Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mining And Extractive Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing on D and H Sand extractive-use dispute continued 60 days after county, owner clash over permits
Summary
A dispute over whether Walton County can enforce land-development rules against a longstanding sand mine was continued to March 12, 2025, after counsel and planning staff differed about pre-1996 grandfathering and the relevance of a DEP permit and warning letter.
A Walton County special magistrate on Jan. 8, 2025, continued a contested enforcement case involving D and H Sand Inc. for 60 days after debate over whether county development orders apply to an extractive-use site that the owner says predates local rules.
Why it matters: The dispute tests the county’s authority to enforce its land development code against extractive operations that assert pre-1996 grandfathering and point to Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP/DEP) permits. The magistrate continued the case to give county staff and the company time to gather development orders, DEP records and other documentation before the tribunal makes a final enforcement determination.
What happened: Code compliance officer Greg Forhand presented the county’s case, describing debris and cleared material stored on a fenced parcel and the issuance of notices and a hearing packet. County planning staff member Matt Carpenter testified that D and H Sand holds DEP authorization for importation of vegetative material but lacks a corresponding Walton County development order the planning office would normally require. The county entered into evidence a DEP letter dated Jan. 2, 2025, raising potential violations at the Red Bay Sand Mine; the magistrate accepted that letter as county’s exhibit 1 over defense objection.
The owner’s attorney, identified in the hearing as Mr. Shipman, argued the operation is a pre-Nov. 7, 1996 mine that should be governed primarily by DEP permits and the grandfathered provisions of the Walton County Land Development Code. Shipman presented a multi-tab respondent exhibit that includes a DEP ERP submittal and earlier permit materials; he argued the county bears the burden of proving a county permit or development order has been violated and that the files show the mine has long been in operation.
Magistrate ruling and next steps: Special Magistrate Hayward Dykes said the evidence presented raised “a lot of questions” about the county’s theory of enforcement and explicitly continued the case for 60 days so the county and the property owner could "get together" and submit additional records. At the hearing the magistrate stated, "I will continue this for 60 days." The magistrate directed the case be placed on the March 12, 2025 agenda for further consideration and signaled that the county should review whether the case is appropriate to pursue.
Evidence and legal points: - County cited Walton County Land Development Code provisions governing development without a permit and zoning-use standards; the complaint listed an alleged violation of primary zoning uses (2.01.04) though planning testimony referenced Chapter 11 and the existing-mines provision (2.07.01). - Defense presented DEP permit documentation and argued reclamation and operational standards are addressed in the DEP permit; planning staff acknowledged the DEP permit exists but said a county development order is required for the specific importation activity. - The DEP letter dated Jan. 2, 2025, was entered into evidence by the county; the magistrate noted the defense had limited time to assemble its materials and allowed the respondent exhibit notebook (tabs 1–13) into evidence for the record.
Clarifying details: The county’s case file shows initial inspections in October 2024, certified notices mailed in November/December 2024 and a continuing thread of communications between the county and representatives of D and H Sand. Planning staff said the DEP permit was issued for importation of vegetative matter but that the county had not issued the corresponding Walton County development order required to support the activity. The magistrate observed planning’s file on historic grandfathering was sparse and said both sides should supplement the record.
Ending: The magistrate scheduled the matter for the March 12, 2025 docket. The continuance is intended to give the county time to assemble any missing development orders or planning records and to give the respondent time to provide DEP permits and reclamation documentation for the tribunal’s review.
