3/6/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

in Section 36, Township 33, Range 38, Indian River Farms County Subdivision. At that time, the applicant tendered to Indian River County a bond of $10,000. The subject bond was condi- tioned upon compliance with the approved site plan, with forfeiture of the bond possible if the applicant failed to comply with the site plan as approved, including restoration of the site. Although the County's mining ordinance does not delineate a time frame within which a mining operation must be completed, it does however, as stated in Section 25(r)(11) of the County's Code of Laws and Ordinances, require a bond to be effective for full coverage protection at all time during the entire period of the operation. Due to the impending expiration of the bond, the staff feels that some action must be taken to ensure that the County has adequate funds to restore the subject property to an acceptable condition. The subject bond is due to expire on March 15, 1985, and the mining operation has not been completed. ANALYSIS: In October of 1984, the applicant was notified by letter that the County would need bond coverage for his mining operation through October of 1985, a time period consistent with the remainder of this year's permit period. Subsequent conver- sations and a letter dated February 12, 1985 have not resulted in a renewal of the continuation certificate for the bond, nor has restoration of the site occurred. It is staff's position that the applicant has not acted in good faith to comply with the County's Code of Laws and Ordinances by renewing his bond in an adequate time period before its expiration. The mining ordinance requires that performance bonds for completion of such projects remain active as a means of ensuring restoration of the site by the County, if neces- sary, using funds from the bond. Since the bond provides the funds for'site restoration and the bond is due to expire on - March 15, 1985 without restoration having been completed, staff feels that the County should exercise its option and require forfeiture of the bond. These funds should then be used by the County to bring the. subject mining operation into conformance with the approved site plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends to the Board of County Commissioners that the $10,000.00 bond be forfeited, and the County take the necessary actions to bring the subject mining operation into conformance with the County's Code. Director Keating informed the Board that he has gotten assurances from both the applicant and his bonding agent that the bond is en route or being developed, but we want to be sure the County is covered and the staff, therefore, would like authorization to call the bond. Attorney Bogosian came before the Board representing Global Paving and reported that bond originally was issued in 1978 and has been renewed each year since that time. It seems that on 75 MAR 6 1985 BOOK 60 barE 116