Posted on August 26, 2024
A controversial plan to mine sand and gravel in southwest Rochester for the U.S. 52 roadbed won initial city council approval Monday.
The council voted 5-2 to approve the plan and direct the city attorney to prepare findings of fact stating the basis for the decision, which might be challenged in court.
For now, the council’s approval gives the highway contractor, Zumbro River Constructors, permission to mine 370,000 cubic yards of earth from the site between Lake George and the Zumbro River on the west side of the highway. The landowner is William Quick.
Material mined there will account for about one-quarter of the sand and gravel needed for the highway project. Excavation could start as soon as the end of this month, according to the contractor.
The end product of excavation will be a new lake, tentatively named Lake George II.
Advantages of the plan, proponents said, include its location. It’s close enough to U.S. 52 that trucks can haul material onto the highway without using other public roads.
“This is the great thing about this — we keep the activity in the work zone and off the public streets,” said Jeff Broberg, vice president of McGhie &; Betts Inc., the planning firm that represents Zumbro River Constructors.
Alternative mining sites are in Salem Township and near Oronoco, Broberg said.
Some nearby residents argued against the plan, saying the four-year excavation plan and the new lake would keep them from using now-forested land in which they hold legal and financial stakes.
“We have the right of quiet enjoyment and use of that property,” said Connie Polk, 2004 Southfield Court S.W.
Residents hoped their side would prevail.
The Planning and Zoning Commission voted against the project May 14. On Monday, city council member Dennis Hanson made the first motion, which was to deny the project.
His motion failed 5-2, with Hanson and Jean McConnell on the losing side.
The council then voted on a motion approving the project. The 5-2 vote fell along the same lines.
Bob Suk, an attorney representing five of six area homeowner associations, asserted his clients’ claim to ownership interest in part of the land being used in the project, and he said he expects they will sue.
“It’s unfortunate we’re going to end up in court,” Suk said. “It’s not going to achieve anything, and it’s going to slow everything down.”
Suk told council members the city also might be a target for litigation. He said that by approving the plans the council committed “inverse condemnation,” meaning it took away residents’ use of the land without taking the legal steps required in a condemnation.
City Attorney Terry Adkins told council members to disregard the dispute over ownership and concentrate instead on the requirements of the city’s zoning ordinance.
“Those are the standards; those are the guidelines you must use,” Adkins said.
If property owners can prove they have standing, they might successfully block the excavation project, “but this body (the city council) cannot make that determination,” Adkins said.
