GROWTH AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION - Volusia County
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Page 1 of 18
GROWTH AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION
123 West Indiana Avenue, DeLand, Florida 32720
(386) 736-5959
TO: Planning and Land Development Regulation Commission (PLDRC)
DATE: August 17, 2021
SUBJECT: Revised Ordinance 2021-17
Amending Chapter 72, Code of Ordinances for Non-Exempt Excavations
I. ORDINANCE SUMMARY
Non-exempt excavations are regulated through the Special Exception process established by
the Zoning Ordinance. Section 72-293(15)b.1.iv.D requires the top of bank of a non-exempt
excavation to be 150 feet from any natural or manmade surface water body, watercourse, or
wetland. The St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), who issues consumptive
use (CUP) and environmental resource (ERP) permits, requires a minimum distance of 50 feet
from wetlands and waterbodies. The Volusia County Council directed staff to make revisions to
the ordinance that will allow an applicant to reduce the setback to wetlands, if s/he can prove
through an industry-accepted model, that a reduced setback would not impact adjacent wetlands
and waterbodies. The ordinance includes a monitoring requirement and a subsequent ordinance
review to evaluate its effectiveness in protecting wetlands and waterbodies.
This item was previously heard by the PLDRC on June 17, 2021. At that time, the PLDRC
requested some changes to address water quality, monitoring requirements, and the proposed
evaluation period for the ordinance. The commission also requested that the proposed
ordinance be reviewed by a professional familiar with water quality issues. The PLDRC stressed
the importance of obtaining concurrence from the environmental community. This item
incorporates the feedback from the PLDRC, environmental professionals, the environmental
community, and the development community.
II. BACKGROUND/HISTORY
Non-exempt excavations typically include sand mines and borrow pits that involve the extraction
of sand materials for use as fill for developments or roadway projects. This type of operation is
commercial in nature and has the potential to impact adjacent properties and natural resources.
Dewatering is often used to remove the water from the pit via pipes and pumps and return it to
the ground after the excavation activities. Dewatering is intended to draw down the water table
to dry out the sand. The existing ordinance includes the requirement for a hydrologic study to
be submitted as part of the special exception process. It must include a detailed description ofPage 2 of 18 subsurface conditions, a groundwater contour map, a map depicting the thickness and depths of the materials to be excavated, a discussion on environmental impacts on existing area wells, and a recommendation of the necessity to install monitoring wells. A special exception for a non-exempt excavation is allowed in the Forestry Resource (FR), Prime Agriculture (A-1), Rural Agriculture (A-2), Rural Mobile Home (MH-3), Light Industrial (I-1), Heavy Industrial (I-2), Industrial Park (I-4), and Osteen Commercial Village (OCR) zoning classifications. Section 72-293(15)b.1.iv.D requires the top of bank of a non-exempt excavation to be 150 feet from any natural or manmade surface water body, watercourse, or wetland. There are no variance options for this required minimum distance. In response to a constituent request, the Volusia County Council directed staff in April 20, 2020 to review the current minimum setback of 150 feet between a non-exempt excavation and wetlands. Mining ordinances for surrounding counties were reviewed, and staff met with the SJRWMD to better understand their CUP and ERP requirements. Staff also spoke with private interests who provided background on their experiences with typical mining operations. The Growth and Resource Management Director presented the research findings to the Council on April 20, 2021 and requested direction on amending the ordinance. At that meeting, the Council directed staff to initiate an amendment to Section 72-293(15)b that would allow a mechanism to reduce the required wetland setback, under certain conditions. A commonly accepted hydrologic model would be required to demonstrate that short and long-term drawdowns from the excavation activity would not impact the surrounding wetlands and/or water bodies. The council also asked for a review of the revised ordinance after five years to establish a checks and balances on whether it is effective in protecting the adjacent wetlands and waterbodies. Ordinance 21-100, as presented to the PLDRC on June 17, is summarized, as follows; When dewatering is required, the setback will be measured from the dewatering area or the top of bank of the excavation, whichever point is closest to the wetlands. An applicant may request a reduction in the setback subject to review and approval of a detailed dewatering plan, prepared by a licensed professional engineer or hydrogeologist. The county reserves the right to charge the applicant for a third party engineering review. The plan shall demonstrate, using a commonly accepted hydrologic model, that there will be no short-term or long-term drawdown of the adjacent wetland or water body, and that includes an assurance that water extracted from the excavation site shall be directed to the wetland or water body, as appropriate. The plan must show that the water being pumped into the wetland or water body has an acceptable quality that will not result in degradation of the receiving wetland or water body. Finally, the plan must include a monitoring program to ensure that there will be no negative impacts to the wetlands or water body. The monitoring plan requires the placement of monitoring wells in strategic locations to ensure that the drawdown does not negatively affect groundwater levels. The ordinance also provides for a reporting mechanism to the county throughout the excavation process. Volusia County reserves the right to charge for third party review of the dewatering plan, the hydrologic study, and other technical documents submitted as part of the special exception application for a non-exempt excavation.
