfortunately, this whole debate about the Scenic Pit is more about politics than it is about facts. I am confident that our project will yield positive results.

Respectfully,
Danah

marie

5/26/2015 12:19:44 pm

come on Danah.!. stop bulling the village. Who cares about who works for whom and who was a village pres. We are talking about the Village where I live and I do care what crap will be allowed to be dumped in your kettle. Yes the people who live there are ok with it, since they don't own it anymore. So give us some legit reasons for you to go forward

danah

5/27/2015 10:45:43 pm

Read DeRosso Landfill Co vs The City of Oak Creek

Danah

5/28/2015 02:21:24 pm

Marie,

I wasn't going to ask but why are you so harsh towards me? I have given many legitimate reasons and even offered to meet with you and you denied my offer. I am happy to answer any questions.

The DNR confirmed on Tuesday that clean fill deposited on the site will actually be better for the ground water. We have a very detailed system of tracking material and ensuring it complies with NR500.08(2)(a) clean fill sites.

The main "legit reasons" for us to go forward are:
1) The site is an abandoned mine (not a natural kettle) and is in need of restoration. It will be restored for appropriate land use.
2) The State of WI wants these sites restored.
3) Abandoned quarries attract illegal and improper dumping (not clean fill). Restoration helps ensure that it detracts illegal activity.
4) The State of WI considers clean fill sites as a statewide concern
5) Our site meets all of the requirements to be safe for the community and environment. As hard as it is to see through the politics surrounding our site, what we're doing is actually beneficial to the community.

We are following all laws and requirements, we are professionals qualified to operate this site.

The people who live there support us because they are looking forward to seeing the property be restored to a point that it resembles the land they grew up on.

As always, I am happy to meet with you and anyone else who wants to know more about the project and I can answer questions. I understand people may not like the project for a variety of reasons but there are 2 sides of every debate and we have many supporters and the law is very clear.

Lena

6/8/2015 11:16:53 pm

Dana states: "I am confident that our project will yield positive results."

What will the positive results be for the owners of 100's of homes that are devalued and less or un-marketable simply because you want to create a landfill in our back yards?

marie

6/9/2015 01:54:02 am

she does not care...only wants to make the $$$$$

Wally

5/25/2015 12:56:51 pm

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources regulations NR 500.08(2)(a) exempts "clean fill" facilities like the Scenic Pit from local regulation because they are only allowed to accept "clean soil, brick, building stone, concrete NOT painted with lead-based paint, broken pavement and wood NOT treated or painted with preservatives or lead." What part of the word "clean" doesn't this blogsite administrator understand here?

In addition, the Wisconsin Supreme Court in DeRosso Landfill Company, Inc. v. City of Oak Creek also UNANIMOUSLY HELD that "clean fill" facilities like the Scenic Pit are EXEMPT from ALL local regulation -- because something that is "clean" CANNOT harm the environment. This 1996 Wisconsin Supreme Court case has been "on the books" in Wisconsin now for nearly 20 years is followed by other communities. Why not in Richfield?

Therefore, Danah Zoulek has "followed the law" and is taking every step necessary to ensure that her restoration of the Scenic Pit will cause ZERO harm to the environment. She would NEVER contaminate or negatively impact a property where she and her family intends to LIVE ON after the pit restoration is complete.

I find it shameful that this blogsite's administrator (Diane Pedersen) would try to slander Danah Zoulek here especially when she is a decorated combat veteran who bravely served our country in Iraq to protect the freedoms we all now enjoy as American citizens.

What is even more outrageous is that this blogsite's attack on Danah is being done on Memorial Day -- a holiday where we ought to be thanking our veterans for their courageous service and not trashing their good names. Shame on you Diane!!!

Anthony

5/25/2015 02:55:03 pm

500.08(2)(a) does not exempt clean fill sites from local regulation. It exempts them from regulation under 500-538 of the same chapter. However, DeRosso does hold that DNR authorization preempts local regulation, so it's the same effect.

danah

5/25/2015 10:20:07 pm

Anthony, thank you that is a much better way to state it.

