Changing their Mind
A few weeks ago, I blew open the story about the Lecanto Boys, LLC mine site off Homosassa Trail and questioned if they needed a mining permit. At the time, it appeared the county was going on the assumption they were operating under vested use and non-conforming uses.
I continued to question the process. That led to a code enforcement complaint that I filed to actually get someone onto the site to take a look. That came back a couple of weeks ago with the county taking the position that the owner submitted an affidavit stating that the site was in continuous use as a mine.
This allowed the site to continue as a mine.
Well I pushed back on that. How can an owner who has only owned the property for 9 months attest that the site has had continuous use over the years, which is a requirement of the LDC. He can't, unless he gets statements from the prior owners and nothing suggests that he has done that.
I challenged that decision and got this email yesterday.
The county appears to be changing their mind. Apparently they now realize they cannot use his attestation letter to satisfy the LDC requirement of continuous use without lapsing for a year. They also realize that the site is now not in compliance with the LDC and thus, subject to code enforcement.
Normally, this would be a pretty big deal. Code enforcement would do their thing, note the non-compliance and issue a letter stating they have 30 days to rectify it.
Here, the county is just going to allow it because they have a pending application that may or may not be approved by a special master and later the BOCC?
Uh... What?
Note for the future. If you ever get cited by code enforcement, file an application that will take months to go through the process.. finish your deal and then pull the application or get it denied or whatever. The precedent is set. You're welcome.
Now, let's dive into what the County Ordinances say about code enforcement. This is found in Chapter 19 of the Citrus County Code of Ordinances.
This is from 19-53(d):
"If the code compliance officer has reason to believe a violation or the condition causing the violation presents a serious threat to the public health, safety, and welfare or if the violation is irreparable or irreversible in nature, the code compliance officer shall make a reasonable effort to notify the violator and may immediately notify the code compliance special master and request a hearing."
Pretty easy to make the argument that this violation is irreparable and irreversible. How do you put sand back into the ground that was delivered throughout the county? Cannot be done. Thus... code enforcement shall notify the owner and then has the ability to immediately notify the special master and request a hearing.
Why has this not been done? Again, no violation was found originally... now they are walking that back. Did they notify the owner via letter? Why not get this to a hearing now?
Under 19-55(c):
"If the code compliance special master finds that the violation or the condition causing the violation presents a serious threat to the public health, safety, or welfare or if the violation is irreparable or irreversible in nature, the county may secure, repair or demolish the property or take any other action necessary to bring the property into compliance and charge the violator with the reasonable cost of the repairs along with the fine imposed pursuant to this section. Making such repairs shall not create a continuing obligation on the part of the county to make further repairs or to maintain the property. The county's costs of performing the repairs or undertaking any other necessary corrective action may be assessed against the property pursuant to chapter 86 of this Code."
This says if the special master finds that there is a irreparable or irreversible violation, the county can secure the property. This gives the county the ability to shut the site down for failing to have the proper permits.
However, the county is taking the stance that there is a pending application that may be approved that will resolve this, so we will not do anything until that is decided... however long that takes.
Yeah, this makes total sense. Let them continue to mine until the BOCC makes a final decision in however many months... mind you, the owner can pull the application at any time for whatever reason... does the clock then restart on the county enforcement?
In 19-61, it talks about other abilities of code enforcement:
This states the county can issue a citation if they have not corrected the problem within 30 days.
Mining without a permit is a violation of the LDC and subject to enforcement. The county appears to be turning a blind eye to it stating that since there is a pending application... it can be corrected.
But that assumes the application will be approved. What if it isn't? Allow the mine to continue for a couple more months... and then what? A new application is filed to allow them to ignore it for another set period of time?
One thing someone mentioned yesterday. If the county knows that this mine site is violating county codes, what happens with liability? If someone is hurt on the mine site, is the county liable since they knew it was not operating up to county code? Seems like a pretty big risk to me.
Another thing that is weighing on my mind. This project has a powerful voice in Tallahassee behind it... Gene McGee
He used to be the lobbyist for Citrus County until a few years ago, but he is representing Lecanto Sand, LLC in this matter.
In any case, I asked someone the other day when was the last time they can recall that a lobbyist joined a company to help them with the application process for a land use change (residential to extractive in this case). The answer... none that they can remember.
Yet, here we are... a powerful Tallahassee lobbyist is working with a local company to navigate the county's process to expand a sand mine.... that currently is not permitted.
Just making observation.
See you at the BOCC meeting today at 1.