Page 3 of 18 A performance bond for the costs of reparations is required to prevent permanent damage to the wetlands or wetland buffers due to lowering of the groundwater level. Regardless of the hydrologic evaluation, pursuant to the county’s wetland regulations, a minimum buffer of 25 feet would still be required outside of the Natural Resource Management Area (NRMA) and 50 feet within the NRMA. An environmental impact assessment is also required for properties located in the NRMA. Following the PLDRC discussion and public input, county staff was asked to make some revisions and bring the item back to the PLDRC for a second review prior to sending it to the County Council. Members expressed concern that the ordinance did not include a provision for water quality. They wanted a mechanism included that would provide for an evaluation of pre and post groundwater levels and water quality. They expressed concern about public comments that they had received requesting a strengthening of the ordinance. The PLDRC also wanted a third party environmental professional to review the proposed revisions. Finally, the PLDRC stressed the importance of garnering the support of environmental interests before the second PLDRC hearing. To address these concerns, Professional Engineers from the Public Works and Engineering Departments who regularly participate in the review of excavation projects were consulted. The ordinance was also distributed to E Sciences, an Environmental Engineering firm who is active in the Volusia Association for Responsible Development (VCARD). Additionally, it was distributed to the Volusia/Flagler Environmental Coalition and those residents who provided comments during the first PLDRC hearing. No other comments were received by the county prior to the publication of this staff report. The attached ordinance and exhibit incorporate the relevant changes. The word “water quality” was added throughout, and references to state surface water and groundwater quality standards were added. A requirement for pre and post development water quality sampling was added. The review period to evaluate the new ordinance was reduced from five to two years to determine its effectiveness in protecting the water resources. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the commission find the Ordinance 2021-17 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and forward it to the County Council for final action with a recommendation of approval. IV. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance 2021-17 with Exhibit • June 17, 2021 Draft PLDRC Minutes
Page 4 of 18
1 ORDINANCE 2021 - 17
2
3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF VOLUSIA
4 COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF
5 ORDINANCES OF THE COUNTY OF VOLUSIA; AMENDING
6 SECTION 72-293(15)(b), CODE OF ORDINANCES,
7 COUNTY OF VOLUSIA, SPECIAL EXCEPTION CRITERIA
8 FOR EXCAVATIONS; AMENDING THE MINIMUM
9 DISTANCE OF A NON-EXEMPT EXCAVATION FROM A
10 NATURAL OR MANMADE SURFACE WATER BODY,
g
11 WATERCOURSE, OR WETLAND; PROVIDING FOR A -
rin
12 REVIEW PERIOD AFTER IMPLEMENTATION; PROVIDING
13 FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING
14 ORDINANCES; AUTHORIZING INCLUSION IN CODE; AND
ea
15 PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
16
17 RECITALS
H
18
19 WHEREAS, this amendment is a land development regulation that does not amend the list of
20 permitted, conditional, or prohibited uses in a zoning district;
21
22
C
WHEREAS, the Volusia County Council determines that a default set back of one hundred and
R
23 fifty feet from a natural or manmade surface waterbody, watercourse, or wetland is a reasonable
24 standard to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Volusia County and to protect
LD
25 the dewatering of the waterbodies and wetlands of Volusia County; and
26
27 WHEREAS, the County Council also determines that technological advances and a detailed
-P
28 dewatering plan may mitigate for a reduction of a setback to below the default one hundred and
29 fifty feet and would also protect the dewatering of the waterbodies and wetlands of Volusia
30 County; and
31
T
32 WHEREAS, the County Council determines that a minimum setback of 25 feet from a wetland
33 buffer, regardless of a detailed dewatering plan, is a minimum necessary to protect the
AF
34 waterbodies and wetlands of Volusia County; and
35
36 WHEREAS, the County Council determines that this ordinance, and the amendments to section
R
37 72-293(15) of the Code, shall be reviewed two (2) years from the effective date of the ordinance
38 in order to determine whether to revert to the 150 foot setback in order to protect the citizens
D
39 and waterbodies of Volusia County; and
40
41 WHEREAS, this ordinance was reviewed by the Volusia County Planning and Land
42 Development Regulation Commission pursuant to section 163.3174, Florida Statutes; and
43
44 WHEREAS, due public notice for this ordinance, pursuant to section 125.66, Florida Statutes,
45 were met.
46
Ord 2021-17
Page 1 of 3Page 5 of 18
1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS
2 FOLLOWS:
3
4 (Words in strike through type are deletions; words in underscore type are
5 additions.)
