Loading...
Resolution 1997-338RESOLUTION 97- 338 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF EARTHMINING CONDITIONAL USE "1" IN THE "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2.2.3 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 67-1246, Laws of Florida, and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on Collier County the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 91-102) which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of Conditional Uses; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly appointed and constituted planning board for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of Conditional Use "1" of Section 2.2.2.3 in an "A" Rural Agricultural zone for earthmining on the property hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in a public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS of Collier County, Florida that: The petition filed by Geoffrey G. Purse of Purse Associates, Inc., representing R.H. of Naples, Inc., with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein be and the same is hereby approved for Conditional Use "1" of Section 2.2.2.3 of the "A" Rural Agricultural zoning district for earthmining -1- in accordance with the Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit "B") and subject to the following conditions: a) The Planning & Technical Services Manager may approve minor changes in the location, siting, or height of buildings, structures, and improvements authorized by the conditional use. Expansion of the uses identified and approved within this conditional use application, or major changes to the site plan submitted as part of this application, shall require the submittal of a new conditional use application, and shall comply with all applicable County ordinances in effect at the time of submittal, including Division 3.3, Site Development Plan Review and approval, of the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 91-102). b) The excavation shall be limited to a bottom elevation of -13.6 ft. NGVD. All disturbed areas proposed for lake excavation shall be excavated to a minimum elevation of -4.0 ft. NGVD. c) Off-site removal of material shall be subject to the "Standard Conditions" imposed by the Transportation Services Division in a memorandum dated 5/24/88 (Exhibit "D".) d) In order to ensure a minimum of eighty percent (80%) coverage of the littoral zone planting areas, a performance guarantee, based on a cost estimate to replace the original installed littoral zone plants, will be required upon completion and acceptance of the excavation (Land Development Code Section 3.5.7.2.5). No Certificates of Occupancy will be issued until this performance guarantee is submitted. e) Ail provisions of Division 3.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code shall be adhered to. f) Where groundwater is proposed to be pumped during the excavation operation, a Dewatering Permit shall be obtained from the South Florida Water Management District, and a copy provided to Engineering Review Services for approval prior to the commencement of any dewatering activity on the site. g) No blasting will be permitted unless the petitioner of this project is issued a separate permit by Collier County Engineering Review Services. h) If trees are to be removed as a result of the excavating operation, a Vegetation Removal Permit, required by Division 3.9 of the Collier County Land Development Code shall be obtained from Collier County Planning and Technical Services before work shall commence. i) A 20 foot maintenance easement shall be provided around the perimeter of the lake and a 20 foot access easement to it shall be provided from a right-of-way. The easement shall be accessible to all maintenance vehicles. Said easements shall be established prior to initiating any mining activity. j) No offsite hauling of material shall commence prior to issuance of a Collier County Right-of-Way permit. The following shall be a condition of the Right-of- Way permit: -2- 1) The Maretee Road shall be constructed pursuant to the excavation permit plan of record. Said improvements shall be made prior to initiating any mining activity. 2) Maretee Road sub-base shall be stabilized prior to initiating any mining activity. 3) The intersection of Greenway Road and Maretee Road shall be paved to at least County minimum standards to the eastern right-of-way line of Greenway Road. Improvements at U.S. 41 and Greenway Road shall include left and right turn lanes. Evidence of FDOT'S intent to issue a permit prior to initiating any project related activity. Said improvements shall be made prior to initiating any mininq activity. 4) During the earthmining operation, Greenway Road shall be maintained by the petitioner to the satisfaction of the Collier County Transportation Services and Development Services Divisions based on standards normally applied to County maintained roads. 