Concrete Plant Proposed for Point Washington

[Smiling JOe]

I thought this item seemed important enough to justify its own thread.

The proposed concrete plant is slated to be on the water in Pt Washington, according to Commissioner Commander. She is very concerned that the vocal Pt Washington people were lacking in attendance at tonight's Board of County Commissioner's Meeting, and thought that people might not be aware of the plans for the concrete plant, so the commissioners tabled the discussion until the next meeting in South Walton, on June 10, so that the residents of Pt Washington and concerned citizens could have a chance to be properly heard. I hear that concrete plants are very harmful to the environment, but I couldn't tell you one reason as to why, off the top of my head. I'll be doing a little research on the subject. If you have any concerns of a concrete plant going into Pt Washington, I'd recommend emailing your County Commissioners with those concerns, or showing up in person to voice your opinion at the June 10 BCC meeting in SoWal at the Courthouse Annex. The County Commissioners were kind enough to reschedule this item for the next SoWal meeting rather than Defuniak, so it is obvious that they want to be sure to hear your concerns or objections before allowing such plant to be approved.

All comments regarding this issue are welcome. Let's hear some pros and cons.

[John R]

Where in Pt. Washington?

cons: trucks tearing up the already lacking roads
heavy traffic through neighborhoods at 7am
heavy equipment at speed through neighborhoods
consumption of who knows how much public water(i assume they'll draw from the intercoastal)
potential discharge back into the intercoastal
possible lowered resale values due to heavy industry in surrounding neighborhoods

pros: jobs
hopefully cheaper concrete locally
possibly cheaper(competitive) gravel and fill rates against jos. stein
???

[Smiling JOe]

John R, I understand this project is proposed on the property where they tried to build the asphalt plant, on the east side of Peach Creek and the IntraCoastal, and that the trucks would not be coming through residential areas, unless they happened to be pouring on a site in a neighborhood. Sounds like the owner of that property is subdividing the property and the proposed site will be on the newly split parcel, and not on the exact site where the asphalt plant was proposed.

Now I believe they have to have an environmental impact study done I'll ask the Mrs's. By the way I think the EPA and folks In Bunker may have a big say, not to mention us Pt. Washington people. I took a look at the proposed blue prints and the setbacks have changed quite a bit. They also are supposed to notify the public but I made about 30 phone calls and nothing mailed and it was the first anybody new about it.

Technically, they are required to mail notices to only the people owning within 300ft from the proposed plant, and the notice required is a sign posted by the County, on the property. As very few people ever drive down the road, the sign was never seen by the people who would be concerned. If this property is on the Intra-Coastal Waterway, as Comm. Commander states, everyone living on the water in that area and on Peach Creek, should be made aware.

[kurt]

There is a big difference between cement and concrete. Cement is much more problematic. Drive down Old Ferry Road just east of Peach Creek and you may be surprised to see 2 concrete plants and an asphalt plant. There has also been some activity on the north side of the intracoastal waterway. Might be something related to the airport.

[Rita]

There is a big difference between cement and concrete. Cement is problematic. Drive down Old Ferry Road just east of Peach Creek and you may be surprised to see 2 concrete plants and an asphalt plant. There has also been some activity on the north side of the intracoastal waterway. Might be something related to the airport.

.

I didn't even catch that. As Gilda Radner would have said, "Nevver Miinnd!".. I have deleted that post so as to not cause confusion.

.

[Smiling JOe]

Well I hope I am correct in my understanding of a this project being a "concrete" plant. Kurt, are you saying that concrete plants are not harmful to the environment?

[Franny]

There is already a concrete plant on the east side of Peach Creek. Is there a need for another one???? My first concern is for the environment but also the NOISE the plant creates. And no the current plant is not located in a neighborhood, but the trucks and home owners share Ferry Rd. Putting June 10 on the calendar.

[Smiling JOe]

Do the existing plants put off enough light pollution that you can detect from your house, Franny?

[futurebeachbum]

In a previous life, when I was an Outside Plant Engineer (the folks who engineer the poles, cables, manholes, etc.. for the phone company) I went to a special class just for dealing with concrete plants.