6
7 SECTION I: RECITALS - The above recitals are incorporated into this Ordinance as
8 legislative findings of fact and intent.
g
9 SECTION II: AMENDMENT - Section 72-293(15)(b) of Chapter 72 of the Code of
rin
10 Ordinances of the County of Volusia is hereby amended as provided in the attached “Exhibit
ea
11 A,” attached and incorporated herein.
12 SECTION III: TWO-YEAR REVIEW – This ordinance, as well as the amendments to
H
13 Section 72-293(15)(b), shall be reviewed two years from the effective date of this ordinance to
14 C
determine the effectiveness of the ordinance and whether to return to the default setback of 150
R
15 feet from a natural or manmade waterbody, watercourse, or wetland.
LD
16 SECTION IV: SEVERABILITY - Should any word, phrase, sentence, subsection or
17 section be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, void, unenforceable, or
-P
18 unconstitutional, then that word, phrase, sentence, subsection or section so held shall be
19 severed from this ordinance and all other words, phrases, sentences, subsections, or sections
T
20 shall remain in full force and effect.
AF
21 SECTION V: CONFLICTING ORDINANCES - All ordinances, or part thereof, in conflict
22 herewith are, to the extent of such conflict, repealed.
R
23 SECTION VI: AUTHORIZING INCLUSION IN CODE. The provisions of this ordinance
D
24 shall be included and incorporated into the Code of Ordinances of the County of Volusia, as
25 additions or amendments thereto, and shall be appropriately renumbered to conform to the
26 uniform numbering system of the Code.
Ord 2021-17
Page 2 of 3Page 6 of 18
1 SECTION VII: EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect upon electronic filing
2 of a certified copy with the Department of State.
3 ADOPTED BY THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN OPEN
4 MEETING DULY ASSEMBLED IN THE COUNTY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT THE THOMAS C.
5 KELLY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, 123 WEST INDIANA AVENUE, DELAND, FLORIDA,
6 THIS ____ DAY OF ____A.D., 2021.
7
8
g
9 COUNTY COUNCIL
rin
10 ATTEST: VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA
11
12
ea
13
14 _____________________________ ___________________________
15 George Recktenwald Jeffrey S. Brower
H
16 County Manager County Chair
17
18
19 C
R
LD
-P
T
AF
R
D
Ord 2021-17
Page 3 of 3Page 7 of 18
EXHIBIT A
1 Sec. 72-293. - Special exceptions.
2 (15) Excavations.
3 b. The following requirements and conditions must be met for any nonexempt
4 excavation. A nonexempt excavation requires a special exception to this
5 article and issuance of a permit in accordance with the final site plan
6 procedures of division 3 of the Land Development Code [article III].
7 1. Each application for a special exception shall be accompanied by plans,
8 drawings, and information prepared by a Florida registered engineer
g
9 depicting, at a minimum:
rin
10 i. Existing and proposed topography at one-foot contour interval. Such
11 topography shall extend a minimum of 150 feet beyond the top of the
12 bank of excavation.
ea
13 ii. Proposed side slopes and depths which meet these minimums: All
14 sides of the excavated area shall, at a minimum, comply with the
15 following:
H
16 A. One foot vertical for each four feet horizontal to a depth of two
17 feet below the seasonal low water table elevation as determined
18 C
by a geotechnical engineer, unless waived by the county council.
R
19 B. For depths greater than two feet below the seasonal low water
20 table elevation, the slope may be one foot vertical for each one
LD
21 foot horizontal.
22 Unless waived by the county council, and notwithstanding section
23 72-282 of this article, any excavation in excess of the aforementioned
-P
24 slope shall be fully enclosed by a six-foot-high chain link fence
25 approved by the CDE, which shall include a gate that shall be closed
26 and locked at all times during which the excavation pit is not in use.
27 Unless determined otherwise by the CDE, said fencing shall be
T
28 completely installed prior to initiation of the excavating activity and
29 shall remain in place until the excavation is satisfactorily reclaimed.
AF
30 iii. Wet and dry season water elevations and the existing surface
31 drainage pattern.
R
32 iv. Notwithstanding any other minimum yard sizes required by this
33 article, the top of the bank of an excavation shall be set back the
D
34 following minimum distance:
35 A. One hundred fifty feet from the right-of-way of any public street,
36 road or highway.
37 B. One hundred fifty feet from abutting residential or mobile home
38 classified property.
