Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clay County board grants variance allowing Olsam to mine into north setback
Summary
The Clay County board granted a variance permitting Olsam to operate a gravel mine within the north property-line setback after staff described practical difficulties accessing aggregate deposits, a Gooseberry Township representative voiced support, and the board read required findings of fact. The motion carried on a voice vote.
The Clay County board voted to grant a variance that allows Olsam (formerly known as Aggregate) to operate a gravel mine within a shared north property-line setback on parcel ID 11.018.0260.
County staff presenter Matt said the request was to permit mining within the 100-foot setback normally required by the Clay County Land Development Code and that the adjacent property to the north — owned by Jeffrey and Connie Mortonson — holds its own permitted gravel operation and had provided written consent for mining up to the property line. "This is a request to to allow for mining in this north property setback," Matt said during a staff overview that described the site as zoned Agricultural General and Resource Protection (Aggregate).
Staff told the board the applicant had documented "practical difficulties" because aggregate deposits do not follow property lines and that the parcel has high-to-limited potential for gravel. The staff presentation noted there are no mapped wetlands in the mining area in the National Wetland Inventory and said the operator plans to return the site to agricultural use after mining is complete. Staff also told members that a draft update to the county’s land development ordinance would, if adopted, remove the need for this specific variance by allowing written consent to be filed instead.
Sheree Eertson, an applicant representative who identified herself as working in the environment and land department, introduced company colleagues and answered questions from board members. In response to a board question about noise mitigation, the applicant said processing would be located on the bottom of the pit "as in years past" to reduce noise impacts on neighbors.
Shelley Steen, speaking for the Gooseberry Township Board, urged approval. "We're very much wanting this" and said the township had reviewed the operator’s materials and ordinances; she emphasized concern that reclamation between the three nearby pits be coordinated so final grades match and tall walls are avoided between properties.
After public comment, the board read the required findings of fact under the Clay County Land Development Code (consistency with the comprehensive plan, practical difficulty, extraordinary circumstances, minimum variance, and no significant adverse effect on public health or safety). With no additional conditions proposed, Leo moved and Tim seconded approval of the variance. The motion carried on a voice vote and the board declared the variance granted.
The board also received brief new-business updates: staff said the planning commission would hold a final public hearing on the county’s land development ordinance and expected to forward a recommendation, and that county land-use training on April 28 would inform continuing-education ideas for future meetings. The board adjourned after a motion by Tim and a second by Dennis.
