MANKATO — A recently filed lawsuit aims to halt construction of the proposed county public works facility in Mankato Township.
In March the Mankato Township Board voted 2-1 to approve Blue Earth County’s plans for the facility, which would serve as a base for county snow and road crews, on the corner of County Roads 90 and 16 just south of Mankato’s city limits. Residents nearby the site threatened to file a lawsuit if the Township Board gave the go-ahead.
The lawsuit was filed in Blue Earth County District Court in late April with homeowners Patrick Lease and Lynn Koosman-Lease as plaintiffs. They allege the board’s granting of a conditional-use permit for the facility was “directly contrary” to the township’s land-use ordinance.
Their requests to the court include nullification of the permit and a permanent injunction on the project. Mankato Township’s answer, filed in court Friday, disputed the claims and asked for the complaint to be dismissed.
The project needed a conditional-use permit because the proposed site is within an area zoned as an agricultural district. Kevin Shoeberg, attorney for the Leases, argued the permit is illegal because it didn’t meet a range of requirements needed to allow an industrial use in an agricultural zone.
Requirements for a conditional use in an agricultural zone include what demonstrated need there is for a non-agriculture use, whether the use would degrade water quality, whether the use will generate noise or light pollution and whether the use will cause more traffic congestion. The conditional-use permit didn’t satisfy all of these among 10 of the “most pertinent” requirements, the lawsuit alleges.
“While Blue Earth County may be in need of a new public works facility, there was no demonstrated need that it should be placed on property zoned Agriculture in Mankato Township,” Shoeberg stated. “It belongs in a light or heavy industrial area.”
The lawsuit goes on to argue that the Leases’ property value will be diminished by the project. They based this on testimony from real estate agents, which was previously included in discussions at public meetings on the project.
Residents packed into the township’s hall for the meetings in February and March. A Mankato Township Planning Commission meeting ended with a vote against recommending the permit, followed by the 2-1 vote in favor of it at the next board meeting a week later.
A petition cited by the Leases at the meetings had signatures of 221 people opposing the project. Board Chair Daniel Rotchadl, one of the two votes in favor of the project, noted only 58 of the signees lived in the township and they represented less than 5% of the population.
Mankato Township’s answer to the lawsuit, filed by attorney Christopher Sandquist, denied all allegations in the suit unless otherwise noted. It acknowledged the facility would be within an agricultural district, but stated the township determined the project “was similar to the other uses allowed” in agricultural districts.
At the time of the public meetings, County Administrator Bob Meyer said the county attorney, township attorney and township staff reviewed the conditional-use permit application and determined it met the required standards.
The next court date in the case hasn’t yet been scheduled.