In DeRosso the WI Supreme Court had some very interesting language in their decision. This particular language stands out for me.

"......... the legislature recognized that local authorities have responsibility for promoting public health, safety, convenience and general welfare and that the reasonable decisions of local authorities should be considered in the siting of solid waste disposal facilities. The City's brief places great emphasis on this legislative finding. But this finding mandates that reasonable decisions of local authorities be considered in siting solid waste disposal facilities; the finding does not state that the decisions of local authorities are controlling. Waste disposal sites, as we all know, are not popular in most communities, and public opposition often takes the form of exclusionary local regulations and ordinances."

What I find to be the most interesting part is that this property has been zoned M5 Mineral Extraction/Mine Restoration since 1963 and wasn't rezoned until March 2015. The subdivisions in the area were built next to a mine that was zoned to be mined still.

Danah Zoulek

5/31/2015 01:41:29 am

Anthony,

State statute 289 does exempt sites only accepting materials listed under NR500.08(2)(a) from local approvals.

Also, under 289 the permit/s the village believes we need are also list under the definition of local approvals and DeRosso does hold that no local approvals apply.

marie

5/26/2015 12:22:09 pm

Wally-don't bring Dana's service into this. It has nothing to do with her being a Vet. Nice try

Nola

5/25/2015 02:23:18 pm

I've been following this for awhile. In all honestly do you get off by basically blogging about Danah on a regular basis. I don't understand why the obsession over her and the land. Have you seen how deep the hole is? Haha this is so amusing to me, I suggest you get another topic to blog about. How about bird watching, you'll be great at it!! Follow Nike, just do it.

marie

5/26/2015 12:24:49 pm

nola: where do you live? what interest do you have in this subject? are you a friend of Dana's?

Theodore

6/1/2015 06:15:53 am

I agree with Nola that the blogger here (who is Diane Pedersen, the former Richfield Village President) should take up bird-watching as a new hobby instead of launching vicious, unsubstantiated attacks on citizens who she has a personal vendetta against.

I suggest that Diane Pedersen start her new bird-watching hobby by looking for Blue Falcons. This unique species of bird is known to hang out at the Richfield Village Hall, although I have heard that some of these Blue Falcons recently have migrated to other government buildings in Washington County.

marie

6/2/2015 03:57:59 am

hey Theodore

anyway you live in the village? or maybe you live right down the street where all those honking trucks will be passing

Lena

6/9/2015 03:27:33 am

So, Theodore, you want to disclose the identities of others; how about yours?

Do you live in the village? How will you be affected?

Or are you just Thomas or Dana Zoulek posting under an alias?

Ben

5/26/2015 04:10:42 am

If the village spent more time on working with one of their citizens to find an agreeable solution to this as they do posting on social media, this would be a non issue.

marie

6/1/2015 03:11:27 am

Dana, you keep talking about CLEAN fill. I don't consider asphalt as clean fill. it has oil in it. and other unclean stuff. So are you going to control what goes into the pit? Are you going to have someone checking the trucks as they enter?

danah

6/1/2015 04:47:16 am

The DNR determines what is safe.
Someone will be there at all times when trucks come in. I am happy to share our operational plan with you. As always, I'm open to meeting with you and anyone who wants!

www.thescenicpit.com

That site offers answers to a lot of questions and will be updated as we move forward.

marie

6/2/2015 04:00:26 am

meeting with you is not an option. You do not control your emotions and become belligerent. I saw it first hand. Cant discuss with someone who has issues with dealing people who don't have the same view.

Danah Zoulek

6/2/2015 06:03:48 am

You saw it first hand? Enlighten me.

I have become emotional several times during this process, but belligerent? no. The word belligerent has a connotation of "waging war". I do not wish to be belligerent, I have expressed my desire to communicate openly.

I am one who will defend myself, hardly a belligerent trait.

