Jessica Stölen
Editor
jstolen-jacobson@cherryroad.com

On July 30th, a meeting of the Redwood County Planning Commission was held with one of the topics being a continuation of a public hearing on the Application for Extraction Interim Use Permit by Rodney Paskewitz of Duro Rock Supply Co. and Artesian Properties LLC. The permit involves property purchased by Paskewitz two years ago located in both Swedes Forest Township (Redwood County) and Sioux Agency Township (Yellow Medicine County), and is known as the Swedes Forest Quarry. The permit would allow for the extraction of boulders, and processing by way of blasting, cutting and/or sawing and stockpiling of granite on the property.

At a previous meeting held, a number of landowners with property adjacent to the location attended to voice their concerns over everything from sound levels, to water pollution, to air pollution that would result from the mining of the land in Swedes Forrest Quarry. The quarry has been closed for over 50 years and is in an area where the Swedes Forest SNA has been established in the early 1990s, and is located close to existing businesses such as the Iverson Tree Farm and Grandview Valley Winery that have been established after the closing of the former quarry.

The Planning Commission invited Paskewitz to provide any updates on any new information since the last meeting. “Last month I was asked to recruit some experts on blasting wildlife, wells, etc. Although it seemed like a good idea at the time I didn’t feel that was going to bring what we needed to the table,” said Paskewitz. He stated that he had discussed the idea of having an EWA (Environmental Welfare Analysis) study on the land done. “It’s obviously expensive but it is very comprehensive, and then I would get engineers that would come and help me present the findings of facts regarding these topics that you’ve discussed as well as anything else that would come up, obviously, through the process. At that point I felt we’d all have a clearer picture perhaps between myth versus fact on these topics. Obviously I don’t want to infringe on other people’s rights but it would be nice to find a way we could work it out.”

Paskewitz also asserted that he attempted to hold discussions with neighboring property owners that he says they denied. He also says they denied his offer to sell the property to them, though he did offer it for a price of three and a half million dollars, which Paskewitz stated he felt a fair price as it would be a “fraction of what was intended to be extracted over a number of years”. However, in later discussions by those in opposition, it was noted by neighboring property owner and Planning Commission member Jeff Huseby that only one neighbor discussed the purchase, and found the price of the property to be unaffordable. Another speaker, Peg Furshong, of CURE noted that the asking price Paskewitz offered the property at was much higher than the assessed value of the land, and much higher than the land was purchased for two years ago.

Planning Commission member Mike Scheffler noted that the EWA study would answer many of the questions about the concerns raised at the prior meeting. “There’s a lot of risk he’s going to expose himself to it. It’s a roll of the dice because every agency is going to come in – there’s going to be well people, there’s going to be pollution control, the MPCA – everything will be approached and it’s quite extensive. You’re probably going to have six months at the earliest up to years involved with this. As far as a board member, all of that information, because at that last meeting we had a whole bunch of hypothetical – I personally need proof before we say yes or no. For Rod it’s not going to be a ticket to passing a permit. He might find a lot of stuff he doesn’t want to approach,” Scheffler said. County Commissioner Dave Forkrud spoke up, stating, “Regardless of what comes back I’m against it.” Paskewitz questioned that statement, saying, “How does that go with the law of the land to have a predetermined decision before finding the facts?” Planning Commission Board Chair Mark Madsen responded, saying, “I’m assuming because we are also bound to try to make a decision regarding the community and that’s I guess how I would justify that statement.”

Audience members were invited to speak in support of or in opposition of. None spoke in support of the application, but a number of audience members spoke in opposition of.

One in opposition to speak was Kari Rigge, one of the owners of Grandview Valley Winery which sits approximately two miles from the proposed quarry site. Not only is Rigge the owner of a business nearby the property that could potentially be affected by the quarry re-opening, but has worked for the quarry in Granite Falls previously. Rigge shared her experiences with the danger of blasting in a quarry while working there, noting that employees and those looking to enter were made to vacate the property for blasts, and wondering how traffic on the roads that intersect near the property would be kept safe in a blasting situation. Rigge also expressed concerns over the potential for contamination of their well water, and air contamination causing issues with the business being able to produce wines and serve food on the property. “Everything we do there is done with water. The sanitation of the tanks for the wine, before and after producing wine, and bottling. Also we serve the public. Food contamination is very important. We’re constantly sanitizing, washing all of our coolers so you can imagine if anything did happen to our well,” she said. “If we lose our water we’re down and that means not being able to be open, not to produce wine, and we have 36 part time employees that rely on us for extra income.”

Mike Preuss who also owns property nearby spoke as well, bringing up that at the last meeting he brought up the idea that if the quarry were allowed to operate it would decrease the property value of the homes nearby. Since that meeting, Preuss reached out to a real estate appraiser in Marshall to discuss the issue, and that appraiser provided a letter for the Planning Commission explaining why it would. “He states that if the quarry were to become operational, it is highly likely, and most probable that the marketability and property values of all nearby homes would be negatively affected. His letter goes on to explain how and why. He also explains that obtaining financing for such property may be unobtainable due to the external influence. I’ve also given you excerpts from the FSA handbook which instructs appraisers to report to them on externalities. They want to know what’s going on around the property to be financed. The appraiser must consider how these externalities affect market value of the property. They must report sources of excess noise and in mining areas the appraiser must also report the depth and extent of the mining operations and determine any hazards. They must also report on any mineral rights nearby properties and how that might affect the property value,” he explained. “We have eleven houses, one VRBO rental and one 35 year old business that would be negatively affected for property value and marketability. To think otherwise would be unrealistic. This project does not fit the current development in this area.”

Peg Furshong, of CURE, also spoke noting that from CUREs perspective, the agency was concerned that the proceedings thus far have been happening without all of the permits being in place properly. “The application itself doesn’t articulate what kinds of permits are needed for this project and if they’ve been secured before you even meet to properly move forward whether it’s water permits or air permits, wetland, natural heritage survey. None of those things are articulated in the application so that someone would know that those things were in place before the hearing came about,” she says.

The Planning Commission members all agreed to table the matter until the results of the EWA study. All voted in favor of tabling the issue, with none dissenting. “We’re just trying to do our due diligence to allow everybody to go through the facts and findings, and a lot of these questions and these points that were brought up like the real estate value – I think they brought up a very good point and I completely understand and I didn’t really probably realize the scope of what this is going to be, but when we talk about the dollar value of the granite being taken out, it is going to change the area down there considerably and so as we go through and answer all of these questions and see all these people’s concerns, we’re just going to have to give everybody the chance to voice their opinion,” said Madsen.

After the completion of the EWA study process, the study is made available to the public, with a period of time given for clarification, questions, and rebuttal. It will have some back and forth finalization steps before it is ready to be fully considered for a vote again, and at this point has no timeline for completion. Once that is done, if the Redwood County Planning Commission were to approve it for recommendation to the Redwood County Board, and the Redwood County Board were to approve it, the issue would then still have to be brought in front of the Yellow Medicine County Board, as the property exists in both counties.