GROWTH AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION - Volusia County

Page created by Stanley Munoz
 
CONTINUE READING
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 of
Page 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 3
Page 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 3
Page 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 3
Page 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 the
Page 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 sound
Page 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 human
Page 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
    D
Page 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 protective
Page 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.
46
Page 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 out
Page 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 versus
Page 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