You belong to the Washington County Women Republican group right? That alone shocks me. Conservative women should be supporting one another and not bashing one another. This blog, however, lends itself to the "good 'ol gals" and a laundry list of personal attacks when you have an opposing view on an issue.

This site is used to defame people's character for political gain, maybe this site alone is belligerent and waging war against residents within the Village.

Lena

6/8/2015 07:23:07 am

Dana states: "You belong to the Washington County Women Republican group right? That alone shocks me. Conservative women should be supporting one another and not bashing one another. "

Conservative women shouldn't try to destroy the right of quiet enjoyment and property values of other conservative women, either.

Your landfill operation is totally misplaced here, and you are trying to cry some victim status to wrongfully take our enjoyment of our property away from us for your profits.

This is just the wrong place to have a landfill. You need to find some other place that is not encircled with homes and is not in the middle of a residential area.

marie

6/3/2015 05:00:21 am

come on Danah!!--what I belong to or do in my life does not rule me. I am who I am and I am against this pit (not mine, its a gravel PIT) being filled with any kind of asphalt or crap that would hinder my only source of WATER which is a well.
Belligerent: characteristic of an enemy or one eager to fight

no war, just a fight

Danah

6/3/2015 06:18:04 am

What I do in my life does rule me because character is everything.

I'm not looking to turn Richfield into a "slum". We're simply restoring the site and giving it a land use that's appropriate for the area.

The DNR clearly said clean fill being added to the site actually makes the water cleaner so it's time to move beyond the ground water contamination accusations. Filtration is good. The DNR would not allow any materials to be categorized as clean if it's not. Right now storm water is running off of the asphalt onto the dirt into rills and gullies and entering the ground water without the added filtration of soil and vegetation.

I'm not sure you live near the site. I commend your concern for clean water though..... we share that view.

shelly

6/8/2015 12:58:21 am

Scenic Pit LLC vs. Village of Richfield et al

Washington County Case Number 2015CV000374

Court Record Events

What is RSS?
Date
Event
Court Official
Court Reporter
1
06-05-2015
Telephone scheduling conference
Gonring, Andrew T
Hardy, Tamara

Additional Text:

Attorney Bruce A Mcilnay for Plaintiff Scenic Pit LLC. Attorney H Stanley Riffle for Defendant Village of Richfield. TSC held between Court and counsel. Court won't sign TRO at this time; another TSC to be set - clerk to call counsel on 6-8-15 to schedule.
2
06-04-2015
Received documents
3
06-04-2015
Affidavit

Additional Text:

of Thomas Zoulek in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction
4
06-04-2015
Affidavit

Additional Text:

of Danah Zoulek in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Orde and Temporary Injunction
5
06-04-2015
Brief

Additional Text:

Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Motion for a Temporary Injunction
6
06-04-2015
Notice of motion, motion

Additional Text:

for A Temporary Injunction and Restraining Order Pending Hearing
7
06-02-2015
Exhibit
Gonring, Andrew T

Additional Text:

Exhibit A
8
06-02-2015
Exhibit
Gonring, Andrew T

Additional Text:

Exhibit B
9
06-02-2015
Exhibit
Gonring, Andrew T

Additional Text:

Exhibit C
10
06-02-2015
Filing fee paid

Amount

$ 169.50

Additional Text:

Adjustment Number: 15A 072365, Payable Number: 96512, Receipt Number: 15R 011572, Amount: $169.50
11
06-02-2015
Case initiated by electronic filing
12
06-02-2015
Summons and complaint
Gonring, Andrew T

Arnie

6/8/2015 08:32:27 am

Shelly, do you have the text of the filing? If so, can you paste it here?

shelly link

6/8/2015 08:55:55 am

You can find the case here. You just agree to the terms of the site and under business name use Scenic Pit LLC

shelly

6/8/2015 08:57:49 am

https://www.wicourts.gov/casesearch.htm

Lena

6/8/2015 06:52:52 am

I don't understand what being a "vet" and a "conservative woman" has to do with the topic of the Zouleks trying to force a landfill operation in the back yards of all of us who built homes in a quiet, area for a country way of life.

