Wagoner County commissioners deny conditional‑use request for sand‑mining operation near State Highway 72

Wagoner County Board of Commissioners — May (date on file) — The Wagoner County Board of Commissioners on Monday considered an appeal of a conditional‑use permit request from R.J. Sands to operate a sand‑mining operation on a parcel near State Highway 72 and voted to deny the request after an extended public hearing and comment period.

The applicant sought conditional use to operate a mining operation on a 60‑acre parcel; planning staff said roughly 27 acres would be used because portions of the parcel lie in a floodplain. The item was appealed to the commission after the county planning commission recommended denial.

Neighbors and property owners spoke against the proposal, citing dust, truck traffic, potential damage to county roads, flood risks and possible impacts to private wells and nearby sod farms. Robert Getchell, attorney for Tulsa Sod and Mulch owner James Moran, told commissioners the farm had invested about $500,000 in 13 permitted wells and that “the mining operation … threatens that water supply,” saying the applicant planned a pit deeper than the wells’ intake and that groundwater would flow to the lowest point. Other residents described repeated local flooding, erosion and the proximity of houses to the proposed operation.

Derek Blackshear, a professional engineer who reviewed permitting materials, told the board he was still gathering evidence but listed four technical concerns: the Oklahoma Department of Mines permitting process, coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Environmental Quality permitting, and Oklahoma water‑resource approvals. “At this point, there are … concerns,” he said, adding that his review was ongoing.

Elizabeth Nichols, attorney for R.J. Sands, asked the board to defer its decision until after a formal Department of Mines evidentiary hearing that she said was expected to be scheduled in August. Nichols said the state process would include sworn testimony and technical evidence and argued commissioners should let that administrative process run before ruling on the county conditional‑use permit. She also said the applicant had sought and received certain state and federal guidance and planned to meet regulatory requirements.

Commission discussion emphasized the narrow scope of county authority — land use, traffic and public safety — and the board’s duty to weigh whether the conditional use would benefit Wagner County and its residents. Commissioners and speakers repeatedly raised concerns about trucks accessing the highway near a bridge, possible long‑term excavation (multiple speakers estimated decades of truck traffic), and whether reclamation plans would protect groundwater and floodplain capacity.

After public comment and discussion, a motion to deny the conditional‑use request was made, seconded and put to a roll‑call vote. The commission recorded: Commissioner James Manning — yes; Commissioner Randy Stamps — yes; Commissioner Kelly — no. The motion carried, denying the conditional‑use request.

The board’s decision may have follow‑on implications. Attorneys for the applicant said a formal administrative hearing before the Oklahoma Department of Mines was pending; the county record includes material submitted for both the planning commission and the county’s appeal hearing. County staff and several speakers noted a six‑month moratorium on re‑filing conditional‑use applications in certain circumstances, which could affect whether and when the applicant may return.

The hearing included dozens of pages of materials entered into the record by both opponents and proponents of the mine. The county clerk will retain copies of exhibits submitted during the hearing. Commissioners directed staff to file and retain submitted materials for the record and to note outstanding state administrative matters relevant to the site.

Neighbors who spoke urged the county to require more technical studies before approving any similar applications in the future, including floodplain hydrology, traffic studies coordinated with the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, and specific water‑table analyses. The applicant’s attorney said those issues would be addressed in state permitting, but multiple speakers told the board they expected county land‑use decisions to consider the local, long‑term public‑safety and property‑value impacts.

The denial ends the county‑level conditional‑use appeal; state administrative processes may proceed independently and could be the subject of subsequent filings or appeals.

Votes at a glance: Motion to deny the conditional‑use request — motion by Commissioner James Manning, second by Commissioner Randy Stamps; roll call: Manning — yes; Stamps — yes; Kelly — no. Outcome: motion approved (denial of conditional use request).