39 C. B. One hundred fifty feet from any other abutting property.Page 8 of 18
EXHIBIT A
1 D.C. One hundred fifty feet from any natural or manmade surface
2 water body, watercourse or wetland. When dewatering is
3 required, the setback will be measured from the dewatering area
4 or the top of bank of the excavation, whichever point is closest
5 to the wetlands. An applicant, as part of the special exception
6 process, may request a reduction in the setback subject to
7 review and approval of a detailed dewatering plan, prepared by
8 a licensed professional engineer or hydrogeologist that:
9 i. demonstrates, using a commonly accepted hydrologic model,
g
10 that there will be no short-term or long-term drawdown of the
11 adjacent wetland or water body. This includes an assurance that
rin
12 water extracted from the excavation site shall be directed to the
13 wetland or water body, as appropriate, and that dewatering
14 activities will not negatively impact state water quality standards
ea
15 for surface waters (62-302, FAC) and groundwater (62-520,
16 FAC).
H
17 ii. assures that the water being pumped into the wetland or water
18 body has an acceptable quality that will not result in degradation
19 of the receiving wetland or water body or groundwater.
20 C
iii. includes an established a monitoring program to ensure that
R
21 the pre-development ground water level and quality shall be
22 maintained throughout the excavation and post excavation
LD
23 reclamation so that once the excavation is complete there will be
24 no negative impacts to the wetlands or water body or water
25 quality. The monitoring plan shall include the placement of
26 monitoring wells in strategic locations to ensure that the
-P
27 drawdown does not negatively affect groundwater levels or water
28 quality. The monitoring plan shall identify the frequency and
29 reporting to county staff. Volusia County reserves the right to
30 charge for third party review of the dewatering plan, the
T
31 hydrologic study, water quality testing, and other technical
32 documents submitted as part of the special exception application
AF
33 for a non-exempt excavation.
34 iv. provides for a performance bond for the costs of reparations
that may be needed if the excavation results in permanent
R
35
36 damage to the wetlands or wetland buffers or water quality due
D
37 to lowering of the groundwater level from mining and dewatering
38 activities.
39 v. regardless of the calculated radius of influence, there shall be
40 a minimum setback of 25 feet as measured from the required
41 wetland buffer for wetlands, natural water bodies, or top of bank
42 for manmade waterbodies or water course.Page 9 of 18
EXHIBIT A
1 v. Perimeter landscape buffers shall be established prior to initiation of
2 the excavating activity and shall meet the requirements of subsection
3 72-284(2)a., "Landscape Buffer Table".
4 vi. The area and amount of material to be excavated in cubic yards. A
5 discussion of the proposed method of excavation shall be provided.
6 vii. The proposed method of dewatering.
7 viii. The time, duration, phasing and proposed work schedule of the
8 total project.
g
9 ix. A detailed reclamation plan, drawn to an acceptable scale, and
program to be performed upon completion of the project. The
rin
10
11 reclamation plan must be approved by the development review
12 committee. As a minimum, the plan of reclamation shall include:
ea
13 A. Time, duration, phasing and proposed work schedule of the
14 reclamation.
15 B. Depiction of finished, stabilized, side slopes, including methods
H
16 and plant materials proposed for use. For a wet excavation, a
17 littoral zone is required to be established around the resultant
18
19 C
water body. The specifications of said zone shall be determined
in conjunction with the county's environmental management
R
20 division. department. The establishment, to the fullest extent
21 practical, of sinuous shorelines is required.
LD
22 C. Landscape plan for the portion of the property disturbed by
23 excavation and associated activities, including an inventory of
24 plant/tree species to be used.
-P
25 The reclamation plan must be approved by the development
26 review committee.
27 D. The resultant artificial water body shall comply with the
28 standards established by the St. Johns River Water
T
29 Management District and other appropriate agencies. Said
AF
30 water bodies may be required to be stocked with fish. Ambient
31 water quality testing may also be required.
32 x. A hydrogeologic report, prepared by a licensed professional
R
33 engineer or hydrogeologist qualified engineer of hydrologist, of the
34 proposed excavation site. Such a report shall, at a minimum,
D
35 provide:
36 A. A detailed description of subsurface conditions.
37 B. A groundwater contour map.
38 C. A map depicting the thickness and depths of material to be
39 excavated.
40 D. A discussion of the environmental impacts of the proposed
41 excavation, including but not limited to the impact of thePage 10 of 18
EXHIBIT A
1 proposed excavation upon existing area wells, wetlands, water
2 bodies, and groundwater.
3 E. A recommendation of the necessity to install map depicting the
4 location of proposed monitoring wells.
5 xi. The proposed location of access points to the site and proposed
6 haul routes for disposal of excavated material. Vehicular access to
7 and from excavations shall be designated by the council at the time
8 of approval of the special exception.
xii. Proposed plans for fencing and signs.
g
9
xiii. A statement from the applicant identifying all other federal, state
rin
10
11 and local permits required, if any.
12 2. The bottom of any reclaimed excavation should be graded to allow all
ea
13 water to drain to a sump area not less than 15 feet by 15 feet (225 square
14 feet). The bottom of the excavation shall be graded in a fashion which
15 will not cause water to accumulate in stagnant pools. The bottom of
H
16 excavations shall be uniformly graded to prevent anoxic sinks.
