Something Fishy is Going On

Update on the Sand Mine off of Homosassa Trail.

I wrote about the issues a couple of weeks ago. In short, I filed a code complaint over the mining operation that is going on there to provide sand/dirt for the parkway and other projects throughout the county. Code Compliance has gotten back to me with their response.

After talking to the county's land department, they came back and stated that the mine will be allowed to continue as it was a "continuing use" approval. Apparently, the owner of the mine wrote an affidavit to the county stating that there was an ongoing use of a mine and the county decided that it was sufficient enough to allow it to continue.

I am awaiting a public records request to get a copy of the affidavit, but the Code Compliance officer I spoke with gave me the gist of it. Apparently the county is not going to pursue it anymore.

There is something strange going on here.

You see, there was the 2005 letter and the 2009 letter that clearly stated the county's position. The parcels being mined today were NOT part of the valid non-conforming use approval from 1984 and require a mining permit to mine those parcels.

This is that 1984 letter indicating that parcels 34, 35 and 36 are valid non-conforming use as a mine.

This is the 2005 letter referencing the 1984 letter from above, agreeing that those parcels are valid non-conforming use but any other lots will require a mining permit to mine them.

This is the 2009 letter regarding those same lots. This letter specifically states that lots 31 and 32 were NOT included in the VCU from 1984 and again reiterates the need for mining permits on any lots NOT part of that VCU approval (parcels 34, 35 and 36).

If you need a reminder of where these sites are, the orange section on the map below are lots 31 and 32, which the county has said need a mining permit based on the letters above. The pink section are lots 34, 35 and 36... covered by the VCU letter from 1984.

And this is the site today, sticking with the same color scheme.

I asked the county in a records request asking for all mining permits for these 4 parcels (orange), which are lots 31 and 32 in the 2005/2009 letters, which indicate a mining permit is needed.

I did not indicate a date range for this, so the request would be for ANY mining permits on file at any time. I had to pay $30.66 to get this request fulfilled because they had to spend time to do research apparently.

As you see above, I was provided with a total of 4 documents.

This is the receipt for the records request (1st document)

This is the cu608 PDF. It is a conditional use approval for a vegetative grinder on those parcels.

This is the 2nd pdf, the cu803 document. This is a denial for the continued usage of a vegetive grinder.

And the last document provided was a text file stating I was receiving two documents (above).

Those are the ONLY 4 documents that were provided.

Guess that that tells me? That tells me there has NEVER been a mining permit issued for those lots... as the county has stated they will be required to obtain back in 2005 and 2009 if they wish to mine those lots.

Do you know what else that also tells me? No one has ever mined those parcels, unless they did so without every obtaining a mining permit and without anyone ever complaining about it.

What other proof is there to show that no mining took place? Satellite images. Below is a 10 year period of satellite images.

Does this look like a mining operation to you on lots 31 and 32? Here are satellite images spanning 10 years. Note... ZERO trucks, excavators, etc on those lots in question.

In fact, most of those years show ZERO usage of the property. It has become overgrown. No one was using it for anything other than atv riding, as I am told that was a popular area for that... regardless... ZERO mining.

Now... zero mining permits. Zero signs of mining. Zero mining... yet, the county is going to accept an affidavit from the current land over, who purchased the property less than a year ago, as the basis for deciding there was mining there previously and they will allow that continuous use?

I did a follow up question to the county PIO to get clarification on this. In case you did not know, the county is now considering me media. They are not allowing me direct access to staff to ask questions. I have to go through the PIO.

For the record, I did ask code compliance some further questions, but the officer reiterated to me that he was just a middle man and that he did not know many of the answers to the specific questions about the letters, permits, etc. He was just relaying what Growth Management/Land Development told him. This necessitated the need to reach out to the county staff.

Here is the follow up email after my discussion with code compliance.

She tried to tell me code would reach back out, but I explained that code already told me they did not know the answer and that this would require Eric Landon or Joanna Coutu, so she would have someone else reach out.

4 hours later, still no response. End of the day, everyone goes home. Now today is a county holiday and staff is off, so no response today either. Guess we wait until Monday. Convenient huh? Curious if that is intentional.

Why is that question important? Because in order for the county to state that they will honor an existing use, they have to choose which option they are honoring: a valid non-conforming use or a vested rights use.

The county cannot just say "Oh, well they say it has been a mine this whole time, so we will just let it go". There has to be a decision on what type of prior use they are determining/honoring/approving.

Ok, so what does it matter what type of use they are approving is? It is still a "continuous use" approval.

This is true, however, the type of approval is important because the owner of the property has to prove certain things for each.

For instance, for a valid non-conforming use, the LDC says this.

But more importantly, it also says this (10190).

This requires the owner to submit an application, then submit proof of the continuous use of the non-conforming use... and then for the county to mail out notices to adjacent land owners.. then provide 14 days for response... then keep the approval open for 100 days for people to file any appeal.

This is more than simply accepting an affidavit and to my knowledge, NONE of the other stuff has been done. Any gap of a year or more causes the property to lose the valid non-conforming use approvals and must adhere to the current LDC standards.

Now, for vested rights determination, if that is how the county decided this, there are requirements there as well. This is in Chapter 4 of the LDC (4800).

Again, lots of documents needed to prove that the mine site has been actively used for YEARS in order to keep the vested use approval. If there is failure to continue the use, the vested rights go away. They also would need to file biennial mining reports and failure to file for 3 consecutive years also invalidates the vested rights approvals. How much do you want to bet than from 2009 until today, there has never been a single biennial mining report filed?

This also requires all regulatory permits be received on the site, and as I showed before, SWFWMD sent a letter to the owner for failing to have a ERP. Failing to have these would invalidate a vested use approval.

Again, this requires far more than an affidavit from the land owner stating it has been in use as a mine all these years.

Now the question becomes, who approved this "continuous use" which allows them to mine that site without any mining permits and why are they approving that WITHOUT any further documentation other than an affidavit. That is NOT following the Land Development Code.

Why is the county ignoring its own 2005 and 2009 letters telling the then land owner they will be required to get a permit to mine those parcels? That is black and white, yet no permit has EVER been issued.

If this were any other "normal" citizen, you can bet your bottom dollar that the county would come down on them and shut them down until the permits are in place... and likely even fine them for what they have done already without a permit.

Why is this site getting special treatment? Why is the county ignoring its LDC and the requirements of the land owner to submit far more documents than an affidavit. Someone in the county is making that decision and I do not think it is a "regular" staff member. So who is it directing this?

I will not stop until I find out. Count on that.