Latest Headlines
- Cat Country 98.7 Is The 2024 CMA Radio Station Of The Year (With Gallery)
- Gonzalez Man Gets Two Life Sentences For Abusing Children
- One Airlifted After Highway 97 Rear End Crash
- Semi, Pickup Crash Closes Highway 29 For Hours In Cantonment
- Now That Matt Gaetz Has Resigned After Being Picked For Trump’s AG, Who Will Seek His Seat?
- Learn How To Break Down A Chicken At The Molino Library
- Escambia Man Dies In Two Vehicle Crash
- Flomaton Man Arrested In Atmore For Possession of Fentanyl, Cocaine
- Escambia Man Sentenced to 25 Years for Fentanyl Trafficking
- Tate High Softball’s Kara Wine Signs With The University of South Alabama
Application Denied For Borrow Pit On Highway 95A In Molino
August 22, 2024
The Escambia County Board of Adjustment (BOA) has denied a conditional use change application for a borrow pit in Molino.
According to Escambia County, a borrow pit is where material like gravel, soil, clay or sand is excavated for use at another location. Borrow pits can be enclosed or open, and both types require a permit in Escambia County.
The applicant, Justin Patterson or Ironhorse Cattle, Co., proposed a 44-acre borrow pit on 52.88 acres zoned AG (agriculture use) at 5595 Highway 95A, west of Highway 95A and just south of Cedartown Road. Escambia County Land Development Code (LDC) requires conditional approval use approval for any borrow pit or reclamation activity with 1,000 feet from any residential use or zoning.
In a meeting lasting over five hours Wednesday, the BOA heard testimony from numerous residents, most expressing concerns about truck traffic, dust, perceived environmental issues, and noise that would impact the surround area. Several others spoke in support of allowing the applicant to use the property as proposed.
BOA staff recommended the approval of the conditional use to allow the pit.
Wednesday, the BOA votes 3-1 to deny the application. A similar conditional use change request for the property was denied by the Board in April 2022.
Specifically, the Board disagreed with the staff recommendation, effectively finding that:
- General compatibility. The proposed use cannot be conducted and operated in a manner that is compatible with adjacent properties and other properties in the immediate area.
- Nuisances and hazards. The scale, intensity, and operation of the use will generate unreasonable noise, glare, dust, smoke, odor, vibration, electrical interference, or other nuisances or hazards for adjoining properties and other
- properties in the immediate area
- Screening and buffering. Where not otherwise required by the Land Development Code (LDC,) screening and buffering will not be provided if appropriate to the proposed use and site.
- Use requirements. The proposed use does not comply with any additional conditional use requirements of the applicable zoning district, use, or other provisions of the LDC.
Board member Michael Godwin noted that as many as a dozen residences are within 1,000 feet of the proposed borrow pit property.
The Application And Proposal
“The proposed use can be conducted and operated in a manner that is compatible with adjacent and surrounding properties. The subject property is largely surrounded by undeveloped property,” the application stated, noting that there is one residential structure to the south of the proposed pit site, which will become a lake overlooked by a single-family residence when after excavation is complete. Operation is planned for 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday to Saturday, as allowed by the LDC. A 25-foot landscape buffer was proposed around the fenced-in pit.
Single access to the pit property was proposed for a driveway off Highway 95A across from Josh Lane.
The developer’s application said noise would be limited to the daylight hours and with pit’s sidewalls acting as a sound barrier, and a dust suppression system would have been used to prevent airborne materials.
“The use will not generate unreasonable noise, glare, dust, smoke, odor, vibration or other nuisances or hazards,” the application stated. “The excavation activity is temporary.”
According to the Northwest Florida Water Management District, there are no permitted potable water wells with 500 feet of the property; however, the permitting program did not exist until the late 1970s, and records are incomplete before the late 1980s.
A neighbor previously objected to the proposed use based on a private irrigation well in the vicinity of the project. An attorney for the applicant asserted that protections do not exist around any private or non-potable (drinking) water well.
Escambia County Development Review staff have recommended approval of the conditional use of the property.
“Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use as submitted with the enhanced buffering as detailed on the submitted site plan. DRC site plan approval and BCC approval of the reclamation plan are required,” was the staff findings as submitted.
Photos for NorthEscambia.com, NorthEscambia.com graphics, click to enlarge.
Comments
25 Responses to “Application Denied For Borrow Pit On Highway 95A In Molino”
As a government entity that’s been tasked with monitoring this situation in Molino, I can assure you that the State has taken notice. A large scale hog farm set up to retaliate against the community will be dealt with immediately and efficiently. This landowner, according to his own previous statements to law enforcement and through eye witnesses, is over capacity as it is with the livestock that is currently on the land. The adjoining landowner that has a lawsuit against this landowner has based his complaint citing the FRTFA (Florida Right to Farm Act).
Florida Statutes, Section 823.14. “FRTFA also prohibits an existing farm operation from changing to a more excessive farm operation with regard to noise, odor, dust, or fumes where the farm operation is adjacent to an established residence or business. Furthermore, FRTFA does not give the farmer license to violate the principles of negligence or nuisance law, or to pollute the environment. Contaminating water wells or misapplying pesticides (pesticide drift onto neighboring properties) will still open the farmer up to a potential lawsuit.”