Did you think that being a vet or a conservative woman is some sort of entitled status that allows you to gain at all of the other conservative women and vets' expense who live in this area?

There are hundreds of homes that will be affected and lose our quiet, country lifestyle and increase the danger 100x of walking on our beautiful roads.... to say nothing of the new tax burden of maintaining them against the Zoulek's truck traffic.

Let's see the Zoulek's join with us then and move into the house on the pit property that they just bought if they think inserting a working landfill into everyone's back yard would be such a hoot. Why not live in the midst of a landfill themselves just like they are trying to make us do?

Not once in any of Dana's comments do I see any acknowledgement of how her attempts to impose all of the noise, dust and traffic on us will decimate the value and marketability of our homes and eliminate our ability to enjoy the fresh air from open windows anymore.

This is a country, residential area, populated with homes and families. It is not an appropriate place for a busy landfill.

marie

6/9/2015 02:04:01 am

LENA--very well said.
I commend you for the most knowledgeable view of this issue.

Thanks

Pebbles

6/8/2015 09:38:07 am

Buy a home next to an airport you don't complain about the air traffic; buy a home on a lake you don't complain about the bugs; buy a home next to a freeway you don't complain about noise; buy a home next to a farm you don't complain about loud tractor noises, and the smell and noises from livestock, etc.; it was a "pit" when you purchased your home -- and it's still a "pit" that needs to be restored. Your near-sighted view at your neighborhood (country lifestyle) obviously overlooked the bigger picture of the community and what else comes in and with country living. You want to call it country living in a $400,000+ home, yet you condemn those that were here 100 years before you. "Country living" is more than an island of 50 homes isolating themselves from the rest of the world."

Ben

6/8/2015 10:33:20 am

This is the most logical thing I have seen on here. I used to live in Richfield, and we didn't buy the home we were renting in part due to the traffic on the road we were on and the farm fields on 2 sides of our property. Would have loved to stay in Richfield, but the cost of the McMansions there is too much for a young family. We ended up in Hartford near the airport. Yes some Saturdays and Sundays there are lots of planes but we knew that buying here. If you live by an old gravel pit that should have been restored but was not, you may have to deal with truck traffic until restoration is complete. When people built homes nearby did those against the scenic pit complain about that too? Dump trucks used to drive right past my school all day long in Hubertus. Isn't the train running right by the pit really loud and annoying and dirty too? Better shut it down. You can't have progress in closed minded Richfield.

Lena

6/8/2015 02:34:37 pm

"gravel pit that SHOULD HAVE BEEN restored" - says who? The Zouleks because they want a more profitable landfill location.

You actually are arguing against yourself. There never was a landfill there, so when we bought our homes, why should we have expected one?

marie

6/9/2015 02:08:17 am

sorry- it was restored to a kettle looking land. trees etc. so it does not need to be filled in.

Lena

6/8/2015 02:28:03 pm

Hey Pebbles (or is that you Thomas?) - by your reasoning anyone who buys a home next to an Ice Age bike trail shouldn't have a say in it being re-converted back to a railroad because hey, 50 years ago that used to be a railroad.

The Zouleks are the late-comers to this property. We all bought homes next to a "Scenic pit" which had been a gravel pit some 50 (approx) years ago but had been exhausted of gravel and at one time was zoned residential. Fully grown trees, wildlife and 50 years worth of flora and fauna reside in a kettle-like topography.

You say it's a "pit that needs to be restored". Needs? What NEEDS to be fixed with a kettle that's been dormant - and quite happily so I might add - for over 50 years? Did you notice the fully grown, mature grove of trees that populate the entire scenic topography?

Why should the Zoulek's think they should have the right - and sue to demand it - to upset the quiet, country way of life that we've all enjoyed for 50 years? To significantly devalue everyone else's properties by inserting a landfill in our back yards?

