Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fly Rock Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Van Buren County hears hours of debate over proposed 'fly rock' ordinance; board to revise draft
Summary
Residents and industry representatives traded sharply different views about a proposed county ordinance on blast-related 'fly rock' — some called it necessary to protect properties and safety, while local blasters and others warned of redundancy with state rules and confidentiality concerns on permit forms; board asked staff to produce a revised clean draft and consult the county attorney.
Residents, blasters and supervisors spent an extended portion of a Van Buren County meeting debating a proposed local ordinance meant to address ‘fly rock’ — rock ejected outside a permitted blast area.
A resident who identified himself during public comment described a recent incident in which "a stone came within 2 feet of my home" and urged the board not to repeal or abandon the proposed regulation, saying private litigation after damage is "like the barn door after the horse is gone." Industry speakers and several supervisors countered that state and federal regulators already cover many aspects of blasting, that zoning or setback rules complicate local controls, and that the state 'user permit' referenced in the ordinance is a state form that could contain sensitive storage-site information.
County staff identified several drafting issues that need clarification: whether the initial penalty should be assessed against the individual blaster in charge or against the blasting company; whether the county should and legally can require confidentiality or redaction of storage addresses on a state form; and how to define 'permittee' in the ordinance so enforcement matches intent. Staff noted an example state form in which "Jordan Williams" was listed as a permittee and emphasized the need for consistent language tying penalties to the person or company the board intends to regulate.
Blasting-industry speakers described field practices — some saying operators retain video for five years — and cautioned that overly prescriptive local rules could impose burdens or encourage litigation. Others argued the county must be able to act before repeated incidents cause injury or property loss.
The board directed staff to produce a cleaned-up draft that clarifies penalty escalation, the permittee definition, and confidentiality options; to consult the county attorney about redaction and enforcement mechanisms; and to circulate the revised draft to stakeholders before the next meeting.