17 3. Whenever the Volusia County Public Works Department determines that
18
19 C
the use of any county right-of-way designated by the applicant for ingress
and egress to and from the excavation site will be subject to excessive
R
20 deterioration resulting in the breakdown of the subsurface and base of
21 such right-of-way, the applicant may shall be required to agree to provide
LD
22 the county with funds in the amount necessary to mitigate the adverse
23 impact upon the right-of-way that which is caused by the excavation
24 operation and to ensure that said roadway is maintained in a satisfactory
condition. In furtherance of this agreement, the excavator may be
-P
25
26 required by the county council to post an acceptable performance bond,
27 irrevocable letter of credit, or funds in escrow in the amount up to 100
28 percent of the estimated reconditioning costs, as estimated by the Public
29 Works Department.
T
30 4. All excavations, as applicable, shall be reclaimed in accordance with the
AF
31 rules of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of
32 Water Resource Management, found in the Florida Administrative Code.
33 The requirements of this article shall not relieve a person from complying
R
34 with the above said state rules, as applicable. Should the requirements
35 of this article conflict with said state rules, the stricter reclamation and
D
36 restoration requirements shall govern.
37 5. All reclamation activities shall be initiated at the earliest possible date.
38 Reclamation of the site concurrent with excavation activities is
39 encouraged provided that the reclamation activities will not interfere with
40 the excavating activity or if the excavating activity will damage the
41 reclaimed areas.
42 6. All temporary structures shall be removed from the premises upon
43 completion of the excavation activity unless said structures are of soundPage 11 of 18
EXHIBIT A
1 construction [and] are compatible with the reclamation goals. Said
2 structures shall be accurately depicted upon the approved reclamation
3 plan.
4 7. Whenever it is determined that reclamation of the excavation pit is
5 required at the termination of the project in order to prevent soil erosion,
6 adverse effects on county-maintained rights-of-way or natural drainage
7 pattern, to protect the natural environment surrounding the excavation pit
8 or to protect the character and value of surrounding property, the county
9 council may require an acceptable performance bond, funds in escrow,
g
10 or irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of 100 percent of the
11 estimated cost of reclamation. Said cost shall be derived using the
rin
12 proposed plan of reclamation. Said bond or letter of credit shall be
13 conditioned that the excavation and reclamation shall be in accordance
14 with the approved plan.
ea
15 8. No person may engage in the business of being an excavator until such
16 person has secured an occupational license in accordance with the
H
17 county occupational license requirements.
18 9. No excavator may excavate a parcel of land until he obtains an
excavation permit issued by the growth management department in
19
20 C
accordance with the terms of this article prior to any excavation being
R
21 made on the property to be excavated.
22 10. The excavation shall not be used for the disposal of material generated
LD
23 off-site without prior approval from the county’s environmental
24 management division department and the Florida Department of
25 Environmental Protection and without obtaining all appropriate federal,
-P
26 state and local permits.
27 11. The excavation shall comply with the tree protection requirements
28 specified by division 10 of the Land Development Code [article III], and
29 with the requirements of the county noise ordinance [Code section 50-
T
30 491 et seq.].
AF
31 12. If upon the conclusion of public hearings the special exception is
32 approved, final site plan approval, as specified by division 3 of the Land
33 Development Code [article III], is required.
R
34 13. A water quality sample demonstrating predevelopment conditions must
35 be submitted to the Land Development Office prior to the issuance of the
D
36 Final Development Order. Monitoring must be maintained throughout the
37 life of the project according to the approved monitoring plan. A final
38 groundwater sample must be submitted to the Land Development Office
39 upon completion of mining and reclamation activities to demonstrate post
40 development conditions prior to the release of the performance bond.
41 134. Off-site discharge is prohibited.
42 c. Any excavator shall be responsible for notifying Volusia County and the
43 Florida Department of State, Bureau of Historical Resources when humanPage 12 of 18
EXHIBIT A
1 remains and/or artifactual materials are discovered. The county reserves the
2 right to monitor the excavation activity and to prohibit such activity if
3 artifactual materials and/or human remains are encountered.
4 d. All excavations shall use the most current best management practices
5 (BMP) so as to control erosion and limit the amount of sediment reaching
6 surface waters prevent violations of state surface water quality standards.
7 The county reserves the right to monitor the excavation activity and prohibit
8 said activity if it is determined that said activity is responsible for off-premises
9 erosion.
g
rin
ea
H
C
R
LD
-P
T
AF
R
DPage 13 of 18
Excerpt from the minutes of the PLDRC hearing of June 17, 2021. These minutes
have not been approved by the PLDRC and are therefore UNOFFICIAL AND
SUBJECT TO CHANGE OR CORRECTION.