I remember in the class being told that it was the most challenging environment that our equipment had to operate in. The dust floating around a concrete plant is incredibly corrosive and penetrated and destroyed our equipment no matter how well sealed. We ended up replacing the equipment in those plants every 5-7 years (compared to every 30 years for normal places,)

I don't really know how they impact the environment. It may be that the corrosive elements are only on the property and don't drift far, but its hard to imagine with construction having slowed some in the past couple of years why we would need another one.

Is this being driven by the 331 bridge project?

FBB

[Teresa]

Do the existing plants put off enough light pollution that you can detect from your house, Franny?

yes!

oh lord. we've been through this so many times, and the plants just keep coming to the bay. there is much history to this property and its zoning, Peach Creek Alliance group full of SRB residents attending the meetings and strongly objecting, Woody Long Tshirts (gator gonna get ya...) etc. etc. after the big fight, the heavy industry zoning was designated via court of law, overriding county decision not to allow the heavy ind zoning. of course county lawyers were completely unprepared and ineffective in court. the history includes much more, such as the property owner trying to turn the zoning back to neighborhood/residential but couldn't for some technical reason. so its heavy industry forever.

its going to be very much like the plants in Panama City right on the water. several very large unsightly plants on the intracoastal waterway with massive impact on the environment of Pt Washington. the first impression of such a sight in a peaceful & beautiful community is ugly and loud. but, that is the least of the impact, surely.

Pt WAshington, home of schools and heavy industry.

[jodiFL]

She is very concerned that the vocal Pt Washington people were lacking in attendance at tonight's Board of County Commissioner's Meeting, and thought that people might not be aware of the plans for the concrete plant, so the commissioners tabled the discussion until the next meeting in South Walton

Not again....they have been trying to slide this by for years. The sturgeon, eagles, etc. are just the tip pf the iceberg.
Thank you for the heads up Comm.Commander. Glad to see someone is looking out for us up there.

[Franny]

Do the existing plants put off enough light pollution that you can detect from your house, Franny?

Yes..what Tootsie said. Not only the plant but the barges as well...this has me very concerned for our area and our environment.

[John R]

Well I hope I am correct in my understanding of a this project being a "concrete" plant. Kurt, are you saying that concrete plants are not harmful to the environment?

ever lived next to one? not pretty.

[DuneLaker]

Well, at least thanks to Commish Sara for the heads up. Too bad we don't have our Commissioner Awol looking out for us. I think I'll plan a trip to look into something important so I don't have to vote on anything controversial.

[Mark Partington]

As I recall....(and not being a speaker or typist)....besafe.com
deals with asphalt issues. Plus I pulled their mateirial saftey sheet data(handling,breathing,etc)
I guess when the only tool in your box is the lack of reason.
Yea...they tried to foist that out here on us other side of the ditch folk.....I had tons of specs typed into the public record for times sake.(we were not nearly as redundant as their childlike atty)
"Nothing prepared us for what was to come. We couldnt go outside during opperating hours......we were prisoners in our own homes"
That was in N.C. & poorly quoted from memory.
besafe has standards for informing the public as to health concerns....& dealing w/ local govt on this.
I hate sequels!
Ok...I'll shut up & paint now.
m

[Mark Partington]

If anyones interested,we can also repeal the Patriot Act in our county. It only kinda shreds the constitution & Bill of rights.....but not breating this stuff would be nice to start. The plume will hit seaside......show me da money?
Good luck with this....I'm barred from those meetings.
SOS
m

[wrobert]

Good luck with this....I'm barred from those meetings.
SOS
m

Care to explain further?

[Mark Partington]

which part?
m

[Mark Partington]

John R, I understand this project is proposed on the property where they tried to build the asphalt plant, on the east side of Peach Creek and the IntraCoastal, and that the trucks would not be coming through residential areas, unless they happened to be pouring on a site in a neighborhood. Sounds like the owner of that property is subdividing the property and the proposed site will be on the newly split parcel, and not on the exact site where the asphalt plant was proposed.



