HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/21/1995MINUTES 16TTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
SPECIAL MEETING
9:00 A.M. - THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1995
COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBERS
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida
Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman (District 3)
Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman (District 1)
Richard N. Bird (District 5)
Carolyn K. Eggert (District 2)
John W. Tippin (District 4)
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 a.m. County Mining Regulations: Workshop Issues
(memorandum dated September 15, 1995)
z Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need
to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the County's
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 x408 at least 48 hours in advance
of meeting.
SPECIAL MEETING
Thursday, September 21, 1995
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met in Special Session at the County Commission Chambers,
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Thursday, September 21,
1995, at 9:00 a.m. Present were Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman; Fran
B. Adams, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Carolyn K. Eggert; and
John W. Tippin. Also present were James E. Chandler, County
Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Barbara
Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
COUNTY MINING REGULATIONS: WORKSHOP ISSUES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/15/95:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVI ON HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Ro ert M. Keatin ,CP
Community DevelopmeA Di ctor
/0-6-
FROM:
0•6-FROM: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
DATE: September 15, 1995
SUBJECT: County Mining Regulations: Workshop Issues
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its special
workshop meeting of September 21, 1995.
BACKGROUND:
*Concerns About Mining Operations
On March 14, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners considered an
appeal of a Planning and Zoning Commission decision to approve a
1 BOOK 96 F'�. E 1911
SEPTEMBER 219 1995
Boa, 96 PACE 191
mining operation to be known as "Rebel Ranch" (see attachment #1).
The proposed mining site was located on the south side of 5th
Street S.W., between 82nd Avenue and 74th Avenue. During its
review of the appeal, the Board raised concerns about the proposed
mine and about county mining regulations and policies. The
expressed concerns were:
• The compatibility of mining operations with existing
residences proximate to the mining site, even in
agriculturally designated areas.
• The need for greater separation between mining activities
(excavation pit, on-site haul roads, stockpiles) and
residences.
• The effects of mining operations on surrounding wells.
• The effects of truck traffic on the surrounding area.
After lengthy discussion, the Board voted to uphold the appeal and
deny the project, due to negative impacts on the neighbors' health,
safety, and welfare. Subsequent to the decision, the applicant
appealed the Board's denial to the circuit court by filing a
lawsuit. No final judicial decision has yet been issued on that
lawsuit.
As directed by the Board, staff revisited the county's mining
regulations in regards to separation distances between mining
activities and surrounding residences. Through the normal LDR
(land development regulation) amendment review process (includes
Professional Services Advisory Committee and Planning and Zoning
Commission review), staff conducted research and proposed changes
to the LDRs to ensure adequate separation between occupied
structures and mining activities. At special LDR amendment
hearings held on May 15th and 31st, 1995, the Board considered and
discussed the separation distance issue (see attachments 2 & 3).
After lengthy discussion at the May 31st meeting, the Board voted
to amend the LDRs to require new commercial mining projects to
provide n 300' separation distance between all mining activities
(excavation pits, on-site _haul roads, and stockpiles) and
surrounding residences. During its discussion, the Board also
directed staff to set up a workshop to address various mining
issues raised at the May 31st LDR amendment hearing.
•Workshop Approach
Based upon the Board's direction, planning staff has scheduled a
workshop to receive public input on the county's existing mining
regulations. To facilitate input, staff mailed a special notice
(with a copy of the current mining regulations attached) to owners,
operators and design professionals involved with various local
mining operations and to interested parties who live near the
proposed "Rebel Ranch" project site. In addition, a public notice
advertisement was published in the Vero Beach Press Journal. In
this report, staff has attempted to address various mining related
issues that have been raised. In this way, the Board can evaluate
the county's current policy regarding appropriate locations and
restrictions for mining operations.
•Existing Mining Operations
Most commercial mines in the county involve the removal and. hauling
of sand fill material, and most are located on agriculturally zoned
sites of 40-160 acres. Many sites are situated within or close to
the Urban Service Area, while some are located outside the Urban
Service Area in remote areas. In the past,, many mining projects
were located on the sandridge and involved cutting -down and
leveling off; portions of the ridge. Most of the more recent
2
SEPTEMBER 21, 1995
projects, however, are located off the ridge where borrow pits are
dug, fill material is removed, and lakes are created. Most mining
operations now involve hydraulic dredging for removal of material
below the water table. Some operations, however, involve the use
of dewatering pumps to pump -down the water table in the pit and
allow removal "in the dry". Since most mines now use hydraulic
dredging rather than dewatering, there are few, if any, impacts on
groundwater from these pits.
