1/19/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JAIL 1. 1988 BOOK 70 FACE 636 1. that all discharging of water off-site was to cease immedi- ately; 2. that a major violation of the approved mining application had occurred; 3. that pursuant to Section 25(r)(11) of the County zoning code, the posted $10,000.00 bond was forfeited due to the vio- lation; and 4. that the mining operation was suspended until such time that: a) it came into conformance with the approved mining application, and b. a new $10,000.00 bond was posted to replace the for- feited bond. . Applicant's Response Since receiving the cease and desist order, Dennis L. Smith, Inc. has: 1. ceased all discharge off-site, 2. submitted and received approval of an administrative approval to bring into conformance the minor discrepancies regarding retention areas; 3. submitted $10,000.00 into County escrow to "replace" the $10,000.00 forfeited bond, and 4. has appealed the forfeiture of the full $10,000.00 bond. By virtue of the first three responses listed, the suspension of the mining operation has been lifted. The appeal of the $10,000.00 forfeiture is now to be considered by the Board of County Commissioners. ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES: . Forfeiture Regulations Section 25(r)(11) of the zoning ordinance establishes requirements regarding the posting and forfeiture of the $10,000.00 mining bond. The section states that: "In the event of failure to comply with the site plan and this ordinance, this shall result in forfeiture of the bond to the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. The bond shall be one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per acre, with a minimum of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00)". Thus, the ordinance specifies that failure to comply with the mining ordinance site plan will result in forfeiture of the bond to the Board of County Commissioners. Since there has been an admitted failure to comply with the approved site plan, th forfei- ture is required and "automatic". The purpose of the bond is to guarantee compliance. Unlike "built" development projects, with mining operations the County has no "points of control" such as building permit or certificate of occupancy issuance. Thus, the bond is the County's only mecha- nism by which zoning and site plan compliance can be guaranteed. The forfeiture regulation is the operator's incentive to comply. Dennis L. Smith, contends that forfeiture of the entire $10,000.00 bond is too punitive, and goes beyond any negative impact the violation has had. Mr. Smith also contends that there is no "corrective measures" to which the money can be applied. 76