Technically, they are required to mail notices to only the people owning within 300ft from the proposed plant, and the notice required is a sign posted by the County, on the property. As very few people ever drive down the road, the sign was never seen by the people who would be concerned. If this property is on the Intra-Coastal Waterway, as Comm. Commander states, everyone living on the water in that area and on Peach Creek, should be made aware.

I found a public notice sign last time,north of intercoasteal, on old ferry rd. You really couldnt drive by it ulnless you were in an ATV of some sort. I have pictures...my pictures of the situation arent suitable for publication.
m

[SoWalSally]

BCC June 10 meeting agenda

9. SOUTHLAND CONCRETE PLANT – Project number 07-001-00093. This is a major development order application submitted by Buchanan and Harper Engineering, consisting of 3 buildings totaling 5,951 square feet on 4.17 acres with a future land use of industrial. The site is located at the end of Old Ferry Road in the Point Washington area. (parcel number 36-2S-19-24000-003-0000)

[SoWalSally]

http://defuniakherald.com/?p=119

Concrete plant proposed for Point Washington area
May 21st, 2008 | 0
By DOTTY NIST

The Southland Concrete Plant proposal will be considered next month by the Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC), with the location of the proposed plant to be a four-acre site at the end of Old Ferry Road on the Intracoastal Waterway.
Following review by the Walton County Technical Review Committee, the plant proposal was heard by the Walton County Planning Commission in April 2008. The planning commission recommended for approval.
The property where the proposed plant would be located, approximately 50 acres in size, is already in use for industrial activities, including concrete manufacture. This property is subject to a 2001 federal court order directing Walton County to consider it as a heavy industrial land use area.
Despite heated community objection, in 2002 Walton County approved an asphalt plant proposal for this property. That plant was never built. More recently, another asphalt plant proposal was approved for a portion of the same property located on the north side of the Intracoastal. That plant was not constructed, either.
The Southland Concrete Plant was on the BCC agenda on May 13. Jason Bryan, county planner, commented that the developer had decided not to go forward with the asphalt plant that was previously approved on the north side of the Intracoastal.
The Southland Concrete Plant site is located on the south side of the waterway and is currently listed in the Walton County Property Appraiser’s records as under the ownership of Washington County Land and Development, L.L.C. The property was previously owned by S&S Materials.
District 4 Commissioner Sara Comander commented that she was surprised that the county had received no public comment on the concrete plant proposal.
“It’s been too quiet,” she said. Comander said she had concerns about the location of the plant right on the waterway.
Bryan said the developer had followed notification procedures as required by county code. He stated that, to his knowledge, the proposal meets all technical requirements of the county’s comprehensive plan and land development code.
However, Len Pullen, a Point Washington resident attending the BCC meeting, stated that he lives in the neighborhood where the concrete plant is being proposed, that he and others would oppose it, and that he had not received any notification of the project in his mail. He said he had not previously been aware of the proposal.
Concerned that others in the community had also been unaware, Comander moved to continue the item in order to allow for others to weigh in with their comments. Her motion was approved, and the item was scheduled for the June 10 BCC meeting, which is to begin at 4 p.m. and take place at the South Walton Courthouse Annex.

[Smiling JOe]

This proposed site is two lots north of residential property and directly across Peach Creek from residential homes. Not only is it on the IntraCoastal Waterway, it has much frontage on the delicate Peach Creek. Familiarize yourself with the location and voice your concerns today, if you have any. Meeting is next Tuesday, at 4pm, but don't let that stop you from sending emails to the County Commissioners, today, if you are concerned about a concrete plant being constructed so close to the residential properties in Historic Point Washington.

[thanyille]

There is a big difference between cement and concrete. Cement is much more problematic. Drive down Old Ferry Road just east of Peach Creek and you may be surprised to see 2 concrete plants and an asphalt plant. There has also been some activity on the north side of the intracoastal waterway. Might be something related to the airport.

Actually, there is not that much difference between cement and concrete. Cement is the adhesive material used in concrete. Concrete is the final product, when cement and agrigate are added together (agrigate being small rocks or shells). So really, the difference is just what stage of the process you are talking about. It begins as cement and ends as concrete. Also, pure cement is never used since its very expensive. Just a little FYI.

[kurt]

Yes I should have specified that some cement processes produce toxins.

