(This article was revised to correct the spelling of a Saddlebag resident’s name.)
Dozens of residents from the Saddlebag Lake Resort near Lake Wales took turns at the Polk Planning Commission dais to condemn plans for an 855-acre sand mine next door to their vibrant 55-plus community.
Of the two busloads in opposition, many dropped their community’s summer-camp-like activities in Saddlebag to wear highlighter green T-shirts that a hastily organized resistance had printed with the slogan: “Protect Saddlebag.”
After a contentious hearing of nearly four-hours, the Saddlebag residents won. The commission voted to deny the sand mine.
The residents brought an anti-mining video and their attorney’s letter saying the plans were incompatible with the surrounding area to counter the hours-long presentation Dec. 3 in Bartow for the Mammoth Grove Mine.
Land use attorney Bart Allen, as well as the applicant’s experts and county land development staff, which had recommended approval of the industrial use of the land, spoke in favor of the mining operation.
The hearing was punctuated with outbursts of applause from the sea of green T-shirts. Attorneys also clarified state statutes on how the residents should be noticed and what testimony and evidence was admissible during such a quasi-judicial hearing.
And at one point, Allen asked for a Planning Commission member to be recused for his statement saying he had consulted his personal attorney before the hearing on matters Allen alleged were beyond the bounds of the hearing.
The Planning Commission voted by a 5-2 margin against a motion to approve the sand mine; Planning Commission Members Robert Beltram and Mike Hickman cast the minority votes.
In a second vote, a motion to deny the application passed by a 6-1 majority, with Hickman the lone vote against denial.
Applause erupted after the vote from the sea of green shirts, and the bang of a gavel ensued to restore order.
After the meeting, Saddlebag resident Daniel Clouse reacted to the decision.
“The outcome of the meeting was very shocking to us. That definitely wasn’t the outcome we were expecting,” he said.
“We’re very pleased with it, but we know this is probably not the end of it,” said Clouse, who is the current president of Saddlebag’s board of directors.
Clouse said the Saddlebag board is already working with its attorney, who could not make it to the hearing because of short notice, in case the sand mine proposal gains new life.
Allen declined to comment via email Dec. 4 on the possibility of his client appealing the decision.
“Unfortunately, I can’t provide a comment at this time regarding whether or not there will be an appeal,” he said.
According to Assistant County Attorney Sandra Howard, “the Board of County Commissioners can only hold a hearing on the project if the applicant decides to appeal within the seven-day period.”
“Otherwise, because this was a Level 3 review, the decision of the Planning Commission yesterday becomes final,” she added.
Hearing spanned more than three hours
In the days leading up to the hearing, Saddlebag residents had contended that the hearing notice required by the Polk County Comprehensive Plan did not arrive in their mailboxes two weeks in advance of the hearing, as required.
“Our community is dismayed by the lack of consideration and respect that was shown to our owners with the short notice that we received for this hearing,” said Saddlebag board member Terry Ruf, starting off the public comments at the meeting.
Other concerns were raised over the potential health risks mining activities would have on the Saddlebag residents and air quality, water safety on Lake Saddlebag, traffic disruptions on surface roads between the mine and State Road 60 and impacts on the local environment and wildlife.
‘There is some misinformation out there’
Allen had started off his client’s presentation stating he wanted to clarify some misinformation he had read in emails, and read and seen in media prior to the hearing.
“I’ve read the 71 emails,” he said. “I have obviously been paying attention to social media as well as the news articles whether it’s print or television. There is some misinformation out there.”
He then explained the project was not for a burrow pit, and the proposed non-phosphate sand mine would utilize wet dredging to extract the mineral.
The proposed sand mine is adjacent to an existing and active sand mine west of the property.
Wet mining of sand creates minimal dust, and very little noise and vibrations compared to other extraction methods.
“In the end, there are no explosions and no vibrations,” Allen said.
The 40,000 gallons per day for water use at the sand mine would be a reduction in the current 1 million to 5 million gallons per day allowed for the former citrus operation on the property, he said.