*Existing Indian River County Mining Regulations
Commercial Mining
Existing county LDRs allow commercial mining operations only in the
county's agricultural zoning districts. In these districts, mines
are allowed as administrative permit uses. Commercial mining
operations are allowed on agriculturally zoned property both inside
and outside the Urban Service Area. All mining projects, however,
must satisfy the county's administrative permit use criteria and
its excavation and mining ordinance criteria. Specific mining
criteria are as follows:
• An acceptable reclamation plan and, where applicable, littoral
zone and water quality management plan.
• Direct access to a collector or arterial roadway, or a local
road that serves non-residential uses.
• A prohibition on dewatering operations within 1,000' of a
platted subdivision not serviced by public water.
• Littoral zone and tree seedling plantings, where a lake(s)
will result.
• No significant adverse off-site impact on groundwater quality
or quantity.
• A maximum mining phase area of 20 acres.
• A minimum setback of 150' between an excavation pit and
property boundaries.
• A minimum separation distance of 300' between occupied
structures and mining pits, on-site haul roads, and material
stockpile areas.
• A Type "A" buffer along any site perimeter abutting a
residentially zoned property.
• For any crusher, mixing bin, tank or storage structure on
site, a minimum setback of 600' from residential property and
250' from non-residential property.
• A reasonable timetable for project completion and restoration.
• Hours of operation for sites adjacent to residential zoning
districts limited to 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. on weekdays, with
an ability for the Board of County Commissioners 'to expand
those hours..
• Limitations on slope steepness for littoral zones and lake
banks.
Permanent project stakes on site and annual progress reports.
,
SEPTEMBER
21 1995 3 600K 96 FAf;F 19-
aoog 96 PnF,193
• Bonds for site plan compliance, restoration, and hauling over
unpaved county roads.
• Acceptable haul route, protection of pavement edges, paved
driveway aprons, and a covered truck bed requirement to
prevent material spillage on roads.
• An annual mining permit.
In addition to satisfying these specific regulations, mining
applications must satisfy the general criteria applied to
administrative permit uses. These criteria include consistency
with the comprehensive plan and mitigation of adverse impacts on
the surrounding area. Such mitigation can be required via approval
conditions.
With mining administrative permit use requests, the Planning and
Zoning Commission makes the final decision to approve, approve with
conditions, or deny requests. If the Planning and Zoning
Commission's decision is appealed, however, the Board of County
Commissioners makes the final decision. In general, commercial
mining operations are allowed in agricultural zoning districts, but
are subject to a comprehensive set of specific regulations.
Exempted Mining Activities
Other types of mining activities, smaller in scale than the
"commercial mining operations" referred to above, are also allowed
under the existing LDRs. These "exempted" activities are generally
regulated only in regard to impacts on stormwater management and
wetlands. . Such exempted activities can occur throughout the
county, even in residential areas, and include:
• Agricultural use projects relating to drainage, irrigation and
watering ponds. (Note: a 50' setback between property lines
and excavation areas is required unless a closer setback is
approved in writing from an adjacent property owner.)
• Utility projects.
• State, federal, and local road and public works projects.
• Graves and landfills.
• Approved power plants, with regard to reservoirs.
• Excavation in conjunction with an approved development where
no more than 5,000 cubic yards of material is exported off-
site.
Significant Mining Incidental to Construction
In addition to these exemptions, there is a specific provision that
allows excavation incidental to an approved construction project
where more than 5,000 cubic yards of material is exported off-site.
Such activity can occur throughout the county in all zoning
districts, including residential districts, and is restricted as
follows:
1. Extraction and hauling off-site must be completed within a 2
month period and is limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. - 5:00
p.m. Monday through Friday.
2. Lake depth is limited to 121.
SEPTEMBER 21, 1995
4
3. Compliance and restoration bonds are posted (the same as for
commercial mines).
4. Haul route and road damage bonding requirements are applied
(the same as for commercial mines).
5. Littoral zone, water management, and slope requirements are
applied (the same as for commercial mines).
6. No dewatering is allowed within 1,000' of a platted
subdivision that is not serviced by public water (the same as
for commercial mines).
These limitations are applied to such mining activities to protect
the environment,such address mining hauling nactivi y is d to yellowed the
to
length of time 9 and
impact surrounding properties.
ANALYSIS
Appropriate Locations for Mines
Since almost every development project in the county requires fill
material, mines are necessary in the county. Consequently, mining
costs directly impact the cost of development in the county. Even
though most past and existing mining operations in the county have
not generated a significant number of complaints to staff,
experience has shown that commercial mining operations in the
county tend to remain active for many years and can cause adverse
impacts on surrounding properties and roads. In light of these
observations, the "big picture" land use question is this: "Where
should mines be allowed?"