1 PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION COMMISSION
2 PUBLIC HEARING HELD
3 June 17, 2021
4
5 Vice-Chair Jeffrey Bender was not present.
6
7 O-21-100 – Proposed Ordinance 2021-17 amending Chapter 72, Code of Ordinances for
8 Non Exempt Excavations.
9
10 Patricia Smith, AICP, Planner III, presented the staff report. Ms. Smith explained to the
11 Commission that staff is here to discuss proposed revisions to the excavations ordinance.
12 At the April 20, 2021 County Council hearing staff was directed to reevaluate the issues
13 related to wetland setbacks. Ms. Smith stated that this ordinance was only related to
14 nonexempt excavations only. The Volusia County setbacks to wetlands is 150 feet;
15 however, the St. Johns Water Management District only requires a 50-foot setback. The
16 question from Council was why do we require 150 feet, and they expressed concerns of
17 wetland issues related to dewatering. Ms. Smith stated that the distance they can dig
18 boils down to quantity with developers. Growth and Resource Management staff talked
19 to surrounding counties, parties in the environmental community, and others
20 organizations for review and recommendations. Staff then analyzed these findings to
21 update the proposed ordinance. Pages 7-11 of the staff report includes a strikethrough
22 and underlined version of the proposed ordinance to identify the changes. The proposed
23 changes are identified on page 8 of the staff report. Staff proposes that the setbacks to
24 wetlands can be reduced if the applicant can demonstrate through a commonly accepted
25 hydrologic model that there will be no short-term or long-term drawdown of adjacent
26 wetlands or impacts to groundwater quality. The analysis must be signed and sealed by
27 a Professional Engineer (PE) or hydro-geologist, and allows for third-party review when
28 the application is received. The applicant will also be required to have a monitoring
29 program to ensure that neighboring wetlands and wells are not impacted. Regardless of
30 the analysis, per our Zoning Ordinance, minimum setbacks to wetlands is 25 feet if
31 outside of the Natural Resource Management Area (NRMA) or 50 feet if within the NRMA
32 overlay. The proposed ordinance also includes a five-year review to assess the
33 ordinance. No additional comments from the Volusia County Association for Responsible
34 Development (VCARD) were submitted. A letter of opposition from the Environmental
35 Council of Volusia and Flagler Counties (ECVF) was submitted. Additional public
36 comments are found on pages 12-17 of the packet. Ms. Smith stated that the
37 Environmental Management Director was available to answer any questions, and
38 concluded that staff recommended that the Commission find the Ordinance 2021-17
39 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and forward it to the County Council for final
40 action with a recommendation of approval.
41
42 Chair Ronnie Mills asked for clarification that the proposed ordinance is a reduction to
43 wetland setbacks from the current 150 feet to 50 feet.
44
45 Ginger Adair, Environmental Management Director, responded that the proposed
46 changes were if an applicant wanted to reduce the 150 foot setback requirements they
47 would be required to submit the analysis that Ms. Smith previously explained while also
48 meeting the minimum standards of the Zoning Ordinance. There is also protectivePage 14 of 18
Excerpt from the minutes of the PLDRC hearing of June 17, 2021. These minutes
have not been approved by the PLDRC and are therefore UNOFFICIAL AND
SUBJECT TO CHANGE OR CORRECTION.
1 language that clarifies under no circumstance would the setback be reduced more than
2 25 feet plus the appropriate wetland buffer. For example, if the area has a 50 foot wetland
3 buffer requirement, then the closest an applicant could excavate to a wetland, if
4 competent analysis was provided, would be 75 feet.
5
6 Chair Ronnie Mills asked if the sloping requirements would still be in place.
7
8 Ms. Adair responded that requirement would still be in place and this ordinance is focusing
9 on the issue of dewatering. She explained that as developers dig in an excavation pit it
10 can have what is termed a “cone of influence” that could draw down the water levels which
11 can cause impacts to surrounding wetlands. In a typical excavation developers attempt
12 to “dewater” the pit by removing the water out of the pit to make it easier to process the
13 sand. There are a number of different dewatering processes that remove the water from
14 the sand. In cases of adjacent wetlands the developers typically recycle that water back
15 into the adjacent wetland. Presumably under this ordinance change the applicant could
16 submit the signed and sealed analysis of their dewatering plan that demonstrates their
17 project would not impact the surrounding wetlands. Once the application and analysis is
18 received it will have a third-party review from a specialist to determine the quality of the
19 analysis and move forward with the special exception process to reduce the setbacks.
20
21 Chair Ronnie Mills asked if the analysis looked at temporary or permanent impacts to the
22 wetlands.
23
24 Ms. Adair responded that the analysis would have to show no short-term or long-term
25 impacts to the wetlands.
26
27 Being that there were no further questions of staff, the floor was open to public
28 participation or commission discussion.
