Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies interim use permit for proposed concrete plant after extensive neighbor opposition
Summary
Clay County commissioners voted to deny an interim use permit for a proposed Concrete Holdings LLC ready‑mix plant along Highway 75, citing conflicts with the county comprehensive plan’s agricultural goals and unresolved water and traffic concerns; the motion passed by a 5–3 margin after broad public comment.
The Clay County Planning Commission voted on Nov. 4 to deny an interim use permit requested by Concrete Holdings LLC for a concrete ready‑mix plant on a 10‑acre parcel alongside U.S. Highway 75 after a lengthy public hearing dominated by nearby residents and township officials.
Staff described the proposal as an 8,000‑square‑foot building with an adjacent 80‑foot silo, roughly 65% impervious coverage, an on‑site stormwater basin and a private well estimated to use about 750,000 gallons per year. Staff said several permits would be required from MnDOT, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Buffalo Red River Watershed District, and noted Kurtz Township formally opposed the proposed rezoning and plat. MnDOT staff informed county staff earlier in the day that a right‑turn lane would be required for the project’s access.
John Lowry, representing the applicant, defended the site choice and said the project followed county standards. “We’re hoping to be here to work with the county and with the neighboring residents,” said Lowry, adding that the applicant will comply with stormwater and water‑use requirements.
Scores of neighbors described concerns with traffic safety and noise, questioned groundwater availability and warned of the loss of 10 acres of prime farmland. Laura Canole, who said she organized a petition, told commissioners she collected “140 some names” and urged protection of family farms. “I just feel like we should protect that,” she said. Neighbors also raised water‑supply fears after several homeowners reported recent well problems; staff noted that the DNR can perform well interference studies but that such studies are typically landowner driven.
Commissioners debated mitigation conditions proposed by staff, including limits on hours of operation, dust control, vegetative screening, containment of washout water, prohibition on on‑site crushing unless restricted to limited days and truck‑route restrictions. The applicant sought a 20‑year interim permit; staff said a shorter (10‑year) term was more typical.
A motion to deny the permit was made citing conflict with the comprehensive plan’s goal to protect agricultural land and the commission’s inability to find that water impacts could be mitigated through conditions. The chair announced the motion carried; commissioners later stated the tally was 5–3 in favor of denial. The chair declared the interim use permit denied.
The denial means the applicant cannot proceed with the project on this parcel unless it revises the proposal and returns to the county for a new application or an appeal through whatever statutory remedies apply.
