Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fly Rock Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Van Buren County supervisors debate ‘fly rock’ ordinance after resident testimony and legal concerns
Summary
Supervisors spent the bulk of the meeting revising a proposed ordinance to address "fly rock" from quarry blasting, debating whether penalties should follow an adverse finding by the county engineer or await a conviction and whether sanctions should target individual blasters, companies, or both.
Supervisors in Van Buren County spent the largest portion of their May 26 meeting wrestling with language and enforceability in a proposed "fly rock" ordinance designed to address rocks that leave quarry sites and land on private property.
Staff presented a revised draft and circulated the most recent comments to the board. Assistant County Attorney Thomas (referenced by staff) raised a legal choice point: should penalties and permit prohibitions be triggered by an "adverse finding" from the county engineer or only after a conviction following civil enforcement? Staff advised the county would likely pursue civil remedies through the county attorney and that the ordinance could be drafted to reflect either approach. Several supervisors expressed concern about imposing permit prohibitions before a formal adjudication and asked staff to add clarifying language tying prohibitions to conviction timing where appropriate.
A central disagreement was whether to assess penalties and the first recorded occurrence to the individual "blaster in charge" or to the blasting company. The draft currently treats the blaster as the responsible party for a first occurrence and the company for second occurrences. Multiple speakers – including contractors and a neighbor who described an unremedied incident and said he had video evidence (public comment) – urged that companies be held accountable when separate blasters under the same company cause multiple fly‑rock events. Board members discussed several options: (1) retain the first-occurrence assignment to the blaster while adding language tying the first occurrence to the company for later enforcement; (2) make the company responsible earlier; or (3) make the blaster responsible but require the company to demonstrate it took corrective steps.
The board also debated practical enforcement and cost. Supervisors reported consulting outside attorneys who warned that criminal penalties and unclear drafting could invite litigation and county expense; several urged using civil/administrative tools and permit conditions that can be enforced without criminal prosecution. Staff noted some provisions were drawn directly from state code and that the state fire marshal retains authority over negligent blasts and criminal penalties.
Other technical matters discussed included video retention (some industry representatives said companies retain footage up to five years), how and where video would be produced for county review, and the ordinance's 72‑hour notification window for reporting an event. The board considered changing that period to "within 2 business days" to avoid weekend timing gaps.
At the board’s direction, staff agreed to remove Section 10, which reiterated criminal penalties already covered by state code, and to draft clarified language for Section 8 to indicate when a prohibition would begin (for example, specifying "upon conviction" in certain clauses). Supervisors asked that the first-occurrence language be revised to ensure the company is tied into the record so that repeated incidents by the same company can lead to company-level sanctions.
The board did not adopt the ordinance at the meeting. Staff said they would produce revised text reflecting the board’s feedback, including the removal of Section 10 and edits to the timing of prohibitions and the linkage between individual blasters and blasting companies. A further meeting was scheduled for follow-up review.