5) Upon completion of the earthmining operation, Greenway Road shall be restored to its present condition by the Petitioner. k) This approval does not include any consideration for Transporting water off of the site. 1) Mining and stockpiling activities may only occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday thru Friday and Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. m) Each mining and related activities shall be terminated within three (3) years of the effective date of this development order. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this ATTE~ST . , ,~. : : ': '. DWIGHT' E. Bd%CK, CLERK ~PPROVED ~S TO FORM ~ND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: MARJO~Y~ ~. STUDENT ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY f/CU-96-21 B~ARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: ~I~OTHY/L.-HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN Purse Associates, Inc. Legal Description for Lake Excavation Area Based on Survey by Bruce Green & Associates, inc. Portion of the Southeast I/4 of the Southwest I/4 of Section 7, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, Collier County Florida; Being more particularly described as follows: Commence at the Southwest Corner of said Section 7; Thence N. 88 04 05 W.; 1536.61 feet; Thence N. 00 27 52 E.; 200.00 feet to the Point of Beginning; Thence N.00 27 52 E.; 978.00 feet; Thence S. 88 12 47 E.; 736.00 feet; Thence S.00 44 19 W.; 978.00 feet; Thence N. 88 04 05 W.; 736.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. fA~ ~ COLLIER COUI{TY ~RANSPO~ITATION SERFICES "B ~.R O ~CAV~TION PEP. MIT ~PLICATIONS I~OLVING OFF-SITE R~O~ OF ~TERI~'. The intent 'of these %'Standard ~ondition~" are to provide excavation permit applicants a summary of conditions'which may affect their projects and which should be taken into consideration 4uring all stabs'of project development: 1. Haul routes between an excavation site and an arterial road shall be private with property o~ner(s) approval or be a public collector road built to standards applicable to h~ndle the resulting truck traffic. Where residential areas front collector roads, appropriate turn lanes, buffer and bikepath shall be required as minimal site improvements and if recommended for approval, shall be so with the condition that the Transportation Services Administration reserves the right to suspend or prohibit off-site removal of excavated-material should such removal create a hazardous road condition or substantially deteriorate a road condition; such action by the Transportation Services Administration shall be subject to appeal before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. Haul routes utilizing public roads shall be subject to road maintenance and road repair or an appropriate fair share by the.'" permittee in accordance with Excavation Ordinance No. 92-73 and Right-of-Way Ordinance No. 82-91. 3.. Off-site removal of excavated material shall be subject to Ordinance No. 92-22 (Road Impact ordinance). A traffic and road impact analysis shall be made by the county to determino the effects that off-site removal of excavated material will have on the road system within the excavation project's zone of influence. If appropriate, road impact fees in accordance with Ordinance No. 92-22 shall be paid prior to the issuance of an excavation permit. 4. The Transportation Services Administration reserwes the right to establish emergency weight.limits on public roadways affected by the off-site removal of excavated material; the procedure for establishment of veight limits shall be the presentation of an applicable resolution before t_he Board of County Commissioners. Should veight limits be instituted, the permittee shall be responsible to implement measure to assure that all heavy truck loadings leaving the permit's property conform to the applicable weight restuiction. 5. The Excavation Performance Guarantee shall apply to e~c'~ation operations and also the maintenance/repair, of public roads in accordance with current ordinances and applicable ~ermit :'~' stipulations. '~. B~ed on soil boring information per qrdinance No. 92-73, a blasting permit may be appropriate. Should a blasting permit application be submitted and should residential..areas exist 'within one mile of'the e×cavation site, 'the County reserves the ~right to deny a blastiQg permit based'o6 concerns for off-site · impacts frpm.bl~stin~ at an excavation site~ Should' a blasting · 2' ~ermit be considered ~nd.a~proved, the minimum conditions of ' ~p~roval in addition to conditions per ordinance No. 92-73' are as follows: A~ .Structure inventory/monitoring and applicable p~gperty owner release as required by the Development Services Director. B. Security bond applicable to private property damage acceptable to the County. C. Control of size/depth/number