Burlington

County approves asphalt plant

Local opposition not enough to derail new use for JW Peters site

By Jennifer Eisenbart

Staff writer

In the end, the few people who spoke out Tuesday night at the Racine County Board meeting against an asphalt plant on a portion of the former JW Peters site in Burlington didn’t seem to matter much.

As Supervisor Mark Gleason said, “We had a very good public hearing on this issue, with some good discussion.

“This has been a long-standing industrial use out there.”

Gleason was one of 14 county supervisors to vote in favor of the zoning change allowing Asphalt Contractors Inc. to place an asphalt plant in the Town of Burlington just over the border from a City of Burlington residential neighborhood.

The proposal met with serious resistance from city residents who raised concerns about everything from health to smell to noise at a Town Board meeting May 24 and at a public hearing a few days earlier before a county committee.

In the end, the Town Board voted unanimously to allow the plant to move forward.

While it wasn’t unanimous Tuesday evening at the County Board, the majority of the supervisors voted for the plant. There were five “no” votes – Supervisors Ken Hall, Kiana Johnson, Monte Osterman, and Burlington area Supervisors Mike Dawson and Tom Pringle.

The item was set to be voted on with another unrelated measure, but Pringle asked the matter be considered separately. After Gleason spoke up for the plant, Dawson raised many of the issues that have been arguments against the plant – namely seven schools within a half-mile of the proposed site, plus the noise and smells.

“It’s going to cause, in my opinion, a lot of problems with recess,” Dawson said of the schools. He also pointed out that the Aurora Memorial Hospital of Burlington isn’t far from the site.

“I encourage everybody to vote no.”

Osterman then took up the fight, saying he had visited the site and personally seen how close the Little League fields were to it – another point of contention.

“I feel it would be a burden on the community.”

Supervisor Robert Grove pointed out that the plant would follow the comprehensive land use plan, and Supervisor Bob Miller (no connection to Burlington Mayor Bob Miller) asked if there had been correspondence with the city. Gleason said there had and that it “appeared” to be positive for the plant.

Supervisor Q.A. Shakoor also asked if the town approved it, and got an affirmative.

Pringle made a plea that city residents had not really had a chance to be represented in this matter, but in the end, those comments went unheeded, as did those from Ann and Thomas Kreuzinger – who traveled from Burlington to speak at the meeting.

“I’d like to ask each of you to answer honestly,” said Ann Kreuzinger. “If this plant were within a half mile of your house, would you want it there?”

One Comment

  1. Politics at his finest once again. No sense in messing around lets see how many more people can be diagnosed with cancer. So what if a few little kids have to suffer and die, so what? I for one am sick of everytime I turn around someone has been diagnosed with cancer. More and more by the time it is diagnosed it is already Stage 4. And these people go for regular check ups. Go ahead you greedy, self centered politicians serving yourselves in your special interest and own needs. The town of Burlington has gone this long without a stinking cancer causing asphalt plant but their own greed allows them to dismiss the risk factors for a multitude of people, both city and town and further surrounding areas. No health risk factors you say? Based on what survey? Because it is a survey doesn’t make it true. My personal thanks to all on the county board who cast a nay vote. Further, Mr. Gleason did the “appeared” mean the residents of the city or the governmental body representing their citizens? It is a meaningless phrase too often used to skirt an honest answer. Who gave the affirmative answer to Shakoor’s question, “If the town approved it.” Was the answerer a fortune teller? It is unfortunate we do not know who the answerer is. The article states the county board meeting was held on Tuesday, which would be June 22, the board did their unanimous vote 2 days later on Thursday June 24. Apparently there is a fortune teller among us, we just don’t know who it is.