Staff's survey of several other central and south Florida counties
indicates that commercial mining operations are normally limited to
agricultural and industrial zoning districts and are limited
further by special criteria and conditional use processes which
allow consideration of impacts on surrounding properties (see
attachment #4). Mining is considered appropriate in such districts
due to the site size requirements of such operations and because
such locations tend to affect the fewest number of people.
Existing Indian River County mining regulations take the same
approach, restricting commercial mines to agricultural districts
and further regulating such operations with specific criteria and
the administrative permit review process conducted by staff and the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
With current regulations, it can be expected that conflicts between
special uses, such as mines, and residents living in agricultural
areas will increase over time. The potential increase in such
conflicts is usually due to two factors:
1. The county allows single family houses on large parcels in
agriculturally zoned areas. As a result, many people settle
in agricultural areas, and more conflicts arise between
residents and normal agricultural operations (farming,
harvesting, spraying) as well as special uses (mining,
communications towers, fish farms, packing houses). Simply
put, people moving to rural areas end up closer to activities
or potential activity sites that are generally incompatible
with normal residential development.
2. Although residents in agricultural areas may expect or hope
for urban services (paved roads, improved drainage, quick
re qponse from emergency services), such residents may also
5
SEPTEMBER 219 1995 BbR 96 Pau 194
r
BOOK 96 Fr,cr 195
expect a rural lifestyle with a right to have quiet and
peaceful surroundings. During hearings for projects proposed
in agricultural areas, residents in agricultural areas have
stated that they moved out into the country to get away from
the type of noise and traffic that they associate with mining
operations.
Unless the county is willing to strictly limit large lot single
family development in agricultural areas, it will not be possible
to completely avoid such conflicts. Such conflicts could be
minimized to some degree if special uses such as mines are required
to locate remotely, such as in the A-2 and A-3 areas west of I-95.
Such a restriction, however, would not completely avoid such
conflicts, as evidenced years ago by complaints from Fly -In Ranches
residents regarding the Charlie Price mine west of I-95 and south
of Oslo Road. In addition, restricting mines solely to remote
areas would increase total miles of truck hauling. Such an
increase in hauling miles would adversely impact more miles of
public roadways with heavy truck traffic, and would increase fill
costs.
In staff's opinion, the county must balance the concerns of
residents in agricultural areas with the need for some special uses
(such,as mines) that are most appropriate in. agricultural areas.
As an alternative to allowing mines only in remote areas of the
county, the county can revisit and adjust specific criteria to
address compatibility issues such as noise, haul route traffic,
groundwater protection, timeframes, and general compatibility.
*Specific Areas of Concern
1. Noise. Mining operations generate noise during hydraulic
dredging (if used), dewatering pumping (if used), stockpiling,
and hauling. Unlike rock quarries that are common in other
parts of the country, mines in this county involve sand and
marl fill material which do not involve blasting or special
on-site processing which generates noise. Adverse noise
impacts are addressed in various ways under the current LDRs.
Setbacks and separation requirements provide at least 300' of
distance between noise producing activities and occupied
structures. Where sites are adjacent to residentially zoned
areas; buffering requirements provide some degree of noise
attenuation, and hours of operation restrict mining activity
to weekday "work time" hours.
Noise impacts are more directly addressed via the county's LDR
Chapter 974, Noise and Vibration Control. Regulations in this
chapter apply to all uses, including mining operations.
The Purpose and intent of the noise ordinance is to:
"... regulate uses and activities in such a manner as to
prevent excessive noises and vibrations which degrade the
quality of life, disturb the public peace, and jeopardize
the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Indian
River County".
Chapter 974 consists of two
which provides specific noise
Section 974.05, which sets
standards by zoning district.
Specific Prohibitions
main sections: Section 974.04,
and vibration prohibitions; and
forth additional noise control
Pertaining to mining activities, County Code Sec. 974.04
limits hours of operation so that no construction or equipment
o]peration may occur between the hours of 8:00 pm and 6:00 am,
SEPTEMBER 21, 1995
6
unless specifically authorized by the County Commission for
good cause. This limitation, however, is somewhat moot because
present county mining regulations (Code Sec.934.07(4)) provide
a stricter standard of limiting mining operations to between
the hours of 7:00 am and 5:00 pm on weekdays (unless
specifically approved otherwise by the Board).
Noise Standards by Zoning Districts
County Code Section 974.05 contains a table with sound level
maximums, measured in decibels, based on zoning district
categories (see attachment #5). These zoning categories, in
order from lowest maximum sound allowances to highest, are:
conservation; residential; commercial; industrial; and
agriculture. [An exception is that..,residential developments
within agricultural zoning districts are subject -to decibel
level thresholds for residential zoning districts..]
