Township Special Counsel Responds to STEP’s Letter; Springfield’s Mining Process Shows Opportunity for Improvement

On August 13, Springfield Township Environmental Protectors (STEP) submitted a formal letter asking the Township Board to immediately move the paused Levy/Burroughs Materials Corporation special land use application to a formal vote and reject it.

In an accompanying letter, STEP’s attorney, Ryan Richardville, went further, stating that “denial of the application is warranted” in part because of the Township’s proposed 2026 amendments to Chapter 12, Article IV of its Mining Control Ordinance.

-> Click to Read STEP’s Letter to Springfield Township

Springfield Township’s special legal counsel, Gerald Fisher, responded to STEP’s letter, raising broader questions about how the Township handles incomplete mining applications.

Fisher’s Response: Denial is Premature While the Application Remains Incomplete

Fisher’s August 13 memo does not say that the Levy/BMC application should ultimately be approved. Instead, his central point is that the Township does not yet have a complete application upon which to make that decision. Fisher wrote that Levy/BMC “understands that it has not yet filed a complete application” and is still in the process of completing one. Because of that, Fisher warned that the Township would have “very little in the way of solid footing to deny the application at this juncture.”

He also cautioned that an immediate denial could potentially send a message to a reviewing court that Springfield Township had no intention of giving the applicant a full and fair consideration, possibly exposing the Township to additional legal consequences.

-> Click to Read Gerald Fisher’s Response Letter

STEP’s letter raised valid concerns. But according to the Township’s own special legal counsel, denial of the Special Land Use Permit is premature while the application remains incomplete.

In several of his point-by-point responses, Fisher essentially returns to the same issue: How can the Township make substantive judgments about environmental impacts, Very Serious Consequences, agency approvals and other concerns before a complete application has been filed and the Township’s experts have had an opportunity to review it?

But it leads directly to another question Springfield Township now needs to answer:

What happens when an application stays incomplete for 478 days?

The Levy/BMC application has now kept this community on high alert for 478 days and counting.

For more than a year, residents have continued attending meetings, reading reports, reviewing plans, monitoring Township communications, researching potential impacts, responding to new information and wondering when (or whether) a complete application will finally be submitted.

That is an extraordinary amount of time for a community to remain engaged with an application that the Township’s own special counsel acknowledges is still incomplete. It is also an exhausting amount of time for a community to carry the burden of an unresolved application.

And this is exactly why Springfield Township’s current mining ordinance discussions should include a clearly defined process for incomplete applications.

One of the most useful lessons from the STEP/Fisher exchange is the need to clearly distinguish between two very different actions:

Action #1	Action #2
Denying or Approving a complete mining application on its merits requires a legally defensible record supporting that decision.	Rejecting, closing or otherwise terminating an application (with the opportunity to reapply at a later date) because the applicant failed to complete the required submission within a defined period.

Cash Them In While You Can: Here’s My Two Cents

Springfield Township is currently reviewing and amending the Township’s mining ordinance. This creates an opportunity to fix this and several other issues with the mining ordinance.

My Opinion: If an application cannot legally be denied on its merits because it is incomplete, the answer should not automatically be to allow it to remain pending indefinitely. There needs to be another path. Leaving an entire community on edge for more than a year is neither fair nor sustainable.

Currently, the Township is asking for the public to submit comments on the proposed amendments to the mining ordinance. I have many suggestions for the board to consider which will be distributed to the board and public in the near future. But I do want to specifically address concerns directly related to ‘forever application’ issue:

1

Springfield Should Consider a 60-Day Application Completion Requirement

I recommend that Springfield Township consider establishing a firm completion period for mining applications.

Once a mining application has been reviewed by the Township and the applicant has received written notice identifying missing or deficient information, the applicant should be given 60 days to complete the application.

If the required information is not provided within that period, the application could be rejected or administratively closed as incomplete, using whatever terminology and procedure Township counsel determines is legally appropriate.

2

Springfield should establish a waiting period of no less than 6 months from the date of the incomplete application rejection/administratively closed before allowing the same mining application to be resubmitted.