Villages have zoning ordinances to protect the village's property values and residents against self centered bullies like the Zouleks.

shelly

6/8/2015 10:25:06 pm

Well said, Lena.

marie

6/9/2015 02:12:42 am

very well said

Lena

6/9/2015 03:29:00 am

Thank you, Shelly and Marie.

shelly

6/10/2015 03:22:48 am

Lena, could you please contact me at svento@charter.net.
Thanks

Lena

6/8/2015 02:43:10 pm

Pebbles/Thomas wrote;

"Buy a home next to an airport you don't complain about the air traffic; buy a home on a lake you don't complain about the bugs; buy a home next to a freeway you don't complain about noise; buy a home next to a farm you don't complain about loud tractor noises, and the smell and noises from livestock, etc.; it was a "pit" when you purchased your home...."

In arguing for the nearby residents to accept the status quo, Thomas/Pebbles argues against himself.

There never was a landfill here, so why should there be one now and how should we have expected one?

There is an abandoned gravel pit which has been depleted of gravel, so there was no expectation of any further extractions from that pit.

The Zouleks are trying to insert a WHOLE new environment - inserting a landfill where there never was one or never was a plan for one - into a settled country way of life for their profit and convenience but in the process devaluing everyone else's property values and disrupting the quiet enjoyment of our properties.

Neither Thomas/Pebbles/Ben or Dana/Lisa/Nola have anything to say about why they should be entitled to devalue hundreds of properties by their creation of a landfill in our back yards.

They won't comment to that because they only want to think about themselves.

Oh, and if living next to a landfill is so great, why don't they move into the house they bought that is right next to it - like all of our houses are?

Ben

6/9/2015 10:46:50 pm

After reading the comments on this page, seeing responses to my comments, and especially a post from a few months ago, it seems to me like the best scenario for all parties would be to leave the pit as is. I myself was involved in a situation a few years ago where the group i was involved with was trying to sell some property in Richfield, and others did not agree with the possiblity of a sale, While we were in the right to make the sale, it was not worth any pending legal actions, negative press, hard feelings, etc. We pulled the property off the market, and everyone agreed this was the best decision. My knowledge of the scenic pit issue really only comes from the newspaper, this site, and village meeting minutes. While it seems like the new owners could legally move forward with the landfill plan, the filling of the existing mine/quarry is a big construction project that those living in the area do not want to deal with. I also have never been involved with a construction project that does not need a local building permit or local approval. Personally, moving forward without local approval is a mistake. You want the municipality on your side when you are in construction, both for the project you are working on now, and for any projects in the future. From what i have seen Wissota (I believe) should have filled the pit in decades ago, but for some reason did not. I do not ever remember any issues with the pit from my time living in Hubertus. Unless something can be done by the new pit owners to minimize every impact their operation will have on neighbors- like building birms around the perimeter with landscaping to minimize construciton noise, limiting operation hours, guaranteeing well safety, and maybe going as far as fixing roadways if the haul road from HWY Q is not used, there is no need for this project to be completed. I know that quarrys over in Sussex/Lannon/Falls typically agree to terms like that. If you look at it big picture, the project benefits the current owners, and the few potential people who may build houses there. The project negatively affects all the homeowners nearby who will have to deal with a major backfilling project for many years, and any possible legal actions with anything that may go wrong with the project. The negatives in this case outweigh the positives, even if the pit truly legally can be filled.

Best of luck to all involved.

Lena

6/9/2015 11:37:47 pm

Hi Ben,

While the question of the legality of filling the pit hasn't been settled, this quote from your response really stood out to me:

" the project benefits the current owners, and the few potential people who may build houses there."

The pit is going to take 10 years of 100+ trucks a day to fill. Ultimately it is planned to be subdivided for a very few homes - maybe 5?

So it benefits the current owners (who purchased it knowing there was ferocious local opposition) and in 10 years it will be an OPTION for about 5 people who are looking for land, but Wisconsin is not short of land or subdivisions.

Here in Richfield we have a number of undersold subdivisions with well over 100 vacant lots looking for owners since the mid-2000's - so this is not even a development that will benefit Richfield or these future owners at all, really.