Therefore, noise restrictions for mines will be stricter for
operations proximate to residential or conservation zoned
areas, compared to mines adjacent to (or in) other zoning
districts.
Factors taken into consideration in determining sound level
maximums include time of day (day vs. night) and duration of
sound. Generally, sound levels are measured at the property
boundaries of off-site receiving parcels.
In monitoring noise generated from mining operations, planning
staff has relied upon complaints to initiate noise level
tests. Such tests are performed by staff to ensure that noise
levels from actual mining operating conditions do not exceed
the established maximum levels. Staff has had noise
complaints regarding one mining operation in the last several
years. That operation used dewatering pumps on a 24 hour a
day basis at that time. Staff's test of actual noise
conditions at that site, adjusted for night-time conditions,
indicated that the operation conformed to the Chapter 974
noise level standards.
Staff's conclusion from past experience is that use of
dewatering pumps generate noise problems, since such pumps run
during the night. Even so, most newer mining operations do
not use dewatering pumps and, based on the lack of noise
complaints received to date, noise from actual mining
operations does not appear to be a significant problem. If
noise from operations is determined to be a problem despite
current LDR separation distance and hours of operation
requirements, then berming requirements could be added to the
existing regulations to attenuate noise.
Possible LDR changes, if current LDR noise -related
requirements are determined to be insufficient, include the
following:
1. Add a requirement for berms along all or portions of a
mining site perimeter that is adjacent to residences, or
require berms around noise -producing areas within the
mining. operation site.
2. Increase separation distances between occupied structures
and mining activities.
3. Restrict mining operation hours where mining sites are
adjacent to residences, regardless of the zoning or land
use designation of the adjacent property.
96 1196SEPTEMBER 219 1995 BOOK
' PAF
F,
Boox 96 pnf1 7
2. Traffic. Impacts from mining operation truck traffic include:
traffic volume, the size and type of vehicles used, the slow-
moving nature of loaded trucks during turning movements and
when accelerating after stops, physical impact on road
surfaces due to heavy loads, dust and debris generated from
unpaved road surfaces, and spillage. Traffic volume impacts
are addressed via the site plan traffic analysis review and
project concurrency reviews. In addition, during the site
plan process traffic engineering reviews the need for any off-
site improvements (e.g. turn lanes, deceleration lanes, apron
paving at intersections involving an unpaved road and a paved
road) in light of the slow-moving characteristics of loaded
trucks and their size.
The current LDRs also address physical impacts on roadways by
requiring: measures to protect pavement edges, paved driveway
aprons, and posting of bonds to guarantee repair to unpaved
roads used as haul routes. In regard to dust generated by
spillage, current LDRs require the beds of loaded trucks to be
covered. In addition, paved driveway apron requirements help
eliminate jarring and resulting spillage that could occur when
a truck enters a public road from a mining site. Furthermore,
to reduce conflicts between trucks and' local residential
traffic, the current LDRs restrict truck hauling routes to
collector or arterial roads or local roads that serve non-
residential uses.
Even with these restrictions and regulations, traffic was a
concern expressed by residents living in the general vicinity
of the proposed Rebel Ranch mine. Even though the Rebel Ranch
project proposed to access 82nd Avenue (an arterial that
functions as a truck route) via a segment of 5th Street S.W.
(a collector road that does not serve residences on the
subject segment), concerns were expressed about truck traffic.
In staff's opinion, the existing regulations which restrict
haul routes to arterial and collector roadways or "non-
residential" local roads is the only viable regulation that
reduces potential traffic conflicts and still allows use of
the county's major roadways for such truck traffic.
3. Groundwater Protection. Current regulations prohibit
dewatering operations within 1,000' of a platted subdivision
that is not serviced by public water. (Note: the Rebel Ranch
proposal involved hydraulic dredging rather than dewatering.)
Also, applicants for projects using dewatering are required to
demonstrate that no saltwater intrusion or water quality or
quantity problems will result from the proposed mining
operation. In addition, no mining operation (whether or not
dewatering is used) is to have significant adverse impacts on
groundwater quality or water levels.
Since county staff does not have expertise in groundwater
hydrology, staff has relied on the St. Johns Water Management
District (which has hydrologists) to ensure, through its
permitting and monitoring process, that groundwater effects
are properly addressed. County staff's understanding from St.
John's staff is that hydraulic dredging operations have no
significant adverse impacts on the groundwater quality or
quantity of surrounding wells. Staff from St. Johns River
Water Management District, including Rich Burklew of the
groundwater division, have committed to attending the workshop
to address questions from the Board and the public.