If there is one thing we have learned from this prolonged mining process, it is that residents carry a significant burden of time, personal costs, and the ongoing mental and emotional strain that comes with continual uncertainty.

A six-month waiting period would create a clearly defined break in the process for the rejected application. During that time, Levy/BMC would not be able to resubmit the same mining proposal, giving the Township and residents a predictable period before that particular application could return for review.

To be clear, rejecting an incomplete application would not prevent a mining company from reapplying later. It would not prejudge the merits of a future application. And it would not prevent a complete application from receiving the full and fair review Fisher says the law requires.

It would simply create reasonable boundaries.

All I am asking is for the Township to consider this:

Section ____. Mining Application Completeness and Administrative Closure

A. Complete Application Required.
Any application for a mining, mineral extraction, sand and gravel extraction, or similar use requiring Township approval shall be submitted as a complete application. A complete application shall include all forms, plans, studies, reports, supporting documentation, fees, and other information required by this Ordinance or reasonably required by the Township to conduct a complete review of the proposed operation.

B. Notice of Incomplete Application.
If the Township determines that an application is incomplete, the Township shall provide the applicant with written notice identifying the missing, deficient, or additional information required to complete the application.

C. Sixty-Day Completion Period.
The applicant shall have sixty (60) calendar days from the date of the Township’s written notice of incompleteness to submit all required materials and provide a complete application.

Failure to provide a complete application within the sixty (60)-day period shall result in the application being administratively closed and rejected as incomplete without further consideration by the Township.

An administrative closure or rejection under this section shall not constitute a denial of the proposed use on its merits.

D. Resubmittal Following Administrative Closure.
An applicant whose mining application has been administratively closed or rejected as incomplete pursuant to this section shall not submit the same or substantially similar application for a period of six (6) months from the date of administrative closure or rejection.

Following expiration of the six-month period, the applicant may submit a new application. Any new application shall be treated as a new filing and shall be subject to all application requirements, fees, ordinances, standards, and review procedures in effect at the time of resubmittal.

E. No Continuing Application During Waiting Period.
During the six-month waiting period, the administratively closed application shall have no pending or active status before the Township and shall not continue through the Township’s formal application review process.

Purpose.
The purpose of this section is to establish a clear and predictable process for incomplete mining applications; to encourage applicants to timely provide the information necessary for meaningful Township review; and to prevent incomplete applications from remaining pending for an indefinite period.

*** The exact language and timeframes should be developed with municipal counsel.

---

A Global Mining Company Should Know the Drill

Levy is not a new or inexperienced mining company. This company has been in business for more than 100 years, has extensive experience in the aggregate industries, and operates throughout the United States and internationally. Levy understands the mining process, the permitting process, and the level of technical documentation required for a proposal of this magnitude.

With that experience comes responsibility.

In my opinion, there is simply no reasonable excuse for a mining application of this scale to remain incomplete for more than a year. A company with Levy’s history, resources, professional consultants, and decades of experience should understand what information is necessary before submitting an application to a community.

If additional studies, reports, plans, or supporting documentation are necessary for the Township to conduct a complete review, those materials should be prepared and submitted within a reasonable timeframe. An applicant should not be permitted to place a community into an open-ended review process while it continues assembling the application piece by piece.

After more than a century in business and extensive experience with aggregate operations, Levy should be capable of submitting a complete, reviewable application. There is no reason Springfield Township residents should bear the burden of an incomplete application indefinitely.

---

(P.S.) The Public Should Be Able to Read Both Letters

There is also a transparency issue worth correcting. Gerald Fisher’s response to STEP has been posted on the Township website under “Levy Updates.” However, STEP’s original August 13 letter (the document Fisher is responding to) is not currently posted alongside it. That leaves residents with access to the response without easy access to the original argument that prompted it.

Both documents belong together.

If Springfield Township publishes Fisher’s response, it should also publish STEP’s original correspondence so residents can read the complete exchange, understand the context and evaluate both positions for themselves.

---

Please consider supporting Oko Environmental