We don't need more subdivisions in Richfield, and we certainly don't need a landfill here either.

All of us bought properties surrounding the depleted gravel pit knowing there was nothing left to extract and that it had been restored to a kettle. If you walk on the trails beside it, you'll see it and the sides of are full of mature 50 year old trees, native grasses and it actually is quite attractive.

Like you, I would not embark on a 10 year project knowing that both the village and surrounding population will be on a perpetual and vigilant mission to shut the operation down. That's why I am wondering what is in it for the Zouleks that we don't see. Obviously profits for their current operation, but why this specific pit? Why do they seem so desperate to move forward?

I personally was very turned off by the election fliers Dana circulated because she did not disclose that the had a substantial and adversarial matter pending before the village of Richfield which, if elected, she would get to vote on. In my opinion that's a moral and ethical lapse, so at that moment the project and the Zouleks lost all credibility with me and I have zero faith in their good intentions to stay on any other moral high ground in their acceptance/refusal of tainted loads.

Once someone demonstrates a willingness to be opportunistic at the expense of ethics, I have no interest in working with them further.

Ben

6/9/2015 11:51:37 pm

If I have driven on Scenic Road once, I have been down that way 100 times. Even have biked that way a few times. Not that I was looking for it- but I couldn't have identified that it was and abandoned gravel pit. My school playground at St Hubert was right next to one, so its not like I don't know what they look like.

While it is private property, we all have a responsibility to respect out neighbors. Too much risk in this case to proceed with the project. With all the negativity you see against the project, even in the village board minutes, I would have a hard time with a project that would upset that many people. There are plenty of beautiful places in the area to develop.

Shelbygirl

6/16/2015 01:54:31 am

Apparently, the new owners of this property are claiming an old law on the Wisconsin books allows them to trespass on property not rightfully owned by them.

Not so fast!

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/893/III/25

Under Wisconsin’s adverse possession statute, Wis. Stat. section 893.25, real estate is possessed adversely only if the person possessing it “is in actual continued occupation under a claim of title, exclusive of any other right,” for 20 uninterrupted years.
http://www.wisbar.org/newspublications/pages/general-article.aspx?articleid=10728

Lena

6/16/2015 03:34:39 am

Shelbygirl, what claims are you referencing?

Are the Zouleks claiming adverse possession of property(ies) surrounding the pit or is this comment related to another matter?

Shelbygirl

6/16/2015 04:40:03 am

Yes, it is my understanding they are claiming adverse possession of surrounding properties.

shelbygirl

6/16/2015 04:42:27 am

Additional interesting reading material:

http://www.richfieldwi.gov/index.aspx?NID=96

2015.6.18 Village Board Packet

Lena

6/16/2015 05:51:07 am

Shelbygirl, that is a TON of information.

It was interesting to read the full texts of the pleadings filed by both Tom and Dana.

In my skimming of the 100 +/- pages, I didn't see any references to adverse possession of the surrounding properties. Can you point me to it?

Or is the adverse position issue separate from these documents?

Shelbygirl

6/16/2015 06:05:05 am

Totally separate. Sorry for the confusion.

It would be helpful for anyone attending Thursday's meeting to read through that packet prior.

Additionally, it is my understanding the circulating petition is going to be turned in Wednesday (tomorrow), so anyone wishing to sign it needs to do so ASAP.

Lena

6/16/2015 06:11:52 am

Yes, the pleadings and detailed correspondence surrounding the Zoulek's intentionsin the referenced board packet are very informative.

I second your recommendation.

Doris

6/19/2015 11:44:34 am

I completely agree that there are too many people against this for it to be ok. While I don't live by this pit, I can sympathize very much with the concerned neighbors. I feel the need to also add that I am a neighbor of Danah's and she is not respectful to her fellow neighbors. I have numerous examples of poor behavior which reflects this. Therefore, it doesn't surprise me that she is pushing for this for her own agenda: financial gain.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

How Do You Picture Defiance

Leave a Reply.

About

Archives

Categories