In its survey of other counties, staff found that some
jurisdictions require mining applicants to furnish a
____groundwater impact analysis from a hydrologist. Such reports
SEPTEMBER 219 1995 8
r
s
can include recommendations regarding safe separation
distances and number and location of monitoring wells if the
proposed mining operation uses a technique that can adversely
impact groundwater quality and quantity. If the county adds
such a requirement, it should be noted that St. John's staff
rather than county staff would need to review such an
analysis.
If the county determines that more evidence is needed
regarding anticipated groundwater impacts of a proposed mine
on surrounding wells, the following type of regulation could
be added:
1. Require submission of a groundwater impact analysis from
a hydrologist, reviewed and accepted by the St. Johns
River Water Management District, and require the project
operator to implement the recommendations contained in
the accepted report.
4. Timeframes. Currently, mining operation timeframes are
generally open-ended in practice, since definitive end of
project timeframes have not been imposed by the county.
Annual mining permits are required to ensure compliance with
all regulations and approval conditions. Long, open-ended
timeframes were a concern expressed recently during
consideration of the Eagles Nest mine and the Rebel Ranch
proposal. Restricting timeframes might not decrease the
intensity of mining activity, but might merely speed-up the
activity and increase the number of truck trips per day.
Mining operators have told staff that, from a business
perspective, it is better to keep several pits active in
various locations so that different construction sites can be
serviced by the pit nearest the construction site.
other jurisdictions surveyed place a 3 year initial time limit
on mining projects with a public meeting review of any
requests to extend the 3 year time limit. Such arrangements
offer flexibility and a chance for public re -review of a
project. However, such arrangements could also make it more
difficult to develop a business plan for projects, since
timeframe extensions would not be certain.
If the county determines that more specific timeframes for
ending mining operations and restoring mining sites are
necessary, the following actions could be taken:
1. In regard to new mining projects, the Board could direct
staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission to set
specific timeframes for mining project completion and
commencement of restoration.
2. Amend the LDRs to set specific timeframes, with
possibilities for extensions.
5. Compatibility. The county's current comprehensive plan
policies and LDRs do not strictly separate urban and rural
uses. Urban uses like residential, institutional, and public
facility uses are allowed in agricultural and rural designated
areas, and rural uses such as agriculture are allowed in
residentially designated areas. Such policies and regulations
allow a mixture of uses. While allowing such a mixture of
uses may be considered desirable since it allows flexibility
and a broad range of options for various activities and
interests, such a mixture can also cause land use conflicts.
SEPTEMBER 219 1995 9 BOOK 96 �Ar�
BOOK 96 pvf F.199
The larger question of siting mining operations remotely and
the previously discussed issues of noise, traffic, groundwater
impacts, and timeframes all affect compatibility. In
addition, buffering and separation distance requirements
affect compatibility. Current regulations require a Type A
buffer where mining operations abut a residential zoning
district. Typically, such a buffer involves a grassed,
earthen berm and trees. Also, based upon the Board's action
at the May 31st LDR amendment hearing, a 300' separation
distance is now required between occupied structures and
mining pits, on-site haul roads, and stockpiles.
Current county regulations require buffering between mines and
adjacent residential zoning districts. However, Palm Beach
County requires buffering (6' berm and vegetation) between
commercial mining operations and adjacent agricultural
designated properties to protect residences on adjacent
agricultural properties. If the county determines that, even
in agricultural designated areas special buffering should be
required to protect agricultural residents, a regulation could
be added to the LDRs as follows:
1. Require berming and vegetation where mining operations
are adjacent to residences, regardless of the zoning or
land use designation of the adjacent property.
•Significant Mining Incidental to Project Construction
As previously discussed, the LDRs allow significant quantities
of fill to be exported from construction project sites subject
to tight timeframes and under certain conditions. In terms of
impacts on surrounding property owners, such operations are
de -facto commercial mining operations that are limited to a 2
month period. None of the zoning, mining operation, setback,
or buffering criteria applied to commercial mining operations
are applied to these "incidental to construction" mining
operations. The county currently allows such operations to
accommodate legitimate needs of some construction project
operators to practically dispose of excess material generated
from approved construction work.
Staff has been approached by parties interested in mining and
exporting fill from construction sites for a period of time
well in excess of the current 2 month limitation. In staff's
opinion, the 2 month limitation is necessary to protect
surrounding property owners in residentially zoned areas and
to limit significant mining activities within the urban area.
Limiting such activities in the urban area prevents conflicts
between residential and mining uses. It is also staff's
position that increasing the 2 month time period would provide
a significant loophole in current mining regulations by
allowing de -facto mining operations in urban areas without the
normal protection required for commercial operations located
on agriculturally zoned land.
