Levy County commissioners deny special‑exception request for Anderson Columbia sand operation after water, traffic and compatibility concerns

The Levy County Board of County Commissioners voted on Dec. 16 to deny a special‑exception application from the owners of a 99‑acre parcel at 11986 Northeast State Road 24 to allow a non‑blasting sand extraction operation to be run by Anderson Columbia.

The decision followed presentations from the applicant and county staff, expert testimony on water risks and more than eight hours of public comment, much of it opposed. Jose Lopez, the applicant’s agent with Kimberly Horne & Associates, told commissioners the proposal would be a “non‑blasting mine” intended for general construction and roadway projects and that the operation would be limited, saying, “there's not gonna be any explosives or anything like that” and describing a plan for on‑site dust mitigation and a 150‑foot buffer at some residential parcels.

But hydrology testimony and repeated resident complaints centered on groundwater and long‑term water quality. Dr. Robert Knight of the Florida Springs Institute, introduced by neighbors’ counsel as an expert on springs and aquifer systems, warned that excavating into shallow, unconfined sands could expose the aquifer and create a persistent evaporation loss. “On a 100‑acre site like this, if we cut into the aquifer anywhere…you'll get evaporation,” he said, estimating approximately “250,000 gallons a day” of evaporation that could equate to large water‑use impacts and arguing that sandy soils would allow petroleum and other spills to move quickly into groundwater and connected springs.

Residents pressed commissioners on additional issues, including noise and dust from trucks, potential loss of property values, and safety on State Road 24. Several speakers cited findings in the applicant’s traffic analysis (48 dump‑truck trips analyzed as 24 inbound and 24 outbound) but said the county’s principal corridor is already congested and unsafe for additional heavy‑truck volumes; one resident’s volunteer roadside count recorded heavy trucks at a high share of traffic during weekday hours.

Opponents and some technical speakers also flagged gaps in the application packet. Urban planner Michael Hill and other presenters said the mining assessment lacked a formal, itemized reclamation cost estimate and a cash bond sufficient to guarantee reclamation if the operator were unable to complete required work. Multiple speakers recommended more baseline groundwater monitoring wells and a tier‑1 environmental review for known karst risks and threatened species surveys before any approval.

Applicant representatives and the operator defended the application and the permits already obtained from state agencies. The applicant said FDOT granted access and a drainage permit and that the Southwest Florida Water Management District had issued environmental resource permits; the proposal would, the applicant said, adhere to reclamation standards and use GPS/RTK control to prevent excavations beyond specified elevations. Owner June Stober said proceeds from the project would support family medical needs and that the owners had sought to compromise on mitigation measures.

During deliberations, commissioners repeatedly returned to whether the application met the special‑exception criteria in the county’s land‑development code, particularly the applicant’s burden to demonstrate by competent substantial evidence that the use would not be injurious to public health, safety or welfare and that adequate reclamation security could be secured. Commissioner Timothy made a motion to deny the special exception; the motion was seconded and the board voted to deny the petition. County legal staff said they would draft the board’s direction reflecting the rejection and that the matter will return for a subsequent public hearing, where the board may reaffirm or modify its decision.

As a procedural note, the denial does not permanently bar resubmission. Staff and several commissioners said the application contained deficiencies in documentation and consistency that should be corrected before any repeat hearing. The board also discussed directing staff to work on code and process improvements so future applications present required technical and bonding details earlier in the review.

The commission’s vote leaves the applicant able to revise the submittal and return for another public hearing; legal staff will prepare the written findings and conditions that reflect the board’s direction.