Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Borrow Pit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Suwannee County hearing on proposed County Road 137 borrow pit draws dozens of residents; commissioners take no action
Summary
A public hearing on Special Permit SP-25-01-01 for a borrow pit on County Road 137 drew dozens of opponents concerned about dust, traffic and groundwater. Planning staff said the project meets land-use rules but commissioners did not vote on the permit after discussion of possible conditions and no motion was made.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Borrow Pit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Suwannee County commissioners held a public hearing Feb. 18 on a special-permit request (SP-25-01-01) to excavate a borrow pit on County Road 137, and heard more than a dozen residents oppose the project over health, traffic and water concerns. Planning staff said the request meets local land-use rules, but the board did not act on the permit after debating possible conditions and failing to take a motion.
The permit application, filed by Dennis Price as agent for the landowner, would allow excavation of clean fill material from a roughly 62-acre property. County planning staff told commissioners the land-development regulations require a 50-foot vegetative buffer around such excavations and that separate permits would be needed from state water regulators.
"The LDRs does require a 50 foot setback around the perimeter of the property," County Planner Logan Meeks said, and he described the two-step process that already had produced a Planning and Zoning Board recommendation of approval. Meeks also told the board that enforcement of any conditions would fall to county code enforcement and ultimately a hearing before a magistrate if violations are not corrected.
Neighbors said the site would: generate dust that could make nearby residents ill; increase heavy-truck traffic on narrow rural roads and at blind intersections used by school buses; threaten groundwater and private wells because the site is in a recharge area; reduce property values; and put wildlife such as gopher tortoises at risk.
"We feel like there should be an environmental impact study done," Pamela Van Fleet said, summarizing concerns several neighbors raised about traffic and water. Several residents urged stricter mitigation or denial. "Putting these dust and particles . . . make it to where my son can't go out and enjoy the porch," William Carrier said of the child in his care who uses a ventilator. A nurse who cares for the child, Lisa Jo Smith, said, "This pit would absolutely be detrimental to his health."
The applicant’s representative described typical excavation practices and answered technical questions about depth and reclamation. "It probably averages 10 to 11 feet, but there's some points where it's 14 feet deep," agent Dennis Price said. He said reclamation would proceed as permitted by the water management district and described backfilling, sloping and revegetation requirements.
Commissioners discussed potential conditions that could be attached to an approval, including a 50-foot vegetative buffer established before removal begins, paving the first several hundred feet of the access drive to reduce haul-road dust, on-site water trucks to suppress dust during dry months, restricted hours of operation, and an agreement to repair county roads if heavy traffic causes damage. Meeks confirmed that code enforcement would be the county’s avenue for enforcing any such conditions. He also noted that recent state law changes mean anonymous public code-violation complaints are no longer accepted; complaints must be filed with an identified complainant.
After extended public comment and follow-up questions for the applicant, no commissioner moved to approve or deny the permit. The chair closed the hearing and the record shows the matter was left without a formal vote; county staff and the applicant may return with clarified conditions or additional information at a later date.
The Planning and Zoning Board had recommended approval; the County Commission did not adopt that recommendation at the Feb. 18 public hearing and took no final action.