29
30 Public Participation.
31
32 John Baker, 9 Cunningham Lane, DeBary. He stated that he was the current President
33 of ECFV and the group opposed these changes. Mr. Baker addressed Oviedo’s
34 Ordinance 888 (Evidence 1) and the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan chapters 10
35 and 12 (Evidence 2). He stated that the City of Oviedo and Seminole County have much
36 more stringent borrow pit ordinances, and they do not feel the proposed ordinance is
37 supportive of the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan’s Groundwater and Aquifer
38 Recharge and Conservation elements. He continued that the proposal does not address
39 potential ground water quality issues, but merely addresses groundwater levels. It does
40 not address the potential salinity changes that could occur to surrounding wells or
41 wetlands. He concluded that there does not seem to be any supporting third-party,
42 scientific evidence that supports this extensive change.
43
44 Chair Ronnie Mills asked Mr. Baker if he knew why the City of Oviedo and Seminole
45 County had increased their requirements.
46Page 15 of 18
Excerpt from the minutes of the PLDRC hearing of June 17, 2021. These minutes
have not been approved by the PLDRC and are therefore UNOFFICIAL AND
SUBJECT TO CHANGE OR CORRECTION.
1 Mr. Baker gave background to Oviedo and stated he helped write the ordinance for the
2 City of Oviedo. He stated that some illegal borrow pits in Seminole were discovered and
3 he believed that is why there was an increase to their ordinance.
4
5 Chair Ronnie Mills asked if either of those issues came about because of water quality.
6
7 Mr. Baker responded in the negative. He stated the proposal in front of the board does
8 not mention water quality and that was his concern with these proposed changes.
9
10 Member Jay Young asked if Mr. Baker had talked to the City of New Smyrna Beach about
11 water quality because he used to work for them and knew they had some water quality
12 issues.
13
14 Mr. Baker responded in the negative and stated he had only talked to individuals as south
15 as Port Orange.
16
17 Mark Watts, Cobb Cole Law Firm, 231 North Woodland Boulevard, DeLand. Mr. Watts
18 submitted Evidence 3, which included Volusia County’s Conservation Land Maps. He
19 mentioned that he worked closely with excavation operators to discuss this proposal and
20 asked the Volusia County Council to review this ordinance. He clarified that the original
21 standard of the 150-foot setback was created in the 1980’s, but upon further research
22 they cannot find out why it was determined to be 150 feet. The proposed ordinance
23 changes do not disregard that original standard; however, gives the opportunity to
24 decrease the standard if the applicant can prove that no temporary or permanent impacts
25 to surrounding wetlands will occur. The current standard has 150-foot setback
26 requirements and does not require any rehydration or monitoring. This proposal gives
27 applicants an opportunity to decrease that setback, if enough data is provided to support
28 protection of the wetlands, while also being required to rehydrate the surrounding
29 wetlands and provide monitoring of the project. Mr. Watts referenced the maps in
30 Evidence 3 that compared how most of the mineral extraction areas identified in Volusia
31 County fell within the Environmental Core Overlay zones and near the major wetland
32 systems. He stated that it was extremely important to conserve and protect these areas.
33 These reductions in setbacks would require detailed impact analysis, implementation of
34 effective dewatering processes, provide monitoring, and rehydration requirements, all of
35 which would provide better protection to the overall area. Ultimately it would allow for
36 fewer sites with maximization of extraction while allowing no temporary or permanent
37 impacts to the surrounding wetlands.
38
39 He finished by stating that whatever the Commission decides on the ordinances, it is
40 ultimately superseded by the Comprehensive Plan elements, which is the ultimate trump
41 card.
42
43 He agreed with Mr. Baker’s comments that water quality is important issue. He
44 referenced page 8 of 17 in the staff report that addressed the dewatering area and
45 measurements, and clarified that the current ordinance does not have any dewatering
46 standards. He continued that Subsection I of the report referenced a closed loop cycle
47 on site to recycle the water into the wetlands. A Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) is
48 typically involved in excavations because up to 10 percent of the water can still come outPage 16 of 18
Excerpt from the minutes of the PLDRC hearing of June 17, 2021. These minutes
have not been approved by the PLDRC and are therefore UNOFFICIAL AND
SUBJECT TO CHANGE OR CORRECTION.
1 of closed loop system. Small subsections i and ii eludes to Mr. Baker’s comments about
2 an acceptable water quality and monitoring requirement that ensures the recycled water
3 will not degrade the receiving water body or wetland. Mr. Watts stated that if unintended
4 consequences of one of these developments were to happen there would be a bond in
5 place that requires wetland restoration. Mr. Watts made himself available to answer
6 questions and stated excavation operators in the room were available to answer
7 questions as well.
8
9 Member Jay Young stated that he agreed with Mr. Baker that water quality was not
10 addressed much in this proposal and was concerned about the possibility of salt water
11 intrusion on wells and wetlands. He expressed that we needed to address this concern.