[alareb88]

The propose concrete plant is being continued until July bcc. It needs to be noted that the project is allowed per the federal court ruling. the bcc is limited in action. Please do not over react. They should meet environmental regulations but the federal court has ruled.

[Smiling JOe]

Over-react? Fortunately, I don't live directly across Peach Creek from the proposed site, or three lots to the south, unlike many other people. Lights, pollution, noise, etc -- just ain't right next to residential properties.

[Bob]

can't the county relocate the plant away from homes?

[Smiling JOe]

It isn't the County's proposed concrete plant.

[Jim Tucker]

The propose concrete plant is being continued until July bcc. It needs to be noted that the project is allowed per the federal court ruling. the bcc is limited in action. Please do not over react. They should meet environmental regulations but the federal court has ruled.

No project is allowed per court ruling because any project has to go through an approval process, but the zoning was confirmed for the type of project. Any project still has to meet many hurdles like compatability, environmental, etc.

[Beach Runner]

Somebody please compose a letter, and I will send it to the commissioners. Contact info is at http://www.co.walton.fl.us/default.asp?ID=2 .

BTW it's "Comander," not "Commander," as per the last name of one of our favorite SoWallers.

[Teresa]

No project is allowed per court ruling because any project has to go through an approval process, but the zoning was confirmed for the type of project. Any project still has to meet many hurdles like compatability, environmental, etc.

it is allowed per court ruling. yes, all county and state hoops apply. but, after those hoops, well then.... total disregard for all environmental concerns and/or residents naturally occurs with this kind of development. I hope it does not become the eyesore of SoWal, and the eventual ruin of peach creek and old pt washington.

[Smiling JOe]

Somebody please compose a letter, and I will send it to the commissioners. Contact info is at http://www.co.walton.fl.us/default.asp?ID=2 .

BTW it's "Comander," not "Commander," as per the last name of one of our favorite SoWallers.

BR, it is best if it written by each person, even if it is just two sentences stating whether or not you are for or agin it, and why. People don't like to read the same letter more than once. You can do it!

[Smiling JOe]

The propose concrete plant is being continued until July bcc. It needs to be noted that the project is allowed per the federal court ruling. the bcc is limited in action. Please do not over react. They should meet environmental regulations but the federal court has ruled.

According to the Agenda for tonight's upcoming BCC meeting, the proposed concrete plant is listed as being discussed tonight. -- Item #10 under Planning and Development.

[Jdarg]

According to the Agenda for tonight's upcoming BCC meeting, the proposed concrete plant is listed as being discussed tonight. -- Item #10 under Planning and Development.

As I said, pack your tent and sleeping bag for this meeting!

[Miss Critter]

BR, it is best if it written by each person, even if it is just two sentences stating whether or not you are for or agin it, and why. People don't like to read the same letter more than once. You can do it!

I thought mass emails are pretty effective. I know the ASPCA has done well recently on legislation due to members/interested parties emailing their reps with a "form letter." Can a standard letter be drafted with an automatic link to the proper person(s)' email? I bet if hundreds of emails were received, they'd take notice. I'd do it, but I'm not very tech-savvy.

[Smiling JOe]

If you want someone to read them, form letters are not the way to go, but I guess one would be better than no one writing at all. You don't have to be tech savvy to write a letter. You can just type it into a post in this thread if you want to, and people can copy and paste into their email.

[Miss Critter]

If you want someone to read them, form letters are not the way to go, but I guess one would be better than no one writing at all. You don't have to be tech savvy to write a letter. You can just type it into a post in this thread if you want to, and people can copy and paste into their email.

What I was talking about is a link that you click on and just add your own name and it automatically forwards to the appropriate representative. My letter-writing skills are fine, thank you. It's the one-click ease-of-use mail-forwarding aspect I lack skill in.

I could be wrong, but I think hundreds of even the same email or form letter would have more impact than a dozen thoughtfully-drafted missives on the subject. What about an email petition? Maybe someone with more experience in this can tell me if that's true.

[Smiling JOe]

I've never heard of lazy hell-raisers. Send your five County Commissioners an email. It is really simple to do, even without a one-click method.

Meeting is tonight.