Engineer Dean Luethje of Carter Associates wishes to address
the Board -on this issue during the workshop. Staff has
included a letter from Mr. Luethje in this report's
attachments (see attachment #6).
SUMMARY
Mining operations are a necessary activity in the county due to the
enormous need of fill material for private and public development
projects. In the past, staff has not received a significant number
10
SEPTEMBER 21, 1995
of compiaints regarding most mining projects. More recently,
however, concerns were expressed during review of the Rebel Ranch
proposal. Furthermore, as the county grows, the amount of fill
needed will probably increase, and the number of residences around
existing or future mining operations will probably increase. These
events will create more potential land use conflicts.
In terms of land use, agricultural areas are appropriate for mining
operations, since the large, undeveloped sites required for mines
are generally located in the agricultural areas and since fewer
people are impacted due to the low density and greater open spaces
in agricultural areas. Agricultural areas, however, contain single
family residences that need protection from the adverse impacts of
mining operations. In staff's opinion, such impacts are addressed
by specific criteria contained in the existing LDRs. Further
mitigation of impacts can be accomplished by more regulations and
restrictions that address specific areas of concern. Staff has
identified some possible changes to increase restrictions to
address specific areas of concern. Public input from the workshop
may also present information or alternatives that address these
same concerns.
In considering its mining policies and regulations, the Board has
flexibility to work within a broad range of possible restrictions
and conditions. The policies chosen should balance the concerns of
surrounding residents with the ability of mine operators to run
efficient operations in terms of on-site activity and hauling.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that, after receiving public input, the Board of
County Commissioners provide direction to staff regarding any
necessary LDR changes.
Community Development Director Bob Keating gave a brief recap
of the history of the land use regulations (LDRs) pertaining to
sand mining, pointing out on a map the location of the active sand
mining operations in the county. During the discussions on the LDR
amendment hearings held in May, the Board directed staff to set up
a workshop to address various mining issues. With respect to
separation distance, we now have a 300 -ft. minimum separation
distance from a pit, stockpile, or on-site haul road to an adjacent
occupied dwelling unit. We also have the minimum 150 -ft. setback
from the pit to the property line.
Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed the specific issues to
be considered in the Board's deliberations today. Because more and
more single family residences are being built in the agricultural
area, the following items need to be considered to determine the
appropriate locations for sand mining operations:
11
SEPTEMBER 21 1995 BOOK 6 phu a 0
901
BOOK 96 Ener A.&
Noise
Traf f is
Groundwater protection
Time frames
Compatibility (includes significant mining incidental
to project construction)
Commissioner Eggert questioned the 2 -month limitation for
finishing mining operations, and Director Boling advised that the
two months relates only to mining incidental to construction.
Commissioner Adams raised the issue of draining into mining
lakes to alleviate the drainage problems in the north part of the
county, and Director Boling advised that we are looking into that.
Commissioner Bird hoped we were approaching this workshop with
the idea of making minimal changes to something that seems to have
worked very well with everyone throughout the years.
Chairman Macht pointed out that the reason we are here is
because of the Rebel Ranch mining operation where the stockpile was
too close to an existing residence. If that had been removed, as
a matter of neighborliness, he would not have had any objection.
Commissioner Bird pointed out that there also was the matter
of the haul road.
Director Keating explained that staff is not proposing any
changes to the ordinance today.
Chairman Macht opened the workshop to input from the public.
Bud Jenkins, native of Indian River County, related that he
has seen this county come a long way over the years, but felt this
mining is getting out of control. He believed that we need to
have teeth in the county ordinances. Mr. Jenkins felt the
stockpile concerns could be solved easily by using a 800 -ft. drag
line. Unfortunately, they cannot do that because they are
controlled by the federal government. If you take it out with a
drag line, you don't have to get up to your neighbor's front door
to take it out. You don't have to stockpile. There are a lot of
ways to skin a cat. In his opinion, the neighbor is Number One.
Mr. Jenkins stated that he wanted to see it stay at 150 feet.
Director Keating explained that the reason for the 150 -ft.
setback is so that there will be some use for the property after
the mining operation is finished.
Dean Luethje, engineer with Carter & Associates, representing
Bent Pine Golf Club, asked the Board to consider making two
changes to the sand mining regulations that would allow Bent Pine
to mine a future lake that can be used as a stormwater and
irrigation site at Bent Pine Golf Course:
12
SEPTEMBER 21, 1995
1) Exemption in the length of time allowed to mine the sand
pit;
2) Increase the water depth allowed within a created
water body to 30 feet (instead of 12 feet).