12 He agreed that drawdown was important, but we need to add a water quality monitoring
13 requirement. Having a hydrologist would be extremely beneficial.
14
15 Mr. Watts thanked him and stated they were there to get feedback and input. They would
16 be happy to work with staff and the community to come up with a monitoring standard.
17
18 Member Frank Costa asked who Mr. Watts was representing.
19
20 Mr. Watts stated he was representing the Kemcho operation.
21
22 Member Stony Sixma asked if Mr. Baker had anything else to add.
23
24 Mr. Baker commented that no off-site discharge should be allowed. The discharge could
25 go from one cell to another in order to maintain water quality.
26
27 Member Jay Young asked Mr. Baker if he knew of any ordinances in surrounding areas
28 that addressed water quality and salt water intrusion.
29
30 Mr. Baker stated he was unsure, but knows that the Oviedo ordinance mentions
31 drawdown requirements.
32
33 Member Jay Young stated you could still have drawdown but poor water quality.
34
35 Mr. Watts stated there was an excavation operator in the building that could talk about
36 water quality.
37
38 Tim Laus, 27 North Summerton Street, Orlando. He stated he was a consultant for
39 Kemcho Investments. He addressed Mr. Baker’s concern on water quality and
40 recommended taking a water sample at the beginning of the extraction to establish a
41 baseline and reanalyze during each testing to ensure they maintain that baseline. He
42 feels monthly or quarterly would be appropriate, but annually would be too long in
43 between tests.
44
45 Commission Discussion.
46
47 Member Frank Costa asked how the five year timeline was determined on page 5 of 17
48 of the staff report. He suggested the idea of reviewing the ordinance after 2 years versusPage 17 of 18
Excerpt from the minutes of the PLDRC hearing of June 17, 2021. These minutes
have not been approved by the PLDRC and are therefore UNOFFICIAL AND
SUBJECT TO CHANGE OR CORRECTION.
1 5 years. He also referenced page 9 of 17 about items A-E which talked about water
2 quality, but stated there was no timeline or monitoring schedule. He asked if that was
3 listed somewhere.
4
5 Ms. Smith responded that the timeline for the ordinance review is still open for discussion.
6 She also clarified the current ordinance defines the monitoring schedule, and it would
7 also be required to be submitted with the special exception application.
8
9 Member Frank Costa clarified that could be changed with each application.
10
11 Ms. Smith stated that page 8 of the staff report goes into more detail about specific
12 requirements.
13
14 Member Jay Young commented that he would like section iii to mention a specific
15 requirement about water quality testing in addition to the drawdown. He recommended
16 monitoring saltwater intrusion and/or water degradation.
17
18 Ms. Smith clarified that staff will take comments into consideration and modify the
19 proposed ordinance. Then staff would make those changes and go to Council or bring it
20 back to PLDRC once changes were made.
21
22 Chair Ronnie Mills confirmed that the ordinance needed to have a water quality standard
23 established in this proposal. They should also establish parameters on diminishing water
24 quality standards.
25
26 Member Richard Feller commented that he would like staff to make modifications and
27 bring it back to PLDRC prior to going to Council. He agreed with Mr. Costa’s suggestion
28 to review the ordinance after two years versus five years.
29
30 Ms. Adair clarified that the Commission is asking to reassess this ordinance in two years
31 instead of five years, and not the issue of water quality testing.
32
33 Member Frank Costa responded in the affirmative.
34
35 Chair Ronnie Mills asked the Commission if they would they like to have staff make
36 revisions and bring it back to PLDRC with modifications before sending to Council, or
37 allow the staff to make changes and take it directly to Council.
38
39 Member Richard Feller MOVED to MODIFY Ordinance 2021-17 to include water
40 quality monitoring in the ordinance and RETURN to the Planning and Land
41 Development Regulation Commission before being forwarded to County Council.
42
43 Member Jay Young SECONDED the motion and recommended a hydrologist be
44 involved in these updates.
45
46 Motion Discussion.
47
48 Member Edith Shelley asked about monitoring sites and off-site discharge requirements.Page 18 of 18
Excerpt from the minutes of the PLDRC hearing of June 17, 2021. These minutes
have not been approved by the PLDRC and are therefore UNOFFICIAL AND
SUBJECT TO CHANGE OR CORRECTION.
1
2 Ms. Adair stated that monitoring sites would be located at specific locations that would
3 measure drawdown, total suspended solids, and salinity, etc. Staff can identify how often
4 measurements should be taken on a case-by-case basis. The proposed ordinance can
5 be changed to include language to require these issues be identified during the
6 application process and on a case-by-case basis since each site varies. She also
7 recommended to use a hydrologist that has a continuing services contract with the
8 County.
9
10 Motion CARRIED unanimously (6:0).You can also read