And the mine would draw water from the superficial aquifer, not like the current water draws from the Floridan Aquifer.
He said an existing hardwood buffer would be preserved should the sand mine be approved, giving the Saddlebag community an additional barrier from the mining.
Further, the overall plan to mine the site for the next 65 years would include a post-mining closure plan.
But many of the Saddlebag residents and other in the surrounding area, including residents in the area of the historic St. Anne’s Shrine, countered the applicant’s claims.
For example, a citrus grower disputed the water use explanation, saying irrigation of groves returns water to the ground unlike that of a mining operation because water evaporates during the process.
Others said despite claims of no silica dust, the trucks and processing equipment would kick up enough dust for a potential threat to air quality.
The meeting often diverted toward legal sidebars
Raising postmarked envelopes above their heads, Saddlebag residents said the mailers were stamped with a Nov. 21 postage meter, which meant a hearing on Friday, Dec. 5 constitute the two weeks’ advance notice period and not Dec. 3.
Representing the planning commissioners, Howard said that ultimately, notices had been mailed and residents were given the opportunity to speak.
“Due process requires that you have the opportunity to be heard, so by being here today shows you have notice,” Howard explained.
“If there is anyone who hasn’t had notice, that is a matter that can be raised. Certainly, anyone is free to make that objection …. If there is an appeal, that can be raised,” she said.
Planning Commission Chairman Merle H. Bishop added that because of the Thanksgiving holiday, some notices might have been delayed in getting to their destination.
“The staff has no control over what may happen once the mailers are sent,” Bishop said.
Fiery exchange with attorney and planning commissioner
In another exchange, Allen interrupted the public comments, something he said was possibly a first in his 18 years of practice, because of Commissioner Michael Schmidt’s comments about a legal opinion on eyewitness testimony he received from his personal attorney.
Allen went to the dais to “strenuously object” to Schmidt’s comments and asked that he be recused from participation in the remainder of the hearing.
Schmidt had said, “I have spoken with my personal attorney, and she told me that experiential evidence is the best evidence, eye witness, experiential evidence, is the best evidence you’ll ever present in any court of law.”
The sidebar debate arose after Planning Commissioner Robert Beltran asked if the panel was to consider public comments on such areas as traffic counts or hydrology to be expert or layperson or eyewitness testimony.
For example, several residents had expressed concerns that water used in the mine would drain Lake Saddlebag, a water body dotted by the residents’ boat docks. Others worried about losing the lake’s fish should the lake drain.
“It sounds like I’m hearing stuff from real estate professionals, I’m hearing about hydrology, I’m hearing about species,” Beltran said. “My real question is what is the source of that information?”
It was then that Schmidt made the comment about the value of eyewitness testimony by the Saddlebag residents.
And Allen objected.
“For purposes of the record, I feel I have to strenuously object to what Commissioner Schmidt is talking about. He is now going outside the bounds of the guidance of the board he was appointed to getting counsel and advice. I believe he should be recused from any consideration of this hearing for purposes of him going outside the bounds and considering things that are not being presented at this hearing.”
Schmidt replied, “I will not. Thank you, sir.”
Responding to both commissioners, Howard said, “Florida law is clear that in order to be considered substantial competent evidence on technical matters, that I’ve read previously, they have to be tendered as an expert witness.”
She added that Florida case law is clear that property values are not substantial competent evidence, but eyewitness testimony from people impacted by the development was acceptable to determine compatibility and consistency of a proposed land use.
Saddlebag Lake Resort is about 3 miles east of Lake Wales on the north side of State Road 60. About 1,200 residents live there, mostly winter resident, but many live there year-round.
The Development Review Committee had previously determined the sand mine proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses and the general character of the area and consistent with Polk County’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code.
This article originally appeared on The Ledger: Polk planning board votes to deny sand mine near Saddlebag Lake Resort
Reporting by Paul Nutcher, Lakeland Ledger / The Ledger
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
