Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Mining topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Isanti County Board adopts Planning Commission recommendation to deny Schmeag interim mining permit after strong neighbor opposition
Summary
After extensive public comment and technical review, the Isanti County Board voted to adopt the Planning Commissions recommendation to deny Gerald Schmeags interim use permit for mining peat, sand and black dirt in Isanti Township, citing concerns about scale, traffic, dust, noise, hydrology and health impacts.
The Isanti County Board of Commissioners voted to adopt the Planning Commissions recommendation to deny an interim use permit for Gerald Schmeags proposed mining and pond project in Isanti Township.
Neighbors who live near the proposed site urged the board to reject the application. "This proposal is a misrepresentation. It is not a wetland enhancement project but a commercial mining operation," said Nancy Nyberg, who said her home on County Road 70 would be among those most directly affected. Nyberg and other residents described years of constant noise, dust, vibration and heavy truck traffic, and said there is no reclamation bond, no bore sampling or hydrology plan to protect wells, and that U.S. Army Corps jurisdiction remained unresolved.
Trina Bergloff, the countys zoning administrator, summarized materials asked for by the Planning Commission and provided by the applicant, including haul routes, a topsoil berm plan, a noise abatement study with measurements at set distances, and coordination commitments with the highway department. Staff said the project would excavate roughly 140,000 cubic yards from a 15-acre site and estimated about 7,858 truckloads over the first five years of heavy hauling, which the countys analysis spread across an anticipated active hauling season of roughly seven months.
Technical reviewers on the county's technical evaluation panel (TEP), including county wetland staff and representatives of state soil and water agencies, told the board that the wetland permit application met the Wetland Conservation Act (WACA) regulations and that some TEP members had visited the site. But several commissioners and numerous neighbors said the scale, road impacts and proximity to residences made the operation inappropriate for the location.
After debate on whether to table the matter for further review or to adopt the Planning Commissions findings, Commissioner Christiansen moved to "approve the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny" the interim use permit and to add an additional finding relying on personal observations and written public comment. The board approved the motion; Commissioner Westerberg recused himself from participation on the item, and Commissioner Berg recorded opposition to the action.
The board did not adopt additional mitigation measures in lieu of denial. County staff noted that the applicant may return with a revised proposal or pursue other options, including legal remedies. The applicant had earlier asked the board to consider tabling the matter to provide more information; the Planning Commission had previously both considered a motion to deny and then tabled the request to allow additional follow-up.
Next steps: the denial stands as the boards decision on the interim permit as presented. The applicant may choose to refile with a reduced scope, pursue remedies through the courts, or submit additional technical information for future consideration.