Mr. Luethje distributed the following letter with attached
information:
(.;.-kRTER ASSOCIATES, INC:.
t:ONSUJING ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVE-110RS
1709 3151 STREET
ITIM BEACI1. Pt. 32960-3472
407.1,61.71911 WAX)
August 28, 1995
Mr. Stan Boling, Director
Indian River County Planning
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960.
RE: Workshop on County Mining Regulations
Dear Stan:
Thank you for the notice of the workshop on mining and excavation.
MARVIN 17. CARTlat. lt.l..ti
DANA 110WARU. H.L.S.
DEAN t . I.l'F.'1'tI IF.. P.I..
IMFN 11. 81.1'x.. I1.1
<;tit)1t1;1�: ti1�11)Xti. P.li.
�il1i\'liti\t11tI.Ft(�I[H. Y.P
l'\'Itilt .k S. \'.\1:1111-.1{. III
In an attempt to help address the need for additional stormwater detention and treatment,
flood plain displacement problems and irrigation management needs within Indian River
County, due to its close proximity to the Indian River Lagoon, and to help some existing
developments economically improve on these functions, we request that consideration be
given to revise, the section on excavation incidental to development permits, Chapter 934
Section 934.04 (7)(b) to allow for:
1. That excavation be allowed to be incidental to an authorized site plan for
stormwater detention and treatment, flood plain displacement problems and
irrigation management needs;
2. A time certain be set for completion of each site plan and that the site work be
monitored by an engineer or county staff to assure that if the total site work can not
be accomplished within the designated time, then the project size could be reduced
and completed in an aesthetically pleasing manner. Progressive phases of the
project shall be shown and approved on the original site plan which will allow this
reduction to occur in an orderly manner.
A time extension of the project would be subject to subsequent site plan approval.
3. Allow for 30 feet depth of the water body.
It is our opinion that:
1. There is a need to improve stormwater management, flood plain displacement, and
irrigation water retention in the county and therefore the opportunity for the
development of lakes, etc. be expanded and
13 BOOK 96 F'Ai;F 9(Jt
SEPTEMBER 21, 1995
ROOK 96 Uc
2. if neighbors of the excavation area know that there is a time certain when the project
is to be completed, then their concerns should be much less and
3. fill will be needed for development and
4. having the fill mined closer to development reduces miles traveled on the roads.
We have asked SJRWMD, Richard Burklew, Hydrologist for his comments on this
request, and we also would be glad to meet with you to discuss this.
Very truly yours,
5 934.04
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE
isting electrical power plants, their reser-
voirs and -other related facilities.
.—Am. (7) Excavation incidental to development per-
mits.
(a) Excavation incidental to any autho-
rized Indian River County development
order or permit. including approved site
plans, subdivision plats, final develop-
ment plans and/or building permits,
whereby no more than five thousand
(5,000) cubic yards of excavated mate-
rials are removed from the premises.
This paragraph shall not be construed
to exempt excavation activities re-
sulting in the creation of a waterbody
from satisfying the water management
standards of section 934.05 of this
chapter.
(b) For excavation incidental to authorized
site plans, subdivisions, or planned de-
velopments, excavation materic' re-
moval from the premises may exceed
five thousand (5,000) cubic yards, pro-
vided that:
1. The extraction process and hauling
of excavated materials from the
premises is completed within two
(2) months following the issuance
of a county land development
pernut or release of an approved
site plan, as applicable, and pro-
vided that such extraction and
hauling is limited to occurring be.
tween the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday;
2. Water depth within a created
waterbody (as applicable) shall not
exceed twelve (12) feet;
3. The provisions of section 934.07(5)
are satisfied, pertaining to the
posting of compliance and restora-
tion bonds;
4: The provisions of section 934.09
are satisfied; pertaining to' the
hauling of excavated materials on
public and private roads;
5. The provisions of section 934.05
are satisfied, pertaining to water
SEPTEMBER 219 1995
management standards for created
waterbodies; and
6. No dewatering occurs within one
thousand (1,000) feet of any platted
subdivision that is not serviced by
public water.
(8) Maintenance dredging of lakes or canals.
(9) A pond or ponds on a single-family residen-
tial lot, provided that:
(a)
The total surface ares of the pond or
ponds is not greater than one-half (1/2)
acre in size or thirty-five (35) percent of
the lot, whichever is more restrictive;
(b)
No excavation takes place within fifty
(50) feet of the lot property line. Not-
withstanding, in cases where the pond
is necessary to meet stormwater man-
agement cut and fill balance require-
ments, said setback may be reduced to
25% of parcel width perpendicular to a
given lot line, as applicable;
(c)
The excavation does not disturb any
existing wetland;
(d)
Pond depth does not exceed twelve (12)
feet;
(e)
Side slopes are not greater than one
foot vertical to four (4) feet horizontal;
(f)
There will be no hauling of excavated
material from the property, unless the
excavation is conducted to satisfy cut
and fill balance requirements for storm -
water management purposes, as veri-
fied by the county engineer, provided
removal of excavated material off-site
is the minimum necessary to satisfy
said requirements;
(g)
It is demonstrated that the pond exca-
vation is the minimum necessary to sat-
isfy the intended use of fill on-site, as
applicable; and
(h)
A pond permit is obtained from the
county planning division, including the
posting of a five hundred dollar
($500.00) bond to he returned upon ver-
ification by county staff that the above
criteria have been satisfied.
