Neighbors urge removal of Heimlick dump material, cite floodplain and health concerns at Grant County hearing

At the start of the meeting the board asked for an update on docket 018‑25, the Jack Heimlick site, and later in the evening neighbors presented extensive testimony and documentary evidence alleging large-scale dumping and open‑pit mining on a residential parcel in the floodplain.

Jared Armstrong, a near‑neighbor who has worked in environmental permitting, provided a timeline and Google Earth imagery showing the site as a flat agricultural field through 2016 and then a series of dump‑truck depositions beginning in 2019. Armstrong and others said the volume of concrete, asphalt and rebar now forms a substantial mound close to residential property lines, with visible shadows on aerial imagery and pieces falling into a creek. He told the board he documented repeated dumping after a county stop‑work order and provided multiple dated videos and photos to staff.

Speakers urged the board to require documentation the owner has not provided: a stamped site plan showing setbacks and contours, a hydrology (H&H) study demonstrating no rise in base flood elevation, a floodplain permit, a wetland delineation and potential mitigation, a reclamation plan and county bond for ongoing mining operations, and a dust‑mitigation plan. Residents said they had not received satisfactory responses to these requirements and argued the site cannot meet setback and floodplain standards while the fill remains.

Multiple neighbors stressed impacts beyond property values: increased flood and water‑quality risk from material entering the creek, persistent dust and noise, and long‑term loss of residential land use. Several requested that, if the special‑exception application cannot meet ordinance protections, the board deny it and require removal of all material from the floodplain. Residents also asked what enforcement steps would be taken for the stop‑work order and why fines had not been issued for continued dumping.

Board members acknowledged the seriousness of the complaints, asked staff to include the photos and videos in the official record, and said they would consider enforcement and next procedural steps. The record shows neighbors formally requested more time for staff review and a public hearing in August for a decision on the special exception. No final decision on the Heimlick application was made at this meeting.

Next steps: staff will retain the residents’ aerial images and videos in the record; the board signaled it would review any submitted hydrology, site‑plan and permitting documents and consider enforcement action or denial if the site cannot meet applicable floodplain and setback standards.