East Side Corridor residents argue before Court of Appeals
Betsy Schmiesing, an attorney representing Owatonna residents in its Court of Appeals case presented the residents case during a hearing in St. Paul on Oct.6. Seated is Jason Kuboushek who is representing Steele County. Staff photo by Alex Malm
A decision from the Minnesota Court of Appeals regarding the East Side Corridor is expected to come within the next 90 days.
Three Court of Appeals Judges heard oral arguments from Steele County and residents who oppose the East Side Corridor plan in St. Paul last week.
Residents opposing the East Side Corridor had pledged and then made good on their promise to battle county commissioners by filing the appeal March 12. The county filed its response June 10.
The residents are challenging Steele County Board’s decision that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required for the corridor. The county is accused of completing an insufficient Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Also named in the appeal is the Steele County Highway Department.
In the appeal, residents allege Steele County failed to evaluate or consider the noise-related impacts of the project, failed to adequately evaluate the cumulative potential effects of planned future projects and engaged in an irregular process that unlawfully impeded the public’s ability to participate in the environmental review process.
“Steele County’s actions represent its will to build the project, rather than its judgment, by avoiding the level of legally required environmental review that would show the project will have the potential for significant environmental effects,” the appeal states.
Commissioners approved a resolution in which no environmental statement would be needed for the project on Jan. 27. Immediately after that decision, the residents made it clear that they would be taking this to the state appeals court.
“An Environmental Impact Statement is required for the project because the project has the potential for significant environmental effects,” the residents argue in their 50-page appeal.
At issue is 3.4-mile two-lane roadway on the east side of Owatonna. The project will impact 89.5 acres of land, remove all or part of three existing roadways and construct new branch roadways. The proposed corridor would be constructed adjacent to existing houses. Up to 3,500 vehicles per day are expected to use the new roadway.
An environmental review would include a noise analysis. The residents argue that Steele County has failed to evaluate the noise-related impacts associated with traffic noise that will be generated by the new road.
Residents have been challenging the placement of the corridor for several years. They claim the area would be better served by moving the roadway further east where it can connect with a partial existing road.
In a press release following the hearing the County said it felt “confident the evidence supported its decision.”
“Even though this project is excluded from the MPCA noise standards, the County added the mitigation measures to the project which would decrease the noise impact of the project,” the release read. “The County also took a close look at the cumulative impacts of the project and addressed them in its Findings of Fact and Resolution approving the Record of Decision and the Negative Declaration on the need for an EIS.”
The appeal was filed by Winthrop & Weinstine, a Minneapolis law firm hired by the East Side residents. The county is represented by Iverson Reuvers of Bloomington.