Watertown City Council Narrowly Approves Controversial Mining and Residential Annexations
- Steve Jurrens
- 1 hour ago
- 5 min read
Northeast Radio SD News – Watertown, SD - In a deeply deliberative session on June 15, 2026, the Watertown City Council narrowly approved the annexation and zoning of two large tracts of land on the city’s expanding northeast edge.
The decisions, which brought nearly 100 acres of land into city limits under A-1 Agricultural District zoning, sparked a debate over long-term municipal planning, infrastructure costs, and the ethics of drawing city borders through “pinpoint” corner connections.
The petitions, brought forward by J&J Land Sales, LLC, involved two distinct but interconnected pieces of property: Parcel No. 2 (a 41.06-acre tract directly bordering existing city developments) and Parcel No. 1 (a 54.65-acre tract containing an active gravel mining operation that touches the city boundary only at a single corner point).
The Request: Balancing Housing Shortages with Active Mining
According to agenda documents, J&J Land Sales petitioned the city to bring both parcels inside municipal limits and apply an A-1 Agricultural designation. This specific zoning is a prerequisite for the developers to secure a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the Board of Adjustment to continue their gravel mining operations, as city ordinance requires a minimum of 35 acres for such activity.
While the ultimate vision for the land is residential housing—advancing the growth pattern established by the nearby Prairie Lakes Ice Arena and the Lakes of Willow Creek developments—the immediate reality is an active industrial extraction site. A recent situation with county officials drove the timing of the request.
The Joint Jurisdiction Board of Adjustment had previously placed a delayed effective date on J&J’s county mining permit, threatening to halt operations during the peak of the summer construction season.
Jamie Andrews, representing J&J Land Sales, spoke during the public hearing about why they chose to pivot to the city:
“We’re looking to annex the pit in along with the northeast corner as we’re growing... It just seems like a perfect time to bring this all in so we can continue mining... [It’s] more of the convenience, the resources that the city has for us to continue mining and keep operational.”
Proponents See a “Jewel” of Future Development
Council members supporting the annexation viewed the decision through a lens of forward-thinking economics and developer collaboration. They reasoned that secure access to nearby gravel is vital to keeping municipal and residential construction costs affordable.
Councilman Jurrens advocated for the financial benefits to the local taxpayer:
“I’m a forward thinker, and when it comes to planning, it takes that. Is there a cost of residential lots that goes up if we don’t have gravel within a close proximity? Hauling is a huge time and money end... If we have gravel close, that number [to build roads] will likely go down, and that’s a big savings to the taxpayer.”
Colin Paulsoen, director of operations for J&J Land Sales, assured the council that the mining is being handled strategically to prepare the terrain for future neighborhoods. “We are strategically mining that for future development. We’re definitely not going to leave ourselves a mess,” Paulsen noted, adding that they are actively foregoing deeper mining profits to ensure the land remains easily developable into housing.
Mayor Ried Holien praised the developers for their long-term alignment with the city’s trajectory:
“Development can be a little messy. It doesn’t always make sense in the minutia on the day-to-day... Look at it 50 years from now. Look at where this was five years ago to where it is now, the impact that this has already had on Watertown. The fact that we’re even talking about annexing places that is already adjacent to existing housing... This is exactly where we want this to go in the future.”
Opponents Warn of “Haphazard” Planning and Fiscal Burdens
The proposals faced resistance from a faction of council members who argued that the city was jumping the gun, taking on unnecessary infrastructure liabilities before any tax-revenue-generating houses were actually built.
Councilman Heuer raised major red flags regarding “flagpole” and “pinpoint” developments, which connect properties by mere corners:
“The more infrastructure we put in without buildings or homes directly next to them yet, the more we have to maintain, the more we have to plow. As soon as those roads go in and we sign for them, we’re responsible for them, and we’re paying for them... Me personally, I don’t love going to agriculture with a mining operation right away. I’d rather be doing this when we’re actually getting to the residential development, when it’s ready to go.”
Heuer later expanded on his concerns regarding Parcel No. 1’s fragile “kitty-corner” attachment, warning it could create permanent municipal islands:
“When you get on Lake Pelican, you get a lot of these weird situations where we’ve made islands over time, and it creates so many headaches. It’s snowplow problems... We end up in this goofy shape where we may permanently create an island... From clean planning, clean development, I’m probably a no on annexation for this.”
Councilman Allen aligned with Heuer, analyzing the lack of a concrete, immediate plan for Parcel No. 1 and expressing discomfort with the optics of rescuing a developer from county regulatory disputes:
“There isn't a plan for residential right now. It’s not platted for resident[ial]... It does create this appearance that we’re doing development in a very haphazard fashion. I don’t like being cast as somehow anti-development because I want development to be orderly and to make sense and to not burden the taxpayers of this community unduly.”
Legal Boundaries and Next Steps
City Attorney Lisa Carrico noted that while the South Dakota Supreme Court has never ruled on this exact factual pattern, the statutory language simply mandates that land be “contiguous”. She reminded the council that Watertown has approved similar corner annexations in the past without legal challenge, warning against becoming “arbitrary” by suddenly denying J&J’s request.
Carrico also clarified that any past code violations or pending criminal complaints stemming from when the pit was under county jurisdiction would remain with the county State’s Attorney and would not be absolved by the annexation.
City Manager Alan Stager backed the proactive expansion, citing a looming land inventory shortage:
“We’re starting to run out of land in the city to develop housing. If we’re going to be growing at a 3% rate in 2035... if we don’t have the land coming into the city on a timely basis to develop the infrastructure, we will soon run out of land inventory before we know it.”
Stager added that to protect city interests, administration could immediately seek strong haul road agreements, weight limits, and speed restrictions through the upcoming conditional use process to maintain regulatory control over the mining traffic.
The Final Roll Call
The division on the council was laid bare as the items were brought to individual votes:
· Parcel No. 2 Annexation & Zoning: Considered a more natural fit adjacent to current infrastructure, the annexation passed smoothly. However, the A-1 zoning designation drew dissenting votes from Councilmen Schutte and Heuer, passing on a 4–2 vote.
· Parcel No. 1 Annexation & Zoning: The contested pinpoint annexation of the active mining pit passed by a small margin. The resolution to annex passed 4–3, with Councilmen Schutte, Allen, and Heuer voting “no”. The corresponding ordinance to establish A-1 Agricultural zoning passed on an identical 4–3 split.
With both parcels now officially inside city limits, the future shifts to the Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment, where officials will hammer out any safeguards and conditional parameters under which J&J Earthworks can operate its pit for the remainder of the construction season.
