Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables contested Dickinson County quarry permit, allows limited operations until Feb. 13
Summary
After extensive public comment, the Dickinson County Commission agreed to table consideration of Conditional Use Permit (CUP 24-09) for a rock quarry and to allow limited work to continue under conditions until the commission meets again on Feb. 13.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Dickinson County Commission on Jan. 9 agreed to postpone final action on a proposed expansion of a rock quarry (referred to as CUP 24-09 in staff materials) after extensive public comment and questions about permitting and state oversight. Commissioners voted to table the item to the commission's meeting on Feb. 13 and to permit limited ongoing operations subject to conditions recommended by staff and the planning commission.
Why it mattered: Neighbors and a private attorney raised legal and procedural objections, including whether prior leases or state registrations were in force and whether required state reclamation and licensing documents had been obtained. Residents said blasting and quarry activity began in the fall without clear notice or local permitting, and they voiced concerns about well water, vibration and property impacts.
What the planning staff presented Tim, planning staff, summarized the planning commission's recommendation and the standard state and local requirements for surface mining operations. He said the planning commission had recommended approval with conditions that include state approvals, a dust‑abatement plan, updated site plans by a licensed surveyor, and a reclamation bond acceptable to the county engineer and the state. Staff noted that, historically, the county had not held reclamation bonds for previous quarries and that the state typically handles licensing and bonding.
Public comments and applicant response - Betsy Edwards, a nearby resident, said the quarrying began last fall, that she had repeatedly asked county staff about activity, and that she was concerned about well water, foundation impacts and property values. "I asked him if he'd guarantee our water and he he won't," Edwards said. - Marcus, an attorney representing the landowner and family, and other residents argued the applicant had not complied with state licensing requirements before resuming operations and pointed to Kansas surface‑mining statutes (49‑6001 et seq.) and a 2012 state letter referenced in public records. - Applicant representatives (the contractor and quarry operator) said state authorities had been contacted, site registration was in process and that they had engaged hydrologists and seismographs for monitoring. The operator said an updated state registration was submitted in January and that state approval signatures were expected after state staff review.
Commission action and conditions The commission voted to table final approval to Feb. 13 to allow time for additional documentation and legal review. The motion that carried included staff direction that limited work could continue in the near term but recommended conditions be met, including receipt by county staff of state documentation confirming site registration/licensing and proof of reclamation bonding within a specified timeframe. Commissioners also discussed the option of issuing a stay on all activity until state documentation was received; instead, the board opted for a limited‑operations approach consistent with planning‑commission recommendations and staff follow-up.
Outcome Motion carried to table CUP 24-09 to Feb. 13 and to allow limited activity (with conditions) pending receipt of state approvals and required documentation. The board directed staff to obtain and review state correspondence confirming registration/licensing and reclamation measures before the Feb. 13 meeting.
Next steps Staff will follow up with the Kansas division of conservation and with the applicant to obtain written confirmation of licensing, site registration and any required bonds; the item will return to the commission on Feb. 13 for final action. Residents may pursue additional legal or administrative remedies; the commission noted state enforcement authorities also have statutory tools.
Ending The commission's decision to table and impose conditions reflects a compromise intended to allow limited operations while the county and state verify regulatory compliance and address neighbors' concerns.