of charges per blast by the Development Services Director. The right of the County to suspend and/or revoke blasting permit authority should be determined that blasting activities are creating unacceptable off-site conditions either in terms of private property damage and/or related physical effects of blasting operations. No excavation permit shall be issued until receipt of a release from the Transportation Services Administration applicable to proper mitigation of off-site impacts, meeting of applicable provisions of ordinance No. 82-91, Ordinance No. 92-22, and Ordinance No. 92-73. Reference to letter of 5/2~/88 Revised 12/92 A~ENDA ITEM JUN 1 0 1997 August 21, 1997 comm. rec'd copy 13 1 ' Mr. Timothy Hancock Collier County Commission 3301Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 34112 VIA FAX 774-3602 Dear Tim, I have a 44 acre tract of agriculturally zoned land just off the East Trail as shown on the attached map. I had my engineer make a request for a conditional use for a small 16 acre fill pit excavation on the site to accommodate the fill requirements we have at Port of the Islands. This would be a relatively short haul, less than half the distance from other existing sources of fill. County staff was very cooperative and seemed satisfied that the pit as proposed would present no problems. My engineer took the petition to the planning board on May 15, 1997 and much to our surprise mass hysteria set in, and after a number of local area residents spoke in opposition to the project, it was voted down. I enclose a copy of the proceedings if you care to read them. I have further enclosed a summary of the complaints and my suggestions relative to them. In addition one of the houses on Maretee is the parking lot for a trucking company and usually has 5 to 6 trucks parked there each night, so it seems hard to accept that truck traffic is the horrendous affliction that has been claimed by the residents. I would very much appreciate your support for this petition and if I have missed anything that should be done to relieve any real hardships we would do same. Our petition will be before the commission on August 26, 1997 and I will attend to offer any information that may be requested. Best r:.]ards, Robert S. Hardy RSH/vs enclosure Robert S. Hardy 6289 Burnham Road Naples. FL 34119 P~one: 941/597~311 Fax: 941/597-6643 13Al COMP LAINT_~S 2. 3. 4. S. 6. Blasting - will damage neighboring properties. Noise - can't sleep in da~ime. Truck Traffic - road damage and danger. Export of Water - dry up wells. Road Problem~ and I~acte - roads to narrow. Wildlife - drive away fr~ area. FACTS 1. Blasting - blasting is done under county permits in heavily built up areas ia. ~n~ail Creek, Longshore Lake, Quail Creek Village, Quail West where any of these have ~ny tim~s more blasting that would occur here in heavily concentrated high cos~ housing without problems or legal'ramifications. 2. Noise - the excavation equi~nt to be used (backhoe) ~%akes no ~re noise than large farm machinery used or permitted to be used ~ch closer than the construction equiF~nent will be to the residences. This same condition prevails throughout the county in very ~ch ~re built up areas. 3. Truck Traffic - Since fill is required by the ~arket it will be provided from somewhere in the co%u~ty. More s~ller pits scattered throughout the county will ser~e that market with far less truck miles over our roads tha/~ fewer sources will cause. Reasonably well distributed sources could supply the same .market wi}h ~0% o~ ~ess truck miles than ~rom fewer larger sources. Since fill is a constan~ ne.e~ in the county it does not seem an undue hardship for these few residents provided operators mitigate the nuisance with due reason. Hours of trucking operation should be limited to 7:30AM to 5:30PM. Speed limits on Greenway and Maretee could be reduced to a safer and quieter level for trucks perhaps 35mph. 4. K~c~ort of Water - this petition is for fill pit excavation, not export of water. Petitioner has no objection to a condition requiring no water be exported off site. This should exclude natural drainage. 5. Road Problems and Impacts - petitioner will construct Maretee Road as described in the petition and pave it with I 1/2# asphalt. In addition petitioner is obliged to pay road impact fees to county to cover road maintenance cost. However, during the term of the excavation permit petitioner will maintain Greenway Road from Maretee to U.S. 41 in the same condition that exists at the outset. Both roads will be county standard width for rural road sections. 6. Wildlife - the project has county environmental approval. In addition it is not difficult to see from laymans eyes that a 42 acre farmed parcel will have less wildlife than one with a 16 acre lake in its middle. BONIIA SPRINGS NAPLES GATE TD N~qCO PROJECT ~ITE BA?LBS AREA MAP .... 