J&J Land Sales LLC Seeks Annexation to Resolve Mining Permit Issues in Watertown
- Steve Jurrens
- Jun 2
- 3 min read
Northeast Radio SD News – Watertown, SD - A standard municipal boundary request turned into a debate over regulatory jurisdiction, transparency, and truck traffic on Monday evening. The Watertown City Council reviewed the first reading of twin ordinances, No. 26-13 and No. 26-17, aimed at annexing and establishing A-1 Agricultural zoning for approximately 95.71 acres of contiguous land situated directly on the city’s perimeter.
While a portion of the property slated for incorporation represents the next predictable residential phase of “The Lakes of Willow Creek” subdivision, it is the inclusion of an active mining operation and a bitter dispute with Codington County officials that drew sharp focus from council members.
Escaping County Sanctions
Colin Paulsen stepped forward to represent the petitioner, J&J Land Sales LLC. He used the public forum to describe what he characterized as an unfair and uncommunicative administrative environment at the county level.
According to Paulsen, J&J Land Sales acquired the mining land from a previous entity that possessed a long-term, 10-year county conditional use permit. However, Paulsen claimed that county officials failed to notify the company when that primary timeline expired.
“They did not notify us that we no longer had a mining license,” Paulsen testified. “And so they said that we were in violation months and months after the permit expired... it just wasn’t conveyed to us that we were in violation, and in turn, they suspended the mining license for four months, which we don’t think was right.”
Paulson added that J&J requested an emergency special meeting with the county to resolve the permit lapse, which was denied. Seeking a clear path forward to preserve their operations during the peak of the 2026 construction season, the developers chose to bring the entire footprint into Watertown’s city limits.
Once inside city boundaries, J&J intends to bypass the county altogether, bringing their operation before the City Board of Adjustment on June 18th to secure a valid municipal conditional use mining permit.
Council Skepticism Over Gravel Pit Annexation
The realization that Watertown was being asked to absorb a regulatory dispute and an active industrial gravel pit sparked resistance from Councilman Allen, who was attending the meeting remotely.
Allen questioned whether inheriting the environmental and logistical burdens of an active extraction site served the public interest of Watertown’s current residents.
“I struggle with why we would want to annex a gravel pit into Watertown,” Allen stated. “Essentially, that gravel pit being active impacts all the properties around there... I’m still seeing trucks roll down 3rd Ave. every single day.”
Allen expressed concern over infrastructure timelines, noting that while residential houses are actively going up in the newly annexed areas, heavy industrial truck traffic continues to damage unpaved sections of 3rd Avenue. He questioned whether incorporating the heavy equipment use would permanently compromise residential development quality in the ward.
Paulsen countered that bringing the site inside city borders ensures complete administrative transparency and structural alignment, promising that the mining area would ultimately be reclaimed and transitioned seamlessly into housing inventory down the road.
Procedural Timeline
Because the joint items were structured exclusively as a standard first reading, the council took no action or votes on the annexation maps. The proposed annexation and A-1 Agricultural zoning boundaries will go before the formal City Planning Commission for review and discussion this Thursday, June 4th, before returning to the full City Council for a final vote on June 15th.