(Ord. No.
90-16, § 1, 9-11.90)
934/2
14
Mr. Luethje explained that Bent Pine wants more than the
allowed two months to excavate the 40 -acre pit. The 2 -month time
limit applies to sand mines incidental to construction. He
stressed that the pit will be used eventually as a lake for the
golf course.
Director Boling advised that some of the special protections
that we put on permanent mines would not apply to mines incidental
to construction such as proposed by Bent Pine.
Chairman Macht pointed out that there is a big difference
between a 5 or 10 acre mining operation and the lakes proposed by
Bent Pine. Commissioner Bird felt that in this case,it does make
sense, but he cautioned that we have to make sure that we can live
with it in other situations. If this were done incidental to
construction, it would be done under the normal 2 -month time frame,
but because of the magnitude of this, we have to think about
buffering because it becomes a commercial mining operation for a
limited amount of time.
Richard Burklew, hydrologist with the St. Johns River Water
Management District, gave his opinion of the difference between a
30 -ft. versus 12 -ft. depth restriction. He stressed that St. Johns
concern on this particular project is to work with the golf course
to reduce their use of ground water for irrigation.
Dennis Smith, sand mining operator, believed we were here to
look at existing mine ordinances, not another project that looks
like competition to existing mines. He would like to see how this
project is going to affect the existing mining operations.
George Hamner, member of the Planning & Zoning Commission,
advised that the P & Z dealt with this issue earlier this year. He
stressed that there is a time factor when you are dealing with
agriculture east of I-95. He agreed with Commissioner Bird that we
don't need to tinker with or fix something that isn't broken.
Director Boling spoke on specific time frames and the question
of what assurance the neighbors would have. Staff sees that as a
problem.
Chairman Macht felt the Board would like to see that addressed
in the report that is brought back.
Commissioner Bird asked about effluent treatment, and Scott
Bell, golf course supervisor at Bent Pine, reported that the
Utilities Department has advised that there is no effluent
available right now.
Mr. Luethje noted that if Grand Harbor buys the fill, they
could finish the mining in 12 months after they get permitted and
started.
15
SEPTEMBER 21, 1995 ooK �� FArlr 904
I
SPOOK 96 F'A r ��41�
Chairman Macht felt this meeting is disintegrating into
negotiations on a site plan.
Dennis Smith wondered how many times the Board would allow
exemptions on the time frames.
Fred Mensing of Sebastian was concerned with the "occupied
dwelling", and it was explained to him that it applied only to a
neighbor's dwelling, an adjacent occupied dwelling.
Commissioner Adams felt the whole issue of this particular
site plan needs to go back to the Technical Review Committee. She
suggested that they address a stormwater/stormwater reuse plan.
Director Keating advised that Mr. Luethje's proposal cannot be
addressed by the Technical Review Committee until we go forward
with LDR amendments. The Professional Services Advisory Committee
(PSAC) is starting on the amendments, and it will probably be about
the first of the year before the LDRs come to the Board. He asked
if the Board wants to look at a provision for a large site
incidental to construction.
Chairman Macht stated that we just want staff to gather the
information and bring it back to the Board first. He emphasized
that the main reason we are here today is to discuss the separation
distances and we have not heard from any of the mining operators
about that issue.
Commissioner Eggert preferred to have the issues go to the
PSAC before proposed LDR changes are brought back to the Board at
a regular meeting.
Commissioner Bird believed, from what he has heard today,
there would not be any changes made to commercial mining
requirements. He believed the time limit for mines incidental to
construction is going to have to be geared to the size of the
project.
Director Keating understood then that staff will bring this to
the PSAC for a recommendation before bringing it back to the Board.
Commissioner Bird pointed out that staff and the PSAC need to
consider possible LDR changes in relation to the two proposals by
Mr. Luethje.
There being no further comments, the Chairman closed the
public discussion, and adjourned the meeting at 10:37 a.m.
ATTEST:
,,� Q:
J'.—K'. Barton, Clerk
Minutes approved�0
16
SEPTEMBER 21, 1995 W W