13Al- Memo To: Roberl Hardy From: Purse Associates. lnc ~ .eubject: Greenway Road Fill Pit Date: July 8. 1997 Bob: Attached is the minites from the May 15 Planning meeting where the Pit was turned down i have listed below the names and address of the people who spoke. 1. Neil Morales 14830 Fritchey RD, Naples Fla 33961 2. Paul Rodinsky 11231 Trinity Place Naples Fla 33961 3. Dan Fields 4. Otto Ortega 5. Terry Texcell Please schudule a meeting so we can go over this. Also need to set a time this week or first part of next to go over the section 16 Wildwood Lakes P.U.D. Thank you for your time ...... 774-4985 774-0544 2441 Maretee Drive Naples Fla 33961 793-7817 11001 Greenway Road Naples, Fla 33961 2481 Maretee Drive Naples Fla 33961 .... 13A1- May 15, 1997 (Laughter) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: It was an easy issue, Mr. Nelson. Glad to hear you would have supported the motion. Petition CU-96-21. Ask all those present here today that are going to testify on CU-96-21 to please rise, raise your right hand, so that you may be sworn. You want to Go ahead and swear them? (All speakers were duly sworn.) , CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. Mr. Nino? MIR. NINO: Ron Nino for the record. CU-96-21 is a request to authorize a use that is conditionally permitted in the agricultural designated district. The location of this property -- unfortunately, this isn't a very good map here. But Greenway is out about here, and Maretee runs into the property like that, and there is the subject property lying north of Tamiami Trail, east of Greenway, and is accessed by a road called Maretee. The Growth Management Plan, the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan says that earth mining is an activity that, if approved under the conditional use process, is deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. Conditional uses require a finding of fact to determine whether or not it's appropriate to recommend the conditional use. That conditional use criteria calls for an assessment of consistency of the code with the Growth Management Plan. I've already indicated the Growth Management Plan makes provision for conditional use authorizations of earth mining activities in agricultural areas. It provides for an assessment of ingress and egress to the property and proposed structures thereon, with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety end,convenience, traffic flow and control and access ~in case of fire or catastrophe. That's the condition that can be mitigated to a large extent. It can be mitigated by ensuring one, that the roads that serve this project are improved to such a condition that they will not cause traffic, potential traffic problems for other users of the road who live in the area. Additionally, Maretee Road and Greenway Road, from Maretee south to Tamiami Trail, as the report points out, is very sparsely developed with residential buildings. I believe there are only three residential structures on Maretee Road, and another three from Maretee Road south. So all in all, we have I believe about six residences that will be impacted by trucks going to and from the earth mining operation. The condition, the resolution that supports approval has conditions in it that were promulgated by Mr. Kant to ensure that Maretee Road and Greenway Road are improved, including their intersections, so that they should not present a traffic hazard to other users of the road. So to that extent, we believe that that criteria is largely mitigated by the recommendations within the proposed Resolution of Adoption. C, the third condition that we need to find, is the effect the Page 23 .. 13Al May 15, 1997 conditional use will have on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects. The staff report points out that we don't believe that glare or odor is a consideration in this type of conditional use. However, indeed, noise and economic are potential criteria that we need to evaluate. In terms of the issue of noise, we pointed out that the earth mining activity is not on the entire property that the petitioner 9wns but is only 16 acres of it. It appears to us that it is sufficienfly removed from any residential area. And given the fact that the resolution says they are not allowing blasting, they are not allowed to blast in order to create the a~gregate material, that there should not be a problem with respect to noise. With respect to the condition of economic effects, you know, there's trucks driving down a street that is appropriately improved to handle trucks, will it have an economic effect? You know, it's highly speculative. We don't think that the size of this operation and the amount of material that's going to be hauled away, may indeed have a short-term economic effect, but certainly will not have a long-term economic effect. I'm going to talk -- I also want to suggest that the staff report the