My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/4/1998
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1998
>
5/4/1998
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:10:57 PM
Creation date
6/17/2015 10:57:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
One of the changes extended the incidental to construction mining exemption (e.g. hauling <br />excess fill from a project site) from 2 months to a maximum of 14 months for large project <br />sites under certain conditions. Those conditions include: limitations on hours and days of <br />operation, depth of resulting "borrow pit" lakes, a minimum project size of 350 acres, <br />incremental permit timeframe approvals, posting of a special road repair bond, and a finding <br />that the excess material that is to be hauled off site is to be generated by work required or <br />recommended by a jurisdictional agency (e.g. lake/stormwater expansion required or <br />recommended by the St. Johns River Water Management District). <br />The 14 month maximum timeframe set by the Board in 1996 was the result of balancing the <br />excavation needs of certain large project sites against certain negative impacts. Those <br />negative impacts include nuisances from a "de -facto mining operation" in a -residential area, <br />and the unfair advantage that would be created if such exempted operations were to be <br />permitted for timefames approaching the more permanent, standard mining operations which <br />are more heavily regulated and are restricted to non-residential areas. <br />The county recognizes that there are few 350+ acre projects that will generate significant <br />excess fill and that would apply for the exemption. In fact, only one project, Bent Pine, has <br />applied for and obtained the exemption. Except for some initial problems with weekend <br />activity that were quickly resolved, staff has had no complaints regarding the Bent Pine <br />excavation and hauling project. In fact, all possible exemption extensions allowed under the <br />current LDRs have been granted and the final extension will expire May 10, 1998. The <br />operator of the mming/haulmg project has informed staff that the hauling work for the <br />existing lake phase will be completed by mid-July if the LDRs are amended to allow another <br />extension. Therefore, it appears that a 16 month timeframe would accommodate Bent Pine's <br />completion of the lake phase now being excavated but would not accommodate any possible <br />lake expansion beyond the current phase. <br />Bent Pine has applied to amend the LDRs to increase the total timeframe from 14 months to <br />30 months by way of allowing for two additional 8 month extensions beyond the first 14 <br />months. Stas analysis is that the negative impacts of an exempted operation can be <br />controlled by the current exemption criteria. However, the applicant proposes to more than <br />double the operation timeframe to 30 months (2% years). If the county were to approve this <br />request, the changes would allow a type of mining operation to go on too long for what is <br />intended to be a temporary construction allowance within a residential area. Staff s <br />recommendation is to scale back the applicant's request and allow a total of 18 months for <br />an exempted operation. An 18 month timeframe would accommodate what appears to be <br />Bent Pine's actual lake project needs and would provide a reasonable cap to a construction <br />activity that can cause nuisances. Staff s scaled back proposal is reflected in the attached <br />LDR amendment proposal. <br />Staff Recommendation: Extend mining exemption timeframe by 4 months only. <br />PSAC Recommendation: Voted 4-3 for the same recommendation as staff. <br />PZC Recommendation: Voted 7-0 for the same recommendation as staff. <br />2. Bed & Breakfast Uses <br />Although no bed and breakfast site plans have ever been filed with county planning, such a <br />use has been allowed for years as a conditional use in the agricultural, multi -family, and <br />certain commercial zoning districts. Traditionally, bed and breakfast uses involve conversion <br />of a larger single family residence to an owner occupied residence with rentable guest rooms <br />May 4,1998 <br />3 <br />&Oruu 1057 rpu- 37 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.