Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mining Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves Ditch 5 sand‑mine expansion; staff outlines 20‑year life, 12.37M cubic yards and environmental conditions
Summary
The Planning and Zoning Commission approved a major site plan and administrative permit for the Ditch 5 sand‑mine expansion. Staff and the project engineer described a two‑phase plan covering about 231.49 acres, roughly 12,370,000 cubic yards of excavation and a projected new‑area lifespan of about 20 years; approval is contingent on reclamation, bonds, wetland mitigation and other conditions.
The Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission on Oct. 9 approved a major site plan and administrative permit use for the Ditch 5 Sand Mine Expansion, owned in the transcript by Babcock/Badcock Coquina Mine LLC and represented by Mill Shorten Associates. Staff presenter Brandon Craig summarized the scope, phasing, and permit conditions the project must meet before operations begin.
Brandon Craig described the two‑phase project as six cells (phases 1–3, then 4–6) that together cover about 231.49 total acres — approximately 153.9 acres of new excavation and 77.59 existing acres. "They're going to take approximately, 12,370,000 cubic yards," Craig said when summarizing the amount of material to be removed; staff said the new area would have an expected lifespan of about 20 years and that required permits, bonds, reclamation and a wetland conservation easement must be secured before operations start.
Project engineer Wesley Mills told the commission the new portion of the mine will match the existing pond depths "which is 90 feet or thereabouts," and confirmed the team has processed the county stormwater review, St. Johns Water Management District review, and that reservation credit for the wetland impact has been paid. Commissioners raised concerns about haul routes, the effect of the I‑95/Oslo interchange on future truck traffic, maintenance of dirt side roads (90th/94th), whether sand quality would meet beach renourishment needs, and whether private ponds should be fenced. Staff noted that the county’s local development regulations (LDRs) limit the conditions planning staff may impose and referenced SB 180 as a factor limiting more restrictive local requirements without an LDR amendment.
A motion to approve the major site plan and administrative permit was made, seconded and approved on a voice vote; staff reiterated the approval is conditioned on reclamation and water‑quality plans, submission of required bonds, payment of impact fees, maintenance agreements for haul routes if required, and obtaining any wetland conservation easement. The commission also discussed broader drainage and infrastructure issues and was reminded of a joint workshop with the Board of County Commissioners on the PD process scheduled in two weeks to discuss public‑benefit criteria and other plan‑development topics.