@ Alex Which fact are you talking about. 1 the county wanted this, FALSE. 2 The owner wanted this TRUE. 3 The owner filed the application for this True 4 The county denied the application. TRUE. ALL FACTS And what is this WEY LAND you spoke of. I don’t have a burrow pit and I don’t want one so you are correct I don’t know all the steps to get one, Didn’t say I did. TRUE. You said you have a well. So its ok for you to remove the water from under your property but its not ok for your neighbor to remove the sand from his property. Sounds like all FACTS to me.
No landfill, or sewage treatment plant, really good call on the part of the authorities.
I agree with Sam, turn it into a large scale pig farm, 10,000 pigs, that ought to do it. Plenty for them to graze on. Nice, smelly and the lovely sound of nature, right in your own back yard.
@Joe
You got your facts that AREN’T FACTS
1. COUNTY BOARD HAS TO SAY YES FOR THE CHANGE
TO MOVE FORWARD. EPA HAS TO DO AN EXTENSIVE REPORT ON THE WEY LANDS. ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS MAY HAVE TO GET ENVOLVED TO
There is a federal clean water act that will be an extreme hurdle to jump over due to his property having wetlands ajoined to the creek…
My well as 9 others will be effected by this
By The Way-The County Staff also said that there was only one existing Residence near the proposed Pit. In Reality, there are At Least 12 Residences within the Required 1000 foot buffer which Requires a Conditional Use Permit. I would think that the County has the necessary info to make such a determination with a little more Precision.
Reach your own Conclusions !!!
@Joe, some of the county employees that approved this project to be put before the board definitely disagreed with the residents to push approval. I was in the BOA meeting. They only included a 500ft outline in their research, when the requirement was 1000ft for any homes in the vicinity. It definitely made it like much less impactful than it truly was. Just like applicants statement of only one home being impacted. I hope it wasn’t intentional. But seeing some of the behavior makes one wonder. County employee Horace Jones himself made the interpretation that private wells shouldn’t be included as being protected from the possible contamination of a borrow pit.
It never sits quite right with me when a property owner’s rights are restricted due to the feelings other people, but I supposed there is a delicate balance to be struck in these situations. I think many people leave their beliefs about limited government, conservatism, and free market capitalism at the door when it comes to happenings in their own back yard. Just thinking out loud…not necessarily judging this specific situation. Seems like there was proper research done here before reaching this decision.
Why do people blame the county, saying the county wanted to do this. NO. The owner of the property wanted to do this. The owner ask the county to allow him to do this. Please don’t blame the county, don’t blame the county commissioner. As a county employee, I take offense for people like Bonnie blaming the county. Get the facts first.Don’t spread lies. The county followed the law and did their job. Thank you Escambia County.
Thanks Bonnie and Craig and the rest that attended the BOA and expressed your view
on the Borrow pit. It would have been another piece of destroyed earth in a housing area. Let it stay a nice cattle ranch.
Say this man was allowed to build this pit. Increased traffic,noise,and disruption to what is a quiet area. Now 20 years to turn the pit into a lake for his cattle. Okay you just destroyed and removed all the soil the cattle would graze on or is he going to backfill the pit no he’s turning it into a private lake after 20 years of digging. Next question where is the water to fill the lake and keep it full coming from. The water table that feeds the neighbors private wells. This will force these owners which have been here to spend money to fix their personal wells and decreased property values. What is it going to do to the existing wetlands dry them up. For what profit.
So I ask the people who are saying it should have been approved if you think it should have gone in put it in your back yard. I say go ask the wedge wood area about the traffic and noise the dust and over all dangers of the operation. So I agree this doesn’t fit what this area is growing into. The borrow pit is not.
Looks like it’s time for a large scale pig farm!!
Housing of any type would still be better than disrupting the Jacks Branch Wetlands by destroying the aquifers that feed several natural ponds and wells in the area.
Craig and I were two that spoke against this borrow pit being permitted…the outcome could have been quite different had not many neighbors showed up to speak against this. A word of warning…if you see a county red sign on a property that means the county wants to REZONE the land..A county green sign also indicates a change in land usage..a county blue sign also means land change for business usage..PAY ATTENTION AND INVESTIGATE what the county wants to do with that land.
Next permit application…..
Low income housing !
@Barrineau
Thats a very nice new subdivision next to Molino fire department. Next to killing off rattle snakes, not sure what else it hurt besides the yearly tax roll got added to
This is good news for our community. You can’t undo a borrow pit…it would be a forever eyesore.
Think about the other communities in Pensacola that have these old pits near them…Marcus Pointe, Wedgewood, I’m pretty sure they would not recommend them.
Confirmed at the meeting
Reason land was underdeveloped on and to the west of his property, ALL WETLANDS…
His plan said TEMPERARY, determed it would take 100,000 dumptruck loads over 20 YEARS
@ JASON
GREAT WIN FOR 95A TRAFFIC
This guy need to go put a house and pond on the property left to him by his grandfather off 99… our community does not need a borrow pit that takes 20 years to turn into a lake, draining and contaminating our natural springs along the way.
It would certainly appear that the application was misleading at best
“Board member Michael Godwin noted that as many as a dozen residences are within 1,000 feet of the proposed borrow pit property.”
Vs
“The subject property is largely surrounded by undeveloped property,” the application stated”
great news!!!
Amen!
This is GOOD NEWS!
IMHO, this is a HUGE win for those neighbors bordering the proposed site.
Just my opinion but I’d rather have a dirt pit next door than a subdivision.