Loading...
CCPC Minutes 08/02/2007 R August 2, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida August 2, 2007 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed Caron Tor Kolflat (Absent) Paul Midney Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Russell Tuff Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 2007, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 2 I, 2007, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - JUNE 26-27, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: VA-2007-AR-11703, Kurt Lutgert, represented by Q Grady Minor, and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, Goodlette Coleman and Johnson, P.A., requests a variance to legitimize the legally-constructed non- conformities and permit a minor additional encroachment along the front of the home to enclose and modernize the carport as a standard two-car garage. The applicant would like to enclose the carport, and expand the width of the home along the east side of the property to the current side setback requirement of7.5 feet. An addition was added to the original home on the northwest side and, although it was legally permitted, the current survey indicates a 1.5-foot encroachment into the required front yard. The subject property is located at 180 Channel Drive, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates subdivision, Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) 1 '~--~'----'-"'-""------'-."----"-'-'-'- "--'"--~---"..._--- B. Petition: CU-2004-AR-6904, Mining Venture, LLC., represented by R. Bruce Anderson of Roetzel & Andress, is requesting a conditional use allowed per LDC Section 2.04.03, Table 2 of the A-MHO Agricultural zoning district for Earthmining. The subject property, consisting of 2,576 acres, is located east of Immokalee Road, approximately 2 miles north of Oil Well Road, The subject property is located within Sections 35 & 36, Township 47 South, Range 27 East; and all of Section I and 2, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Less Road Right-of-Way for County Road 846 (lmmokalee Road), Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) C. Petition: CU-2005-AR-8748, Ashraf Fawzy, represented by Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., requesting approval of a Conditional Use in the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to excavate in excess of 4,000 cubic yards of earth for an aquaculture facility in the Agricultural (A) zoning district, per Section 2.04.03 Table 2 of the Land Development Code (LDC). The subject property, consisting of approximately 15.08 acres, is located at 2060 Tobias Street, in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss) 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS II. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 8/2/07CCPC AgendalKD/sp 2 . August 2, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ray. Good morning. Welcome to the August 2nd meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll please rise to swear allegiance to the flag. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY THE CLERK CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, roll call by our secretary. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat is absent. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Present. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Present. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Present. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Page 2 August 2, 2007 Addenda to the agenda. It's my understanding, and I need a staff member to confirm this, that Petition V A-2007-AR-11703 is being continued and at the staffs request, is that -- is that it, Melissa? MS. ZONE: Correct. Melissa Zone, principal planner with the zoning department. Staff requests to have petition -- the AR -1103, Connor's Vanderbilt Beach Estates variance to August 16th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Is there a motion to recommend? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Caron. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Page 3 August 2, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, for those of you in the audience, the first petition, Kurt Lutgert variance is being continued to the 16th. Planning commission absences. The next meeting is the 16th. Does anybody plan on not being here? (No response.) Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 21, 2007, REGULAR MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approval of minutes from June 21st, our regular meeting. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Item #6 Page 4 August 2, 2007 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - June 26-27,2007, REGULAR MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, your BCC report? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the board approved the Lorenzo Walker school board height variance. That was approved 5-0. The conditional use for the Oliva mulching was denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals by a 5-0 vote. The PUD amendment for Harvest For Humanity was approved 5-0. And the conditional use for the Seventh Day Adventist Church was approved on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That Oliva mulching, that had an ongoing questionable operation out there right now, and everybody was kind of holding off prosecuting or moving forward until it got resolved. Now that it's resolved, is someone going to put a stop to it? MR. BELLOWS: Oh, definitely. Code enforcement is-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will you let us know at our next meeting the results of that? MR. BELLOWS: I'll put it on here-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The citizens of that neighborhood were pretty much put out by it, and I certainly would like to see it resolved. It's taken a long time. Thank you, sir. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just under planning commission absences, we also have a meeting on the 8th, the LDC hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, you're right. Thank you. Anybody not planning to be here on the 8th? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll probably not be here on the 8th. Is that a 5:00 meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's an 8:30 meeting. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I will not make it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? Page 5 August 2, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for reminding me. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman's report. As you know, last meeting we talked about the Burt Harris case that was remanded back to us by the BCC. Now, I did meet with staff and I looked over the package size and the __ what they considered for the package. And we all thought that the best thing to do would be to write everything in detail. So the packages you've gotten today or will be getting have minutes and quite a bit of background in them. Ray, is there any more coming on that, or is that everything? MR. BELLOWS: No, there's a memorandum I believe from the county attorney's office coming in. You'll have the rest of the packets delivered when John-David gets here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the other thing we talked about, and Ms. Student was at the meeting when staff and I talked. I suggested and they concurred that the good thing to do would be to put together a legal memo from their office, focusing us as early now as possible on what we're supposed to be looking at. Because we didn't get this sent back to us to reinvent the wheel and go over issues that we can't get really get into. Some are done issues. We may not like that, we may not agree with it, but our meeting isn't to go to those issues, our meeting's going to be to go to specifically what the BCC wanted us to look at. And the county attorney's office, and Ms. Student, you can chime in here in a second, is going to be writing us a memo, I hope soon, so that when we start our reading we focus on the right thing. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: For the record, Marjorie Page 6 August 2, 2007 Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney. It will be soon. I've attempted to see from the clerk's office where they are. I want to make sure I have the actual vote of the board with exactly what the motion was. And I'll be getting a DVD for that and you should have something -- I also want to coordinate with Mr. Pettit, and he's on vacation this week, but I anticipate having something for you and sending it out bye-mail Monday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Some of us don't get e-mail, so maybe you could hard copy in the regular mail an additional copy as well. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I will attempt to e-mail whomever I can, and who we can't, get a fax number, because I want to make sure you have it quickly. I don't know how quickly the regular mail will get to you. So I want to make sure that you have it quickly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. Mr. Tuff, then Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yeah, I'm on my second meeting without this computer working, so I thought it might get fixed and it didn't, so I'll just bring it out so someone can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They brought it up and I asked them not to fix it. So maybe Kady, I'm sure she's watching, if she knows somebody in IT that could come in and give you a hand. You're right, you were out last meeting as well. Okay, Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Did everyone get this Thomas Reed packet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did not. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: What is it? May I see it? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, it's the legal background ground of this case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We haven't even got a case we're talking Page 7 August 2, 2007 about. We're still on chairman's report. What is it that -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: This is the situation that they sent us the cases and the background it, the legal background. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the Burt Harris-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- claim? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Background. If you haven't got it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wait a minute, wait a minute, let's just -- it's dated February 14th, 2005. It's a legal opinion concerning Burt Harris claims to the Collier County's rural fringe amendments of the Collier County comprehensive land use plan. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What case are you thinking this has got anything to -- where it involves? It doesn't involve -- which one? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It gives you the background of what the Harris cases are. It's a matter of just finding out how it works. And if you have it, fine. If you don't want it, that's also fine. But no, it's not a particular case structure on the case. It just tells you some rules about Burt Harris. When it's Burt Harris and what you can't do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, are we here to decide on whether or not this is a Burt Harris issue, or are we here to decide on the outcome of that already being resolved? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: We would be here for that particular item, to look at performance standards which we believe has to do with the separation between buildings. And it may be helpful for some people to understand Burt Harris, because it's going to be going to court, you know, if it's not settled. And also, the abeyance would be lifted off the cert case, which I responded to a long time ago, and it's being held in abeyance if it were not to settle. Page 8 August 2, 2007 So from that standpoint, if anybody wanted to read it -- I do believe this involves lands out in the fringe area where there were several Burt Harris cases filed because they alleged that the compo plan amendments and LDC amendments inordinately burden the property, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I would like then is Mr. Adelstein, can you get a copy of that to Ms. Student? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Of course. I can get a copy for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, I think I'd rather -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Not just you, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but I think any copies ought to go through the county attorney's office if they deem it relevant to the Issue. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah, if you could either e-mail that to me or give me a copy after the meeting. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You can't lose anything by reading it. You can win something by understanding it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Good morning. Just for the record, I want to make sure and understand that this has nothing to do other than background describing the Burt Harris. It has nothing to do with the case that you're going to be presenting -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Absolutely. I realize that. MR. SCHMITT: -- to know what Burt Harris was. And I'm going to point to the county attorney, you're not here to debate the merits of whether we settle or not. That is already in motion. What you're going to look at are the -- what's in the settlement agreement and whether you're going to render an opinion to the -- or render a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners as to whether Page 9 August 2, 2007 what's being proffered in that settlement agreement is in compliance with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. That's -- and correct me ifI'm wrong, Marjorie. We're not here to debate whether the county should or should not settle -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No. MR. SCHMITT: -- or should or should not proceed. That's already in motion. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Right. MR. SCHMITT: What you're going to be presented is nothing more than the facts or the settlement agreement and to advise the Board of County Commissioners whether what's in the settlement agreement conforms with the standards in the PUD or as the Burt Harris law allows, be modified in the settlement agreement. And those modifications, are they -- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Well, I think good planning -- MR. SCHMITT: -- in compliance with the Land Development Code? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: They make good planning -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You guys can't talk at the same time. Cherie' has a hard time typing both of you. MR. SCHMITT: Well, that's hopefully what the county attorney's guidance will be when you get the county attorney's letter. And that item will be presented. It will not be the petitioner, it will be the county presenting, and it will be presented by the county attorney's office to walk you through that settlement agreement. So this will not be like a petitioner coming in. In fact, the petitioner doesn't even have to be here. But we would hope that representatives of the petitioner are here to answer any questions you may have regarding development standards or those type of things, so we can kind of keep this thing in the box. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Adelstein's production of this document is exactly then what I was trying to explain to everybody. If Page 10 August 2, 2007 it is relevant to what we are going to be needing to know for that meeting, then by all means get it to us. If it is not, it just becomes an example of where we don't need to go. So one way or the other, tell us and then we can understand it better. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Will do. Item #8B PETITION: CU-2004-AR-6904 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we will move on to the advertised public hearings. First one being Petition CU-2004-AR-6904, the Mining Venture LLC, also known as I believe the Jones Mining bid on Immokalee Road. All those wishing to speak on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there disclosures on parts of the planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have met with one of the neighboring residents, Mr. David Purdie. I've been to his house, I looked at some situations there. I've met with the applicant and the applicant's attorney, Mr. Bruce Anderson, Mr. Don Barber. Both those conversations with those gentlemen and the citizen involved, mostly neighborhood concerns, the velocity of the sound and potential damages or if there's damages to homes and things like that. So we'll hear more about it as we go forward. And with that we'll continue. Mr. Anderson, it's yours. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Page 11 August 2, 2007 Commissioners. My name is Bruce Anderson from the law firm of Roetzel and Andress, on behalf of the applicant. I want to spruce introduce a few people that you may be hearing from later. First of all, Mr. Don Barber, representing the trust that owns the property. Mr. Bruce Tyson, a planner with WilsonMiller who will be testifying to you. Damon Jones, from Jones Mining. And Jeff Straw, the president of Geosonics, Inc., who is an acoustical vibration expert. If you felt a sense of deja vu when you read the staff report in our application, that's very understandable. This is the -- this very same application for a smaller area already being mined came before you and was recommended for approval on June 1,2006. It was subsequently approved by the county commission. At that time we told you and the Board of County Commissioners that we would be bringing back an application for Phase 2 to expand the mine area. Today's hearing is on Phase 2. This application is for the same approvals that have previously been granted, it's just for a larger area. For the record, I need to restate what most of us already know, that the county is in a road building crisis and needing to obtain aggregate for road building. When the rural fringe plan was adopted five years ago this summer, the only areas where mining was allowed was receiving lands. And this property is designated as receiving land. And this is one of the few areas in the county left where mining is allowed and where there is actually something to mine. The property is one of only two receiving areas where it is confirmed that suitable mining material in the form of aggregate exists. I am advised by the mine operator that the material here consists of both fill and aggregate suitable for road building. But in order to get the aggregate, a blasting permit is needed. Page 12 August 2, 2007 My client and the county have received some complaints that allege that blasting has caused damage. I want to address that issue up front. Fist of all, as one of our witnesses will tell you and show you, Mr. Jeff Straw, all, all of the blasting at this mine has been well below state limits and the county's limits, which are even lower than the state's. Every time a blast occurs the county has an inspector on-site to measure and monitor the blast. Prior to the commencement of blasting, pre-inspection surveys were offered by mail to all homeowners within 3,766 feet of the property boundaries. The client conducted 85 pre-blast surveys, which were verified by photos. Copies of the pre-blast surveys were provided to the homeowner and to the county. And in response to blasting damage complaints, my client has conducted post-blast inspections and provided those reports to homeowner -- to the homeowner in the county. The Florida statutes set forth an exclusive remedy for people seeking monetary compensation for damage that's alleged to be caused by blasting. All who have notified my client that they think blasting has damaged their home have been given notice by my client of that right and the reference to the statute and where they have to go to register the complaint. It's my understanding that there is no charge by the state to file such a complaint. Nonetheless, concerns have been expressed that there needs to be a local procedure to handle allegations of blasting damages, in addition to the remedies provided by state statute. Well, in fact and in law there is already a local procedure in place. The procedure is set forth in the county's Explosive Regulations Ordinance, adopted in 2004. It's in the County Code of Laws and Ordinances in Section 55. It provides that the county manager can revoke or suspend a blasting permit. The county Page 13 August 2, 2007 manager determines that blasting has caused actual, personal or real property damage to another person, and that suspension or revocation of the blasting permit is necessary to investigate and/or to remedy the blasting activities that resulted in the damage. In order to assist homeowners and the county in using this damage complaint process, my client proposes that an engineer be mutually selected by the county and the mine operator to investigate and report back to all parties, the county, the homeowner and the mine operator, on blasting damage allegations. The mine operator would pay for the services of the engineer. If the damage is caused by blasting, the mine operator would face a choice of either repair the damage or face revocation of their blasting permit. Nothing would permit the homeowner from seeking money damages under the state statute instead of or in addition to a repair. And perhaps instead of one engineer, maybe there should be two or three or four selected by the county and the mine operator and used on a rotating basis. In addition to that significant step, my client has taken or is requesting permission to take the following actions in regard to its mining operations to address blasting damage concerns: Number one, they have set up, in conjunction with the prestigious Northwestern University, to equip a home abutting the mine boundaries with vibration measuring equipment to monitor the effects of each blast. And that's more specifically described on Page 4 of your staff report. Mr. Straw will elaborate on this in his testimony. In connection with the Northwestern effort, the mine operators, Mr. Straw's firm and Northwestern University are setting up a website where people can monitor blasting activities and download a complaint form. The website is JonesMining.com, and there you will have links to send e-mail addresses, and there will be phone numbers where you can register complaints locally. Page 14 August 2, 2007 Third, one person has now been designated as the contact person, the point person for any homeowner who feels they have suffered damage from a blast. His name is Damon Jones of Jones Mining, the operator of the mining operations. His contact info., the e-mail will be found on the website. And his direct phone number is 304-1506. Lastly, my client is requesting an opportunity to do smaller blasts, but to do these smaller blasts more often than is currently allowed by the conditional use stipulations. Currently it's limited to eight times per month. The mine operator would like to increase that to 18. And again, Mr. Straw will testify what the intended effects of that change are. Lastly, I want to address myself to a last-minute recommendation in the staff report that calls for the establishment of a conditional use revocation procedure and standards for this conditional use. It is unfair and in my view it's a violation of equal protection laws to single out and place a very vaguely worded standard for revocation of this conditional use only and not have a revocation process for anyone else in the county. The concerns that have been expressed as potential grounds to revoke this conditional use are all related to allegations of blasting damages. And there is already a procedure in place to revoke the blasting permit if there has been damage. So there is no need to add another revocation procedure applicable only to this property owner. I'm going to ask Mr. Tyson to come up and walk you through the specifics of the site plan. I would ask you to hold your questions to the end of each presenter. If you have questions for that presenter, ask them at that time, or you can call them back up. We'd like to try to keep things organized and present a -- make a concise presentation to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, just because you're walking away doesn't mean we may not have questions of you then, Bruce. MR. ANDERSON: I haven't left, yet. Thank you. Page 15 August 2, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome. Mr. Midney, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I guess it's more of a comment. You mentioned the lack or relative lack of road building aggregate on this petition, and I would just like to mention that our judgment has to be exclusively on the consistency of this with the LDC and that it does not adversely affect the public interest. That's our criteria for judgment, not whether or not there's a shortage of material. MR. ANDERSON: Well, ifI might kindly respond, the public interest test that you mentioned is most relevant because the need for aggregate for the county to build roads has to do with the cost of building roads, and that's certainly a factor in the public interest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Tyson? MR. TYSON: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Bruce Tyson. I'm a land planner and a landscape architect with WilsonMiller here in Naples. And I'm here just to -- more than anything just try to get you to understand what the extent and the magnitude of this expansion is. If you will notice with the graphic that is in front of you, this project and the -- from the one that was up there before is on the east side ofImmokalee Road about 1.5 miles north of the County Fairgrounds in Orangetree. There's an adjacent mining operation that is to the north up here, which is the Big Island project. And I can go around this a little bit, which will help you just understand exactly what the zoning is. We have the Estates zoning to the east of the project and to the south as well. The actual project itself, as well as the properties to the north and to the west, are zoned agricultural with a mobile home overlay. This parcel itself is part of the rural fringe mixed use district. Page 16 August 2, 2007 And it is a receiving district property. And the earth mining operation that is allowed within this district along -- it can be permitted as an approved conditional use. The access point to this mine is off of Immokalee Road, down in the southwest corner of the property. As Bruce had indicated, the EAC, CCPC and BCC approved this initial conditional use for the mining project in 1999. And just one year ago, the CCPC and the Board of County Commissioners modified the conditional use to allow blasting and a deeper excavation in the processing of rock within the boundaries of the existing mine site, or what is shown here as Phase 1. Today we are here to discuss the expansion of the mine and all of that expansion area land that has been a previous -- and all of that expansion area in Phase 2, all of that land has been previously cleared or disturbed. It is either right now being used as pasture or in agricultural just simply in open use. And the agricultural is mainly in sod farming. Just to give you a size comparison, as I indicated before, this is 2,576 acres, these four sections of land. And the project of Phase 1 comprises a total of 626 acres. Now, that includes 73 acres of accessory uses consisting of water management ditches, access roads, berms, the island in the center of the excavation area, and the office and any other appurtenances that are required for the mine. The actual mining area itself is 553 acres. Phase 2 adds a grand total of 527 acres of mining area. So those are the particulars on the project. I would like to introduce Jeff Straw, and Jeff will talk to you specifically about what is planned for the blasting program for Phase 2. Any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. No -- I mean, I know that we probably have a lot, but we might get some answered just by letting you all speak first, and then afterwards we'll collectively ask. Page 17 August 2, 2007 Thank you. MR. STRAW: Mr. Chairman, good morning, members of the board. My name is Jeffrey Straw. I'm vice president and area manager of Geosonics. And Bruce, I appreciate the promotion, wherever he went, to president. I'll make sure I get a transcript and send it to my boss, I'm sure he'll really appreciate that. We are vibration acoustic consultants, seismologists. I represent the firm that is actually doing the monitoring for the current round of blasting. And what we thought -- I'm sure there's going to be some questions about the blasting and what goes on and procedures and things, so we thought we'd cover most of that with you this morning and, you know, deal with that in direct presentation, and hopefully that will answer some questions. The -- this is again just an overview of the whole area. I'm going to talk a little bit about the seismographs, what's going on. Currently blasting is done for the excavation of, you know, the aggregate materials, the fill material. The rock is hard enough. The core boring show that in areas where, you know, the rock is hard enough, they do blast. Some areas where it's not, they haven't needed blasting, they can excavate. The original Phase 1 started with excavating using backhoes. That has been modified here as of the first of year. They're using a piece of drag line equipment in there now. It's a little bit different methodology, as far as that goes, but still the need to blast is consistent. A drill goes out, puts in a series of blast holes. Then there's an outside explosives character, licensed with the state, ATF, you know, all the way up and down through all of the requirements, to command actually do the loading. And then do (sic) the blasting itself is handled by an outside firm. Typically right now roughly Tuesdays and Thursdays, but Page 18 August 2, 2007 understand, this is kind of a construction activity, so if a drill breaks down, we have a weather storm move in, there are some variations to that. Most of the blasting has been conducted in that area right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, unfortunately you've got to -- when you talk, you're going to have to be on one of the speakers or the hand-held. Thank you. MR. STRAW: Sorry about that. Along this area of Phase 1, it's where the current round of blasting has gone on, progressing back this way a little bit. And roughly, as far as distances, roughly where you are, 6,500 feet from the houses to the north. About 2,300 to the east, 3,900 to the south. And each one of those -- those are rough distances, because they change as each blast pattern goes on. Everything is GPS. We have -- all of the seismographs have a GPS coordinate, so there's a distance calculated information on -- every shot is recorded for the State Fire Marshal's office who permits this, as well as the county. That information is also transmitted to the county inspector who's on site every day. Currently the requirement for the number of holes to be blasted is so you that you can blast eight times a month. And Bruce brought that up. And one of the requested changes -- and I will show you some hole counts as I get through my presentation in some graphs that I have -- will indicate that. Currently because of the eight times per month to blast they are required to shoot much bigger shots. Some of them are 200 holes, some of them are smaller. We're trying to get to a point where we can cut down on the number of larger shots and actually reduce the off-site effects through the number of blast holes, as well as changing some of the pounds per delay that's used in these shots to actually have a little less off-site annoyance. So the proposal has been to shoot no more than 110 holes per Page 19 August 2, 2007 blast. That comes out to about, with the 18 or so that we're looking at, they're looking at about 1,680 blast holes per month. Would be four times per week, no more than 18 per month. It would reduce overall in our opinion the velocity levels. And then there is there is a time constraint. No more than 24 seconds of what we call blast initiation that would occur during the month. What have we seen so far? And I guess as far as the information that we'd have to look as is to give you an idea of what we do for every blast that's out there. First of all, when they get ready to blast, they do notify the county. The county does have an on-site inspector that is there for every blast. There is part of the county requirement to have three seismographs operating for every blast. There's one up here at the Gallegos game farm to the north. This is up in the area of Fallen Lane. There is one at the Garret residence, which is the closest location here to the east that we have. Which this also fulfills the requirements of the State Fire Marshal, because the State Fire Marshal has under their construction materials mining activity permit a requirement to have a minimum of one seismograph. So this -- the original agreement was to have three. The third one is down here at the Chaney residence, it's down on the south property line. In addition, late last year in response to one of the complaints that we got, we located an instrument really almost next door at the DiMurro -- it was the DiMurro residence at a that point in time. That has become our test house. And so we have two instruments down there. And I'll go into a little bit more detail about what the instruments are producing. One of the things that we do and look at every month is following each blast there is -- one of the things that we do is after every blast, all of these seismographs are remote operated. We get a phone call from the blasting contractor or the mine, says we've shot at, you know, whatever time it is. Our folks immediately then send a Page 20 August 2, 2007 message to them. They all download. We provide the results via fax to the county. We provide fax to Jones Mining, as well as have the ability to e-mail those results. And what you have is, from the three instruments we have the results listed. We measure peak particle velocity, which is how fast ground shakes. That is what the State of Florida criteria as well as the county criteria requires. These are the blasts beginning in August of 2006 up through July, the information we have here in July. These bars represent the maximum velocity that we've achieved. There are a number of standards, and I'll show you the overall standard in another graphic in just a second. And I do have copies of these charts for you, if you would wish to have individual copies. But the yellow bar is the most restrictive criteria of the State of Florida. It's half an inch per second. And you can see we're well under that. There are some criteria also that allow us for drywall to use a level of .75. That's the upper part of the graph. The graph does all the way -- the limits actually go all the way to 2.0 inches per second, but we're using the most restrictive criteria as far as where are our guidelines. Now, this is the levels to the north. Basically the same graph, same plot, same limits. This is the -- these are the results for all of the blasts from the Garret residence, which is the instrument located on the east side. It is the closest of the instruments. So the velocity levels are typically a little bit higher as far as things go. And then this is the instrument to the south. This is the Cheney residence that's down on the south, just off the south property line. There's a canal right in there, and you can see there's a little bit of a reduction in level. Now, I also talked about limits and the limitations that the State of Florida allows us to use. The State of Florida uses criteria that they have adopted from the United States Bureau of Mines. There is a Page 21 August 2, 2007 specific test report studying the effects on blasting on structures. They looked at the most fragile building materials, plaster on lathe and drywall. And they built tests houses, looked at test houses, blasted next to them from virtually nothing up to within a matter of a few hundred feet from the houses, till they actually damaged the structures. Then they mechanically shook the structures. They put mechanical shakers in the house in the roof structure to actually make the house move and use blasting time histories and just ran this thing over and over and over until they could get things to crack. And what they came up with was their safe levels of blasting criteria. And they are based on particle velocity, which is on the left side of the graph. And this goes from .1 to 1 to 10. And then they indicated that for plaster on lathe, when you have frequency -- and frequency is the repetitiveness of the wave -- that you need to be a little more cautious when you're dealing with low frequency vibration, and that you should be in the area of.5 if you have plaster on lathe, .75. But then I indicated that you go all the way up to two inches per second. And as the frequency moves higher, there is an allowable limit. The reason that's done is because the structure of the house is much more responsive to low frequency vibration. As you input a low frequency vibration, you get more sympathetic motion to the house. And so as far as the limitations that the state has adopted, they've adopted the whole chart. What we are looking at in those graphs that I just produced showed that we are on the lower end of all of the ground vibration. And so we -- in one of the additional reports the bureau indicated that there is no occurrence of damage below .5. So if you are basically on the lower side of this, which all of those levels that I just indicated are, there's zero potential for damage. I mean, there's no observation, no nothing as far as damage occurs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we leave that graph, would you Page 22 August 2, 2007 mind ifI interrupt you with a question? MR. STRAW: No, go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You preference this discussion by saying this graph was produced by mechanically shaking the house? MR. STRAW: As well as actual blasting operations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The damage or the -- so the assumed damage that I saw that someone was trying to relate to me involved more of a settlement reaction from the house, which wouldn't be the same result as shaking the house, it would be more of a liquification (sic) of the sands and soil foundations under the house that would cause it to settle differentially and create outside cracking. Did this testing address that specific kind of vibration or that technique? MR. STRAW: For this specific report, no. But other Bureau of Mines reports and other research has, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have that with you today? MR. STRAW: I don't have it with me that shows that, but what I can do is relate to you that the research shows that you have to get very, very high levels of ground vibration. Which you'd have to be very close. You'd have to be on the order of three to five inches per second, which puts you up in this upper range, about where my pen is. A little bit up in there. Sorry about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your comparison of ground vibrations in your previous charts to this particular chart, that doesn't necessarily have any relationship to settlement damage as a result of liquification of soils around the foundation of the home. MR. STRAW: It does, because we look at that also. The three inches per second is still a velocity number. And you still have to have -- you have to have two criteria for liquefaction of and settlement to occur. One, excessively high vibrations, three inches per second and above. But you also have to have very loose soils. And as much as we have soils and sand and things out here, Page 23 August 2, 2007 they're not any of the type that would lose cohesion, if you will, and begin to settle. We don't see that over here as far as sudden occurrence. I mean, this has been a year. You know, we indicated the pre-blast inspections that we've done, we've gone back and looked at some of them. And while there's been a crack perhaps changed or something like that or some defect that we haven't observed or something has changed a little bit, most of the things that we looked at in the inspections are exactly what we have seen before. They haven't changed. So there's not a long-term trend of anything that we've looked at out here saying there's settlement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- go further on that? I think I heard you say most of the soils. Are you saying that the type of soil that -- you've done your borings and so forth all the way around the property, I presume. So does that give you a clearer picture that soil strata -- that the strata and the soils are of a type that are all hard, sufficiently hard and would not go to liquefaction? MR. STRAW: From what we've seen as far as the borings, you know, for the property and things, yes. As far as the house construction, there are reasonable standards that the county has, South Florida Building Code for requirements of materials and foundations. Looking at going through the pre-blast inspections, looking -- and being in the neighborhood, looking at how construction is done, how the material is put together and what is done, yes, in my opinion I think it's reasonably -- you know, reasonable for us to say the soils are competent enough for these houses. I mean, we're not seeing large amounts of soil settlement. And when I talk a little bit about what we've seen in the test house, we're not seeing, you know, what -- you know, any kind of settlement from Page 24 August 2, 2007 blasting at all. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you're referring to the test house as being which house? MR. STRAW: It would be down near-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The lowest one, the south -- MR. STRAW: It's down on the south end, yes, sir. It's actually the DiMurro residence. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I recall from the last presentation that there was a requirement that preceding any blast inspections were to be made of homes abutting or adjacent. MR. STRAW: That's the pre-blast inspection, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And you've had no issues regarding that. Have you been able to introduce the testing materials or equipment into the homes to be able to do that? MR. STRAW: Well, the seismographs we're monitoring as far as the velocity levels. As far as the test house, we have a test house and yes, we are boring. Weare doing some work. Weare going to, as soon as the tenants move out, start coring some floors and floor slabs, because there are some cracks that we have some questions on as to how the -- the construction technique and things, and that will go down through the concrete slab and into the material right under the house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe to get to Mr. Murray's question, you have done pre-blast surveys. Out of the questionnaires you sent out, I believe you've done over half the homes -- MR. STRAW: We've put-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- responding positively? MR. STRAW: Eighty-five or so that have responded. I want to say we've had 160 notifications, off the top of my head, maybe more, and we've got 85 people that have called. If somebody still calls, you know, we're still doing inspections. We did one the end of June. So we're continuing to do that. Page 25 August 2, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And these inspections reveal certain data and these data are available? MR. STRAW: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They are used by you to determine -- and get a profile? MR. STRAW : Yes, yes. If there's -- if someone calls and says I have a crack in my house, I need to have you look at it, yes, we go back and look at it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I assume that that will be part of the rest of your presentation that you're going to be referencing? MR. STRAW: Yes, we-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. STRAW: -- you know, I can talk about those, absolutely. I guess the other information to present to you folks to show general compliances where are we (sic) on the other aspect that is called is air overpressure, which is the noise that is produced. Most of that is below our hearing threshold. It is exceptionally low frequency, but it does produce some vibration similar to thunder would do. And this is the level again from the instrument up on the north. We had one instrument that is -- that first couple of shots, probably the second shot that was a little higher in terms of air overpressure. And then this red line at the top is actually the limit for the state. It doesn't vary by frequency. It has a one number threshold. This is the instrumentation to the east. And I talked about the reduction, one of the reductions as far as shooting smaller shots. Some of the smaller shots have been achieved. This is the initial part. This is January, right about the center of the graph here. These are the later shots, using the newer dragline type of technology, which has reduced the air overpressure. And one of the things that we see has reduced that. And this is the instrument down near the Chaneys, down at the south end. Page 26 August 2, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, go right ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just for clarification for purposes, at least for me, anyway. These spikes that we see, they're associated with time or are they associated with -- I know they're particles per second. So that's energy passing through rock. Do the spikes represent that they are matters of distance or distance and speed or just speed? MR. STRAW: A little bit of distance probably is involved, as well as the speed. Now, the one that I have on the screen right now is air overpressure, so it is measured in pounds per square inch. But for those, the reason for the variation is as we go through the different locations as they move, you know, north and -- kind of north and south in the pit and moving back to the west, there are distance changes that do affect that. The ones towards the earlier part of this year, the ones that show up on the right-hand side of the graph, have been related to some changes in the blasting procedures. Using the draglines, they're not reducing the water level as much, so the water level is a little higher up on the blast face. There's not an open face for the air blast to go out into. So it reduces that. We've seen a lot of that that has occurred over a period of time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the preceding charts, does it also reference the type of rock, the hardness and the faults and so forth? Does that have anything to do with the spiking? MR. STRAW: There's not as much variation in the rock hardness. If it's an area that they don't have to blast, they're not going to, first of all. You know, that's just an added expense that they don't need. So if they're in an area where the rock can be mined without using blasting, they do that. The velocity itself is pretty independent of small cracks and fissures. Because all of that rock has cracks and fissures in it. And so Page 27 August 2, 2007 the soil profile itself and some of the water is what passes a lot of that energy, the fact we're dealing with saturated soils, some fairly large massive rock. It's pretty -- fairly uniform. I mean, it does change a little bit from hole to hole, but it doesn't vary that much on it. A lot of it can be related to shot orientation. Also, is the shot aligned east and west or north and south. So there's some difference between the instruments. You know, if the shot is oriented north and south, the machine to the east may pick up a little bit more because you've got energy coming off the side of the shot. Depending on which end of the blast they initiate from, you know, let's say it's north to south, the south instrument may pick up a little bit more than the north does because the energy is directed away. So there's a number of variables that we look at. We still get to the bottom line of it still takes a certain amount of velocity to damage a house. And below that half an inch per second, you know, even though someone may feel it, the damage is, you know, not capable of happening. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hear you. Thank you. MR. STRAW: I guess to address the issue of the test house, in January of2007, towards the end of2006, we discussed with Jones the possibility of doing actual research on south Florida construction, southwest Florida construction, if you will. Testing has been done all over the United States, all over the world. The -- there's been some done in Broward County that we've worked with. And we talked with Northwestern University about whether they would be interested. Dr. Charles Dowding, one of the leading experts on ground vibration, effects on structures. And he has a program that they are doing through the federal government for some research grants to actually do vibration measurements, evaluations of structures. And so as of January, a test house was purchased. We looked at the DiMurro residence as one that really fit what we needed. It is a Page 28 August 2, 2007 commercially built home, twenty-five -- 3,000 square foot, ballpark off the top of my head, sized house. Three bedroom, couple baths. We did a pre-blast in the beginning. We've done a post-blast inspection while Mr. DiMurro was there. And currently we have instrumented the house. We have a full weather station sitting in the front yard which measures temperature, humidity, wind and velocity, so that we can relate that to actual movement of the cracks and look at what the effects are on the house. We and Northwestern have interior and outside crack monitors right now. What we are looking at is cracks opening and closing. And as you open and close a crack, it will affect the length of that crack. So that through crack motion, you can look and see how much these are moving. And we will have -- the website is being put up really as we speak. It will be referenced through, as Bruce said, JonesMining.com. The actual site will be JonesMining.info. Jones Mining Info. is the site. They are maintaining the site. And it's going to have live vibration data following the shots. After the blast the instruments will be downloaded and posted so that people will be able to go look at that. In addition right now it has all of our crack data on that and we're working with Northwestern to get their data also in the same, you know, format so that we can post it. But what it's showing is those cracks open and close with the temperature changes and the humidity swings every day. We have them right now, one on the outside, one on the inside of a garage wall. Northwestern has the same one as a backup to us, as well as they have one on the inside. And as soon as the tenant moves out, then we are going to go inside and begin a cataloging of cracks on a daily basis. You know, probably for a couple of weeks we'll look at this thing every day. We'll put crack monitors inside. We also have two seismographs on Page 29 August 2, 2007 the outside of that house, monitoring every blast that goes on right now. And so all of that is there. And what we're seeing is nothing that __ you asked the question about settlement. There is nothing that shows us that the cracks are opening and continuing to open. The existing cracks are there. If you would have settlement, a crack that exists, and we have a couple of stair step cracks, we have a couple of vertical cracks below windows. We have one on the inside that Northwestern is monitoring over a garage door where you go into the house. It's in drywall. It's a pretty large gap, pretty large separation. And we are looking at that, and they're monitoring that every day. And we're not seeing anything that would show -- if there was soil sediment going on or anything like that that crack would continue to open and our graphs would show that they're just opening, opening, opening, opening, and they don't do that. They actually cycle. You see that the crack opens during the heat of the day and it closes back up at night. And that is happening every day. At the same time, the seismographs trigger the system to switch from looking at one minute increments, because the crack's not moving a lot. You know, we look at it, you know, every minute. We change it to thousandths of a second, milliseconds, and we actually look at what happens with dynamic motion as the crack goes through. And we're showing right now that the environmental swings are about four to five times the amount that occurs with ground vibration when it moves through. We're also looking and tracking back through the weather data to see what thunder and lightning does. And most likely when we get on the inside of that, we'll begin to see much more related to the structure of the house. The outside cracks don't appear to be affected a lot by the thunder and lightening and the storms that we have, but the inside of the house will begin to do that. And so as soon as the tenants that are there, the former owner has Page 30 August 2, 2007 an agreement, as soon as his house is built in Brooksville, because he's moving, then we'll be in -- starting more on the inside. And all of this is available, you know, for the public to view and see what's going on. But it gives us a little more definitive information that says look, blasting is not causing cracking in housing. It supports the data that we have, it supports the levels that we have. So that's really Phase 1 where we are. Northwestern is involved. Their instrumentation was put in, I want to say, the last week in May, first week in June. So we've really, you know, had about a month, two months of, you know, data to look at and go from there. We're not seeing anything adverse at this point in any way, shape or form to the house. And I guess the final thing is to address -- Bruce had said we do have some complaint -- there have been some complaint issues. And I took and made a plot just generally to show roughly where the complaints are. And this graph may be a little tough to see the arrows. But the individual arrows, the first day of blasting we got four complaints. And this is based on the number of blast holes at this point. I do have one that I'll show you versus particle velocity. But the first day, because everybody was notified, you know, by mail when the first blast would occur, we got four complaints. We've sporadically had two complaints I think the second day. And then these yellow arrows in here, these two different days we got a complaint. We have a couple of complaints here. And then these are all a group of one. And then we had two complaints when we first went back into doing some blasting again after the first of the year. There was a little bit of a lag in here while there wasn't any blasting going on in that sense. If you plot those versus particle velocity, it really doesn't give us a whole lot of -- there's no correlation we can make, either with blast holes or with the number of -- with the particle velocity that we see, Page 31 August 2, 2007 there's not really a correlation to that. In addition, and there's information that there's four additional complaints that we got from the county staff. But they don't have dates, so we don't have a way to track those on here. And there were 10 that were forwarded to the commissioners' office. And those we don't have dates, we don't have information. Some of them may have been logged as a request, just for information. And they were all logged and forwarded back. So those, we don't have any way to deal with them, other than, you know, if we have a name and a phone number, the people at Jones do call them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let the gentleman finish first, Mr. Murray. Ask questions when he finishes up. MR. STRAW: And I think in -- you know, in really honestly in conclusion, I think we meet the standard criteria of Collier County. They're well under those standards. They're certainly well under the state standards. We're studying everything we can. We don't see anything out there that says there is an issue with the blasting. We understand people are going to feel it, but we certainly believe we're well within the guidelines. And the modifications to the program we hope will help quite a bit as we -- you know, most of our complaints were here in the initial part. We have changed a little bit in terms of some of the levels. And we think the complaints are generally reducing as we go forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, Mr. Murray, you had a question? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I did. I had just a clarification here again. The type of complaint, were they assertions of cracks, were they just noise complaints? What were they? MR. STRAW: Well, we've had everything. I mean, we've had, you know, somebody calls and says I don't like what you're doing, Page 32 August 2, 2007 which is an annoyance complaint. You know, we look at the particle velocity. Everyone is contacted, you know, once they get the levels. Somebody from the operation has called them. Some people have said we have some damage, you know, we feel there's damage. We've gone back out, looked at those houses. I think we've done three or four of those. And in three out of the four cases, the things that were complained about were exactly the same things that we saw before, as I recall from the review. One had a different crack that didn't show up, but it was something that we don't believe is related, you know, in any way, shape or form to the blasting. It's not anything that looks like it's related at a joint or somewhere where house wracking movement or something would cause a crack. So -- and then the ones from the county, to be honest with you, those 14 listings, we don't know. It's one where the county staff may have gone out with a seismograph and set up there, but we don't have those results for. The ones from the county commission are the ones that we really have the least information on. It just has a name, a phone number and an e-mail. And that's kind of the gist of those. And most of those weren't transmitted to Jones at any reasonable time. We've gotten those for part of this information; going back and looking through the records where we discovered those things. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You would, though, nevertheless at some point try to find out what those complaints were. MR. STRAW: We have with some of them. Some of them we have called. One was I believe an attorney that worked with one of the homeowners associations out there. And he doesn't remember that it was related to blasting that he called the commissioners office for. So we've talked to him. So those are kind of suspect. The ones that we look at are the ones that have been referred to us by county staff saying, you know, Page 33 August 2, 2007 so-and-so called and/or the ones that call directly to the mining operation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. STRAW: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Do you show -- have a map that shows where those complaints are coming from, if it's one area or it's a big area or if it's a mile away, or -- MR. STRAW: Now, this one was prepared before we got some of the stuff from the county and things. But that gives you a general idea where some of them come from. They're scattered. The -- there are a couple that kind of overlap. And you've got one here, one here. There's two or three here. Those related to Mr. DiMurro, and they are repetitive calls. So they're from the same location, which has prompted part of the test house as what we're looking at. And then you've got the balance of them here. These are I think those two. We offset those, because those are the same address, right there. There's two dots there. And then you've got a couple out here. And there's not -- unfortunately, you know, when we talked to the people or the mine talks to the people is a way to determine is that ground vibration or is it, you know, air overpressure. Some of this may be a combination of both or just the air overpressure. Because some of the ones farther away, if you've got a day when the wind's coming out of the west, has a tendency to blow some of the noise that way. They may have gotten some of the noise. Because the levels in a lot of cases, you know, don't show up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: So what you can't see on here is whether there's households. So like is there complaints at every household there, or are there some that you can't tell whether -- you know, ifthere's a complaint and the next lot has no complaint but then there's a person living there according to this -- Page 34 August 2, 2007 MR. STRAW: Yes, really, there are. I don't know whether this can be zoomed in. Can we zoom in on the bottom end there? Yeah, maybe just a bit more. There you go. You can look, they're from around -- now, the blasting is conducted over in here, in that area. It's just off the screen. But anywhere where you roughly see these white patches, you know, on those streets all the way across, there are houses, yes. I mean, there are houses. They're larger lots. I mean, half acre, acre, something like that. I mean, it's not like you have 35 houses on a street, but you do have a serious number of houses. I mean, our inspection radius that we looked at went really off this chart. Our inspection radius actually is off the edge of the -- you know, the graph here, the aerial. And so we did look at -- you know, we notified 160, I think I said. I don't recall the number off the top of my head. But yes, there's a number of people out there that we don't hear from. I think, you know, the percentage of complaints, if you start I guess tracking them versus the number of houses out there, you'll find it's probably a pretty small percentage. And some of them are repetitive. We've had calls from the same people over again. And when that comes in, they're still logged as a complaint, it's still followed up as far as that goes. Because we track all of that. And Jones has a pretty definitive idea of what goes on, because Mr. Jones has talked quite a bit about that and looked at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What period of time is this over, that these complaints came in? Over one month, one year? MR. STRAW: This is the whole year, from August 25th of 2006, from the first blast, up through probably about a week, 10 days ago. So it covers the whole -- it does cover the whole year. I mean, the majority of these have occurred during 2006, from the -- if you look at the prior chart, the -- basically the left half of the screen is Page 35 August 2, 2007 2006, the right half of the screen, there's one blast in January, that one that kind of stands out by itself, and then everything else is over on the right-hand side up through the end of the year. And you can see we've had really two complaints from 2007. The balance of them were in the beginning. And I think with it being a new project, that certainly has a lot to do with it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you believe any of the damage of these homes was done by blasting? MR. STRAW: Not that I've seen so far. Like I said, we've had four -- roughly four complaints. I don't believe it has, no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are any of these complaints over slab cracking, or are they -- what conditions are they complaining of? MR. STRAW: I think we have seen exterior stucco cracks. There may be a couple of interior vertical cracks of things that we have looked and we have seen what we saw before in the pre-blast inspection. The test house, Mr. DiMurro's house, we looked at Mr. DiMurro's house. It was one of the first we inspected back in June or July of 2006. Right after the conditional use permit was granted by the board we began doing the pre-blast inspections, so it was done in June, July. Whatever that date was we started the inspection right away. After the first couple of blasts, we got a call, went back out and looked at it. And what we have on the exterior of the house are vertical cracks in the exterior of the stucco. We have one tile crack in the kitchen, but it parallels -- it appears to parallel a joint. And the -- there is exterior crack in stucco, I think there's one in the laundry room and one that was repaired in the peak of a roof, you know, that it is a drywall joint crack. But you can see where the tape is. It's a little Page 36 August 2, 2007 rough finish. Based on the levels, we don't believe that's related. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you know if that house is a monolithic foundation or -- MR. STRAW: Yes, I believe it is. That's one of the things, we do have the plans and information on it. I believe it's a monolithic slab. And it's one of the things that -- you know, Phase 2 of this can happen once the tenant, you know, leaves the house. We plan on coring the slab inside, outside, a couple of different areas, looking at the actual construction technique, because we want to see if construction technique has things to do with it. And that way we can also then bore through the slab, bore into the material right under the house and find out what was done under the house. As well as, you know, having soil borings on the outside. We do know it's very consistent with other houses. It's raised on, I don't know, 10 to 12 foot offill material that's trucked in, compacted and the house built on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ten to 12 feet? MR. STRAW: It's way up in the air. I mean, maybe I'm guessing at the amount, but it's a significant height above the ground, the street level. There's a series of houses out there that have got a significant amount of fill that the house is built on that raises it up out of the normal ground level. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else of this gentleman? MR. STRAW: At this point I think Mr. Damon Jones has-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got some questions. MR. STRAW: Oh, okay, sorry, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had mentioned that you'd been out in response to damage complaints and reviewed the damages? MR. STRAW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you done that on each one of those yellow dotted homes that you showed on that map? Page 37 August 2, 2007 MR. STRAW: No, because those are -- some of those are annoyance. We've done it on the ones where we've had comparison for pre-blast and post-blast. We've gone out and looked at those. I think, like I said, we've done I think four to date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you mean by the word -- what do you mean by some of those are annoyance? MR. STRAW: Annoyance is a call where you get a phone call, I felt it today, it rattled the inside of my house, what did you guys do today, it was something different. That's an annoyance complaint. A claim is one where someone has called and said I have damage to my house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The list that the county keeps on record of the complaints, you've referenced it a couple of times that people on there that have said they've had damage. Are those ones that you've gone out then and compared the pre-blast to the current condition? MR. STRAW: If they've had a pre-blast, yes. The procedure is that it goes -- it's transmitted typically from the county to Jones. Jones does their initial research. And we have gone out on the ones where we've had a pre-blast inspection. To date I believe there are four that we have looked at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you recall going out to Mr. Dave Purdie's house? MR. STRAW: I didn't personally, but one of my staff members did, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I was out there, and my understanding, when talking to Mr. Purdie, that no one had been out. MR. STRAW: We've looked at his house. We've reinspected his house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'll get that clarified, because he's here today. When you inspect someone's house and you walk with them -- I Page 38 August 2, 2007 did this unknowing that there was a pre-blast. I walked with Mr. Purdie and I looked through his home. He showed me the cracks he was concerned about. But when we finished, I asked him if he had a pre-blast, he said he did, and he brought it to me. And after he and I reviewed the pre-blast versus our memory of walking around his home, it was obvious that many of the cracks were on the pre-blast. I don't know if every one was, and I suggested if he felt there were ones that existed after the pre-blast survey had been done, he needs to really finite and really focus on those and bring them here today. Or do whatever he wants to do. But regardless, I think it was a lot of help for me and maybe for Mr. Purdie to understand how to read that pre-blast survey. Because it's not written in an architectural method that certainly Brad would be familiar with, it's all hand done and it's a little hard to read. But I was wondering, when you talked to homeowners and their damage concerns or complaints, do you walk through them on how that pre-blast fits their home and what it actually means in relationship to the cracks, so it might save you a lot of effort in going back and forth many times? MR. STRAW: When we do the original inspections, it depends really on the homeowner. A lot of times the homeowner will follow us through the house and we'll explain exactly what we're doing. We'll show them, you know, where we're -- it's a diagram and what the Chairman has mentioned is we do have a form, it's a diagram, we diagram where things are. But we also follow up at that same time then with photographs. So we photograph the crack in detail digitally. And so as we go through the inspection, if the homeowner is interested -- some of them go, have at it, let me know when you're done. They're not interested in participating. But there are other folks that walk through and we'll explain to them. Every one of them, though, has been sent a copy of their inspection. Whether we have done it, you know, once or whether weu Page 39 August 2, 2007 have gone back and followed up with the inspection, we have done that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had mentioned some criteria that you were looking at, 110 blasts four times a week, less than 18 per month and the 24 seconds per month blast in initiation. You failed to talk about the pounds per blast per hole. What is your understanding of what -- how does that relate to? MR. STRAW: Well, the pounds per delay is the primary driver on ground vibration, as far as we are concerned. There is a relationship of explosives weight to the density of the rock. The blasting contractor looks at the material, knows how hard it is, then determines based on the thickness and the hardness of the rock how much they're going to have to load per hole. Each hole in a blast, and ifthere's "X" number of holes, they all go off individually. It's not one big blast. Every hole is detonated within a few thousandths of a second. The eight thousandths of a second rule is what we typically apply to separate blast holes so that there's not overlap for repeat, and those then actually help to interfere with each other as they go out as vibration and helps reduce the overall vibration as it moves outward from the source. So the pounds per delay is that driver. That is going to be a function of the thickness of the rock. Now that's going to vary as they move through the site. Because there are areas where the rock is thicker than others as they -- and, you know, areas they don't have to blast, then they don't load as heavy. So that varies a little bit as far as that goes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't it also a factor the number of holes? MR. STRAW: The number of holes is in terms of the low frequency development, in my opinion. What I've seen over the years is that the larger blasts that you have to generate to make a certain amount of holes per week or per month to be able to produce your -- Page 40 August 2, 2007 the amount of rock that has to go out the front gate, as you get larger and larger shots, because of the duration being longer in the initiation, you have some increase in vibration, but it's primarily in the low frequency end. And we've seen -- we see reductions when you can basically shoot bore shots a little smaller, you don't generate as much as energy into the ground as you do when you have to have much, much bigger blasts, much, much longer areas to work with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's different levels of your intensity of your blasting by the number of pounds per hole that you load it with. Is that -- we talked in the last meeting about doing a lower volume load versus a higher volume load to try to get keep the vibration down. What is the difference in pounds per hole between lower and higher, medium? How do you grade that? MR. STRAW: Well, let me give you some examples. Folks that I have on the West Coast, seven-inch blast hole, they're blasting 30 to 40 holes. In a seven-inch blast hole they may be loading anywhere between 800 and 1,000 pounds per hole, okay. Over here on the -- at the Jones Mine, it's much less. I think we looked for the original inspection radius somewhere in the area of 100 to 120. I don't have off the top of my head what their current explosives weight is per delay. Seventy is what I'm told is their current load. So that's very limited in terms of the amount. But there is a function here where you have -- based on the thickness and the depth at the bottom, you have to have a certain ratio of explosives to weight of rock to be able to generate enough energy to actually break the rock. If you undershoot a rock, then you produce just more vibration. If you overshoot it, in other words, you have more explosives in the hole than you really need, you can also create excessive vibration. But here, for what we're looking at, the levels are supporting very well what we're doing. Because we're well, well under the curve. Page 41 August 2, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 70 that you spoke of has only been used four times and it was only used in the last 60 days. MR. STRAW: And that's because the blasting has really changed in the last 60 days with what they're doing. It's part of where they've been. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the letter that WilsonMiller wrote to Melissa Zone, they said that the goal of the operation has been to drill and blast about 1,680 holes per month, 210 holes at eight times per month. This quantity should be sufficient to keep up with the future rock demand. This was written in July. So what you're saying here is you want to blast more times per month, less holes, but you don't need to exceed the 1,680 that you're currently -- MR. STRAW: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And it also says, the results of this approach will produce less ground vibration and less noise. Now, I know what your charges have been and your vibrations have been, both from the air blast and ground vibration. Now, if your argument is that you're going to produce less ground vibration and less noise, what is -- how much less than what you're currently doing? MR. STRAW: Well, if you look at where the velocity levels have been, and this is just one of the instruments, you know, looking as far as -- and this is back to the complaint chart. You're seeing the highest is up in here we're on the order of .23 inches per second as peeks. There are some differences based on distance. But if you can look in the last few, you know, we're a little over .1. So that's maybe .15, so .23, you know, down to .15 is -- you know, there's a difference in that. The-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one you just had, the one that spiked, the vibration was at .32 and the air blast was at 109, but those have all been low. So .32 is obviously high and it creates a spike. MR. STRAW: Correct. Page 42 August 2, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what do you think you're going to be getting down to? MR. STRAW: I think they're on the order of .15, less than .2 fairly consistently is where the levels are typically for that closest machine, based on where they are now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what about air blasts? MR. STRAW: Well, if you look at the air blast, probably on the order of where they have been recently. If you look -- this is the air blast. This is at the Garret residence. This is the one to the east. If you look at the comparison -- now this is pounds per square inch, but this is 133 decibels. Now remember, these are measured logarithmically, so there's a big jump here that it represents. But here you're on the order of 120 or so, 115, 120. These which are the last few blasts that have been detonated, you're on the order of maybe 105, 106. So it's a significant -- you can see graphically the significant decrease. Because what they're doing now is shooting some of the smaller shots as they work right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? Mr. Midney, then Mr. Shiver. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: When you're breaking up the limestone with these blasts, are you doing anything to effect the confining layer of the water table that could make the water table drop? MR. STRAW: Our opinion, no. And water is a little bit out of my area, but based on explosives breaking -- explosives are kind of like water, they go to the easiest point of relief, which is up, not down. There is some under -- you know, there is some break at the bottom of the hole, but it's not significant. We've not seen it in any of the other operations that we work with in Southwest Florida or the west coast of Florida where there's a confining layer. We've not seen any of that breached. Page 43 August 2, 2007 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Do you have a hydrologist that's going to speak? MR. STRAW: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Do you have a hydrologist that's going to speak? MR. STRAW: We do have somebody here to answer questions, yes, SIr. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And bringing up the mounting, do you have any data showing the effects of settlement on this mound? That's a pretty high mound. You're at the mercy of the skills of the person that compacted that. MR. STRAW: We're going to be doing borings on it. But, you know, again like I said, we don't see the cracks, you know, moving in any of that. And again, for -- speaking from my end of it as far as velocity, you've got to have a significant amount of velocity that we don't have. We're not anywhere near close to what it would take to cause soil sediment. It's been extensively studied, and it's just not capable. I mean, literally you'd have to be blasting right on top of the house to generate enough energy to cause that soil to settle. The weight of the house itself has caused some settlement over a period of time during construction and the weight of the slab. But we're not seeing anything that tells us with the instrumentation we have there right now that we have an ongoing issue with that at all. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the question really was, is there any studies showing structures built up on mounds like this? MR. STRAW: This is one of the reasons we're doing this is to look at this. There are structures and foundations that we've looked at on fill. I don't know that it's, you know, on as extensive a pad as this. But there's not anything that I'm aware of that tells us we have a problem dealing with this. But it's one of the reasons we're doing the Page 44 August 2, 2007 test house. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, have you found any damage done, actually found damage done by your explosions there? MR. STRAW: No, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: None at all? MR. STRAW: None at all. The ones that we have looked at, absolutely none. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Amazing. MR. STRAW: Well, you look at the levels. And all-- you know, I guess the issue is we're dealing with public perception and individual perception versus, you know, what it takes to damage a house. There is a tremendous amount of energy necessary to damage a house. Unfortunately we as people can feel very, very small amounts of vibration. If you look at, you know, the environmental responses that the house goes through, the same study that I cited on the limits has done a lot of work on interior stress and strain. The environmental levels produce stress equivalent to three inches per second in those houses. You know, which is, you know, what it would take to cause blocks and things like that. Those stresses have been measured. We're not approaching those in any way, shape or form. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But ifnone of them were cracks done by your use, what happened to them? I mean, how did it just all of a sudden happen there's a crack there? MR. STRAW: Aging of the house, construction in many cases. There's slab cracks in this house that we believe are related to construction technique where the slab is. I have the same thing in my house. I live in Plantation, Florida. I don't have blasting next to me, I have exactly the same cracks in the house. And it's the construction of the house, it's the aging of the Page 45 August 2, 2007 house, it's the building materials. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: They didn't have it before, they're having it now and somehow it just happens to fit that way. MR. STRAW: It's not the issue that they didn't have it before. Because we -- the pre-blast inspection in those 85 homes we located certainly shows a lot of cracks. Typically what happens with the blasting is that it calls attention to those things. And so while you don't have things going on, you know, you don't look at your house unless you're going to paint it or you're going to deal in the house, or something stands out at you. But most of these cracks, people don't see. In the Bureau of Mines research, when they built their test house literally had to have special lighting, sidelighting employed in the house to find the cracks that they were looking for. As they get bigger, we begin to notice them. But when blasting occurs and the house shakes, which we know does, people begin to look. I do the same thing in my own house, is I -- you know, a thunderstorm, or I see something and I go, you know, I know that wasn't there. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of this gentleman? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, let's talk about this perception for a little bit in terms of frequency. You're suggesting increasing the frequency of blasts from eight to 18, more than doubling. MR. STRAW: No, that would be the duration that it would be initiated in. You'd still -- right now you have eight times per month. Yes, it increases to maybe four times per week, 18 per month, as opposed to the eight, so you're adding a total of perhaps 10 blasts over the month. But it doesn't mean that everybody out there is going to feel every blast. I mean, we do have instruments that -- you know, the Page 46 August 2, 2007 instruments are set at the lowest threshold, which is less than somebody walking across the floor. And we do get days where the machine doesn't trigger, where they're down on the side -- maybe they're doing a shot on the south end, and the machine that I, you know, showed on the aerial up to the north doesn't trigger, you know, people up there would not be perceiving that. I mean, this is in the overall thing. So as the pit moves around and as you go technically from Phase 1 to Phase 2, if you go back from where you are in Phase 1 and go to Phase 2, in certain phases of that you're moving further away from, you know, the neighbors. I mean, currently the levels are based on measurements along this outside edge here. But as you progress back here, people over here, you know, get a reduced perception. Up here there's a reduced perception. When you are in different parts of Phase 2 in here, then most likely down here may not perceive it at all. COMMISSIONER CARON: Nonetheless, you're not done with Phase 1 and you're still blasting to the east and you're getting complaints from both the east and the south. MR. STRAW: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: And the goal here, one of the goals here, is to increase the number of blasts per month from eight to 18. MR. STRAW: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: So ifI live in a house over here, instead of hearing blasting eight times a month, I'm now going to be hearing blasting 18 times a month. MR. STRAW: At what we anticipate being -- and what we've projected to be a lower level. Which the -- perception is an individual thing. What you may feel is annoying, someone else doesn't. So it's not a, you know, numbers to -- you know, numbers of blasts does not automatically equate to the number of complaints that you receive. Yes, you may perceive it, but it may not be perceived as Page 47 August 2, 2007 an issue for someone. COMMISSIONER CARON: But what I'm trying to get at is, is the decrease, the supposed decrease down to 110 blasts per -- going to be significant enough for the neighborhood to make up for increasing from eight to 18? MR. STRAW: In our opinion at this point, at least in terms of air blasts, would be yes. This is an air blast level. This was one of the first blasts, one of the larger blasts. As I recall, 200 some odd holes. Compare, if you look at this directly, this is the instrument on the east side that we'd be talking about, the closest point. This is a significant air blast compared to down here where you're in the 60, 70, you know, llO-hole range. That's a significant reduction in terms of vibrant -- in terms of levels. The vibration levels we anticipate going down also, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, with that chart, where would thunder fall on that chart? MR. STRAW: Off the chart. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Below or above? MR. STRAW: Above. I have a recording of 138 decibels, my house recorded, instrument outside. This is 133. 138 puts it somewhere up here in the title block. It is -- you know, and that was a storm that's -- one of these where you get -- you know, where you can't get the one-one thousand out to figure out how far away it is. It's, you know, lightning, bang, there it is. You know, so you're within 1,000, 1,500 feet or so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Another question. Sometimes the shuttle comes over us and it brings with it a sonic boom. Where would that be on this chart? MR. STRAW: We have one recorded from up in Melbourne. They were on the south approach. They have kind of a north approach Page 48 August 2, 2007 and a south approach into the landing strip. Because the strip, as I understand, kind of runs north and south, so they have to circle one way or the other. We were down towards Melbourne, the southern end. We got one that would have been about 120 decibels, which is somewhere down in that range for the space shuttle. Down here. It's probably down somewhere in this range in here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And where would an AC/DC concert be? Just kidding. MR. STRAW: With your ears covered. That's a whole different deal. That's looking a weighted sound. That's threshold of pain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Question-- MR. STRAW: Not just because of the band either, okay? That's just threshold of pain kind of stuff. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Question. MR. STRAW: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The approach the Naples Airport for a jet, where would that be in noise comparisons to this? MR. STRAW: 110, maybe, 115. Depending on where you are in the approach. That's measured a little differently. You know, for their noise, their noise thresholds, they measure what's called a weighted noise, which is how we hear. We don't hear low frequency real well, we don't hear real high frequency; we have kind of a bell curve. We. Measure linear, so it doesn't -- frequency weight we don't care, because we're dealing with a structure that doesn't care about frequency, it knows that it just takes a certain amount. Trying to do some rough estimates, their approach a weighted 110, 115, probably, under the -- you know, one of the closer areas. They're probably down in this threshold down here, if you start looking linearly. Because a lot of their noise is relatively high Page 49 August 2, 2007 frequency end. The whine of the jet engines is much higher. Air blasts that we look at is much more like thunder. Thunder, sonic booms, the space shuttle are probably good comparisons as far as air blasts go. Thunder is probably the best. Half mile out -- a mile out you're probably dealing with something that's 100, 105 decibels. Pretty consistent with what we're producing, you know, down towards the lower bars of the chart. Maybe what we're getting in the off -- out on the right-hand side of that chart, 100, 105 decibels, somewhere in that ballpark. Of course, as it comes closer, then you get up, and the one that I measured was 138 db. It was almost off the ability of the seismograph to measure, it was that loud. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, when you introduced yourself at the beginning, are you Mr. Straw? MR. STRAW: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. At the neighborhood informational meeting, you did attend that. MR. STRAW: Um-hum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You spoke. And according to the staff, you said there we will be six to eight blasts a month. Are you familiar with that? MR. STRAW: That's what was originally the six to eight that they planned based upon the proposed restrictions that they were looking at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is the informational meeting for today's hearing. So today you're asking for -- you're over double that. MR. STRAW: Be honest with you, I'm not sure what date you're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the applicant held the required May 16th, 2006. MR. STRAW: I believe that was back before some of the Page 50 August 2, 2007 modifications were made. This is a relatively recent request as far as modifications. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So back then the neighborhood was -- attended the meeting, there were 20 people. They were told you would still be at six to eight blasts a month and the operation should last six to eight years. But now you're saying you want over double that amount of blasts per month; is that correct? MR. STRAW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. May 16th, 2006 is over one year prior to today's meeting for sure. And I know that we had some language going through or maybe through that addresses the timeliness of a neighborhood information meeting versus the public hearing in front of us. So hopefully during the break that we're about to take staff will look into that. And also, the validity from the county attorney's office of statements made at the NIM of an item like this versus what you're now asking for, which is certainly contradictory to what you asked for a year ago. So with that we'll take a break until 1 0: 15 and we'll come back then. Thank you. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it's 10:15. If everybody will resume, we'll come back to order. And we left off with further questions of the applicants. Mr. Straw? MR. STRAW: I guess I wanted to make a couple of comments when we had talked that maybe things weren't clear. The question -- the issue of the complaints, the issue of the -- the four that we've looked at, the damage. And the reason we're saying that there is nothing there is we have not seen a measurable difference between what we've looked at and the pre-blast. Anything that gives us indication to say that blasting has caused that. Nor has the Page 51 August 2, 2007 homeowner, you know, given us any indication, you know, time frame tying it to a blast, a specific blast, those kinds of things where we can go back and look at that. The issues that we're seeing with the test structure and the measurements that we are measuring right now with what's going on is showing that the cracks are not influenced by ground vibration, as one of the points. The other issue is the 18 times we're talking about per month, Commissioner. The issue of the 18 times per month is to get those vibration and air overpressure levels down so that not everybody hears it. It may be a few people in there, but it's not a community-wide type of thing that is generated when you're shooting those much bigger shots, everybody in the surrounding community feels it. The idea is for that. And I think my final point to the issue was the hole counts that we have right now with the number of blasts that we're looking at right now are what we can achieve. Weare in that reduced hole count right now, demonstrating what we can do. But we need the 18 times to meet the production demand that we know is there. I mean, there is a huge demand for aggregate and it does vary at times. But to meet that aggregate demand is why the 18 times at those reduced hole counts is what we're looking for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One statement I'd like to make, because I know Mr. Anderson certainly is listening to the meeting. One of the big issues is that when someone has a complaint, your reaction to it may not be helpful in a sense. I know that they have to call Tallahassee, and there's a process up there that's like a giant black hole. And I know that your method of analysis might simply say to the homeowner, well, that's -- yeah, there's a crack there but that's a normal settlement crack or that crack is because of your construction defects. That really doesn't help resolve the problem. I don't know what the solution is, but I can tell you, a homeowner Page 52 August 2, 2007 working as best he can to provide for a medium-priced home in Golden Gate Estates isn't someone who likely can go up against a firm like yours in a legal battle in a court that thrives on people with a lot of money to win, because you can outspend them. So I don't think by saying that it's the fault of the structural slab or something else is a solution to the homeowner. And I don't know what the solution is. But if you say that, what's he going to do, hire an attorney and spend half a million dollars to fight you and you outspend him with a million and a half and the courts go with you because you hired the better experts? So I don't know what the solution is. And maybe before this meeting's over you guys can come up with an idea. But I know that the system, as it speaks now and as your reactions to it may be, it just doesn't seem to be working. Go ahead, Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I want to go back to my opening statement. We will pay for an independent engineer to help implement the local procedure that already exists for a factual determination if damage has been caused by blasting under the explosives ordinance. And then, you know, if the manager's office determines -- and we're going to provide an engineer to help them do that -- that damage has occurred, then there is a local remedy and they don't need to go to Tallahassee, unless they just want money as opposed to repairs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. Who is just -- my question will get to a conclusion here in a second. What are -- who are some of your clients? Who's buying the material from the pit? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, you -- no, you can't speak from the audience, you're going to have to come forward. MR. RUSSO: Mr. Chairman, Bill Russo. I'm running the Page 53 August 2, 2007 mining operations out there. Better Roads, Bonness, you got Lima (phonetic), you got Mitchell & Stark, you've got Earth Tech Enterprises. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what jobs they're working on? MR. RUSSO: They've got some county jobs they're working on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the mining operation that supplies the material for that county is going to go to the county and themselves to pick an engineer to assess unbiasedly the assistance the homeowner is looking in determining ifthere's any damages. Is that what I heard you suggest? MR. ANDERSON: No good deed goes unpunished. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll get to the bottom line, Bruce. MR. ANDERSON: Well, we're open to other suggestions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's what I brought this up for in the beginning. Before this meeting's over, I certainly -- and you will have time to rebut. I think this is a major issue, and it more likely will be with the people that are going to be talking. I certainly think you need to come back with some kind of solution, if you think that will help. So I'm concerned about it, and I don't want to see a homeowner trying to fight a system to try to get a resolution to an issue that may not be that devastating for you to resolve right to begin with. You could probably fix the problem quicker than you could hire people to analyze the problem. And that's kind of where I'm coming from, okay? MR. ANDERSON: We truly would welcome any suggestions that you might have as to how, you know, we could come up with a better procedure that's fair to everyone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe we'll -- something will evolve with the testimony we've got coming around. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much. And now I'd like to ask our hydrologist to come up and answer Page 54 August 2, 2007 Mr. Midney's question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly. MR. ANDERSON: And then our last scheduled speaker would be Mr. Damon Jones. MS. DOYLE: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners, I am Gale Murray Doyle. I'm a professional geologist. I've worked in Southwest Florida for probably 25 years. To address your question, we have probably done 65 to 70 borings on site. The last half of them was specifically trying to look at the confining zone for the water table aquifer. So I have generated a map that shows the top that we have found across the property of the confining layer. The yellow lines are the contour lines. And this one starts at about 30 feet below land surface. This one is about 40, this is 50, and this is another 50 contour line. That's the top of the confining zone. I have some selected borings that I could show you. I brought with me some borings that actually show where the top and the bottoms of some the confining layers are. Some of the borings didn't go deep enough. They went to 60 feet. And even at 60 feet we still hadn't reached the bottom of the confining layer. We had -- I just selected one from each section of the whole mIlle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the date of those, ma'am? If you don't mind me asking. MS. DOYLE: The borings that are done that have a 2 in them, a B-2 14, 14 and 21 were done -- let's see, I think they were done this year. No, they were done in 2004. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. DOYLE: All right, this one shows that the confining layer starts at about 37 feet, and at 60 we still had not gone through the confining layer. In some areas we have some wells that are in this area that start at Page 55 August 2, 2007 80 feet. So it's very possible the confining layer goes all the way to 80 feet in some of these. Some of these they don't. B-2-1 confining layer starts at about 32 feet and ends at about 54. It's approximately 15 some odd feet thick there. We have another one, the confining layer starts at 47, and by 60 feet we still had not gotten through the confining layer. And the confining layer consists of soft, sandy clay material. And then the fourth one, it starts at 47, and again we didn't go through it. As far as the effect of the blasting, from what we can tell from the borings, the confining layer is a minimum of 15 feet thick and probably thicker in most areas. It's a soft material. It's not rigid. So if there's any blasting, there's nothing that's going to crack or cause any fissures to the confining layer that would then cause any cross-contamination between one layer and the other. I don't see that the blasting would have any effect on the integrity of the confining zone. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The confining zone is usually clay, it's not limestone? MS. DOYLE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Another question about the hydrology. If you're removing the earth over the water table, doesn't that increase the amount of evaporation, and couldn't that affect the water table that would effect -- I'm thinking especially of the Corkscrew Sanctuary, which is only a few miles away? MS. DOYLE: Okay, I looked at that. And I can give you the results of that. IfI need to, I have a graphic. The soils that contain water only contain 20 percent. It's a porosity of the soils. There's more soil than there is water. So if you were to take a glass and fill it with soil and dump a half a cup of water in it, the water level is going to rise probably above where the sand is. In a lake situation you've got -- it's all water, okay. So if you Page 56 August 2, 2007 were to take that cup of water out of your glass that has the soils in it, your water level drops a considerable amount. If you take that same cup out of the lake, you won't even see the amount of water, the amount of level that it drops, because it's all water. It has to do with a head pressure and a volume. So when I did the modeling -- let me get the -- okay, I looked at the existing situation where we have an existing lake. And I only looked at evapotranspiration and evaporation of the site, which just includes the area of the existing lake and the proposed lake. Okay, so in this area through here I made the model respond as a lake, where I had the porosity almost one so that we knew it was almost water. In the area where we're expanding the mine to, I made it soils where I had 20 percent porosity. And I put in values from the Corkscrew area and the Immokalee area for evapotranspiration which would be from, let's say, just from trees or grass in the areas where this proposed expansion was. And I put a pan evaporation based on data that was available in the Corkscrew area. And the results shows that under the existing conditions, running 90 days, no rainfall, no other recharge coming into the system, worst case scenario, which is what we typically look at, April, May and June, and you see that we have a projected, which is not really going to happen too terribly often. But just based on just this mine area, one-tenth of a foot out here, three-tenths of a foot out near the Corkscrew ground. And that's existing. That's what it is today. When I expanded the lake and reran it, it's almost exactly the same at a distance. It's actually less drop in the water table where the lake is. Because it has to do with that volume, the fact that when you take a cup of water out of a lake, the water level drops significantly less than if you take a cup of water out of some soils. And so if you want to compare the two, you have to look at one and see that the actual -- the tenth of a foot of drawdown line really Page 57 August 2, 2007 does not change at all, which is in your Corkscrew area, from what's existing to what's proposed. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, you said the bore holes were done in '04, and the neighborhood informational meeting was done in '06. So that means the knowledge of those bore holes was most likely known by the time of the neighborhood informational meeting. Mr. Straw at the meeting said that the excavation will be to the clay layer, which is around 35 to 40 feet. Are you not going to excavation deeper than 40 feet regardless? MS. DOYLE: I think what the landowner has asked is that we go to the top of the confining layer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but that doesn't seem to be the insinuation at the meeting, and that's again what I'm trying to get to. MS. DOYLE: I wasn't at that meeting, so I would have to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one more question for you before Mr. Tyson then answers that question. You work for? MS. DOYLE: American Consultants. Myself. I'm a private consultant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's your background? MS. DOYLE: I worked at South Florida Water Management District in the early Eighties as a hydrogeologist and then after that I've been out on my own. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you a degreed specialist in hydrology? MS. DOYLE: I have a degree in geology. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Tyson -- oh, go ahead, Mr. Midney. I'm sorry, I didn't know you had another question. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have another question of you, if I could. Page 58 August 2, 2007 One-tenth of a foot you're saying, or let's round it off to sayan inch in the sanctuary. Wouldn't a one-inch change in the water level of the sanctuary have huge effects on the ecology of a particular area? MS. DOYLE: Well, what you're looking at is Mother Nature's just evapotranspiration. And the ecology deals with that every day. I have another graph that shows -- we've got a -- USGS has a monitoring well in the Corkscrew Sanctuary. Number 492. And it shows throughout the year a fluctuation between three and five feet. So a tenth of a foot compared to what normally fluctuates in that water table is insignificant. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But isn't this something that's going to be a constant increase in evaporation, a constant one-inch effect, rather than something that's transitory? In other words, you are increasing the rate of evaporation by making these big lakes. And if you're constantly adding a stress of one inch to the sanctuary, isn't that significant? MS. DOYLE: No, we're not constantly adding it. If you look at what is today -- and I had previously done a map that showed just what evapotranspiration would be if the mine wasn't there at all. And the evapotranspiration impact was greater than the lake impact from just plain evaporation. And if we compare the two between what's existing and what's proposed, it does not change. So your tenth of a foot is currently a tenth of a foot and has been a tenth of a foot since God created earth, because we've had evapotranspiration since then. What's happening as far as the lake does not affect the swamp at all. This is here no matter whether the lake is here or not. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Are you saying then that the rate of evaporation from an open body of water is the same as a vegetated area? MS. DOYLE: No, what I'm -- the rate of evaporation in open bodied water is greater. However, because what you're going to see -- Page 59 August 2, 2007 because your porosity of your soils is 20 percent; it's 20 percent water, 80 percent sand, clay, whatever it happens to be, all right? So what your -- when the environment goes to get its water, it has to do with the head. Where is that water level in relationship to, say, where the root system is. So when you have evaporation from a lake, it's got the whole lake area and it's got 100 percent porosity. So that maybe that much might come off the lake. That volume, let's say, was due to one day's worth of evapotranspiration. That same amount in the soils that only has 20 percent porosity to meet that same amount of transpiration, it takes the water level down more because it's got a 20 percent porosity to get the volume of water. So even though the evaporation is greater on the lake than it is in the -- as far as evapotranspiration, because you've got a 20 percent porosity, you have a greater drop in the water level. That's just a natural thing that happens, whether you've got a lake there or not. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But isn't it replenished, what happens from the vegetated area? I mean-- MS. DOYLE: Replenished how? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: From underneath. Because the water is not being used, it's not being evaporated. So I would think it would just come right back and be replaced if it was vegetated, as opposed to an open lake where it would be lost. MS. DOYLE: I have information from some water level indicator recorders in some wetlands that happens to be at the Big Cypress Seminole Indian Reservation in Hendry County. And one of the things that we were doing is measuring the water levels in the wetlands. And they are totally away from large bodies of water, totally away from any groundwater withdrawals, they are just out in the wetlands. Going through the records on those, I was deliberately trying to find a period of record where we had 90 days with no rainfall. Page 60 August 2, 2007 Because these were continuous recorders and you could see when the rainfall would come. And I found a 90-day bracket. Just from evapotranspiration from the plants, within that 90 days the water level dropped a foot and a half. Had nothing to do with bodies of water or lakes, it just dropped a foot and a half. Now, if it had been a body of water, personally it is not going to change. Even based on the modeling, it's just not going to change. Especially as far away as it is. You've got overriding factors such as normal just evapotranspiration of the swamp itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reaction to Mr. Midney's question, though, needs to be repeated. I think you keep focusing on whether or not this has an impact on Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. Your claim is it does not. MS. DOYLE: No, there is none. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't think you're going to shake her testimony on that, so Ms. Caron, would you -- MS. DOYLE: I've been out there and seen too much and had too many years of experience in the field to say that there would be an effect. There's not going to be an effect on the swamp. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Isn't your actual greater impact to your own on-site wetland? MS. DOYLE: Well, it's not that it's on the wetlands, no. As you can see in the graph, if the lake is here and the evapotranspiration on this particular wetland, the drawdown after 90 days no rainfall would naturally be 1.1 feet. Here, where the lake is surrounding this wetland, it's less than a foot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: One question. Wouldn't evaporation be the same whether it's 10 foot deep or 45-foot deep? Page 61 August 2, 2007 MS. DOYLE: It doesn't seem to really make that much difference whether -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Evaporation would be the same, no matter how deep they dig? MS. DOYLE: Right, exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Tyson, you were going to respond to my question? MR. TYSON : Yes, the conditional use in this case specifically states that we are going to 45 feet or the confining layer, whichever is less. So even though we've got places here where we go -- the rock, or the confining layer, for instance, is at least 50 or greater in terms of the feet, we're not digging that. It's going 45 feet as a maximum depth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, let's have staff report. MR. ANDERSON: We have one more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have another one? MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Jones? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now, this is extraordinary for the length of a presentation of an applicant, but we'll go right ahead. It's been two hours so far, Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Interrupted by questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. JONES: My name is Damon Jones with Jones Mining. I'll try to keep it brief. I was brought on the Jones Mining about two months ago, with the primary concern being how do we address, you know, complaints ongoing and moving forward. Historically those complaints have come in different sources. Some were directed to us, you know, Jones Mining directly, some came to the county office, some were directed to the blaster. In all Page 62 August 2, 2007 those instances, you know, the blaster followed up with the complaint. In Jones Mining incidence, we usually followed up with a -- you know, usually by mail correspondence, asking if they wanted us to come visit. Give them information on direct -- you know, how to apply with the state. In most cases, like I say, we've done the pre-blast surveys, those were all mailed out. Anybody who wanted one of those were conducted by Geosonics. And moving forward, those are a good baseline as to what's occurred out there. I think the important part is moving forward. A key component here since the first of the year is we brought in a new operator, Bill Russo. They've changed some of the procedures on how they're excavating. We've actually changed blasters. And Florida Drilling and Blasting is doing a phenomenal job. Mr. Straw eluded earlier to those reduced charges, reduced numbers of holes. The intent of that is to reduce the effect and the intrusiveness to the surrounding area. I mean, we still get the same quantity out, but the idea is how do we minimize the effects to our neighbors out there. We alluded to the study house earlier. The house was -- earlier we inquired as to being able to acquire a permit to build our own structure on-site to be able to study some of this. It was decided there was a house for sale and the DiMurro property was purchased. I think the study house moving forward is going to provide us a great deal of data and information and education that we can use, the county can use, the state can use and, importantly, an educational tool to the neighbors in the surrounding area. The public access to that through the web site that will be linked to ours will provide that. You know, part of -- I said my intent was -- of being brought in was to kind of coordinate that and give one person or one face one name that they can come to directly. All the concerns can be directed Page 63 August 2, 2007 towards us. And that way that follow-up and the action that can be taken and the communication and dialogue between the neighborhoods, between the government, between all the stakeholders in the mining activity out there can stay involved. And to some degree, you know, everything's been tried to be addressed, but it's been by different parties. So hopefully we can bring that process together. I alluded to -- I've already got JonesMining.com set up. The intent of that website was not a sales or marketing tool for aggregate. The intent in its content is directed towards information, help, assistance and contact. We've included a frequently asked questions link on there. Commonly asked questions that your neighbor that has a concern, that may not be knowledgeable of what's going on there. And hopefully do away with some of the myths or rumors, get a little more information. I've included links to Geosonics.com, they can find out more about Geosonics; links to the State Fire Marshal so they can get more information. More importantly, though, what's on there, there's also a complaint form that can be directed to me. It can be printed out, it can be faxed, e-mailed, dropped off. I would encourage they drop it off personally. But focusing that and using even the website as a focal point to drive any concerns or issues to me, to Jones Mining, so they can be addressed. Mr. Strain addressed, you know, how do we move forward. You know, how are these complaints -- you know, it's easy to get inspections done, but how do you walk that person through and justify damage? The plan is if we can get that complaint to me, get it to Jones Mining, then action could be taken. And the first action would be is to Page 64 August 2, 2007 determine if that pre-blast survey was done. If it is, we schedule a meeting, get to the home, meet with the person, walk them through that pre-blast survey and see ifthere is -- you know, if they've notice damage that's different, you know, or they have cracks that maybe weren't there in that pre-blast survey. We've talked about offering engineering, forensic engineering services, or a post-blast survey, another inspection by Geosonics so we've got more data to compare. We've offered -- and leading to the eventual assisting them to getting their complaint filed with the state, I've done that since I've been on board. And that's part of the process. And it's not -- you know, we're not passing the buck off to the state. Because, you know, the response back from there is not going to be what it is locally. But we get it documented for them, walk them through that process. But the key part is moving forward, assisting them with that follow up, the accountability on the follow-up, communicating with county staff as to what action's been taken and getting them all -- and getting them through that process. If it's an expense to us, you know, we're willing to do that. If it's a forensic engineer, if it's too -- which we've offered, to go ahead and repair that crack for them. That's the important part, and that's what we just wanted to address quickly is, you know, historically that communication's been a little severed, you know. Moving forward hopefully we can focus that tome. The county staff, we talked with them about making sure they only log the call and can contact us, but they also direct that neighbor, that concern to me as well. Get them to the web site, get them by the office, have them give me a call, but move forward, that we have a step-by-step process or action that we can take so people aren't dismissed or it's -- you know, moving forward, that there's going to be information, there's going to be data and we can educate those neighbors on those concerns through the process as well. Page 65 August 2, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hi, Mr. Jones. Earlier on in your statement you indicated we replaced the blaster. I thought I heard you say that. MR. JONES: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could you tell us why that you did that? MR. JONES: Our new operator had a better relationship with this blaster. It was their choice. Very well known. He's here today. Very well known family, been doing blasting. They do a majority of blasting in the area. You know, part of that process was working through reducing those charges, figuring out a different way, whether it be pattern, whether it be pounds per delay, whether it be number of holes and working with that operator. And as Jeffs graph showed, those reduced levels the last two months since this new blaster's been involved in the operator are dramatic. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could I conclude from your statement then that your response, that the prior blaster may not have had as good a skill or competency as the people? More expertise? MR. JONES: I wouldn't say that. They were very competent, very -- it was more of just a relationship with the actual operator out there. I mean, that's kind of the hand-in-hand relationship on how the activity is conducted. That blaster is very important. And it's who that operator has a relationship, feels a little more comfortable with, not as opposed to anybody being incompetent or deficient in their abilities. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you're saying there's no consequences as a result of changing from blaster A to blaster B? MR. JONES: No. I mean, there wasn't a reason, other than just the relationship with our new operator. Page 66 August 2, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. JONES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tyson, are you-- MR. TYSON: I'm going to do it. I'm going to conclude. But I needed to say -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you going to conclude now or do you still want rebuttal time? I'm sure -- MR. TYSON: We still need rebuttal time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys are-- MR. TYSON: But I need to get one thing on the record. If you would -- first of all, you have a recommended approval from your staff. But I would like you to turn to Page 6 of that report to paragraph six. It was a comment that came from the EAC. It was a recommendation that got placed by the EAC. We objected to it at the time because first of all we have a sizeable lake. We just didn't have enough time to sit there and explore alternatives and options. Nonetheless, it got into the report. What we would like to do is modify -- and with staffs approval, which we believe we've already communicated with and have that, to swap out the language of paragraph six and provide the following: We will provide a 5.3-acre littoral area suitable for wading bird habitat within the created lake. Construction of littoral area will commence no later than two years from the approval of the conditional use and be finished within five years of said approval. So the basis for that is the fact that one of the comments that came in is we have a number of ditches that exist within the entire Phase 2 area. And if you took the lineal footage of those ditches and you multiplied it by an average width of five feet, you would come up with about 5.3 acres. Page 67 August 2, 2007 We would recommend that that location be placed in that southeast corner. And it will do two things: One, it will concentrate, along with another preserve, all of those preserve activities in one zone. And then secondly, it will mean that blasting will not need to occur any closer to the residents than -- just continue to back it out, we'll put in that location, and it will make that smaller of an impact in that location. Like I said, we do have staffs report -- or agreement on that, and I will -- I'm sure that they will talk to that and give you any specific feedback that you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tyson, let me understand this. First of all, you can't amend an EAC's recommendation. You're proposing an alternative to the EAC in response to us? MR. TYSON: I'm suggesting that we change your staff report to CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you can't change the staff report that dictates an EAC recommendation. So let's take that off the table. I don't know how you can do that unless the county attorney wants to correct me. So first of all, we have an EAC recommendation. It stands as it's written. MR. TYSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to offer an alternative to that for us to recommend in lieu of that particular one. MR. TYSON: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your alternative, though, seems to take all that orange area, which is the perimeter of your Phase I and II excavations, and focus it into the green area in the bottom; is that right? MR. TYSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're eliminating how many lineal Page 68 August 2, 2007 feet of eight-to-one slope throughout the entire hundreds of acres to a small concentrated green area in the bottom south comer? It doesn't seem equitable. MR. TYSON: Well, first of all, the way in which -- this will not be a water management lake. The plans that were sent to the county show a four-to-one edge or slope coming off to 10 feet out, or to a depth of 10 feet. Go out 40 feet and then down either at a two-to-one or lesser slope, depending upon whether you're in rock or not. There is no requirement for littorals that exist within this lake at all. This was a suggestion that came, or a recommendation that came from the EAC, with no factual basis and no specific requirements to place it there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not sure -- you mean this was never discussed, it just was added and you guys just sat there and let it happen and never commented on it? MR. TYSON: We objected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What was the discussion in suit as to why the EAC then over your objections recommended it? Did they offer anything? MR. TYSON: They thought it would be nice. Serious. And that was it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, a lot of these pits are used for residential after they're completed. MR. TYSON: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the littoral zones along the shorelines of residential certainly is a lot better than a mining pit's residue. MR. TYSON: Well, the one thing you typically get when you have water management lakes is you have the opportunity with a water use permit to vary the -- or add to the levels of those lakes in the dry season. Here we're not going to have a water use permit because this will Page 69 August 2, 2007 not be a water management lake. We have situations that we can -- we've documented, as Mr. Murray indicated, that we can -- we found that there's a potential of up to five feet. Probably on the average somewhere between two and four feet annually fluctuation. We don't believe we could keep littorals growing. And consequently we would just be throwing money away in order to do this, and not have a good solution in the long run. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Down the road when this becomes a residential development with a huge lake as an amenity, such as the Mule Pen has for Heritage Bay, the lakes then are used for water management, aren't they? MR. TYSON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're not. So Heritage Bay is not used for water management? MR. TYSON: I'm quite sure it is not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wonder where they're putting all their water. MR. TYSON: Well, they have a series of lakes within the community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I've got their old records, I'll take a look. MR. TYSON: I'm quite sure that's the case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions ofMr. Tyson? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You hit what I was going -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, you hit what I was going to ask. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much for your patience. I want to tell you on the record that we had planned to hold a neighborhood information meeting before this goes to the county commission, and we commit on the record here today to do so. Page 70 August 2, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Oh, Mr. Caron's got a question. COMMISSIONER CARON: I do have one more for Mr. Tyson. In your letter to staff, making the changes here that you want, you're suggesting here no more than 24 seconds of initiation of blasting per month. But that's also a change from three seconds per blast. What happened to three seconds per blast? MR. TYSON: Well, the way -- there was -- you could look at a whole series of criteria in which they came out of that. I don't have it in front of me, but let's see how close I get. We had eight times per month. We had no more than three seconds per blast. And that was it. Those were the criteria. We didn't have any limit on the number of holes, and it was strictly looking at eight times and no more than three seconds. So we looked at that and said okay, that's 24 seconds of actual blasting time, and we don't want to increase that. So while we are asking to increase the number of blasts, we will not increase that period of initiation of the blasting any more than is already requested or mandated. And because of the average number of holes that we get to winds up being somewhere in that neighborhood or could be somewhere in that neighborhood of 1,680 per month, we don't want to exceed that. We put a maximum on that. And we've also capped the number of holes that could be blasted at anyone point in time at 110. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bruce, what activities are occurring on the site to support the recommendations and conclusions of the archeological report? MR. TYSON: Boy, it's been a long time since I've been back in there. Would you please -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It states his three -- first of all, it requires monitoring, mitigation. The report states that this could be the Page 71 August 2, 2007 location of Fort Dunn. Is anybody paying attention to that? Are you aware of that? MR. TYSON: I am not. Quite frankly, I have not seen that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So it's not being -- no one -- there's nothing, no monitoring, nothing going on out there? No one's aware of the fact that there could be -- yet they did find archeological sites out there. MR. TYSON: Andy Woodruff from Passarella & Associates. MR. WOODRUFF: The only records that I'm aware of that were mentioned in the report, and that's part of the EIS document, there was a pre-historic -- I'm sorry, not prehistoric, but an old hunting camp that was located in the woods west of the proposed mine area. And then an old tramway that ran across the property that was used as part of the old logging railway that ran on the east side of the proposed mine area. I don't believe that they ever had any evidence that this was -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I mean, Page 32 has a lot more concerns than that. Anyway, if you don't have an answer, let's move this hearing on. But I wouldn't mind somebody paying attention to that conclusion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, I think if there's any kind of motion made, we could make sure that something is there to address it. Okay, Melissa, finally, we got to your portion of it and then to the public after you. MS. ZONE: Thank you. Melissa Zone, principal planner with the zoning and land development review department. The subject property, as the applicant's mentioned, is designated on the future land use element. The agricultural rural fringe mixed use district is currently zoned agricultural with a mobile home overlay. Based on the Growth Management Plan, the Future Land Use Element, this is consistent with our Growth Management Plan, as well Page 72 August 2, 2007 as the requirements that -- and regulations that are within the LDC, as well as Article 55 of our code ordinance regarding to blasting. I'm going to keep it brief just to reiterate a few things. One of the things which discussed and staff received it this morning was the littoral area and the EAC recommendation. Staff plans to keep the EAC recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, but staff reviewed this and someone from the environmental service department, Susan Mason, who's been reviewing this project, will come up to talk about this with our planning commission today. And if the planning commission agrees to this alternative, then I will put that into my executive summary. So I'm going to defer to you for this. The other part was Mr. Anderson brought up about regulations that are in the explosive ordinance that pertain to the permit and that have to do with staffs recommendation that the Board of Commissioners can revoke, or the Board of Zoning Appeals can revoke the conditional use if there is just cause founded through an investigation process. The explosives permit talks about they would have to go through code enforcement, they'd have to have hearings. It's a longer process. So one talks about revoking the permit, the other talks about the conditional use. I just wanted you to understand the two differences. But the applicant went -- and the littoral shelf with the EAC, that is not an LDC requirement. We have to look at the application of how it stands today and what the use is. We can anticipate that it will be a development, residential development, but that's not set in stone, nor is there confirmation on that. But what the applicant did do -- on this map the applicants went and they put a wetland preserve up here, which is 27.5 acres. Then we have up here, and it's hard to tell, but on here in this area there is 110.9 acres of a gopher tortoise preserve. And so the applicant has gone and put that land, and they're going to put those as preserve to the county. Page 73 August 2, 2007 And then there's Susan Mason from environmental who had some comments as well. But before I bring her up, if you have any questions from me, I'd be happy to answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of Melissa before we hear -- go ahead, Ms. Caron, then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER CARON: On the Collier County conditions of approval, your Exhibit A, number five which is on Page 104, says the proposed use shall not adversely increase the quality of water runoff. And the comment here is use of the facility is limited to only mining activities. All surface soil has been removed from the area designated for blasting. Stormwater runoff quality has not been affected because the excavation area has not grown in size. So are you saying that stormwater runoff quality will be affected with an increase in size? MS. ZONE: What the condition of approval from 2006 was, that if -- they have to make sure that there is no increase of the quality of water runoff, period. So -- and they had agreed that they would contain it. But that was -- it was a real strict basic they cannot do it. And staffs recommendation was to have the conditions of approval from 2006, as well as what was from reso -- the condition of approval from 1999, incorporate all of those. Those of the more restrictive would apply. And then the addition one was for the conditional use to be revoked if there was just cause, as well as the EAC's recommendations. COMMISSIONER CARON: So what you're telling me now is that it doesn't have anything to do with the area, it just has to do with a restriction placed on them that no matter what they do, they have to maintain the quality. MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right, so -- MS. ZONE: So that's why it wasn't as lengthy, or as -- it kept it as the quality of the runoff of the water. That they could not have any Page 74 August 2, 2007 adverse impacts on that. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just think we need to be specific when we're writing these things as to what we really mean. And the only reason in the old one even was not just because it hadn't -- the lake size hadn't grown, the real reason is because there was a restriction placed on them that they cannot de-grade. MS. ZONE: Correct. And the 1999 was provided to the Board of County Commissioners -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand. MS. ZONE: The conditions of approval for the 2006, the board went over each and every one of them and then modified them to what they requested. Staff followed the board's decisions. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. No, Melissa, all I'm trying to get at is if one were to read this and take this at face value, then I would have to say that this expansion was probably not a good idea. Because it says here that the reason that this water quality hasn't been affected is because the excavation area hasn't grown. Well, the whole deal here is to grow the excavation area. MS. ZONE: Right. If there is something that you would like staff to present to the Board of County Commissioners that you feel that we can make number five that talks about the increase of the quality of runoff, certainly I would be more than happy to put it in the executive summary. But again, these conditions of approval were based on the Board of County Commissioners' conditions. Also, I wanted to just to state for the record, there was the neighborhood information meeting. And when they had the neighborhood information meeting in 2006, it was advertised that this was a two-part application. The first part, and they talked about the blasting within the permitted lake boundary. And then at the information meeting they had requested to go to 65 feet. With the planning commission, that Page 75 August 2, 2007 recommended not to go below 45, and then staff put that in as a recommendation and the board agreed to it. But the advertisement at the neighborhood information meeting, as well -- that went in the newspaper, as well as in the letter talked about the 65 feet, but that this was two phases and that they would be coming back within a year. And that was in the title. So all the residents who lived there prior to today's meeting were aware of -- that this was a two-part neighborhood information meeting and that they would be coming back. And I was at that meeting where WilsonMiller and the applicant went in and showed the expanded area. And then they readvertised it as the expanded conditional use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron had asked the question. MS. ZONE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She really didn't get an answer. You asked her to re-language it for you, rather than understand what she was trying to say, so let me try to give you the language. Where it says the paragraph beginning with stormwater. Why don't you suggest as a suggestion, use stormwater runoff quality should not be effected with the proposed excavation area expansion. That covers it, if it's a true statement. Staffs the only one that will know if that's a true statement. And I think that was what she was trying to say. MS. ZONE: Okay. Well, I was under the impression when she was talking about number five, so I was sticking with the conditions of approval and not what was in the staff report. But I'm more than happy to modify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifthere's no objection to that, maybe that's a suggestion -- MS. ZONE: No, that's a very good suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, you were next. Sorry. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's okay. Page 76 August 2, 2007 What was the vote on the environmental -- te EAC? I always like to see when this presented was it a close vote, was it, you know, unanimous or whatever. MS. ZONE: It was unanimous. No, wait a minute, 6-3, my mistake. I'm sorry, and I will make sure that I always put that in. I should have. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I always like to see that. MS. ZONE: No, I should have. And I'm very sorry about that. And it's probably a good segue for Susan Mason to come up and speak, unless there's something about the land use portion of this. Any other questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. You've got to give me a minute to get there. Mr. Midney wasn't finished. So let him finish. MS. ZONE: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then Mr. Schiffer, did you have a question afterwards? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It was actually answered already. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: On condition number eight of the EAC that the monitoring of the water table in the adjacent site wetlands be done, what was the rationale for that? Because our hydrologist indicated that that wouldn't be impacted. MS. MASON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Susan Mason with Collier County Environmental Services Department. That was one of the items I did want to discuss with you. I'm actually meeting this afternoon, that was the soonest I could arrange it with Mike Duever of the South Florida Water Management District, because I did have some questions about that. I had been in a meeting with both DEP and Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission staff discussing excavations and their effect on adjacent wetlands. And it Page 77 August 2, 2007 was attributed to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to slow down, Ms. Mason. I can tell Cherie's got to type as fast as you talk, and that would be real hard right now. MS. MASON: No problem. That the effects of a 35- foot lake can be up to 20 -- excuse me, 10 miles away from the excavation. And I had sent Mr. Deuver an e-mail asking for clarification and was that indeed the case, it was only attributed to him by other agency staff, asked for clarification on that and was this only during excavation, dewatering, or was this a long-term impact. And he requested that we meet. He said he had a lot of information to show. So I can't really give you a clear answer now, but there are impacts to adjacent wetlands from -- by excavations. I just don't at this point know. I can come back to you with more information. And as soon as I get the results of that meeting, I'll be happy to share -- I'll be sharing it with Melissa Zone with the zoning department so she can include it in her summary. But there are impacts to adjacent wetlands. One of the things I wanted to clarify, too, it was stated earlier, and at least it wasn't clear to me, that this was one of only -- there was only one other excavation in the area. And that may be true for the rural fringe, but it does not apply to the rural land stewardship area. I know of at least three other conditional uses that are in the house under review for large commercial excavations. So there are other parts of the county that are being evaluated for commercial excavation. I did want to comment also on the just supply littoral proposal to replace the edge littoral of an eight-to-one slope with the almost equivalent of 5.3-acre littoral area. I did want to confirm that there is no littoral requirement for a lake like this for commercial excavation. If the use is changed to a stormwater management lake, it is correct that they'll have to come into a littoral planting shelf and the rural Page 78 August 2, 2007 fringe is actually 30 percent of the lake area at control elevation, which is a large amount. There is an ability to mitigate for that in other ways by up to 50 percent. So they'll have to have at least -- if these lakes were converted. But if they're not converted to stormwater management, there would be no requirement for the county to require littoral planting shelves. I did review some of Heritage Bay and they don't use those lakes as part of their stormwater management and they don't have a littoral requirement for the county. That's also part of their PUD document though as well. Staffs evaluation of the littorals was strictly just on our knowledge of the functioning of littoral shelves and their value. Since it's not a county requirement, we would just actually -- I had talked with Bruce Tyson before the meeting about it and suggested a larger area like you see on the monitor would be better wood stork foraging habitat, and that would be one of the things that we would suggest. And also to create an undulating type shelf that would allow for ponds to be created as the dry season goes, because wood storks use those a lot. So those would be a couple things that we would suggest. And also I had discussed with him the possibility of including an update on the littoral planting shelf areas as part of the wetland monitoring reports that he was going to supply to the county every six months, and they had agreed to that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, do you agree with their math that 5.3 acres is the appropriate amount? MS. MASON: I did receive this early this morning before I came to the meeting, so I have not seen any maps where they measured out the amount of existing swales, so I have no way of confirming whether or not it is. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And as a final comment, this Page 79 August 2, 2007 calculations about number eight about the monitoring of the water table and the necessity of that, that will be in time for the Collier County Commission, but it won't be in time for us, I assume. MS. MASON: Well, they'll be starting that once the excavation permit even got approved, I would imagine. I mixed up my sheets. I'm not exactly sure how it was with worded. But they'll be doing that every six months for the period of time. And we'll get copies of it. And the EAC asked for copies to be forwarded to them for the results. So I think this will help address some people's long-term concerns about excavations and their effects on wetlands. And that was the EAC's intention on getting this information. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And what if in fact it does turn out that there's a significant effect. Is there any mechanism for addressing that? MS. MASON: That condition that the zoning department had put in about this going to the Board of Zoning Appeals might be a route that we could use. MS. ZONE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So there is a mechanism. MS. MASON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hi. Good morning. In your just finished recitation, there are a whole series of things that you referenced. I just want to be clear, some of them you indicated that they have agreed to. But I thought I might have heard some things that you introduced. Was I in error? Is everything that you recited and agreed to an arrangement with the petitioner? MS. MASON: They did when I spoke to them earlier. The shelf to allow for wood stork habitat, I spoke with both Andy Woodruff and Bruce Tyson and they said that it was their intention. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the ponding. Page 80 August 2, 2007 MS. MASON: Right. And the concentration to a large area, I hadn't seen this map before the meeting, but they said that's what they intended to do. So I don't know of any objections to any ofthe things I told you about that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so we would have to have a confirmation from them that that was the case. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Mason, were you at the EAC meeting? MS. MASON: Yes, I was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This concern that was expressed to us about the slope and the littoral zone plantings not surviving around this lake and all that, if the EAC made this recommendation and you were there, why wouldn't they be told that what they were suggesting was impractical, if it is? MS. MASON: Well, they did not come up with an alternative suggestion of one large area of an equivalent size at that meeting. It was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not my question. I'm going to try to limit this discussion back to the question, because we're taking a lot of time. The comment made by Mr. Tyson was that the littoral zones put in the way that number six states in this document would not survive and that they'd be a waste of money. When the EAC recommended that, was that told to them that this would not -- that there's no survival possibility here, it would be a waste of money? I don't want to suggest something is impractical if it isn't. I'm trying to get to the bottom line of it. MS. MASON: I don't recall any discussion about whether or not they would survive or not. The eight-to-one slope is actually -- was a relatively recent change in the littoral shelf planting. They used to be much steeper. And a flatter shelf like that does encourage their survival. It would need to be placed appropriately according to the Page 81 August 2, 2007 dry season and wet season water levels and that area. It's not a matter of them -- you know, they could have a higher berm around the outside and then go eight-to-one there and it's never in the water. It would have to be based on the control or the high season water level of that lake. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you agree with Mr. Tyson's statement that the littoral zones based on number six in the way that was requested by the EAC would not survive? MS. MASON: Not entirely. If they were placed at the correct elevation for the lake, I believe the survival would be reasonable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And you had said something earlier that being in the rural fringe, had this lake become a water management lake, or if it was utilized or shown to be a water management lake from the beginning, they would have required -- did I hear you say 30 percent of the lake surface area as littoral? MS. MASON: Yes, that is the requirement for rural fringe. Everywhere else in the county it's seven percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I can't remember the acreage here, but it's hundreds. So you're looking at a lot more acreage than that little green spot on the south side, are you not? MS. MASON: Yes, if they did convert it to water management. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And in lieu of that, the EAC suggested doing the perimeter littorals, I would assume, because they can't enforce the other one without saying no excavation, basically, because if you have a littoral, you're not excavating. MS. MASON: Right. And that is only for -- I know it sounds like I'm repeating myself, and I am, but it's only if it's a stormwater management lake, not commercial excavation, or merely a lake existing for whatever purpose it's existing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Littorals also have -- they serve a dual function, I would think. Number one is for habitat. Number two, they are a safety zone for people, if they fall in a lake it's a little easier to Page 82 August 2, 2007 crawl out in an eight-to-one slope than it is a four-to-one or even a three or a two-to-one. MS. MASON: Yes, it is. That was part ofEAC's discussion, too, was a safety for if and when the project use has changed, that there was a safety issue as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Every mine that I've -- I mean, I've been in this county 30 years, I never thought the Mule Pen would be sold for lakeside housing and its amenity. And I'm sure that when they started excavating that, maybe they hadn't thought of it at the time. But seeing as how that's going to end up especially a place like this, the potential is more than likely it certainly seems wise to have a better cut lake than one just cut for mining purposes. MS. MASON: Just something to consider, too, with my history with code enforcement, though, not all residents think that littoral zones between them and their view of the lake is a good thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What does that -- what is a harbor where the Statute of Liberty, I'm sure there's no littoral zones up there either. Thank you. Are there any other questions of staff before we have public testimony? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have three registered speakers. The first is David Dupree (sic). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Dupree? MR. BELLOWS: Purdie, excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When the speakers come up, you have to identify yourself to the microphone before you get into your presentation. And you have -- I'd like to ask you to limit your time to five minutes. And for those of you that have walked in and were not sworn in, Page 83 August 2, 2007 you need to tell us that as you approach so we can swear you in. Okay, Mr. Dupree, you're first. MR. PURDIE: It's Purdie. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Purdue, I'm sorry. MR. PURDIE: Okay, I'll do my best in five minutes. It's going to be tough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, do the best you can, sir. MR. PURDIE: Okay, as far as our discussion about the pictures, which you told me to go back to and look at, if you look at the pictures, they're very vague. If you look at the documentation, it's very vague. If you go and look at the house, it's something else, too. It's a totally different picture than what's on the documentation and what's on the disks. So right then and there, you've been in my home, Mr. Damon Jones has been in my house, Mr. Bill Russo. The reason why I called is that crack in the back bedroom, okay. That is not something that started -- that happened all at once. And this is my opinion, it wasn't there on the pre-blast inspection. This is a letter that I sent to the Board of Commissioners on November 19th, okay. I've been in my house three times when the blasting occurred back in the fall. Now, I'm not judging what they're doing now. The date in question, November 29th, okay, I was home that day. And this was -- you know, I gave this to the Board of Commissioners, it's on file, okay? About a week later -- I waited a week before I called to make the complaint. Because if I called anybody -- I had to calm down a little bit, because if I called anybody, I don't think they would have really liked what I had to say. Anyway, one thing I want to bring up, okay, when he was showing these little seismograph things, I went over the date. Is that every date that's on there? Page 84 August 2, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, but you won't be able to cross-examine the -- you have to ask us, and we -- during their rebuttal they can address your questions. MR. PURDIE: Okay, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't have dialogue going back and forth. You'll just have to direct your questions to us. MR. PURDIE: Okay. Those were each individual dates, right, that were like -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I checked that. I have the log right here, and I looked for individual dates that they referenced on those sheet. They clumped some of the dates together. So for example, the one on October 16th, I don't think there was one on October 16th. It was a couple days before, or items like that. So I don't think every date was reflected individually on their charts. MR. PURDIE: Because the point that I'm trying to bring up is when I went in front of the commission in February, that November 29th, the one that I was home for, they said that was the highest blast level that there was measured. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I have the chart. Ray, can you pull that out a little bit so they can read the headers -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do, too. MR. SCHMITT: I just want to put that on the visualizer so the others can see that as well. Just to note that I had -- we have one from -- an inspector from our engineering department, and this happened to be Dick Role -- that was out there at the time of the blast. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the most pounds per hole they had. So part of it is the highest. MR. PURDIE: Okay. So after I was home and had the pleasure of going through that, about a week later I noticed the crack that you and Mr. Russo and Mr. Jones seen. Now, I had -- the people that built my house, I had them come and look at it, and I'm not going to put words in anybody's mouth, but Page 85 August 2, 2007 nobody's going to go on record saying whether that came from blasting or not. So I'm in a tough situation here. But if I go ahead and I fix my home, it's going to cost a couple thousand dollars, okay? Fix cracks, fill cracks, whatever they got to do. What happens if -- let's say they give you a warranty for like five years before you have any type of, you know, problems that you're going to see again and all of a sudden these all come back within three months. Am lout of 2,500 bucks or two grand? Now, Mr. Jones did offer to pay for this, which I thought was a very noble gesture. But he didn't cause this problem. The guy who did this up and left. That's wrong. And I hear that this is going to be six years, eight years. What is it? I hear 10, 15. What's it going to be? Can somebody give us a number here? Because this is a long time to keep playing this game. This is one merry-go-round I want to get off. And when we do have complaints and we do -- and I think Mr. Jones hit the nail on the head. There has to be somebody that the complaint goes directly to, it gets looked at and it's taken seriously. Not everybody is looking for money, okay? Because I could have had the guy come out there and do something that he didn't do and pay for it. Why? I'm not that kind of a guy, I'm not going to do that to him. But down the road, if this keeps occurring, you know, what are you going to do then? I mean, let's face it, this is Naples, Florida, this isn't 10 years ago like when I moved down here. Nothing is cheap anymore down here. And the other thing is when you do get somebody, whatever happened with Tallahassee? Because I'm still waiting for them to call me, okay. And then when I call somebody from the engineering department who hasn't even been in my house, okay, hasn't even seen the crack wants to sit there and tell me that's normal settlement. You didn't even look at it, how do you know? I mean, I don't know what to do here anymore. I don't want to Page 86 August 2, 2007 keep playing this game. It's no life to have. If they say they're going to do what they're going to do and they keep the vibrations down and not shake the house, that's fine. But if you think this is a strong selling point if I wanted to sell my house and get out of this neighborhood, who am I selling it to? Okay, in a market that is done down here. And I'm not trying to get -- you've got to understand, I've been through a year of frustration. You think it's right for a taxpayer to get passed off from phone to phone to phone. And if Tallahassee's in charge of this, thank God I wasn't drowning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can't say I disagree with you, sir. MR. PURDIE: All I ask for is that local government be in charge of this, we'll work something out. Me and Damon talk a lot lately. He's a very nice guy. I think he's getting -- you know, wants to get something accomplished here, okay, and cut down a lot of the -- I can't use that word. Cut down a lot of this stuff that you have to go through to get through certain channel. And let's face it, if I didn't rattle people's cages, a lot of this would be overlooked. Not that I'm looking for a pat on the back, but I did a lot of cage rattling this year and it caused me a lot of aggravation. So personally I hope they move further north. Because the quicker they get away from my house, the less they're going to have to talk to me. But I don't want to push that burden onto a neighbor up there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, hopefully after today's meeting we'll see -- we'll either get you some help or we'll try . We'll just see where we go from here. MR. PURDIE: I'll take care of my own house for now, okay. What I'm saying, down the road. I've had people basically tell me that this is normal settlement. I'll buy that for now, okay? But if! go and I spend whatever it cost to have all these cracks fixed and everything else and this keeps coming back every three months, sorry, man, we're Page 87 August 2, 2007 in a real gray area of what we're going to do out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a quick question on your house. Is your house built up on a mound and probably a monolithic slab? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is your house -- these kind of cracks you're talking about, are they cracks in the finishes or cracks in the structural -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you how a block stepped crack is where it follows a line? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what it's doing in some areas. In some areas it's cracks where the stucco joints meet at the window sill, some on top of the window -- couple areas like that. Some of them are on the pre-blast survey, but we didn't have time to check to see if they all were. So it's a combination and there is some -- I mean, the fact that some of them were there before the pre-blast would indicate that it's a natural occurring issue because it happened before the blasting. But there are some that may have increased or widened since the blasting occurred. MR. PURDIE: And-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. MR. PURDIE: And there's really -- like I said, when you referenced the pictures and the documentation, it's really hard to determine what it is from then until now. You know what I'm saying? So right off the bat, my case is shot out, you know, I'm done. Because I really don't have nothing to compare it to. So basically if there's blasting out there, I got a set of pictures that do me no good if it ever came into that I had to prove something. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. Page 88 August 2, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. PURDIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Kathleen Raimondi, to be followed by Randy Bourbeau. MS. RAIMONDI: Good morning. First-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Raimondi, up here. You need to pull that speaker a little closer to you. Were you sworn in? MS. RAIMONDI: No. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need to state your name for the record first and then go ahead, tell us what you -- MS. RAIMONDI: My name is Kathleen Ramondi. First of all, good morning to everybody. And I want to say that I learned a lot from the presentation today. I really didn't think it would be this quite extensive. And I want to thank all the presenters for all the questions and everything from the board. The reason I'm here is because I don't want to see the expansion of the mining. I lived about a half a mile from a mine where I moved from two years ago, and I didn't expect to move down here and be another half a mile from another mine. When you talk about mining, you're talking about dynamiting. It's a word we're not using very much because it just sounds a little bit more impactful. I heard a lot of stats today and I heard a lot of details, and I guess I didn't realize on such a broad level how you were analyzing the water drop, how you were analyzing so many different facets of it. And it just sort of blotted out the questions. But the one thing I didn't hear well defined was the quality of life that's going to be affected by the people that are there. And I would really hope that we're not going to be in Golden Gate Estates not cared Page 89 August 2, 2007 about. Because that's the feeling I've gotten since I've gotten down here, that nobody really cares about the people of Golden Gate Estates. They're not on the Gulf of Mexico, they're not in the City of Naples, so they don't care about it. That's the feeling I'm getting. And let me tell you something, I've been there, done that, and I've earned the T-shirt from being near a quarry where I came from. And every single day we had lime dust all over our cars, lime dust. And it will rot away all your environmental surfaces. You can't wipe it off because it will scratch the windows on your car. Just things like that. The air you breathe down here, we value that. You know, it's 96 degrees today in Chicago and you know what the people said? It feels cooler in Miami than it does in Chicago. That's what a quarry will do for this area. Forget about the dump trucks that are going to access the roads and have so much traffic. Forget about the birds that they're going to destroy and all the other wildlife, what about the human life it's going to destroy? What about the quality of our neighborhood? We're already being sandwiched between a chemical treatment plant on one side and we're going to have a quarry and dynamiting and blasting on the other side. We need to think about a the lot of things. I respect the men who came down here and they have a purpose, but it's a commercial purpose. And they're going to be sort of trying to convince us about how much the aggregate is needed, okay. It's just like the United States, do we forget about the trade war so we can have the elections over with and let have China power over us? Do we look at the short-term or do we look at the long-term gain? Does the neighborhood here in this area mean nothing to anybody in Naples? Are we going to become Golden Gate a pseudonym as the pits of Naples? I really ask you to think about these things, because these are on Page 90 August 2, 2007 the broader level. You're affecting a lot of people. Not just the homes and the cracks. And all of that's real. All of that's real. I had a seismograph put on my home where I used to live. And you know what? There's nothing a single individual can do. The people who come out with this, the people who show their concern, they're going to justify it, they're going to rationalize it and nothing's going to get done. And you're going to have unhappy people. And is that what you want in Naples? The time of the day, most of the people are gone to work. The amount of complaints I heard that were registered today, that's very skewed. People aren't home, kids are at school. They come home, they find the cracks. They don't know what happened. Or they don't want to call. They don't want to complain, they're afraid. Justifying things because they're aging. Little comments about all these inconsistencies coming. Let me tell you, once they get their approval -- maybe the blasts are down right now. I've noticed a big difference. Let me tell you something, where I live, my windows and my sliding doors rattled almost right off of the track that they're on from the mining here, the dynamiting. You get your permit and you're going to push it and you're going to push it and you're going to push it. Why do we have to keep going back and policing people? It won't happen. And it's going to get pushed to the limit. So please, think about the bigger issue. Think about the people and think about our quality of life and our neighborhoods. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ma'am, thank you for your comments. I would ask if we could to put up a map to show where you live relative to this petition. And if you could point out pretty Page 91 August 2, 2007 much where you live, I would appreciate that. And I may not have heard, did you actually make a complaint regarding your home? MS. RAIMONDI: I have not. And I haven't really felt very comfortable coming in here today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure. MS. RAIMONDI: I feel as if I end up being the fall guy for a lot of people that don't want to speak up. I feel like the project that was denied out there in Belle Meade is going to push it up in the northern Golden Gate Estates area. And I think all of this is unfortunate. I don't want to stand out. I don't want to be singled out. I respect your wish. It's bad enough I needed to get sworn in and give my name. Everything is the truth. And it's going to be easy to look me up if you want to. But I don't want to be the scapegoat. I don't want to be the spokesperson for everyone else. All I can tell you is that the blasting and the dynamiting and the mining is an ugly thing. It's mean to the people that have to live near it. I really wish I didn't have to live near a chemical treatment plant and a quarry and a mining again in my life. It's as if it follows you around and you can't get rid of it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But then you're not going to show us where you live in that area, is that what you're saying? MS. RAIMONDI: I'm not on the southeast end. But where I live, I felt a huge impact of the dynamiting and the blasting -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I hear you, I'm just trying to understand -- MS. RAIMONDI: I heard it, I felt it, and it's real. And it's only a matter of time before the cracks start in all of our houses. And part of my house was finished off with nothing but sand instead of the regular type of soil it should be. And yes, I have a high pad on my house. So all of this is going to affect me. The air quality. I'm mainly concerned about the air quality. Page 92 August 2, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, thank you, ma'am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Ray? And I think the gentlemen will need to be sworn m. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, the last speaker is Randy Bourbeau. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. BOURBEAU: My name is Randy Bourbeau. I didn't get the -- we didn't receive the original preinspection form to know that there was a preinspection. I got the first notification. My wife works from home three days, sometimes four days a week. And she was hysterical that the whole house was shaking all over the place, the windows were shaking and everythirig, and a big cloud of yellow smoke was up in the air. We live off of 54th, all the way to the west. We're like the last house on 54th, which I believe is basically right about where we can sit there and watch the trucks go back and forth and the blasting and stuff like that. She has a -- she had to go to Fort Lauderdale to work today, which is where I usually go, too. But she has a list of every day that there was a blast, at what time, and has it marked down on the calendar. And -- gee, I'm a little nervous talking to everybody, so -- we even had people that came in and did our screen porch that when the blast went off came running into the house and said what was that. Because the whole -- and I didn't get to experience it myself until probably six months into it. And I was home one day and I couldn't believe it. It was exactly like one of those dump trucks ran going 40, 50,60 miles an hour into the side of the house. Because the whole house, the floor and everything, does shake. And you do hear the windows shake. The closest thing I got to that was when we had the hurricane a few years ago. I'm in my house about three years. The builder had a warranty -- it's not my first new house -- on settlement cracks. And the main thing Page 93 August 2, 2007 we looked at were for tiles that we have in about four or five areas of the house. They told us they will only come out one time and repair the tiles. So the best thing to do is to wait till the end of the year and have them come out one time, then you can get them all done. Because if you do them in the beginning -- so we watched the tiles very carefully during that first year, which was in -- we moved in in approximately April of2005. So I think that was before the blasting. At the end of that year we had about six tiles that had small little cracks in. They sent a couple of ladies over, took those out, changed those out and we were fine. We were very picky on making sure that there weren't any more. Since the blasting I have probably 20, 30 cracks throughout every tiled area. And the only way you can see these is because they're in the tiled area. My kitchen has probably -- and they go in every direction. Some of them follow the grout joints in the tile, some of them go right through the tiles, some of them go back and forth in three or four tiles. They're in my bathrooms, my front entryway, and also, like I said, in the kitchen. These -- they're not settlement cracks. These happened when the concrete -- I'm a licensed commercial pool contractor. I mostly do repairs on commercial and residential pools. I deal with settlement cracks in pools and broken pipes underneath decks all day long. We go to places where decks are beautiful and the person has a broken deck -- I mean, a pipe underneath the ground from the ground settling. I can break a hole in that concrete and there might be a foot of no ground under there whatsoever. There's no crack in the concrete. When the concrete is poured with the steel inside of it, it should be basically self-supporting. Again, I do a lot of work in Plantation area, where one of gentlemen said. They do have lots of settlement. You can look at something and say yeah, that's settlement, where sand's washed out or Page 94 August 2, 2007 something like that. But this is not settlement. If I wanted to take a strong piece of concrete and I want to break it up, you take a chipping hammer and you don't basically stick that chipping hammer and break a hole in there, you vibrate it until it slowly breaks down and starts cracking and falling apart. And that's exactly what they've done with the house. All the statistics and everything, these are cracks. If you were standing in my house, just like the lady and gentleman -- like he was talking about, if you were standing in my house, like I said, the three times I was there, when the whole house jumps up and down where you would look at pictures from California where people's pictures were shaking and stuff like that. And my wife actually has pictures that she has to go straighten up afterwards. There's nobody here that could listen to these people for 45 years and would not say exactly what I'm saying. It's 100 percent my cracks are from the blasting. Now, it doesn't mean all of them are. I have lines in my garage where they actually after they poured the garage, they actually -- they put stretch lines in it so that the cracks would follow those. And I do have small cracks in those. I would tell you, they were there from the beginning, even before they put the walls up on the house. But once the tile people came in after that first year, there was no cracks. And these are much wider cracks. These are anywhere between an eighth of an inch and a quarter of an inch cracks. And they'll go for as long as the tile will go. And that's only what we see. We don't know once we pick up the carpet or whatever is in the house how many more cracks. And this house is only three years old. So my concern is that in the beginning when we were getting this blasting, my wife was calling down here to the county. Because she said, what do I do? I said, you've got to call somebody in planning and Page 95 August 2, 2007 zoning. She called and called and complained and complained. And I came home one day, because she kept telling me nobody's coming, they said they can't do this, to call these people, do that. I'm not getting anywhere. I came home one time and listened to a message on my answering machine, which I asked her to save -- this was over maybe a year ago, close to a year ago and she didn't save. But it basically had someone from the county saying these are settlement cracks, there's nothing we can do about it, and that's -- and just the attitude of that person made me as angry as this man is. And I'm a very easy-going person except for when you tell me something that's wrong. And it didn't make any sense that the county wouldn't -- would leave a message like that that says, you know, that's settlement, there's nothing to do with it. And they never came -- the same thing, they never came and looked at it. And I'm now learning some phone numbers and some websites and all that kind of stuff like that so I can start this procedure as well. But I'm sure that every house settles to some point. But when you have everything that you can possibly see fixed and then within a couple of month period all of a sudden one week there's a new crack. I get down on the floor to clean up after the dog or something like that, I go, oh, there's two more over there. I mean, it's ridiculous. It definitely is causing damage to the house. It definitely will cause damage to concrete. Otherwise there wouldn't be these conversations if it didn't do that. So it's nice that everybody over there says it's never happened and none of their complaints are caused by the house shaking around and rattling and stuff like that. I don't -- that's not true. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I know you pointed, and I'd really appreciate knowing how -- would you estimate how far you are Page 96 August 2, 2007 away from the blasting? Just an estimation. I know you can't -- MR. BOURBEAU: I'm probably -- I don't know how far you can see. I must be, from the blasting, less than half a mile, or maybe a mile, less than a mile. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Less than a mile. MR. BOURBEAU: Yes, sir. I'm at the end of -- I can't see the names of these streets -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir. MR. BOURBEAU: -- but I'm probably right about-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, yo, excuse me. MR. BOURBEAU: Oh, I'm sorry, you can't-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No; you can't get recorded without being near that microphone. Thank you. MR. BOURBEAU: Near -- I don't know what street that is where that one complaint is, that little star or whatever that is where it says greenhouse or something. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That's where they have the seismograph. MR. BOURBEAU: Okay. I am at one of those streets, either one below it or one above it. And I'm at that end exactly about where that seismograph would be. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you're fairly close to the -- MR. BOURBEAU: I'm very close. Like I said, I can sit in my front yard and look and see their trucks going back and forth. You know, in the beginning we didn't know what it was over there. And then all of a sudden of course more and more trucks and stuff. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And you're there for what, you said three years? MR. BOURBEAU: Yes, sir. We moved there in April of2005. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And no one -- you never received a letter, you never received a contact of any form whatsoever? Page 97 August 2, 2007 MR. BOURBEAU: No, I did not. I got this one last month about this meeting and -- or a couple of weeks ago, and I made sure I left it on the table. And even, like I said, I should be working, I -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I may be in error, but in our last conditional use authority we had our stipulation that all property owners within a certain radius were to be notified, so you might have been overlooked. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. I think we've-- anymore questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, thank you very much -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one. Because it's important. You can see the trucks? MR. BOURBEAU: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So there's no berm blocking out your view of the trucks? MR. BOURBEAU: Well, you know how they build out there. They build this a little bit high. So when I'm standing in my front yard, I'm a little bit high. So no, there is a berm, but I can see over the top of the berm. Because a lot of the work they were doing in the beginning was where the trucks were driving up high. So I don't think there would be a berm that would be that high to be able to block that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, sir. MR. BOURBEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we continue, we're going to have some rebuttal undoubtedly by the applicant. There is going to be a lot more questions, concerns and comments. And it's getting close to lunch and we have another case today. And we need to provide Cherie' with a break, whether we take lunch before this is over with or Page 98 August 2, 2007 not. So let's discuss that real quick amongst the board members. I know we're going to take lunch. Do you want to take a short break for the court reporter and for Kady, come back from that break, finish up this issue, then take lunch and come back up and hear the other one this afternoon? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, I think that's a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We potentially could spend another hour on this one. It's up to -- if Lindy has to leave and we want to get through it, we've got to go by what the majority's going to be able to do so-- , COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: This has been enough. I will make sure I stay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So as a plan of action, we'll finish this one up, we'll take a short break right now for 10 minutes, finish this up and then take a lunch break. So let's take a 10-minute break and we'll come back here at noon. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can tell some of the planning commission members alone are hungry. They're eating just about everything that isn't nailed down around here. Okay, we left off with public testimony, and the applicant had wanted to make a closing statement. And so Bruce, please, I have to ask you to keep it short. It's been a long morning. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much, sir. With regard to the last speaker, Mr. Bourbeau, I don't believe he's filed a complaint, so we haven't had a chance to go out and see if there's a factual basis for it. We would appreciate the opportunity to do so. He's said that he did not receive a notice of the right to a pre-blast. I'm not contesting that. All I will tell you, though, is that we Page 99 August 2, 2007 got the list from the county, and we notified everybody that was on that list. We've heard a lot of anecdotal and emotional testimony by people who think that the blasting has caused damage to their house. There is a factual procedure to determine that. And we would simply ask that we be entitled and they be entitled to a factual determination on these questions and not, you know, an assumption that merely because we're blasting any cracks that occur are attributable to that. There is a procedure here in the county to determine that. And we -- you know, fly speck us and hold our feet to the fire in that procedure. There was earlier in a statement when -- in response to Mr. Midney's questions about the wetland impacts that left the impression that, you know, absent the county revoking the conditional use there was no remedy if the wetlands were negatively impacted. Well, that's simply not the case. The Water Management District can come after them and they can revoke the permit and/or require other remedial action. So again, there exists a remedy in place. And ultimately there was a discussion about the excavation ordinance requiring code enforcement action. There's no reference to code enforcement action in the excavation ordinance. A code enforcement action is one of three remedies available to a homeowner if there are claims of blasting damage. The other is Tallahassee, the other is the excavation ordinance itself if there is demonstrated blasting damage. Ultimately any kind of revocation of any kind of permit is going to require an opportunity to be heard and present factual evidence. So we're not going to be able to dispose of that by, you know, inserting a conditional use revocation procedure or requiring somebody to go through the -- to file a complaint under the excavation ordinance, or go to code enforcement. I mean, we can't get away from that, the Constitution requires that. And lastly, you know, you want a local remedy. That's what Page 100 August 2,2007 everybody says. But then when we proposed a local remedy that apparently some don't trust the local process to rectify it or address it because it's administered by local government and they happen to be in the road building business with a separate department. The alternative is the remedy provided by the statute to go to the state. I mean, it's kind of a Catch-22. There are remedies available, let's use them. We're fully happy to subject ourselves to any of those that exist. And they all call for a factual determination. That's all we're asking for is the right to, you know, present and receive evidence in the proper forum as to whether the blasting caused the cracks. Thank you very much for your patience today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Questions ofMr. Anderson. I'd like to ask the panel, if you have questions, now is the time to ask them. And when we get into discussion and we close the public hearing, we should just limit that to ourselves. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, the last time you all were here we spent a long time talking about the additional turn lanes. When are those going to actually be built? I mean, where is that in the process, in the permitting process? MR. TYSON: That was one of the conditions of approval. And it was -- the request was that we cannot have any more than 800 trucks on the road on a daily basis, or place them on the road until that improvement is done. That improvement has been designed. It's being right now priced by the applicant to make sure that everything -- when we go for permitting, there's no sense of going back and redoing that. We're anticipating that that will be in place by probably the second quarter of next year. And obviously we still have to live with the no more than 800 trucks on the record. And if you notice in the report, I'm not sure whether you got the Page 101 August 2, 2007 report that we had given to the county, but the maximum number of trucks that went out in the calendar year with that report that we did was 357. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Bruce, you can answer this. The berm situation, is that being done with the intent of the conditions, do you believe? MR. TYSON: The berm? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, we had a requirement in the old conditions that the berm would surround the activities so that the neighbors wouldn't be visible to them. MR. TYSON: Yeah, we need to talk about that a little bit, because quite frankly, that berm is in place. I was out there last Thursday, I saw it exactly in the place that we had shown it on the maps when we were here last year. The berm's in place. So, you know, there's some discussions that we need to follow up and find out if -- I can't understand why trucks are being seen through that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, he did admit that his house was raised and he was looking over the berm. The other question, last time you were here we also had a lot of problem with the noise of the equipment that would be crushing the rock. We heard no testimony today, so I guess that's a non-issue now, right? MR. TYSON: Well, first of all, obviously we've had a little lull in the activity from a standpoint of total number of what the volume of the pit could operate and do. The main -- all of the -- if you can picture this, all of the rock crushing is occurring virtually in dead center on that property. It's about as far away from anybody as it possibly can be. It's in Phase 1, but it's virtually dead center in the property. I'll point it out. And then secondly, there's only one pump, and this is part of the process. And the operation that is being changed, only one pump is Page 102 August 2, 2007 currently operating for dewatering. And it is down inside the pit. It has baffles on the side of it. So generally speaking, I don't believe there's a noise issue that is on a daily basis. We have heard no complaints about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Murray, then Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is for Bruce Anderson. I believe I have the right party when I ask you this question. It appears that there's a confidence issue with regard to some of the neighbors in terms of will they be dealt with properly. Mr. Jones has indicated he's eager to receive the complaints and work with people. We've heard testimony that the county, some county staff may have been unresponsive or responsive in a way that was dissatisfactory . You early in your statement opening indicated that, you know, you would be open to some kind of alternative to satisfy the needs. I don't have a good suggestion, per se. My thought would be -- my first thought would be would you be willing to hire an engineer that were selected by perhaps by a number of residents and be willing to pay for that engineer. That would give them the sense that they had control over their destiny, and you would prove your point that you were doing the right thing. Is that anything near that, something you would entertain? MR. ANDERSON: We would just want to make sure that the engineer is qualified. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you would not be excluded from the process. I would think that in my, again, first thought, this needs to be qualified, my thought was if there were a group of people who could agree that okay, you folks have the technical skill, they would have to -- the engineers themselves would qualify that to those persons, and that they would be satisfied that they picked from a number, and essentially that engineer would be working Page 103 August 2, 2007 for them, and information obviously would be given to you, and it would be ultimately a collaborative effort, but initially it would satisfy residents' needs to build confidence that what is happening is real. And then with that sense of control, they would realize something, and you would realize what realities are, too. So does that make sense? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. And we're willing to do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: I just had one. I hadn't heard it addressed except the plumes and the smoke and dust. I hadn't seen anybody -- I hadn't known that that exists or does exist or doesn't exist here. Is that -- she was mentioning dust would fly on the cars and things like that. That wasn't addressed in any of your -- MR. STRAW: For the record, Jeff Straw with Geosonics. The -- I think there's probably a little bit of difference. If she's from Chicago -- I'm not quite sure, she said it was a different area. Blasting's done differently in the country. I heard Chicago. I've worked with operations in Chicago. It's quite a bit different than here. Typically the blasting that's done, there is some water that goes up in the air. There can be a little bit of a yellow cloud as part of the explosives burning, not necessarily completely detonating, but it dissipates in the air. Where they're blasting now and with the modifications made, we don't see, you know, that as much. You typically see some material go up in the air initially, and then as the soil settles back down and some of the gas releases, there's some jets of water that you see. But it's nothing that is going to travel, you know, off the property to anywhere of these homes. I mean, the blaster's standing within a matter of a couple hundred yards of this to physically watch the blast and make sure that there's not stuff going off the property. That's not happening here in any way, shape or form. Page 104 August 2, 2007 COMMISSIONER TUFF: And just one more. Just by observation, it seems inappropriate that you'd complain to the party that is the offender, which I think is a good gesture, but you also have a person that has demonstrated good ethics in doing this so we complain to your website and you'll take care of it. But I'm also the offender -- this isn't for you, this is for the -- whoever is operating it. But, you know, it makes a difference who's running it, too. And to me what makes a difference of -- I believe that Mr. Jones demonstrated by what he does, will take care of people and do things with the things that we can put in place to check that. But then if Mr. Jones is not the owner of this property, it would be my fear that well, then this person's going to follow this letter of the law and we're not budging, we're not moving, where this person will go out of their way and fix things that maybe is questionable. And can they be passed if it goes to just this owner, this conditional use? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're restricting the sale of the property or the conditional use? I doubt if we could do that, but maybe the county attorney will surprise me. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Kind of where it goes away with this owner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's wondering can this conditional use be tied to this owner, and should the ownership change the conditional use no longer is present. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: They traditionally run with the land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it runs with the land, Russ. I mean, I've never heard of any other way. If the county attorney has any other way, maybe she'll offer it, but -- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I don't know of anything without, Page 105 August 2, 2007 you know, investigating further. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that kind of answer your question? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Urn-hum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one. Mr. Straw, I guess, might be -- I want to bring something up so that it doesn't happen during discussion and catches everybody off guard. First of all, Mr. Straw, are you aware of any other way of breaking up rock below the surface? MR. STRAW: Yes, there is. There are -- they can use a hoe ram. You can go out there and try and beat it. The problem is then you have to pump it down, and you get to a point where you can't pump all that water out. I mean, if you're going to try and do that there -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you aware of any method of using a hydraulic ram to break the rock up in water? MR. STRAW: Yeah, there are punches. We've seen some barge work, the Port of the Everglades, Ft. Lauderdale's port where they have a barge. But it's a massive thing. You've got to have a lake. But the problem is, it only goes to a certain depth. You kind of chew up the rock and then it's pumped out in a dredge. But the material then is not usable for aggregate, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me give you a new system that does work, because I know, I'm overseeing it myself. You can attach a hydraulic ram to the end of a backhoe. You can go down into the submersible water by 20 plus feet and you can break the rock up and then pull it up with another backhoe. One of the gentleman that had indicated who the people he's sending or selling material to are some of the very people who do this kind of work. There's not many, but they do do it. Now, that would get you to take some of the rock out that Page 106 August 2, 2007 appears up to, say, around a 20-foot depth. I know you've got some lower than that. But I noticed also, in 1999 you started this operation with a conditional use. And you were moving along fine. In 2006 you came before this board and you asked for another conditional use, with one big change. You wanted to have blasting. So for seven years you didn't have blasting and for seven years I don't remember this pit ever raising itself above the radar screen. But in the last year it seems it has. And the complaints and discussion we've had this morning have been hours, and really it's focused on legitimately one thing: Blasting. It's been the disruptive issue that's occurred at your pit. And I'm just wondering, if the blasting wasn't there, what does that mean, from an excavation point from your perspective? MR. STRAW: From what I understand, the pit does not dig below the 15 or 20 foot that they did at that surface material. And, you know, maybe Bruce or one of the Bruces can answer that a little bet. But it is my understanding, because we got involved in this when blasting, you know, was asked, you know, permission for is that the surface materials can be excavated by backhoe. That is what had been done. But the hard aggregate was not being dug at all. And so when they ran into the aggregate material at the deeper depths, blasting became -- you know, was required. As far as the hoe ram kind of issue on a backhoe, you get to a certain point where you can't get below that. Once that material is excavated you're stuck, you can't go back and drill and blast, because there is nothing for you to sit on. You can't put a, you know, half million pound drill sitting on material that you've just either removed or you've broken to the point where it's no longer safe for the operator to sit on. So you have to drill and blast and/or you leave that material at depth. You just -- you can't recover it. There's not another way to Page 107 August 2, 2007 recover it. The hardness of the rock may also preclude the size of that being excavated by a backhoe. Ten, 15 years ago there was an issue in Broward County with that. Caterpillar makes a massive backhoe. It can dig when it's digging right below the tracks to a maximum of about 32 feet. And it can only take out what's in the size of the bucket. And then you process for hours and hours and hours, and then the noise issue that, you know, you have just because then you've got to run the crusher continuously. It's a whole different, you know, operation as far as that goes. I don't know that it becomes cost effective in any way, shape or form for the excavation and the material they're talking about here. That's my end from a blasting. I'm not the operations guy. But that's my understanding of, you know, time table, what was excavated before and the issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay, are there -- Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: Two things. One, Mr. Tuff, the property owner would be willing to commit to maintain a website and to have one person designated to act upon complaints, so long as any blasting is conducted for the life of this mine. And lastly, I want to ask the representative of the property owner to come up and address Mr. Strain's questions. MR. BARBER: Good afternoon. Don Barber, I'm with Mining Venture, the applicant. A little history. If the commission can recall, a year ago when we were here asking for the blasting, we had not sold or marketed any rock products on that site for those six years, thus there were no -- we had some complaints that we dealt with dealing with backups of trucks, the little beeper on the truck and, you know, a few of those kinds of things and a lot of traffic until we got the traffic under control. Page 108 August 2, 2007 But the reason that we asked for the blasting is this rock needs to come out. It's at a shelf layer of plus nine to 10 feet above sea level. It would be dry most of the year, it would be unsightly, it will have literally no use. So the rock needs to come out. And we tried everything on this earth to try and get economically and commercially that rock material out of there without having to use blasting equipment. We tried all the pneumatic equipment that you're talking about, Mr. Strain. We broke I can't tell you how many hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment out there trying to do that. We bought the biggest Komatsu that they make. We did everything. We were getting some of it out, but it was totally uneconomical. When I say uneconomical, people would buy limerock for any price that the miner set, we could make it work. But it doesn't work that way. And you have to be competitive for the road projects, for the Targets of the world, for the homebuilders that need rock for their driveways and rough fill under their houses and so on and so forth. So we need to find a way to get it out economically and quickly, and this does it. Alternative equipment has the other side of the problem of the noise issue and the slowness. It would take forever to do that work. It just doesn't seem to work. We really feel that we've got a great handle on the blasting. And I think it's been clearly demonstrated today that somehow some way we're not fielding or handling complaints like they should be handled. And I think you've heard today a real commitment. And we've been working on this not just in preparation for this commission meeting. We've been doing this for about three months to really trying to work on a process to handle complaints. We can't fix something if we don't know that it's broke. And I can assure you, we'll be in touch with those folks that spoke today. I mean, I feel badly that somebody didn't get a notice, I feel badly that they're living with these problems. I have these kinds Page 109 August 2, 2007 of problems in my home. I mean, not associated with blasting but with other kinds of problems in my neighborhood, and I know how unsettling it is for you to feel like you've been damaged by somebody else. If there's been damage, we're going to fix it, we said we're going to fix it. And I like the suggestion of getting an engineer, perhaps recommended by the residents out there. Form a committee -- another committee. Form a committee with the residents out there and we'll work with them and we'll make that work. But we need to blast in some form or fashion to get that out. And keep in mind, if you looked at the confining clay layer chart that was shown, some of the shallowest areas that the confining layer is at is also the closest to the homeowners. So we will be using peanuts in regards to blast material on that south side, because we're not going to be blasting but about 20 feet of rock out of there anyway. And the hardest of rock by all of the soil boring findings is on the very north side of the property, which is totally buffered by native vegetation and much -- many fewer homes as well. Anyway, I just wanted you to know, Mr. Strain, that the blasting is really important to us. I think it's important to the community, because it will help us get out of there quicker. And the miner has opted to pre-blast as fast as he can out there, quite frankly, and stockpile or leave the material on the ground. Blasting's expensive, but he's willing to do that to move forward with the blasting program, whether there's a market or not, so as to get the blasting out of the way. At least along the eastern and southern sides of this property, and move forward to an area where we just won't be bothering anybody. And I thank you all very much for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don, I've got one question for you then. I understand your position. And I can tell you, you kind of get the hydraulic rams that are out there, there's only a couple of companies I Page 110 August 2, 2007 believe in this part of the state that have them and they do work, because I can physically show you that it is working. But it won't get you down as deep as you're going. Last time when we approved this, it was the first time to approve blasting on this site. And we've gone about a year and we've heard concerns. Now maybe there's going to be a different reaction to the blasting from your end of it now that everything is more focused. Would you have any objection to allowing this conditional use to be a temporary situation, subject to a one-year review of where you're at after one year from now with the neighborhood? MR. BARBER: Not at all. We already have a -- we agreed at the last planning commission meeting to have a one-year review of the current operation, which we did, and we filed the report with the county. And I think that was every two years. So if you want to uncomplicate it, make it every year a report, that's fine. That's not a problem. I think it's good discipline, actually. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm suggesting a little bit different, though. What I'm saying is you've got a one-year conditional use. If then when you come back before this body, if there's -- MR. BARBER: Oh, one year conditional use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if there is not satisfactory evidence that the issues that we now believe might get resolved as a result of the changes you're making, then you stand a chance of not succeeding in another public forum, how do you feel about that? MR. BARBER: I think that's a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know Bruce would. That's why I asked you first. MR. BARBER: No, I think that would be a problem. There's a huge investment of equipment. But also of people and their jobs. And I hate hanging that out over their -- I'd rather see the stiff discipline to make the miner follow the rules. And I'd like the stiff discipline of making sure that the blast contractors -- and interestingly enough Page 111 August 2, 2007 there's three people in that process, it's not just a contractor -- but, you know, I'm for making it -- holding them up to do what they're supposed to be doing. And if they're not doing enough to demonstrate, then that's where we need to go and make it happen in that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I started out trying to make notes about how to restrict the blasting to a point where it could be -- minimize its impact with all the comments that were made. But they got more involved the more I started writing. And then I realized this whole thing is about blasting. I understand your dilemma in blasting, and I'm trying to figure out a solution to it. I guess we'll see what comes out of our discussion. If there was some way of knowing that if you came back to us in a year or two years and if you weren't -- if your company wasn't able to satisfactorily reduce the intent -- the problems with the blasting, then the blasting part of that conditional use could go away -- MR. BARBER: Go for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I'd feel more comfortable. MR. BARBER: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's acceptable? Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll put something together in a stipulation that will be massaged by the time it gets to -- with the BCC, but at least we'll offer something to them as a suggestion. I appreciate that, that would be a big help. MR. BARBER: And one other thing. Keep in mind that with conditional use approval in September, I still have to go through the excavation permit process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this will be from the time the excavation permit is issued. MR. BARBER: Okay, perfect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will assure response to the citizens, Page 112 August 2, 2007 too. Because if they come back here with a similar complaint again in the future, it would be very difficult to see this succeed, I would assume. MR. BARBER: Not a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Anything else for anybody? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, we've got to close the public hearing first. We've heard all the speakers, right, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll close the public hearing, and Mr. Vigliotti will entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion, recommendation of approval based upon staffs stipulation, EDC's (sic) stipulations and that they hire an engineer and work out some kind of plan to create a better relationship between the neighborhood, the people that live there and yourself. Another committee might be the answer, I don't know, but I think you need to work something out. And also, one year conditional from the time you get your permits. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, a motion's been made and seconded. And now for discussion. I've got a list of things, as usual. But I think they're all consistent with what's been discussed, so it hopefully won't come as too much of a surprise. But does anybody else want to comment first? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to make that last portion of the motion clearer, if the motion maker will accept, and I would ask for it to be refined to something closer to that the miner or the owner, the petitioner, will assist in the formation of a committee of the residents surrounding the area of ownership, and will agree to find a number of qualified engineers whose specific capabilities are civil Page 113 August 2, 2007 and can make judgments about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Murry, you're getting into a lot of ambiguous contradictory statements there. Why don't we just -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't know they were ambiguous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, civil engineers are first licensed by the state. So as far as their competency and credibility, that's taken care of. But as far as how they're selected, you're going to go out to, what, 1,000 different homeowners and tell them they all have to make a joint decision or how many can participate? We're getting into issues that may be really hard to control. Do you have any idea how they would do that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I said, they need to be qualified. I recognize that this is difficult and I was trying to work toward that. Now, I will only say this much and then I'll stop, there ought to be a way that it can be accomplished, because the petitioner has agreed that they would do it. And so if you find that there's a better way of saying it, I'll be happy to defer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I haven't found a way, I was -- I wanted to make sure that you didn't end up with a stipulation that couldn't be adequately enacted. That's what I was worried about. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. In actuality, what I was attempting to do was bring the thought process to something more clear, and that the words then can be qualified from it. I didn't have an expectation that what I was going to say once was going to be perfect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Anderson, do you have words of wisdom? MR. ANDERSON: Just a suggestion to try to be helpful. Perhaps we would let the county assemble the committee. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There were some -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that comes under the Sunshine Page 114 August 2, 2007 laws, which means the residents couldn't talk to one another about their problems, which may not work for them. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: As the motion maker, can I say something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. As the motion maker, you're not allowed to speak. Of course, Mr. Vigliotti, go right ahead. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: With the last concession made, it's a one-year approval. They've agreed to hire an engineer, they agreed to do what they have to do. It would behoove them not to do it. And I think they're best at setting it up. And if there needs to be an engineer hired by the people, I think that's the way to go, or a committee. But it's only a temporary one-year project. So by us getting involved, I think it's only going to confuse it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Can I make a recommendation? Committee, can this body serve as the committee? We can schedule one year or two years from now they come back and you can address any complaints. We advertise a hearing or a meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you're mixing up maybe the committees. I think there were two levels: One is that we're trying to figure out how to select an engineer that would be considered unbiased by all the parties. And the second thing is that the one-year review would come back through the process like it's going through right now. So I'm not sure if your solution addressed either one of those. MR. SCHMITT: The one-year review you're going to serve then as the public hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHMITT: What you're looking for then is a committee that they can address with the community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think Mr. Vigliotti is right, that Page 115 August 2, 2007 process, if left up to the applicant to work out with the neighborhood -- I mean, the last thing the applicant should do is send over to these people an engineer who they say wait a minute, you know, this guy's no good, doesn't know what he's doing. Maybe before you hire them, call them up and say we're looking at this engineer, what do you think. Go ahead, Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Is there someone from the audience, one of the speakers that want to spearhead it on that side, and I believe Mr. Jones can spearhead it on his side and we begin to start. