County grants permit for Mulberry Quarry on 2400 road

By Charlene Sims, info@linncountyjournal.com

MOUND CITY – The Mulberry Rock Quarry conditional use permit (CUP) that has been under contention for over a year narrowly passed on a 2-to-1 vote at the Linn County Commissioner meeting on Monday, July 28. Commissioner Alison Hamilton voted against approving the CUP. 

At the beginning of the commission meeting, Commissioner Jason Hightower asked if this was a public hearing for the quarry. He said he was bringing this up because that last time when he allowed the people to speak, he was told that that hearing had already taken place. 

Hamilton said, “My understanding is that they are allowed to speak again to the commission.”  

County Counselor Jacklyn Paletta said that there was not a specific statute that says whether they can or they can’t speak.

Hamilton said that the staff report is being delivered by planning and zoning director Ben Sousa and then whether the commission would allow public comment was up to the Commission Chair Jim Johnson.   

Johnson said he didn’t care, and he said that he would give them five minutes each.

Presentations were given by the rock quarry attorney, operator and owner and two opponents, Stephanie Walker and Zach Walker who own homes in the area.

Stephanie Walker cited decrease in land values, conflict with the comprehensive plan (preserving the rural character), and concerns about how the pre-blast study would be done since they have a finished basement. 

Dean Manuel from the Austin Powder explained that the company would hire a third party to do the pre-blast survey, which would include a 360-degree survey inside and outside, including rooflines and door and window headers. 

Manuel said that his company was always within the legal limits on everything that they do. He said they had to follow all of the state guidelines. He pointed out that as long as they did not exceed any legal limits their operation should not do any damage.

Zach Walker told the commissioners that most of the properties around there were residential and he was very concerned about the quarry causing land values to decrease. He said that his house was appraised in 2024 at $463,000 and he was concerned after reading studies about gravel mines causing property to drop in value. He said that looking at the information in the studies, his property could lose $139,000 when the quarry went in.

“How much does the existing quarry affect the land values?” Hightower asked Walker.

Walker answered that he could assume that there was already some negative impact on his valuation.

“So you built your house there next to the existing quarry?” asked Hightower.

“I got a good deal on the land and it was right for my family,” Walker replied.

The next speaker an attorney from the Adam Jones law firm in Wichita representing Mulberry Quarry. Patrick Hughes told the commissioners that he was there because the Linn County staff and planning commission had both recommended that the CUP for the quarry be approved.

Hughes explained that it was the best use of the land for the overall community and the landowner. He told how the rock resource that has a grading quality of very hard stone. Because it’s so hard, it will be used for Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) projects, but it also means that if you are using it on county roads it doesn’t disintegrate as fast. 

It doesn’t become the dust that you sometime see on county roads that you can get with softer rock, he said. So this is a good natural resource that is in place on land that is not particularly high-quality land for agricultural purposes.

He continued saying that the quarry is also located near other things in the general area that have similar or greater impacts. He repeated the fact that there’s another quarry site nearby. 

There’s also a power plant, a power plant that produces for its neighbors coal dust that then settles down on the ground, he said. And it’s in an area where a highway goes through. This community has got other things that are consistent with the rock quarry.

Hughes told the commissioners that it’s a place where there are neighbors that oppose it but there are also neighbors who support it.  He said that 11 neighbors are in favor of it, and maybe eight who are against it.  The reasons for the supporting the quarry and being against it are really more important than the numbers, he said. 

And it would seem that there is a concern that the mining operation won’t preserve the natural beauty, he added. However, the landowner has no obligation to preserve the natural beauty for anyone. 

Hughes pointed out that the quarry would install a berm that prevents it from being visible, and trees planted there. There are property line setbacks of 460 feet and the closest structure distance is 750 feet.

It’s in the neighborhood of a power plant and an existing quarry that do not have that same level of concern for what it looks like, he said. There are some concerns about property values, but there are impacts already occurring because of the existing quarry and because of the existing power plant.  

Hughes presented other examples about communities that had been recently built near quarries in Kansas. 

He showed pictures of the Bayer Quarry in Pottawatomie County where 35 houses and a horse arena have been built since that quarry was put in place. Also the Midwest Minerals Quarry in Parsons where 15 houses have been built since 1992, some as close as 325 feet. What we see when people actually have to make a choice, the choice they are making is that quarries are not that big of a deal.

Jacob Wade summarized about the quarry. Wade told the commissioners that he grew up in this county and his family’s been here for a while and he cares about that land and he wants it to look nice because everybody else around there had done the exact same to their place and want it to look nice.

“I don’t want it to be some eyesore that people have to look at, and we’re going to do our best to make it nice and we’re going to go over the top, you know,” Wade said. “Stephanie doesn’t know but I think she said at the planning and zoning meeting that I don’t live in that house on the northwest corner, but we’re just getting ready to move into it. 

“We did a lot of work and made a lot of upgrades to it and we’re just hoping to get in Aug. 1 is what we’re hoping, So, it’s going to be in my backyard and so I’m going to make the area nice. That’s what we want to do and Matt, he’s on the same page. “

In answer to a question from Hightower about the road management plan, Wade said road maintenance is continual thing.

“But what’s important is that you have somebody in your community who wants to work with you and is realistic on things and wants the area to be a better place,” Wade said. “So, I think the roads around there could use some improvement and we’re here to do that.”

Before voting, each commissioner disclosed the ex parte information that they had with people about the project.

Hightower told the audience that as far as ex parte information he had a 12-second  phone call on April 16 with Wade asking for Jesse Walton’s contact information. Hightower said he texted Wade that contact information.

“That’s been my only communication to either side,” said Hightower.

Johnson said, “I had communication with Stephanie Walker last week. She called me. Didn’t really ask me the questions. Just told me about this hearing coming up

because I was gone last week. That was my communication. Then there was one lovely lady that called.”

“Same with me,” said Hamilton. “I had communication with Stephanie Walker and then also with Linda Calvert. I did read through her letter but it was in the staff report. For me as a commissioner, I do have a duty to exercise judgment and act in the public’s best interest and not under duress. 

“And I’m not comfortable with how today has played out at all from multiple legal standpoints. So, I make a motion we table the vote to Aug. 18. I need time to review this and also seek outside counsel. That’s my motion.”

Hamilton’s motion died for lack of a second.

Hightower made a motion that the commissioners approve resolution 25-05, a resolution approving the conditional use permit for CUP 25-04 for Mulberry Quarry to permit the establishment of an operation of a rock quarry in the agriculture zone and accept the findings of the planning and zoning commission with their unanimous 6-0 vote with the conditions that were put in place.

Commissioner Jim Johnson wanted to add an amendment to the motion but first had to second and go through the discussion on the original motion.  

“Yes, I have a lot to say,” said Hamilton. “So, to me, I just feel like we’ve been bullied into a position to vote a certain way today from multiple attorneys that have been on the case, and I don’t have time to review everything that was given to me this morning. Also, I just feel like the entire project, I could go over my personal findings on the project.

“I’ll just go ahead and do that. The proximity to the residential area and the city limits, cumulative impact, oversaturation of quarry operations, inconsistency with the Linn County comprehensive plan, substantial public opposition and I definitely feel like I (we) have been forced to vote a certain way today.”

“I disagree with you on that from my perspective,” Hightower said. “I feel like the comprehensive plan and that the majority of things in that were addressed through the additional setbacks, the buffers, the conditions that were put in to try to remedy and allow this to work together with those concerns.”

“This project hasn’t just been about the commissioners making a decision today,” said Hamilton. “There have been multiple legal and attorneys involved in this for over a year now. And this is not based on just the findings of today. This is based on over a year of attorney communication outside of our knowledge.”

Johnson said what he would like to see is a traffic study done on the corner that is paid for by the rock quarry to determine what we are doing to that intersection. 

“So that would be the corner of 2400 and Ullery Road,” asked Hightower. 

Johnson added that traffic study as an amendment to the motion. The amendment was seconded and passed 2-to-1 with Hamilton voting against it.

Then the original motion was voted on and it passed 2-to-1 with Hamilton voting against it.