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that process can work itself out after we move forward. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Mr. Anderson has already agreed to another neighborhood information meeting. Perhaps that would be a good place to bring this up and deal with that. And you all can decide together on the qualifications and who's going to be on a search committee and whatever. And I think that should be one of the stipulations, Mr. Vigliotti, because it was offered by Mr. Anderson that there would be another neighborhood information meeting here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's good. I'll add that to the motion. COMMISSIONER CARON: Between now and the BCC, and that way they can tell the BCC that they've already, you know, got parameters to hire an engineer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, some of the other things that we touched on was the local damage contact would be Mr. Damon Jones at 304-1506. And I certainly would think that we'd want to make sure that's stipulated, so -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we have to have a local damage Page 116 August 2, 2007 contact. There were EAC and staff recommendations. The applicant agrees with some of them, disagrees with others. At this point I didn't know how this board felt, I didn't see a need to change any of them, to be honest with you. What about the rest of you? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would be with the EAC and staff recommendations. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's what I said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then there's some specific blasting things that were either mentioned at the neighborhood informational meeting or mentioned at today's discussion. And the informational meeting, for example, they said: Not to exceed 20-foot intervals per hole; no blasting on weekends and holidays; blasting is only allowed at the hours 9:00 to 4:00 during the week; and the excavation would be to the clay layer, but not to exceed 45 feet. Then we talked about the changes you were making with the blaster, the loads and everything else as being better. And in that discussion we went and looked at what was existing, and you were supposed to be making this request for more blasts and other items to reduce the impacts to the neighborhood. In order to do that, I think you'd have to have maximum limits then. Your air blasts, in the discussion from what I heard, it was going to be around 100. So if you add not to exceed 110 that would, I think, be sufficient. The ground vibration, we talked about .15. But if we allowed up to a .2, that should cover your concerns. The maximum load per hole, you're looking at in the seventies. And for the last two months, a couple you went above that. But if you were to limit your maximum load per hole to less than 100 pounds per month, that would keep the loads down significantly. And the Page 117 August 2, 2007 maximum holes per month will be still the 1,680 that you currently use. So you're not increasing your blast holes, your decreasing your blast loads, you're increasing the frequency up to 18 a month, but the overall volume of holes and the volume of charges would be far less -- the volume of charges would be far less than they were before. That should have a positive impact on what the neighborhood feels. Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: How many holes did you say? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1,680. MR. SCHMITT: Sixteen to 18? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1,680. That's what they currently have. That doesn't change it. And that their blast time accumulatively was 24 seconds a month. Now, that brings the charge size down, a lot of the impacts hopefully down, based on the testimony we heard today. Any comments on that? MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, I lost track of the 1,680. That's total number of holes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maximum number of holes per month. MR. SCHMITT: Per month. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the letter they sent to Melissa Zone said was 1,680, and that's what they currently have and that's what they would continue to live with. MR. ANDERSON: I'm going to ask Mr. Straw to come up and address your last proposed stipulations, Mr. Strain. I do need to ask a couple of clarifying things on the other stipulations, just so I make sure I understand. The one-year review will be on the blasting only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm suggesting. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, yes, I want to make sure. And with regard to the staff proposal about a revocation process Page 118 August 2, 2007 for the entire conditional use, as opposed to just the mining, which you're now taking care of, is that part of your recommendation where the entire mining operation could be shut down, or only the blasting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would think since the BCC initiated that, I believe, I would like to see that stay in place and let them decide to take that out at their level. MR. SCHMITT: We have not proffered that at all to the BCC yet. This came up when we began to look at the Jones Mining issue on the conditional use. That's in our report. Now, we were going to present that to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, July 19th you sent a letter to the Board of County Commissioners -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- indicating that this was an option that they could pursue. So if you didn't do it, who -- okay. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, we sent -- that was part of the notice we sent to the board saying that in order for the board to have any say over this, we would have to make that as a stipulation under the conditional use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think that's something they can make the decision on. If we just leave it like it is with the staff recommendations and they can decide which ones to use and not use based on how they feel the one-year might be in lieu of. So that's strictly up to -- I would think they could come up with that. Is everybody -- MR. SCHMITT: I have no argument with that, and we would support that. But that's something that Mr. Anderson will have to present to the board, if in fact that use is limited to the blasting. But we'll leave that up to the board to decide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Anderson, anything else? MR. ANDERSON: My last clarifying question at this point is, the motion included EAC and staffs recommendations. However, Page 119 August 2, 2007 there was a difference, I believe, between the staff recommendation on the littoral zones as a result of today and that which was recommended at the last minute by the EAC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, there was. MR. ANDERSON: Which? Are we going with the staff recommendation that the property owner has agreed to? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I honestly was suggesting the EAC recommendation. I didn't see any reason myself to have that change, because if you had this argument in front of the EAC and staff supported it then, that's different. But I don't see -- you know, you can make the argument in front of the BCC if you want, but right now I don't see why we would want to re-question the EAC on that particular regard. Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: I'm obligated to report to the board what their bodies that they appoint. We will present that information to the board. We'll present the staff position on that and let the board make that decision. I respect that. I think that's the way this should proceed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think anybody would respect that of us, too. So both ways it works. Okay, any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Vigliotti, do you accept-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the recommended stipulations? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, one more. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I do. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I accept the second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the first and the second accepted the ones discussed so far. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just wanted to add that Page 120 August 2, 2007 archeological monitoring. And what I think would be good is if they establish an architectural monitoring plan and made sure that all the employees are aware of its requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, do you have any problems with that? MR. ANDERSON: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The establishment of an archeological monitoring plan, to make sure the employees are aware of it, should you discover something on the property that would have a need for addressing an archeological feature? MR. ANDERSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll add that to my motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion as stipulated, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you, and I hope that this works better for the neighborhood. It's an attempt. And one year from now -- or one year from the date of the excavation permit, which will happen in a few months, just be watching, and come here and tell us. You've got my phone number, you can always Page 121 August 2, 2007 call me. We'll certainly react. MR. BARBER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. This meeting will adjourn for one hour -- not adjourn, we'll take a break for one hour. We'll be back here at 1:40. Thank you. (Luncheon recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Welcome back to the planning commission meeting. It's 1 :40. We'll resume. Item #8C PETITION: CU-2005-AR-8748 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next hearing up for this afternoon is Petition CU-2005-AR-8748, Ashraf Fawzy, represented by Wayne Arnold for an aquaculture facility in the rural fringe. Those wishing to testify on behalf of this application, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures from the planning commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've had the applicant's representative e-mail me for a meeting. We didn't get time to meet. Mr. Arnold asked me for some comments on it; we really didn't have time to talk because I was on my way out. So I really didn't have a meeting with anybody, but I was contacted. Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, go ahead, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of the petitioner. Page 122 August 2, 2007 With me today is Ashraf Fawzy, who is the owner of the property and the petitioner; Wayne Arnold from Grady Minor and Associates; Dean Smith from Grady Minor and Associates, and Jeremy Sterk from Hoover Planning. And they can answer any questions you may have regarding the petition that I don't get to in my comments. Before you today is a petition to remove dirt from a parcel of property. It's a temporary use. Our main use is aquaculture, which under the Right to Farm Act is an allowed use in the rural fringe mixed use district where this property is located. Because we have to remove the dirt from the property once we dig the hole, which will be our aquaculture operation, there's an argument from your staff that we need to go through this process to remove the dirt off the property. We do not need any authorization from the county to dig the hole for purposes of doing our aquaculture operation, it's the removal of the dirt from the property so we can make the farm operable. That is why staff says we need to be here. I honestly believe that we don't need to be here, that if you look at the rural fringe mixed use district, it clearly says that agricultural uses are permitted uses. And if you'll look at your table number two in your Land Development Code that applies to the ago zoning district, which we're not, it clearly recognizes that the removal of dirt is an accessory use to an agricultural operation. However -- and it says if you're zoned ag., and you're under that table, you're limited to removal of 4,000 cubic yards without having to go through this conditional use process. That same limitation is not found in the rural fringe mixed use district portion of the Land Development Code. But be that as it may, my client started the process. We were very close to the end of the process when I got engaged and we were before you all in February and we were sent back to do an EIS for this agricultural operation to then go to the EAC for review of that EIS. Page 123 August 2, 2007 We did the EIS. We went to the EAC and the EAC recommended unanimously that we be allowed to go forward with the removal of the dirt from the property. So we're here today because we started the process. We don't agree we need to be in the process, so we're not waiving any rights to contest whether or not we need to be in the process in the first place. The property has an agricultural exemption pursuant to Section 193.461 Florida Statutes, which is one of the requirements under the Right to Farm Act. So we have met that requirement. We will be constructing a fish farm. Originally we were going to operate a tilapia farm. Staff has taken the position that that's a non-native fish so you cannot do tilapia. Again, if you look at the Best Management Practices associated with this property, it says you can do tilapia if you have a license to do tilapia. He had a license to do tilapia but staff was not going to recognize that license, so we're not doing tilapia now, we're going to go with a native fish, catfish or shrimp is what we're proposing to do right now. We will follow the Best Management Practices required for aquaculture operations, which is also a requirement of the Right to Farm Act. As I said, the farming operation is a permitted use in the rural fringe mixed use district. And just to read for the record what a farm is, so there's no question about that, under 823. 14(3)(a) of the Florida Statutes, it says, farm means the land, building, support facilities, machinery and other appurtenances used in the production of farm or aquaculture products. So what we're doing is an aquaculture operation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the wrong reference. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I don't believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll get into it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: 24.14, subsection (3)(a), definitions, Page 124 August 2, 2007 Florida Statutes. And if you want to go to 163.3162(3), definitions, (3)(a) referenced farm is defined as in Section 823.14. So that's how you tie the two back. The property owner will be removing approximately 300,000 cubic yards of dirt to construct the lake, which will be the aquaculture operation. The owner has worked with the neighbors in the area to address transportation issues as far as the private roads, and has agreed to make sure that the roads are in as good if not better condition while he's using the roads as they are today. And when he's done using the roads to remove the dirt, they'll be in as good if not better condition. I believe that's a stipulation of your staff recommendation of approval. It's interesting to me that if -- there's no question, because we've already done it. When you clear the land to remove the trees, you can either -- you can remove those trees without having to get any type of permission from the county, but if -- because it's a by-product of getting the land ready for a farm. For some reason the county in the agricultural district believes that if you're going to remove the dirt, which is also a by-product of the farm, you need to get some type of additional approval. The nearest resident to us is 3,000 feet away. We've had our neighborhood information meeting; there were no objections to what we are requesting. We can live with the staff recommendations attached to the -- to your staff report. As I said, the EAC heard this petition on June 6th, 2007 and unanimously recommended approval. We haven't heard any objections from our neighbors regarding the proposal. Your staffs recommending approval. And we're requesting that the planning commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that they approve our request for a temporary use to remove the dirt from the property so my client can go into the Page 125 August 2, 2007 business of a fish farm. That is our overall presentation. You have on the visualizer a vicinity map or location map to show you where the property is. The property has been cleared so that that aerial is a little old. But other than that, that shows you where the property is. And we're available to answer any questions you may have regarding the specifics of the application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would -- if the board wouldn't mind, I'd like to start out specifically with the Florida Statutes reference. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Go for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I need to understand it better. Because the reference that Richard cited is not the one that I was looking at or finding as a reference. And Richard, I'm going to walk you through it, maybe you can explain it to me. But I have to go back to the way this is referenced in the sending lands. In the sending lands, their RFMU sending lands it says, agricultural uses consistent with Sections 163.3162 and 823.1406 of Florida Statutes. Under the receiving lands, and neutral lands, it lists the permitted uses or rights, which is a different way of addressing the issue than it is under the sending lands. So under receiving and neutral lands, it actually lists agricultural activities including but not limited to. And it goes into all the types of agricultural activities including aquaculture. But they're actually physically listed in the receiving lands and neutral lands and they're not listed in the sending lands. The sending lands strictly refer to Florida Statutes. So if you go to Section 163.3162 of Florida Statutes, which you earlier quoted, under paren. four, duplication of regulation, about the middle of the paragraph, there's a reference that says, or otherwise limit an activity of a bona fide farm operation on land classified as agricultural land pursuant to 193.461, which is again a section I believe you referenced. Page 126 August 2, 2007 And under paren. six of 163.3162 it also refers to a bona fide farm operation, classified under 193.461. Under 193.461, it reads bona fide agricultural purposes means good faith commercial agricultural use of the land. In determining whether the use of the land for agricultural purposes is bona fide, the following factors may be taken into consideration: Number one, the length of time the land has been so utilized. I don't know if it's currently an aqua-farm, but I don't know it has been utilized as that to this date. Number two, whether the use has been continuance. I think you're just asking to do the use. And number four, the size that relates to the specific agricultural use. We'll get into that in a minute. And number five, whether the indicated effort has been made to care sufficiently and adequately for the land in accordance with the accepted commericial agricultural practices. Which you haven't operated it yet. Now, how does that past tense work into the present? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, because, Mr. Strain, the exemption today is for the cattle that uses all 15 acres of the parcel of the property. And it also says that you can change the agricultural use. You don't have to be cattle forever. You can go from one agricultural use to another agricultural use. We have met the requirements under the statute, according to the property appraiser, who is the person who decides whether or not we have an agricultural exemption. We have the agricultural exemption required under the statutes. And it clearly says the county cannot duplicate the efforts of the state. And it also basically says that as long as you're following the best management practices the county cannot regulate those operations. Now, the rural fringe mixed use district says uses permitted as of right. Page 127 August 2, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to get closer to the speaker, please. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The Land Development Code says, under the rural fringe mixed use district sending lands, 4-A, allowable use -- I'm sorry, uses permitted as of right. Agricultural uses consistent with Section 163.3162 and 823.14. Now, 163.3162 has definitions. And it sends you in subsection three to farm. And when you go to the term farm, it's what I read to you earlier, it includes aquaculture. Right now we meet the exemption for the cattle. We're going to convert that use to farm -- to aquaculture whenever we can get there. As soon as we can finish digging the hole and get the farm up and running, we will be an aquaculture operation, which is an allowed use under the rural fringe mixed use sending district, as opined to by your county attorney's office. Because we're only here to talk about the removal of the dirt, we're not here to talk about the use of aquaculture. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the activity of the bona fide operation ofland classified as agriculture pursuant to 193.461 is an inaccurate reference to your use here today? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if that section defined -- by reference defines bona fide farm operation, and you're relying on the fact that the excavation of this mining -- this pit you want to dig for 300,000 cubic yards is equivalent to a few cows roaming the property, and that is the same use? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It doesn't require the same use, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you said that it had to be the same use. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I said it did not. I said we're changing the use. We have a valid agricultural exemption today for cattle. We Page 128 August 2, 2007 can change that use to another valid agricultural use, which is aquaculture. We can do that under the code and under the statutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're changing the use. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We obviously don't have the hole dug yet, so yes, we are changing the use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then I have to fall back on what 193 says, and it says that the length of time the land has been so utilized, whether the use has been continuous. You just said you're changing the use, so it hasn't been continuance. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, it doesn't have to be -- it's the use as agriculture. It can change from cows on the property to a different agricultural use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't read where it says that, Richard, but that's fine. I'm not going to belabor the point, it will just delay it. Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah, I was going to try and offer a little bit of my construction of this. Because I have worked on Right to Farm Act issues with the county. And I'm also having some definitions brought in for farm product and selling farm, which are pretty broad under 823. And you can disagree with me if you like, but it's been my interpretation that you have a bona fide farm operation first. Then the reference in 193.461 is the inquiry and standards that the property appraiser uses in determining whether or not there's an ago exemption that he grants. And then you fall back on the definition of farm, farm product and so forth to determine whether it's a farm. But the question that arises in my mind, and I'm not aware of what one of my colleagues may have opined, because this didn't start out as my item, but I think the in inquiry should be even though the excavation mayor may not be necessary for mariculture, or aquaculture, could that be included under the ambit of agricultural uses, period. Page 129 August 2, 2007 One way I think to look at it is you have an excavation and you have aquaculture or mariculture. Do you have to have that -- can you have that without doing an excavation? And I think there's some people that say that you can't. So I guess the inquiry in my mind is whether excavation, which apparently is necessary to have a lake for this type of use, could fall under the ambit of the term agricultural uses, period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you also use the term necessary. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, yeah, that's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's extensive literature on catfish farming and other means of farming for which this agricultural license from Tallahassee was issued that don't rely on excavated pits or production and breeding and manufac -- not I guess -- reaping, harvesting catfish. In fact, levies are actually a solution that's been used in most other parts of the country. So I'm not sure this is necessary, although it's convenient. But thank you. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I just want to explain how I had interpreted that in the past. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate it, thank you. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm having the definitions brought down from 823 also. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, and I would submit to you that necessity is not one of the criteria. The Best Management Practices talks about a lot of different ways to go about doing this. One of which is to dig a lake to where we don't waste water by filling an area and then after we harvest the fish throw the water away, refill the area with new water. The reason we're doing the lake is because the lake will be deep enough for the water to absorb the by-product of the fish while they're growing. And that's the reason we've chosen that and we're following the Best Management Practices, and that's an allowable use to dig the hole for the fish to be raised. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Digging a hole. What is the Page 130 August 2, 2007 by -product? MR. YOV ANOVICH: When they kind of go to the bathroom, you know, you want that stuff to go away. And there's enough water-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You think it goes away by settling to the bottom of the lake? MR. YOV ANOVICH: And the lake will be large enough for it to be absorbed and taken care of and dissipated without having to drain the lake to put fresh water in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Midney, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, could you please tell me, with 300,000 yards, what will be the depth of this lake? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, there's between -- well, depending on the time of the year. When there's the wet season, it will be 20 feet, when it's dry season, it will be 15 feet. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And I assume you're going to be growing shrimp according to the model of the farm that's in LaBelle, the shrimp farm there, the freshwater shrimp farm? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I have no idea. We're talking about catfish as well as -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But I thought you just said shrimp. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I said catfish and shrimp, or shrimp. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Licenses for both. One is -- well, the license is for both. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. I'm just questioning the depth, if that's an efficient way to grow catfish or shrimp. Because I don't think commercial farms are that deep. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I'll bring Mr. Fawzy up here who can explain it to you, since it's his -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go on to Mr. Fawzy, is there any other questions of Richard? Page 13 1 August 2, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it might be that -- Richard, I'm having trouble associating the need for that much -- that big a lake for the fish. Do you have any kind of data to show why this lake has the size it is? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, what we're doing -- and Mr. Fawzy will explain the operation -- is the cages are 10 feet by 10 feet by 10 feet. You need a float, they're going to float. So with the fluctuation of the lake, that's going to effect how deep we need to go. As well as making sure that the water remains healthy and that we don't have to drain -- you could do this with shallower lakes. And in doing so, you're going to have to pump the water out when you harvest them about every six months. You would get rid of the water, you'd fill it with new water. The depth of the lake allows us to not have to remove the water every time we harvest the fish. So it's a more efficient operation for the farm, it's healthier for the farm. And Mr. Fawzy can take you through the details of that on how that works. And we went through the very same analysis with the EAC, and they understood the operation of the farm. MR. FA WZY: Yes, thank you. Ashraf Fawzy, for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you have a question of COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I did. And maybe I'm premature on this, I hope not, but there are two things that go through my mind. I wrote my note, is this mining? 300,000 cubic yards is a lot, I think. But it may not rise to the level of mining. But my question here is in the staff report it says, which shall eventually be replaced by a single-family house. And you read off a listing of all the accessories or I guess appurtenances. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can't think of the word. Page 132 August 2, 2007 Was any of that a house? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're going to have three areas. One's the -- I need to look at my list. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, one is a house, according to your plan. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And which is a permitted use -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I'm trying to find -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: On the property. A house nobody questions. A house is an allowable use. The other accessory uses will be -- and I can't read this -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You don't have to go far for that. I want to focus on the house, it I may. Because I tried to figure out, if you're going to have a big '01 lake in the middle of this thing, and I was wondering where are you going to put the house and still have adequate setback and the rest -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's shown on the plan. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I know, but I want to satisfy my need -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The setbacks are on the plan, too. That's what I'm saying, you could -- if you had the -- all right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. All right. What I was trying to do was understand whether or not there was going to be -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: If a house is built, if a house is built, I'm told it will be back here. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Where the trailer was going to be. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. If a house was built. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that would comport with all of the setbacks and the rest of it? That's all -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It would have to. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- considered into this? Page 133 August 2, 2007 MR. YOV ANOVICH: It would have to, yes. And Mr. Arnold has verified that we meet all the setbacks required. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And if this 300,000 cubic yards of material were taken away and Fawzy decided to just leave, what would happen then? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me -- you know what? I will admit to you, the first time I met with Mr. Fawzy I said, I think this is going to sound like an earth mine. And he assured me -- and I've been working on this project a lot longer than I've wanted to work on this project because we keep running into little roadblocks here. Weare willing to give you any assurances you need that we're going to go ahead and build an aquaculture operation. That's what he wants to do COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Like a letter of credit? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Whatever you need. We -- what happened was when he started this process it was basically a wash between the value of the dirt and what it was going to cost him to build the farm. Then as you know the housing market got hot, a lot of dirt was going to other places besides here and the value of the dirt went up. He started this -- he bought the property in 2003. He submitted for a conditional use in 2005. The price went up. And everybody -- that's when people said wait a minute, he's really an earth mine. Because all of a sudden it went from maybe making $500,000 worth of dirt to a million and a half worth of dirt at the peak of the market. Now, you know, if we keep delaying it enough, he'll be back down to the break even point. So we're willing to put assurances as a condition of this that he can't pull the profits, if you will, from the sale of the dirt until the farm is up and operating. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's where I was going. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because I -- I've said that from the first Page 134 August 2, 2007 step. I said we've got to be able to convince people we're not just trying to dig a hole, then we're going to run away and there's never going to be a farm. We're willing to do that. And we'll work with you to whatever that is. And my thought was you put the money in an escrow account, and he pulls the money out of that escrow account to cover his expenses to build the farm. And then the county comes out and they inspect the property and he sees the farm is up and running, then he can have whatever -- if there is any money left, to put in his account. No different than any other farmer that would clear his land and maybe sell the timber. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. That's what I needed to understand. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Richard? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Fawzy? MR. FAWZY: Ashraf Fawzy, for the record. When we start thinking about the aquaculture -- I actually studied agricultural. If I got the degree for poultry science from Alexandria, Egypt. Tilapia fish was very popular there. That's why I start to thinking about tilapia fish. Due to the regulation, we changed it to catfish, just trying to do the right thing for the county. Now, the water quality was major issue for me and for the whole county in the last few years. When I start thinking about building the farm, I wanted to do the best way to do a fish farm. I'm a farmer, but I studied that. And I wanted to do something good for Collier County and for myself to be proud of. We got a very nice engineering company that went over the slope and the regulation for the county as a commercial. Even agriculture didn't really require all of this. The main point that I find out is if we got the water, large volume, the fish will live and eat and we don't really have to put any Page 135 August 2, 2007 extra energy to filtrate. We don't have to take the waste of the fish, like most of the people who do shallow lakes all over the United States, all over the world. When it's a shallow lake or a small pond, they put lining to keep the water in. Now, we have to go deep enough so we don't have to put the lining and keep the water in. The second thing is usually we raise the fish for four to six months, depending what type of fish it is. After six months what happen is the lining is keeping all the material inside. Some of it breaks down, but the majority of it, we have to discharge all of this water out through the aquifer. If we going to go right next for wherever the lake is we have to do that. And basically it's going to stay there and we have to pump from water well to put fresh water inside the pumps. And that's what I was trying not to do. Until now we're going through all this just trying to get a bigger size volume of water. When we get the larger volume, we can put more fish, that's true. But at the same time, if we get the right amount, which is allowed in Best Management Practice, 1,500 fish, a surface acre, it actually doesn't require anything. No filtration, and it's -- there is no nitrate waste coming down to harm anybody. Fish is very sensitive. If something happen to the fish, basically is going to die. If the fish dies, it's more sensitive than human. I'm not going to be making money if the fish dies. So I'm trying to make sure that the water quality is very good for human and for the fish too. If the fish can survive it, basically is not going to harm the environment. The depth that you came with, it's actually 20 feet is the maximum allowed without being mining operation. But at the same time the water level drops down -- and we did a study last year, and there was almost 12 feet. Ifwe go down to 20 feet down deep in the dry season, we're going to only have about 12 feet of water. Now, we putting cages inside to put the fish inside. Those cages, basically it's 1 O-by-l O-by-l O. The fish need the space to move, we Page 136 August 2, 2007 need to control it. And if the water level drop less than that, the tank or the cages, they're going to be stuck in the mud. So we're trying to keep as much water depth that allowable use without going so deep. So we decided to do 20 feet to be able to maintain the fish alive without putting any more water from somewhere else resources and not discharging water outside. That's the main thing for the environment, we're trying to be safe. I don't know if that answered the question, or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I still can't understand, if you're going to be raising fish continuously and putting nitrogen and phosphorous into the water and this is going to be coming out in the feces of the fish, I can't imagine how this is just going to settle to the bottom of the pond and not going to diffuse through the water back to the fish. MR. FA WZY: It's actually the weight of it make it go down. But it will break down. There is bacteria in the water. A lot of type. Different type and different depth and different light. And basically from the study that we're having, aquaculture, 1,500 fish per one acre surface of water, which is one foot deep, it basically will be completely dissolved to minute amount that is safe for human consumption. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because this reminds me of a situation in a water and sewer plant where you have settling ponds that could be of that same depth. And supposedly the action of the sunlight and the -- and just the weathering will get rid of some of it, but it does nowhere near get rid of all of it. It accumulates in those water and sewer ponds. MR. FA WZY: We will have some type of algae, definitely, yes. And there's some type of fish. One of them is basically the tilapia and the catfish that they actually will go and consume that again. If -- I don't want to go over the subject, but if you really think Page 13 7 August 2, 2007 about the septic tanks that we have outside all over Golden Gate, they actually filter through, something goes right through them. You don't get rid of all the feces and all of that from human. Now the fish amount, like I'm saying, if we regulate it to 1,500, it's the Best Management Practice requiring that. It's almost like nothing is left. We cannot really say yeah, 100 percent sure we're going to get rid of all of it. But to a big limit this is the safest and the best recommendation and the minute amount. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you heard of an item called oxygen depletion? MR. FA WZY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, when you have a high nutrient product like feces going to the bottom of the pond and algae blooms occur, they deplete the oxygen from the water which causes problems for the fish. How are you going to address that? MR. FA WZY: We actually have to put aerator, and we're trying to keep as many aerator out, not in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Get closer to the mic, if you could. MR. FAWZY: We're going to use aerator. And necessity. That's why we're trying to keep the amount of fish as less as we can and the body of the water as large as we can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What size horsepower is your aerator? MR. FA WZY: So far we don't really know how big we're going to get the aerator. I'm looking through two or three different types. They have the better ones and they have like fountain, too. So it depend on the cage size and how many we're going to put inside. We might use four or five of them. But the horsepower and all of that, we don't really know exactly what size we're going to use yet. Because we might use a row or we might use like boxes and just leave it in the middle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The horsepower I believe is determined by the amount of acre feet you have for your lake, so -- and you would Page 138 August 2, 2007 need about a nine horsepower pump to aerate that lake, from what I could tell. What size -- MR. FA WZY: Total it's about that much. But what I'm saying is we don't know how many we're going to use and which shape we're going to use. We might use it like lines or we might put them as a square. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What are you going to do about ammonia, nitrates and PH? MR. FA WZY: Basically we'll have to monitor the water. But by going deep enough, that's the main thing. From the studies that have been out there, if we keep the fish limited to that amount per square acre, we don't really have to remove any of that. It's going to be livable level and considered very safe for the fish. And if it's okay for the fish, I think it's okay for the human. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said that some of the fish will actually digest some of the -- MR. FA WZY: Tilapia fish known to eat a lot of vegetation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not doing tilapia. MR. FAWZY: And catfish too does the same thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they're in cages 10 feet above the bottom of the pond. MR. FA WZY: Yes, they are inside the cages and the waste. Basically it's going to fall to the bottom of the cages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The cages have a solid bottom? MR. FA WZY: It's not really solid. It's very tight knitten (sic) to hold the feed in. And there is a feeding areas that actually we have inside the cage itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What size is the net that the cage is made of? MR. FA WZY: It's going to be 1 O-by-l 0, the size. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The mesh. MR. FA WZY: The mesh? It's going to be very tight. It's .5. Page 139 August 2, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what size fingerlings are you going to purchase to fit inside that mesh? MR. FA WZY: We'll, I'm going to try to get them within about two weeks age, but we don't really know where we're going to get them from yet. I'm talking to people in Miami, I'm talking to people in Tampa. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know how long those fish will be at -- what length those fish will be at two weeks? MR. FA WZY: I'd say about half an inch. It's going to be baby ones. It's going to be small ones. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: According to the documents I've got, in a half-inch mesh you need a five-inch fingerling. I don't know if you've looked at that yet or not. MR. FAWZY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aren't you going to get them yourself? Because you have breeding tanks and everything. Aren't you going to be the one breeding them? MR. FA WZY: Well, so far actually the land was used for 20 years already for cow. It's cattles, it's out there. So far we're trying to do the fish farming. I don't have nothing out there. I'm trying to do it the right way so we can get the permission -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, he's talking about when you get up and running. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, your site -- MR. FA WZY: Yes, once we start actually going to do it -- this why that's three sites that we were talking about the house. We're not actually put in a house. I was suggesting a trailer, but in the future I might put the house there. But the three sides is going to be for tanks, for storage and Page 140 August 2, 2007 equipment. But for the first time we have to buy the fish from outside, little baby ones. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think -- bear with me, because I'm kind of where Rich is at. I mean, it looks like -- here's a site you can pull four million bucks maybe in fill off of it. 300,000 cubic yards, going rate, what, IOta $15 a yard? Anyway, my suspicion may not be justified. But in the packet there really was no proof of the requirement for this lake for the fishing. There's no information on the fish. Rich has taken the position that the fishing is a permitted right, which it is. But the hole to fit the fish in is what we have to decide today. So define -- if you're looking out over this lake, you have 50 of these lO-by-lO bins floating out there. The area -- I mean, that's only like 5,000 feet. The area of the lake is, you know, huge. It's eight and something acres. So what is -- I mean, how do you harvest that? What do you do, you go out with a boat, you pull the thing over, how do you -- I mean, describe this operation so that I can be comfortable that it's an aquaculture operation and not a burrow pit. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we'll go through that. But remember, what we're here for is simply because the county says we have to be here to take the dirt off the property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Rich, what we're here for is to see how big a hole he needs to do the operation he wants. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Technically no. But I think it's instructive. I think he's -- and like I said, I had the same initial reaction. The first thing I thought of was Jessie Hardy, okay? So let's all say that's what it was. Everybody said, this is Jessie Hardy. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, he had a pole fishing operation. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But what I'm telling you is this is not the same situation. And, you know, you're saying 10, 11 bucks a cubic Page 141 August 2, 2007 yard for the dirt. You haven't factored in what it costs to actually get the dirt out, okay. So I'll just tell you, I'll let you in on his business plan. Sorry. But at the height, he was going to get $5.00 a cubic yard, at the height of the price. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we're here today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know. But I'm just telling you, it's not that anymore. If you use your numbers, it's a much smaller number. And again, if we stay in the process long enough, maybe he'll lose money taking the dirt out. But I'll let him explain to you the fishing -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He'll never do that. But Rich, let me ask you this question: If he didn't put the aquaculture, could he go out there and do a burrow pit this size? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I don't know if we can get -- I can't even say it with a straight face. Wayne's coaching me, he said we could do a cow pond. But the answer to your question is we could not do earth mining. If that's what you're asking, the question is can we do earth mining? No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I like the idea he wants to do the aquaculture. I'm not against that. I'm just wanting to know, I mean, is this an earth mine, you know, dressed up as aquaculture, or is it -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's why I'm saying, what do you want us to do to assure you that it's really aquaculture first and the by-product is just we -- hey, 10 and behold, the market came to us and we can make a little money from another by-product? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Give me a rational analysis of the size he needs to do, you know, what he wants to do. For example, I mean, even in this business plan how -- you know, I do think that a conservative number for on-site would be, let's say, 10 bucks. I mean, isn't it going to take you a long time to make $3 million in the fish Page 142 August 2, 2007 business? MR. FA WZY: I'm not making $3 million out of the dirt. I just want to make that clear. Whoever comes and dig the hole and do the equipment and haul the dirt, honestly, this is excavators, they make all the money. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They can have the dirt if they come -- MR. FA WZY: Basically that's what it is. They charge -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Boy, the lines must be forming at the door now. MR. FA WZY: Basically that's what I was talking to the council earlier three, four five years back when I started. I said, if you have anybody that's actually willing to come dig the dirt, take it, it will be fine with me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're saying you'll donate the dirt to the county road programs? MR. FA WZY: I actually did say that five years ago. But after I paid all of this money and expenses, I've been doing that for almost four, five years, I have to get my money back. If I got my money back what I spend, I'll be more than happy to do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If we deduct your legal fees, will you donate the rest? Anyway, the point is, I'm really trying to get comfortable that that's the size lake. MR. FA WZY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, am I looking at a burrow pit with three or four housing sites on it, or am I looking at an aquaculture process? MR. FA WZY: Whatever guarantee that you need, I will be more than happy to do it. But I'm going to say it simple and easy like that. For me and for everybody, doing a fish farming that more water, which is more depth and bigger size, it's better for the fish. Page 143 August 2, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree with that. MR. FA WZY: That's the main bottom line, that I'm trying to get it bigger and deeper. Now, we went only to 20 feet. We're not trying to go for mine. And if actually I wanted to do mining, like Jones Mining were here, and last year they were here too, they trying to go deep as far as they can, 60 feet, 40 feet, 50. We're only going for 20 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask one more question. Do you own any other lots in this area? MR. FAWZY: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So these three lots are the only lots that you own in the area. MR. FA WZY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm looking at a map and they're naming streets after you all over the place. And why is that? MR. FA WZY: Basically because there was no names on the street on site. And we're trying to get the permit used to go on (phonetic), they said that you have to pick a name for the street, so I just took two names in the street, two different streets. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know it surprises you, but that's not a common name, so it was an easy name to pick. If you've ever dealt with Peggy, you've got to make sure you have a unique name. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Rich's daughter I believe better. I'm done, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, then Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: In this situation up till now, when did you first start doing this? Have you dug any part of that hole? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Nothing at all? Even when you could dig it out and other people take it out for you? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We couldn't. Because the county said to Page 144 August 2, 2007 us, in order to remove the dirt, you have to go through this conditional use process. Now, we can -- we have three lots. We could remove 12,000 cubic yards without having to go through this process. But to remove the rest of the dirt to dig the -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But there is -- up till now there has been no digging into the hole? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Rich, I'm a little skeptical also from the beginning, so if you can not talk and Mr. Fawzy get up and tell me all about fishing. What are you going to do and how are you going to raise them after they grow, how do you sell them? MR. FA WZY: It's very, very simple. I don't really want to go in very small details. It's all in Best Management. I cannot really recall every tiny minute numbers in the book. But basically we take the fish when it's little for the first time, we put it in the cages, we feed it about three times a day, pallet (phonetic), and after four to six months the fish is big in size, we'll pull the cage out, we'll empty it, one truck will come, pull the fish. It will go wherever it's going. Now, there's private people that they might get some fish, they might pull a truck once a week for a restaurant. I have a couple of friends that have restaurants. And honestly, it's market. It's like McDonald's, only they don't give you the exact treasury (phonetic). But we don't know how many customers comes, too. I don't really know if it's exactly if it's going to go the same way. But what I'm seeing is it's coming from China. I would love to sell it to the local community, but I don't know how much they will be able to buy. The second option that I do have, and I'm saying that right in the open, that there's big fish farm. That there is salmon and all the big stuff. They will buy that fish if I cannot really sell it in the market as a Page 145 August 2, 2007 wholesale, and they will grind it and make it as fish feed and they will sell it to the people. Simple and easy like that. If there are any other details you want to ask me, I'll be more than happy to answer. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, I'm just trying to get a comfort zone that this is really a fishing operation, like Brad had said, not a mining operation. I'm beginning to believe it's an actual fishing operation now. MR. FA WZY: It is. And please forgive me if I'm going over that and I'm going back again to our point. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, that's okay. MR. FA WZY: I've been living here in United States for over 25 years. I was born in Egypt. Over there tilapia fish was very common. We're not doing tilapia because the regulation. But honestly, I do have a license and I did study agricultural engineering. I have a bachelor degree in science, in poultry science. So I studied that. And it's a different atmosphere. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, I'm convinced. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just ask. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm still trying to get comfortable with this thing. You're going to have a house down there. You're going to live down there? Or who's going to live in the house? MR. FA WZY: Actually, I'm going to put a trailer for the beginning. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. FA WZY: I'm thinking to make it as a site for a house. In the future I might build a house. I'm not saying that I'm going to definitely build a house there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's an awful lot of parking Page 146 August 2, 2007 shown there. It looks like maybe 10 parking spaces on each side. Is there any reason for that? MR. FA WZY: We were asked by the staff to do that a year ago, because it might be commercial. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because of the buildings we're building there, the square footage of the buildings, there's required parking associated with the square footage of the buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. What do they classify it under? I mean, because how big is that building? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's an agricultural use. I mean, it's -- you know, it's part of the ago operations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But an office would be one to 300. That seems like a lot of parking for -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: The number was in the staff report. Let me find it here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If staff made you do it, then there's nothing -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then Mr. Fawzy, let me ask you a fishing question. So these containers are out in the lake, you hop on a rowboat or some device, you go out, grab a cage. And describe what happens then. MR. FA WZY: Most of the time the fish get trained after four months to feed. So if you catch the fish, they grab it back, or are we talking about feeding every day? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, you've got them in a bin, you've been feeding them, they're growing, it's time to get them. Describe what you do. MR. FAWZY: We're just going to make believe that we're feeding them again. They come to the surface of the water. We try to catch as much as we can with a net. And basically the net can hold Page 147 August 2, 2007 certain weight. After we take as much as we can with the feeding, we'll pull the net out, the whole cage out to the side and just drain the water and pull the fish out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I got two answers, I think. I grew up near a fish hatchery, so I know the operation of it. So what you're going to do, one description, you said you take -- open up the top and you catch the fish, they think -- MR. FA WZY: Catch as much as we can. So like this one, we'll pull the whole -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then you'll pull the cage over to someplace on the site. MR. FA WZY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You'll have a device that will lift it out of the water. MR. FA WZY: Exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then you'll dump -- MR. FA WZY: The water will come out through the mesh, so that what is left is the fish. Now, if we do that in one shot -- some people do do that. But the cages that we do in it is a little bit big, so it's going to be too much weight on the net. So we don't want to break it. Sometimes we do double netting, too. People will put the net inside there, beside the cage, and when the time for collecting comes, you just pull the second net out and you leave the cage inside and just the fish comes out. There is so many different ways to do it, but I'm trying to do the easy way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you have any data as to how much area, let's take surface area, you need for fish bins to do this properly? MR. FA WZY: Well, we actually go with the weight of the fish, how much it consume, so how much waste is going to come out. And the recommended one is 1,500 pound for one surface acre. One acre, Page 148 August 2, 2007 one foot depth, you can put 1,500 fish. 1,500 fish. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So-- MR. FA WZY: So when it grows it's going to be about 1,500 -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, but that's not the method that you're using. I mean you're -- MR. FA WZY: It is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you've got them in cages. MR. FA WZY: Yes. And this is the whole point. We put in the cages separated in the water. But the whole water amount is actually going to be moving around going through the cages. So we're trying to stay within the limit. They're going to be inside cages, but they are in the lake, so the water quality is going to be the same. It might be concentrated for a little while, but with the aeration and all of that, is actually going to be the same. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm trying, Rich. So what was that figure again, the acreage? MR. FA WZY: It's 1,500. 1,500 pounds per one surface acre. And I think it's in the Best Management Practice. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We don't have a copy of that, so that's the problem. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We do? I didn't. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Should have been part of the EIS. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't have a copy of it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I didn't get it either. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I didn't get it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Got it. It's here. MR. FA WZY: It's on the speaker. I don't know if you can see it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so your testimony would be that -- I won't be able to read it, but would be that this lake is no larger than required by the Best Management Practices. MR. FA WZY: There is no limit for it. As bigger as it gets, the Page 149 August 2, 2007 better it is because more water -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But where is it then in relationship with Best Management? Is your lake 50 percent bigger, right on size, or where are you? MR. FA WZY: Well, for us, it depends on the lake. We're going to put fish. Now, I want to put as much fish as I can. But basically I'm going to have whatever the recommendation to be on the safe side. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, Rich, you see what I'm saying. I mean, there's a lake -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think the answer to your question is he's going to maximize the amount of fish he could put into this eight-acre lake. And the limit of the amount of fish is going to be the 1,500 pounds per one surface acre, okay? So he's going to be -- if he had more land, the lake would be bigger because then he could do more fish. But the amount of fish he's going to be able to produce is going to be limited by the size of the lake. The size of the lake is limited by the size of the property he has and how he can dig it based on the -- on how you dig a lake. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So he's taken this piece of land, designed the biggest lake he can get on that land and he will farm to that number. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. Trying to produce as many fish as he can. And again, we're willing to show you the operation before he gets to take the profits from the removal of the dirt as temporary use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I'm done. Thank you, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, just so we're clear here, according to the Best Management Practices rules for minimum impact aquaculture facilities, it's 1,000 pounds per fish acre or less. MR. FA WZY: General one? Page 150 August 2, 2007 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry, Ms. Caron, which page are you referring to? COMMISSIONER CARON: They're not numbered. It is the aquaculture Best Management Practices rule. January, 2005. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's labeled Exhibit 10. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Page 4, if you'd count them. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are you past the table of contents? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. It's 5-L, 3.006. Minimal impact aquaculture facilities, (D). MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I come up there and look at what you're looking at? Because I'm not -- we'll let Jeremy. MR. STERK: For the record, Jeremy Sterk, Hoover Planning. I think what you're looking at is a -- to get that classification as a minimal impact aquaculture facility, you have to meet that criteria. COMMISSIONER CARON: So this isn't going to be a minimal impact -- MR. STERK: Right. This -- for this -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- facility. MR. STERK: -- specific classification in the BMP's, you meet that classification. COMMISSIONER CARON: So this will not be a minimal impact facility. MR. FA WZY: It will be a minimal impact -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, sir, you have to get near the speaker. I'm sorry, we can't -- we've got to record what you say. MR. FAWZY: It will be minimal impact if we go with the 1,000 pounds per acre. And I'm actually going to be doing that by putting less fish than what actually is going to take. If we have 20 feet of water, it's basically going to be down the 20 feet. It's going to be 20 times that 1,500 pounds. Now, the 1,500 pounds is what actually the Page 151 August 2, 2007 requirement is saying. For the minimal impact, it's 1,000 pounds, right? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Or less. MR. FAWZY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: And you're telling me 1,500. MR. FA WZY: Well, that's what it is right here, too. It's allowed for 1,500, but is not minimal impact. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And that was my question. So this will not be a minimal impact facility. MR. FA WZY: If we put the 1,500. But we going to put less than 1,500 per acre. That's why I'm saying, we got a bigger lake, we're going to put less amount, which is going to be less than 1,000 fish per an acre. Is that clear? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess not. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, it's not clear because I'm hearing two different things being said. Earlier you said you were going to be using 1,500 pounds of fish per acre. MR. FA WZY: We can use that. So like this we don't get discharge, we don't have to use any equipment. But what we're doing actually, we put in less amount than that, which is going to be even less than the minimal impacts. We have about 20 feet of water. Each acre -- we got eight acres. So the amount of fish we're going to put inside there, it's supposed to be 20 time, because we have 20 feet of depths of water. We'll put in much less than that. So we're going to put about maybe 800 pound per acre when we're all done. Eight hundred pound per acre, which is going to be less than the minimum amount. Makes sense? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The gentleman that spoke before you, the -- Jeremy, I think it is, could you tell me, you said you work for who? MR. STERK: Hoover Planning and Development. Page 152 August 2, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry? MR. STERK: Hoover Planning and Development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I needed no. I'm sorry, I didn't recognize you. I thought you worked for planning and development here at the county and I thought this was David Moss's job. Thank you. Any other questions at this stage? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got to talk with staff yet and public speakers. And I have more questions of staff than I have the applicant, so -- okay, John, do you want to -- it's your turn. Rich, I'm assuming you're done with your presentation? MR. YOV ANOVICH: If you're done with us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but you're done with your presentation? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. MR. MOSS: Thank you. John-David Moss, department of zoning and land development review. Staff has evaluated this application pursuant to the conditional use criteria that are outlined in the LDC and has determined that the proposed excavation as conditioned would be consistent with the purpose and intent of the agricultural rural, rural fringe mixed use district sending lands designation of the future land use element of the growth management plan, as well as the natural resource protection area and North Belle Meade overlays. The excavation would also be consistent with the agricultural zoning district requirements of the LDC. It would provide adequate ingress and egress to the property, would have a minimal effect on neighboring properties in terms of noise, glare, economics and odor. And it would be compatible with adjacent properties in the district which also share the same future land use and agricultural zoning designations. Page 153 August 2, 2007 The required neighborhood information meeting was held on March 29,2006 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you slow a little bit? MR. MOSS: Am I too quick? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I can tell when she's getting frustrated, because she's tensing up there, so you need to slow down. MR. MOSS: Sorry about that. And staff has received no letters of objection from the community. The Environmental Advisory Council heard this petition on June 6th, 2007, and they unanimously recommended approval, subject to the conditions. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed conditional use, subject to the development conditions contained in the staff report, which also include those recommended by the EAC. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one question before we get into general questions, and it's a procedural one. The only person up here apparently that's received these Best Management Practices is Ms. Caron. Do you know why? MR. MOSS: I was under the -- I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER CARON: Besides that I asked? MR. MOSS: Because she asked, yeah. I was told you were the only one who needed them and Mrs. Caron asked, so I didn't send them to anyone else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't receive any. MR. MOSS: Oh, you didn't? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Neither did 1. MR. MOSS: Oh, I don't know why. I don't know why. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We should give everybody -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, you're going to have to Page 154 August 2, 2007 come up to the speaker. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I shall. I think in cases where documents are going to be given out, everybody should be given the copy. MR. MOSS: Well, I -- yeah. I think, you know, to save on paper, if we had to print all of these additional EIS's, we only give them out when we think it's necessary. I thought all the relevant information would be contained in the staff report, but apparently you wanted to see the document itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll go on with the questioning. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I got an e-mail, and the e-mail asked me if I want a completed EIS or just the recap of it, and I requested just the recap. And I responded to the e-mail from staff, so that's why I don't have it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, this BMP is not part of -- or is it part of the EIS in this case? MR. MOSS: It was in the EIS, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So because we didn't get the whole EIS, and even I didn't this time, we didn't get the BMP's that were attached to it. Interesting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I say something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And in reading, you know, the Best Management Practices, I think what the petitioner is saying isn't even true. What it says is that it's per acre surface area. It's not 20 feet. So he doesn't have 20 levels of it. So the concern is we're really trying to get our hold to feel that this is sincerely an aquaculture thing. That statement, I'm confused that the petitioner knows, you know, what he can do with the Best Management himself. So what I'd like to do, Mr. Chairman, is I would like to read that Page 155 August 2, 2007 before I make I think a fair decision on this issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there are some other issues that if we're going to go in a direction where this is going to be delayed, staff needs to do some research on some issues that I've not yet had time to discuss that I certainly would like to. Let me see where everybody else is wanting to go. Anybody got any questions at this point of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd just like to make a comment. I think that you need to know that we don't always know what we need to know. He may, I may not. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I don't. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you need to think weakest link in the chain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, now, can you tell me, is this based on the zoning maps in a wellfield area? MR. MOSS: No. Oh, where on the map? I'm sorry, if it's on any of the zoning maps? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's in the zoning map. You sent it with the package. That I did get. And it showed to be in a W3 area, which is a wellfield area. Am I right or wrong? MR. MOSS: That is right, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ifit's in a wellfield area, it comes under conditions of the natural groundwater aquifer recharge sub-element, does it not? MR. MOSS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And in that particular recharge sub-element, Policy 2.3, it says county standards for protecting the quality of groundwater recharge within the wellhead protection areas identified in the future land use element shall be those provided in 3.1.1 of the conservation coastal management element. Page 156 August 2, 2007 So if you turn to policy 3.3.1 (sic), you have wellhead protection areas identified in the future land use map series shall be protected as follows. There's one, two and then number three. Number three says, conditional uses shall be granted only in extraordinary circumstances and where impacts of the development will be isolated from surficial and intermediate aquifer. I also point to the Water Management District and pulled out the locations of the surficial aquifer system, and sure enough Collier County is one of them. Now, I'm just curious, with the testimony we've had about all the feces and things dropping to the bottom of this pond, the potential of nitrogen and other chemicals being produced from all the decay of that matter and the chemicals they'll probably need to treat the fish to keep them healthy as times go on, how is this an extraordinary circumstance that would potentially impact our aquifer? How was this rated? I mean, it seems to me it's a sending land that -- this isn't extraordinary. In fact, you can leave a sending land a sending land and then it becomes less extraordinary. And I'm just wondering where the reasoning was for staff on this issue. MR. MOSS: I'm going to defer to Laura Royce from environmental on this. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. ROYCE: Laura Royce from Collier County Environmental Services. We use the criteria in the LDC when reviewing projects that are within wellfields. And it's -- it restricts projects that create or store or use hazardous waste products. And none to my knowledge are being used on this site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you consider an aqua-farm in a sending land in this location to be an extraordinary circumstance? MS. ROYCE: I don't -- it meets the criteria of a Right to Farm use. Page 157 August 2, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you're not -- are you reviewing this under the county codes and ordinances or the Right to Farm Act? Which are you reviewing it for? MS. ROYCE: The county codes and ordinances, which refer to the Right to Farm Act also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't know of any extraordinary circumstance that this provides? MS. ROYCE: I can't say that I do. Maybe County Attorney can CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me finish, because another one I might as well ask you of then. We also have in the North Belle Meade area a provision under sending areas in regards to roads. Other than the reference Wilson Boulevard extension and surface haul road, any new roads and improvements to existing roads within sending areas shall be designated with aquatic species crossing, small terrestrial animal crossing and large terrestrial animal crossings pursuant to Florida Fish and Wildlife conservation criteria. Was that done in regards to the roads that have been recently cleared and provided to get to this location? MS. ROYCE: Not to my knowledge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions of -- Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I want to clarify something for the record. Weare not asking for a conditional use for a fish farm. Let's -- let me give you an example. If I had 30 acres and I decided to dig a 15 -- same lake, and store the dirt on the other 15 acres, I'm not here. I'm not asking for anything, I'm digging the hole, I'm stocking the fish, and I'm getting an SDP. The conditional use we're asking for is to take the dirt off the 15-acre piece. It's not for the aquaculture operation. So we're confusing things. And we need to keep that straight. It's for the Page 158 August 2, 2007 removal of the dirt, not for the farm. There's no conditional use for this farm. It's to take the dirt off site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, you want to address that issue for us, please? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yeah, I was also trying to make the point that we need to look at the conditional use that's being asked for, and then the relevant -- and as I understand it from reviewing the staff report and what I've heard here today, it is to not even remove the dirt out of the ground, it's to take the dirt off of the site. And so that I guess is the environmental -- what environmental issues or environmental portions of the camp. plan, hauling the dirt off the site, would be the ones to focus on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How was this advertised; do you know? It says for approval of a conditional use in the rural agricultural zoning district to excavate in excess of 4,000 cubic yards of earth for an aquaculture facility. So it doesn't reference in the advertisement that it's for moving the dirt off-site, it says to excavate. And if it isn't a conditional use for excavation in an agricultural area, then what is it? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Let me ask for clarification from staff. Is the conditional use for digging a hole in the ground if you were to retain the dirt on the site, or is it conditional use because you were taking the dirt off the site? I am confused. MR. MOSS: It was my understanding that the conditional use was to excavate for over 4,000 cubic yards of dirt. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: So it's digging in excess of that amount, whether or not it remained on the site. MR. MOSS: Yes. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Tuff wants to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff, then Mr. Murray. Page 159 August 2, 2007 COMMISSIONER TUFF: It seems that the reason we're having all these difficulties is because we're not believing it. But the other -- I guess it's not for staff who I'm asking. But before anybody goes in to plan -- to open a business, they have a rough idea. I'm going to have this many fish, I'm going to produce this many a year and this is how much I'm going to sell it for, here's what it's going to cost. There's nobody here that believes that somebody's going to make money. And if somebody could say, well, here's how much money we're making -- I know it's not part of the process, but maybe everybody would ease up on the others if they really believed that yeah, I'm going to make this much money this year and there should be more people doing this. And I think that would at least clarify the believability that this is what it's really for. MR. FA WZY: I'd be more than happy to say that, but I cannot guarantee the numbers. And like I was saying, if anybody here goes to Publix, you know the fish, it's about $6.00, 5.99, the tilapia fish. Or the catfish is almost the same, $5.00 per pound. Now, the cost for me, it will cost me about $2.00 to $3.00 to raise the fish. I cannot say it's $2.00 because the food goes up, something gets damaged, electricity goes down. It varies. But if I'm going to put the 100,000 fish, I'm going to make $100,000. Now, that's every six months. That's $200,000. If I take a million dollars from the dirt and put it in the bank, it's going to give me $50,000 the whole year, ifI'm lucky, ifI got good interest rate. If I'm going to do the fish farming, I'm guaranteeing myself, because I know what I'm doing, nobody else is doing it but me, at least $100,000. So it's more practical to me to do the fish farming. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Now, you had mentioned ifthere wasn't a market at that moment that you could sell it for fish feed, you said. And so what would that bring you? Page 160 August 2, 2007 MR. FA WZY: That's going to actually reduce the amount of making the top dollar. It will actually be about 60 percent of what -- the original. So the worst case scenario, I will be making $60,000 every six months. Because the fish after six months is grown up and we leave it outside. That's the whole point if this, why we wanted to do the fish farming from the beginning. And honestly, I started in another location, it was about five acres. And due to the fact that I like the water and I think it's going to help, I was told from the county staff it's not allowed to dump or take any water out. At the time I didn't realize that. I was new here in Florida. I've been here only 10 years. And for the few years I've been looking for a location that's agriculture. That's why I went to that area. And everybody in the neighborhood at that time, go ahead and dig it, it's agricultural, nobody's going to say anything. I insisted for the last five years going through all of this just to make sure that I'm doing the right thing so nothing happens after that that I can regret or somebody will look at it and say okay, it's not right. Now, the issue is the dirt, and I understand that. But this is not the issue for me. Because when I started, there was no money in it. And now the dirt is going down and the headaches that we're going through. I spent a lot of money for that, just to do the right things. And for the other points for the nice lady, she was asking about the 1,500 and the 1,000. It's two different type, with the line in and no line in. When you put line in, everything got accumulate inside there, so it's a little bit worse. So I just want to clarify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you do a pro forma for your business? MR. FAWZY: Did I do? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A pro forma, a business model. MR. FA WZY: Actually I did design the lake and everything. There is a lot of studies that have been done outside, not specifically Page 161 August 2, 2007 for that one, but it's like a model, like the Best Management, they do have the feed amount. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I mean a financial analysis. Did you lay down how much fish you're going to raise, how fast you're going to feed -- how much you're going to feed them, how you're going to turn them over, the equipment you've got to buy, the cost of marketing, the cost of processing, the cost of the labor to pull them out of the -- did you do an analysis of all that? MR. FA WZY: Actually, I did a big study about that. I didn't put it as my own, but I look through so many different sources. I talked to couple of professors at Miami University, Dr. Griswald, who was going through with me with the process, and aquaculture department. And actually we did a lot of analysis for modeling farming that they have already. And actually one of them was shrimp farming. And we were going to submit it to you guys, but it was like out of question because it's shrimp and after that tilapia. So going through circles for the last couple of years, trying to see where we're going. But we do have a very good idea about how much it would cost. The license that I obtained from the aquaculture department, it's basically for 50 cages. Each cage will have about 1,000 fish, so it's 50,000 fish. The feeding rate is always three times a day. Now, with the waste, if it's 1,500 pounds, we can reduce the feeding too, it will reduce the waste. So even when going with 1,500 pound as maximum, we can reduce the feeding times of three time will reduce the waste, too, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate your answer, although I think what you just said is you don't have a financial model for yourself for this operation based on this lake and your operation. You've got one that you generally found and you're just using that, is that -- MR. FA WZY: I can actually say yes. Certainly 100 percent I do Page 162 August 2, 2007 have six of them. Because what happened, honestly that we did that, and after six months, the excavator asked for a different price. We cannot really keep it in track. I can tell you, the bottom of my heart and the top of my head exactly what I'm going to do and how much it is. Like I said right now, it's simple like that. But even if I submit it to you today, I don't know how much the dirt is going to be tomorrow, how much the net is going to be tomorrow. I can give you a rough idea how much it will cost and answer any questions right now off top of my head. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. Let's talk about the concern that I think everybody here would have with regard to water, the aquifer and not discharging materials inappropriately and whether that's the subject of this, or not, as contested. You have both anaerobic and aerobic bacteria in the water. And the anaerobic bacteria will be in the lower layer and they will accumulate. And as you know from your studies, if you've studied this, you realize that this material takes certain disposition, and it finds its way into the surficial aquifer. What is it that -- you're of course ultimately going to have to take much of that material out at some point. You cannot let it totally accumulate. Because the bacteria will just simply not have enough to feed off of itself, okay? My point is with the sludge and the rest of the materials, you said you get down to a very finite material. You're almost indicating that it's a simple particle in the water, which is -- there's always some kind of particulate always. So let's hear a little bit more about your knowledge about how -- no, Mr. -- let's hear a little bit more about your knowledge how to protect the water. You're not going to put a layer there, not going to put something there to protect the water, you're not going to put them in tanks. So we have a responsibility to Page 163 August 2, 2007 try to understand that you understand if you're going to start this job that if your business plan is based on feeding and grabbing the fish and making money, that's not enough for me. And I need to understand that you know what it is that you're dealing with in that. Did I make myself clear with the question? MR. FA WZY: Yes. And I hope I can answer as clear as it is. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Well, that would make the confidence rate go up, I think. MR. FA WZY: Yes. It's simple. It doesn't sound so complicated, not very scientific, but it's simple. As more water, less fish, less waste. This is as simple as it gets. Now, I'm not going off the subject, but we have a lot of septic tanks all over Golden Gate Estates. Human feces. Actually, it's 100 times more than the waste of the fish in one year. Now, I can get the statistic to say that. Now what I'm going to do about it, what I was thinking about doing about it, and instead of just putting line in, the line in after six months, I have to throw all of this water out. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You've already said that. If that's all you can give to me, I appreciate it. Thank you. MR. FA WZY: Now, what I'm trying to say is, too, the biograding that they going to be there -- there's a couple of type offish that they actually can consume a lot of bacteria inside there. I'm not going to use any fertilizer. There is some ways that you break down the material, the nitrate and phosphorous, they don't go away. We can put plants, and we're planning to do that but we still need to go through the process, because we don't know which direction we're going. There is some type of plant and grass that we can grow that can absorb that and use it as fertilizer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand. But this coliform bacteria, anaerobic bacteria that will be there are potential detriment to human beings. And if this gentleman wants to try to answer the Page 164 August 2, 2007 question, I'd be happy to hear it. MR. SMITH: For the record, I'm Dean Smith from Grady Minor and Associates. And it's not widely known, but my education is in chemical engineering. I practice here in civil. But what Mr. Fawzy is planning is to follow the Best Management Practices, which the limits that they have in here are established to provide for a low enough level of waste materials that would create those anaerobic conditions that you're talking about so that there's enough volume of water to turn over, enough surface area for the sunlight to degrade the materials properly, and for it not to create a problematic situation. Where those masses are building up, where the system has enough capacity to keep up -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There's no leaching, right? MR. SMITH: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Let me interrupt you for a second, because the concern I would have there is you might be right, relative to a parcel of land where you didn't have a special requirement such as a surficial aquifer that you're concerned with. I'm just concerned with whether or not the Best Management Practices here are fully understood to protect human beings. And that's really where I'm coming from. And if you are a chemical engineer, you know exactly what I'm relating to. MR. SMITH: And being that that's not my field of expertise, the aquaculture system and everything that the Best Management Practices are based on, I'm relying on the people that prepared these Best Management Practices, who are actually experts in the area of aquaculture and its effects on the environment and what's necessary to operate the system properly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate your attempt to try and qualify, and certainly to the extent that you could defend. But what you and I may not know, because I assume you do not Page 165 August 2, 2007 know, is whether or not the people who came up with the Best Management Practices took into consideration that this body of water with these fish will be on top of a surficial aquifer. MR. SMITH: Well, there is reference to drinking water aquifers in the Best Management Practices that are written here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, if that's -- MR. SMITH: There are. And for public water supplies, it's not the surficial aquifer that they're drawing from. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I realize. MR. SMITH: So we're well above any containment between that public water supply and the surficial aquifer. So any effects of that would be something that would be off-site that's connected to the surficial aquifer. And I'm sure that part of your concern there is environmentally sensitive -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely. MR. SMITH: -- lands there that are off-site. But in reading through these Best Management Practices, it seems that that's their intent is to address that. And in cases where -- I mean, there are cases in these Best Management Practices that you can go above these levels if you institute other treatment practices. And some of those can be things like septic systems like there is for human waste products -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Leaching field. MR. SMITH: -- you can do it that way. But there's a whole outline of how you address that. And the levels that we've been referring to here are more in terms of off-site discharges. So that if you stay below these levels, then discharging waters from your system off-site is considered safe under these practices, rather than what we're proposing as a zero discharge system where everything is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thank you. MR. SCHMITT: -- maintained on-site. Page 166 August 2, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah, my problem here is going through this again. He thinks that he -- I know that we have already approved quite a few PUDs that have gotten their proof through and have actually gone broke. I mean, this didn't work out, it's not going to work out. We've never tried to say well, why shouldn't we try to help you or why shouldn't you just do it the way you should do it. Now all of a sudden here's a gentleman that thinks he knows what he's going to do, he's ready to put out the things he needs to do to get it done, and we're trying to say to him well, do you really know how to do this? That's not our problem. The problem is it's his, and he thinks he knows what he's going to do, he's got a darn good right to try to do it, and he could be very successful with it. But every single PUD that we put through here has not been successful. But a lot of them have. And this gentleman has a right to do it that way, too. And I can't see any reason why we're pushing him around the block. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and maybe you could help answer this. And you're familiar with the Best Management Practices of it? MR. SMITH: Somewhat, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And he has a ratio, and it's surface area. It wasn't like he was describing. So that's not -- MR. SMITH: I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So there's confusion there. Well, anyway, a point is that he's going to put these things in bins, essentially 5,000 square feet for the bin. So I mean, isn't he -- I mean, how does that ratio matter once you cage everything? And aren't we starting to become cruel to the species ifhe's going to put the amount that you can put free range in 50 bins? Essentially 1/75th of Page 167 August 2, 2007 the water area. MR. SMITH: Well, I can't speak to that exact point about the condition of the fish themselves. But he is correct that the bins provide for aeration through the sides. It's not an entire complete enclosure. So -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I understand that. MR. SMITH: -- that the entire volume does have the effect that he was referring to, and that that's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it constrains the movement of the fish. Obviously that's why they made the bins. MR. SMITH: Yeah, obviously it would do that. And that's borne because it's a commercial operation and it's for ease of operation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But your knowledge of the Best Practice, it's okay to take a density that's rated for per acre free-range fish and stick them in a little bin? MR. SMITH: The ratings that I read in the Best Management Practices have to do with the amount of waste materials that are produced. So that's just a straight volumetric comparison that they've used here. It wouldn't matter if they're contained and they're living in a smaller space. It's the water volume that affects that ratio and how -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, that's enough. MR. SMITH: -- much volume there is for those anaerobic and aerobic bacteria to degrade the materials. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I think John, I'd still like to ask you a question or two. Do we have any standards for EIS's? Have they got to have certain criteria to be submitted? And I'm not saying this to disqualify this particular EIS. That has nothing to do with it. But I've never seen a handwritten EIS that we had to decipher like hieroglyphics to try to understand what it says. But the one that you sent me was all done in handwriting, and it certainly wasn't anything that -- I could hardly read most of it. So I Page 168 August 2, 2007 don't know, maybe again I didn't get the right package. But here's mine, if you guys want to see it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Mine's the same way, too. MS. ROYCE: That looks like a wetland determination by a private consultant. I think that was one of the exhibits of the EIS, but that was not the entire -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then that leads me to my next question. Where's the EIS? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just so you know, Mr. Hoover does good work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I can honestly tell you, for the record, I never received any of this information. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I didn't get a single page of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Neither did 1. MR. MOSS: Yeah, I apologize. I have no idea why it wasn't mailed out. We're kind of at a loss here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, all I got was this handwritten thing that I was surprised that the county accepted it, because it was in -- it says Tropical Environmental Consultants and it's all handwritten and very difficult to even make any sense out of it, so -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Did anyone else get the e-mail that I got? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not to do with this. That was another issue. Okay, well, we don't have an EIS. Well, we do have one, but this isn't it. I've got one question for Nick. Nick, I appreciate you sitting here all day listening to seven hours today. Of course you got an hour off for lunch, so -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida with transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's one day that probably Phil could Page 169 August 2, 2007 have came and sat here, and I wish we had known that before the day got into it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Access to this facility. Are you familiar with the access points to this facility? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Slightly. We reviewed them. Some of those are public, some of those are private roads as you get out to the Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was talk about maintenance agreement in place. Do you know if one was put in place? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would be -- if this was approved, it would be -- to bring forward a maintenance agreement, we would send out our road crew to do an analysis of the public roads and the existing conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the private roads? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We would review the private roads. But if there's no complaints from the neighborhood -- and again, he's referenced there's no adjacent property owners within a certain distance, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any concern for access in case of emergency vehicles, since we're operating on basically a commercial operation out here? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's consistent with an agricultural operation, I guess. So I think we probably didn't review it as such for a commercial application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Nick? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, that was your moment of glory. Thank you. Sorry. Okay, I don't have any other questions. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have a couple on the EIS. Page 170 August 2, 2007 And since I'm the only one who got it, I'll at least ask a couple of questions on it. In here it says that the parcel is located within primary panther habitat. There's that statement made and nothing else in this entire EIS about panthers. MR. STERK: There actually is reference to an e-mail. We contacted FWC about their concerns, and there's an e-mail as an attachment to the EIS from the Punta Gorda office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What does it say? Since we don't have the EIS, or most of us don't. MR. STERK: Give me a second to pull it out here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, while he's looking for that, was this advertised properly, based on what you've heard here today? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Could you -- I think it said excavation, right, in the ad? And as I understand-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I haven't got the ad. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: -- it's for excavation, and not just hauling it off-site, but it's for excavation over a certain amount of cubic yards. And I understand the ad said excavation, so that would be direct. MR. STERK: This is actually e-mail correspondence between myself and Stephanie Russo in the FWC Punta Gorda office. In general, Better Management Guidelines, fencing, dumpster, signage should be followed where applicable. One hundred foot native vegetation buffer along the perimeter of the property and outlined prevention of wading bird attraction, if they can be harmed from aquaculture operation. I think there would be minimal impacts to panther. As this is a small property, it would not significantly fragment a movement corridor. The buffer from the land carrying an operation activities might be a deterrent. I know that this is fairly degraded from evasive plant species, ditching and other land-altering activities from the past; however, a buffer is recommended to reduce Page 171 August 2, 2007 any further edge effect and opportunity for habitat quality reduction in the undeveloped portion surrounding the property. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. But in the end of your EIS, you have no intention of doing the buffer that she talks about. MR. STERK: We actually spoke to county staff about that and we upgraded the landscape buffer that was required. Because obviously this is a small parcel of land, a 15-acre parcel. A hundred foot buffer around the perimeter isn't all that feasible. So we did talk to county staff about upgrading that perimeter buffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: But it wasn't county staff that was requiring that. MR. STERK: Correct. And I don't take it from Ms. Russo's e-mail that she was requiring it either. This is her recommendations, guidelines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you need a permit from her department? MR. STERK: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of staff or the applicant before we get to public speakers? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is for you, Rich. Can you explain the TDR status of the project right now? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The TDR status? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, since it's been cleared. Isn't it -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We don't have any for 25 years. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, are there public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one public speaker. Nancy Payton. Page 172 August 2, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I bet you never had so much fun in one day in your life. MS. PAYTON: No, I had it last week over Hussey. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was Richard too, wasn't it? MS. PAYTON: It was, it was. Nancy Payton, representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. And we're here today to urge you to recommend denial of the conditional use permit because it is not a compatible use in the sending NRP A area. Mr. Fawzy purchased this parcel after the North Belle Meade overlay was adopted in 2002. He should have known, ifhe had done due diligence, that the land he wants to dig and haul away on new roads is targeted for habitat protection and restoration in response to the 1999 final order. Mining, as Mr. Y ovanovich confirmed, is not allowed on this property because it is not a compatible use, it is not an appropriate activity in NRP A sending areas. You destroy habitat. The whole designation is to preserve and enhance habitat. There are other areas in the county where a fill and fish farm could be done with little if any major impacts that we're discussing today. I understand the Right to Farm Act and the implications of that, but this is a conditional use permit to dig and haul away fill on new roads in a remote rural area. The cumulative and secondary impacts to the sending NRP A lands are significant and provide a legally defensible denial. Listed species: Florida panther, most notably is -- this is an area that we have targeted for mitigation purchases and for habitat restoration. Because of its location, it is, and it was confirmed that it is, primary panther habitat. And we did not hear any comment from Mr. Sterk that the Fish & Wildlife said that there were no problems. He only talked about the Wildlife Commission that really has no regulatory authority over Page 173 August 2, 2007 panther activities or panther damaging activities. And I haven't seen the packet, but I don't think there is any letter in the packet; otherwise, he would have shared it with you. So we have the listed species activities, we have the roads that are required, if they're to be built, that provide the crossings and other associated amenities such as fencing that protect wildlife. The road issue has not been discussed at all, and it's going to be significant roads that are going to be built to accommodate the dump trucks that are going to be moving back and forth to take away that fill. And they like roads that are wide enough so they can pass each other, they don't pull over. And Mr. Hardy's operation speaks to that. Mr. Hardy's operation was a 20-acre lake. This is roughly half of that. But the road that was built in there was a significant highway with lots of rumbling in and out of there and lots of secondary impacts. So the road is an issue and it is a significant intrusion in a rural, remote area. And we also understand there have been inquiries from other landowners along that new road inquiring about the same type of activity. So we're concerned about that sort of domino effect of hey, this is a way we can do something that we're not supposed to be doing in there. And briefly, I just want to touch on the water quality issues that have been debated today. Mr. Fawzy wants to dig a fish farm. Well, he can do it in a manner that he stores the fill on site. If he wants to do a fish farm, dig the pond and store it on site. Because if it fails, then we can fill that hole again. Otherwise, he can do fish farming above site that will not have that terrible implication of digging the hole and the associated activities. Again, I ask for the letter from the Fish & Wildlife Service that says that there are not any listed species. There are a lot of other things that I heard today about well, if the fish farm doesn't do well that he'll sell the fish for fish food. Well, if Page 174 August 2, 2007 there's not a market out there for fish, there's not going to be a market out there for fish food to grow more fish. So a lot of things didn't track. And I'm confused again about the fill money and how that relates to the farming operation. Because it appears that he has some sort of business plan for the fill money but not so much for the actual aquaculture operation. So again, I urge you to recommend denial, because this is not a compatible use in a natural resource protection area which the county was mandated to establish to protect natural resources, to protect habitat. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Richard, do you have any closing comments? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. We spent a whole lot of time asking my client how he was going to operate his business. I think he showed you he put a lot of time and thought into what it would take to do this business. Now, I don't know anybody else where you've required them to come forward with a written pro forma to show that they're going to make money trying to go into the venture they're trying to go into. The use is an allowed use. If we had more land we could dig the lake just as big, stack all the dirt up. And the whole focus has been how are we going to operate the farm. The focus should be in how long is it going to take for him to construct the farm and get the dirt off the site. We have -- your stipulation says we have 18 months to get done constructing this farm and getting the fill out. We can live with that. It's a temporary use. It's no different than what a developer goes through to clear and get their development ready for homes or Page 175 August 2, 2007 anything else that they're going to do. It's the same use. He's just trying to prepare the area for the fish farm. Again, the land is cleared. It can be cleared for any other ago use. He built access to his property. He's allowed to have access to his property. That's all he did is he built access for his property. It's going to be -- the same area that's already been cleared for the access will be used to remove the dirt. And when the dirt's gone he's going to have an aquaculture operation that has very limited access and very limited transportation. This is not an incompatible use. Your staff has already opined it's a compatible use with what has been proposed. There's no contradictory testimony to your staffs testimony that this is compatible use. There's been a whole lot of focus about, you know, what's going to happen if you approve this petition. I don't know what's going to happen if somebody else wants to do this. If someone else wants to do a legitimate aquaculture operation, good. That's not wrong. It's a legitimate way to earn a living and it provides food to others. If it encourages other people to go into business -- frankly the EAC liked that idea. They thought it was a good idea to have aquaculture operations and other agricultural operations in Collier County, instead of focusing so heavily on the construction industry and other things. I don't think it's a bad use for the property, it's compatible for the neighbors. The neighbors are not here because we spent time with the neighbors explaining the operation and how we would make sure that the roads, Dove Street and others, would be properly maintained while we're taking the dirt off the premises. We have done a good job of getting this petition before you. We've followed the rules. Mr. Fawzy has followed every rule and has jumped through every hoop he's been asked to to finally get here. I think he has the right to enter into this business, I think he should be given the opportunity to enter into this business, and we would like Page 176 August 2, 2007 you to follow both the EAC's recommendation and your staffs recommendation to forward this to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Richard. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: About the NRP A, do you have any concerns about the fact that Ms. Payton brought up that these are NRPA lands? MR. YOV ANOVICH: And in the NRP A lands, it specifically says that agricultural uses are permitted uses. So no, I don't, because it's a legally allowed use. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to Rich. Rich, I have no qualms that he wants to do the aquaculture. I know that's allowed. The reason the suspension comes into it, he has to do something that isn't allowed to get at something that is allowed. And that's why the sincerity -- you know, the real concern I have is the fact that he's going to do the allowed use. The hammering on the questions about fish farming is to try to develop comfort in that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: He is allowed to remove the dirt. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 4,000-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we're going through a process that would allow him to remove more, which he can do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And again, I hope -- and it can be part of the motion. We've talked about giving you those financial assurances that he really wants to be a fish farm and that he wouldn't have access to the proceeds from the dirt, other than what it would cost him to get the farm up and running until he's showing you he's a farm, that he is not using this as a ruse to be able to remove the dirt from the ground. Page 177 August 2, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And there's two things missing from my mind. One is that there was a nice study -- and maybe it's in the Best Management that I didn't get -- showing that here's the size of this lake, here's what I want to do and here's how the equations all work out and that's exactly the size of the lake that I need. And maybe he worked it backwards. Developers take a piece of land and they design the biggest thing they can on it. There's nothing wrong with that. That's missing. The other thing that's missing is, you know, him saying, you know, well, I know I'll make some money on the dirt. I'll use that money to fix my thing up. But, you know, the real money I want to get at is the money I'll make from fish farming. MR. YOV ANOVICH: He just told you, he's going to make $200,000 a year ifhe -- 100,000 each six-month increment. And he believes his worst case scenario, he's going to make 60,000 each increment. That's $120,000 a year. That's a nice living. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But also the three to four mill I think he could obtain from the fill is a nice chunk, too. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Remember, you've got to remove the dirt. He's going to pay somebody to come -- he's not an excavator. He's going to pay an excavation company to come in and remove the dirt. They've got expenses in doing that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Rich, my only experience with the numbers, and this is limited, is that somebody would pay $18 a cubic yard to pick some dirt off of some guy's site, extra dirt. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, and I don't think there's any testimony of that in the record. He's certainly got going for that today. And you know what, Mr. Schiffer? It's like when he started this it was a break even. He was begging someone, come dig the hole and take the dirt. And market conditions changed and guess what, there became some value of the dirt greater than the value from digging the hole. That's not wrong. He started this process when he bought the Page 178 August 2, 2007 land in 2003 and started the conditional use process in 2005. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Give me the assurances that he's going to go into fish farming that you referenced. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I told you what we would do is whatever he gets paid to remove the dirt, which at the heyday he was told he would get $5.00 a cubic yard. They said there would be $10.00 of profit. The excavator was going to take half and he was going to get the other half. Okay, so we'll use the heyday numbers that I was told, which would be a million and a half dollars. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, he'll use whatever number he gets. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Whatever he gets. Whatever number. Whatever he gets paid for the dirt, we'll put it in an escrow account. If you want it to go into my escrow account, that's fine. He'll then give the invoices for what it's cost him to date, because he'd like to pay himself back, and invoices for the construction of the farm; buying the cages, doing what he's got to do. I'll pay those invoices. The difference we will be there. County can come out and inspect and say okay, he's got the cages, he's stocked them with fish, here he goes, he's in business. If you want to wait one cycle to see that he actually harvests the fish, I don't know. I'm just trying to do whatever I got to do to assure you that this guy really wants to be a fish farmer. I think that's above and beyond that anybody would do to get rid of that. And frankly, this all started because of Jessie Hardy, okay? And my reaction was your reaction. I said assure me that I'm not really up here selling a fish farm when you're really just trying to do an earth mining operation. He said, Rich, I'll put the money in the bank to show you what I'm talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, before we go too much further with this, Brad, and I need to ask you and the rest of you, the court reporter's been going for two hours. She's going to need a break. And Page 179 August 2, 2007 Cherie', would you rather we took a break for 10 minutes right now and come back and finish up, or try to get done in the next 30 minutes? We'll take 10 minutes right now and be back here at 3:40. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll come back to order. Mr. Y ovanovich, where art thou? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Outside speaking with somebody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, you want to try to find your wayward son? I don't know if he has any other comments, but I'm certainly going to be willing to let him finish up. Our star performer. Did you have any further closing statements before we took the break that you wanted to finish with? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I think we have -- we've said all we want to say, I think we've proven we're a legitimate farming operation, and he should be allowed to go forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other public speakers, Ray? We're finished with that? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, you're quite outspoken today. This is not like you. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Actually, at this point I'd like to go home. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If Mr. Tuff starts this, it's going to be something is catching down there. Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a Page 180 August 2, 2007 recommendation of approval. I was very -- can I speak to what he -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, go ahead, whatever you want to -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I was skeptical in the beginning, okay? I thought this was just a way of pulling out dirt, selling dirt and making money. I'm truly convinced he really wants to do a fish farm. I think it's good for the county that we have something else in the way of our economy besides construction. I do want to add the stipulations from the staff and the EAC. And as far as taking money, putting it in escrow, I don't think it's any of our business to run your business, but I'll leave that to some other people. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the motion is recommendation of approval with staff and EAC -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: With staff and the EAC, and no escrow money. Ifhe goes broke, he goes broke. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. Motion made and seconded for approval. Discussion? Okay, Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Midney. Work our way across the board. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I really -- if this guy-- and I'm going to have to believe that he's sincere, because we can't -- I don't want to believe that the counselor and the applicant's lying. Ifhe wants to do an aquaculture thing, then I'll support him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm not convinced. I mean, Mr. Fawzy is a very likeable person. But we have to be concerned that this is a bona fide farming operation. And I was looking at the Best Management Practices, which I never got, but they talk about that effluent removal is a necessary part of Best Management Practices, Page 181 August 2, 2007 and what he told us was that the effluent can just go to the bottom of the pond and, you know, somehow it will just go away by -- he didn't really say, maybe plants or -- and I'm just not convinced that it's a bona fide farming operation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I won't be supporting the motion, because I think that owning land in a NRP A sending area is a special responsibility. And I don't see using the Right to Farm as a way to get around protecting native vegetation and habitat and conservation as an acceptable thing for this county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff, did you have any comments? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Sure. I'm for it. And I think as far as the effluent or the waste, you know, his fish will die and he'll go out of business, so I don't think that's a viable -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, you've already made your comment. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, I'm ready. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. My comments are I won't support the motion. I was skeptical when this came in today about the operation being a farm operation, although that is not the issue at hand. Mr. Fawzy is a very credible witness, and I believe that he would operate this as an aqua-farm. So I don't have that as a problem. But where my problems lie is with the aquifer protection policy of the CCME which is 3.1.1.3. I don't see this as an extraordinary circumstance that could jeopardize the superficial aquifer, and I haven't seen evidence to the contrary, so that concerns me. I also don't think the excavation is the intent of the sending in NRP A lands, as referenced in Policy 1.2 and Policy 2.3 of the natural groundwater aquifer recharge sub-element. Those are my reasons. Page 182 August 2, 2007 They have to do strictly with the act of excavation of that pond. It has nothing to do with the operation for aquaculture. If it was solely aquaculture, based on what I heard today, I would be believing Mr. Fawzy. So based on that, I will certainly not be able to support the motion. So with that, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor of the motion for approval, signify by saying aye and raising their hand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four in favor. All those against the motion. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four against. Tie motion, which means it goes forward with no recommendation. Anybody suggest any changes? If not, we are done with that hearing. Richard, thank you. Mr. Fawzy, thank you. Appreciate your time, everyone. We're on to another issue. Item #9 OLD BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Old business. There is none on the list. Anybody have anything they need to bring up? Page 183 August 2, 2007 (No response.) Item # 10 NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: New business? (No response.) Item #11 PUBLIC COMMENT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Public comment? Discussion? (No response.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do we not fill out this conditional -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, everybody fill out your -- thank you, Mr. Murray. Fill out your conditional use petition that was in your packet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, one thing. Can we be careful? Ray, you know, you've sent out the EIS. And maybe I didn't understand what's in the EIS and what isn't. What defines the EIS? But I said no, I don't want it. But I certainly would want the Best Management, I certainly would want the archeological stuff, I certainly want -- so what is in an EIS? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, before you answer, Ray, I think, Brad, what you're going to come up against is in some cases you'll have those documents and in some you won't. And to leave it up to staff to allow -- to just provide excerpts is okay . You can't complain afterwards if they don't give you everything, so I think you ought to get everything -- Page 184 August 2, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then change my vote, Ray, that I sent. Change my vote. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I'll let Sharon know. So that's three. So far that's the request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three of us want full EISs on all projects. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I do also. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five. MR. BELLOWS: We'll give you all one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Six, seven. Looks like it's going downhill fast. Okay, so -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't see how you can make determinations that involve the environment if you haven't seen the EIS. I mean, we're not doing our jobs unless we've read and reviewed it. MR. BELLOWS: I think the purpose of providing the summary was just to give you the highlights of what the EIS is, and not all the technical backup information that is reviewed by staff in the EAC. You still have the EAC recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, I don't have a -- or I can't find the form. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The one that says chairman, I just crossed it out and put -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I had about eight on the other one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I did not have one from -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guys, we're on the record so you can't talk at once. Page 185 August 2, 2007 Mr. Schiffer, you're looking for a document. You can do that after we adjourn. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I got it, I got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made. Second by Mr. Vigliotti. All in favor? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Page 186 August 2, 2007 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:37 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 187