Resolution of Adoption failed to include establishing a time frame for how long this operation should exist. The petitioner indicated to us that their intention is to mine this property for a period of three to five years. In view of that, we should have included in the resolution a five-year limitation, and we are now asking you to do that. Finally, compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district. We think the sparsity of residential development in this area and the fac% that it is zoned agricultural, provides us with some comfort level in saying to you that we don't think the mining of this 16 acres of land for a period of five years will present a significant compatibility problem with what the development is that's in this area. And therefore, we think that the criteria can sufficiently be found to support allowing the conditional use to function in this area under the recommendations that are included in the Resolution of Adoption, which has also been reviewed by other staff members who have jurisdiction over relationships that are required by the Land Development Code. And just as importantly, the Environmental Advisory Board also reviewed this petition. They recommended approval subject to the inclusion of certain conditions, which are in the Resolution of Adoption. And I need to speak to you about one condition which the EAB recommended but is not in the Resolution of Adoption, and it's because we didn't really think that it was an issue that had any, to our knowledge, had any technical merit. We -- the condition that I'm talking about is a condition that says, "no blue trucks will be allowed to go to and from this property." COMMISSIONER THOMAS: No blue trucks? B-l-u-e? Page 24 · ' 1 3Al--' May 15, 1997 MR. NINO: Blue trucks. Exactly. COMMISSIONER YORK: White, red, green, or some other color? MR. NINO: That's right. I hate to suggest that they really didn't mean it, but nevertheless, it is in the record and I need to bring that to your attention. But I'm telling you that we didn't include it in the Resolution of Adoption. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Wait, wait, hold on a minute. Time, ti~e, time. MR. NINO: You're going to ask me to explain it; I'm not going to be able to explain it to you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Why don't we -- why don't we just let it go? COMMISSIONER YORK: I have a question. Mr. Nino, there's 16 acres of the property that they are suggesting they'd like to mine? MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER YORK: The ingress and egress -- go through that for me again. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: You need this aerial over here. MR. NINO: Mr. Purse has a better map, and perhaps Mr. Purse would show that, because you have a better map than I do, quite frankly. COMMISSIONER YORK: What I'd like to -- my impression is, I'd like to see where the ingress and egress is and where the residences are that this is going to impact. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I think the petitioner's representative, I'm sure, can accomplish that for us. MI~. NINO: Here's Greenway, and here's Tamiami Trail, about here, and this is Maretee Road. And you can see -- COMMISSIONER YORK: Okay. -COMMISSIONER THOMAS: That property there? MR. NINO: That's the end of Maretee Road. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: You're going to extend that into the property? MR. NINO: That will be extended into the property. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay. I~R. NINO: And this is the site of the activity. Now, there is a residence there, there's a residence there, and there's a residence there. There are no residences on the south side of Maretee, and there is one residence there, right at the end, head of Maretee, and there is another residence in here. I thought there were about six residences. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Let me see it on the map, on the aerial. MR. NINO: '93. COM~4ISSIONER THOMAS: Okay. COM/4ISSIONER YORK: So there is two residences on Maretee Road? MR. NINO: Three. One, two, three. COMMISSIONER YORK: One is far back. MR. NINO: Yes. This is on a north-south leg of Maretee0 and there are no houses on the south side of Maretee. And to the best of my observation from the field, it looked like there were about three residences. Page 25 13Al- May 15, 1997 COMMISSIONER YORK: Is that land there platted that you have your hand on now? MR. NINO: Well, no, it's not platted. It's metes and bounds. COMMISSIONER YORK: Is it a single owner? MR. NINO: They're large lots, large lot-sized properties. This doesn't have property ownerships on it, either. Out to there. But the minimum lot size in the agricultural district is five acres in order to build a house, as you know, and the lots are divided in, by metes and bounds, and they are acreage lots up and down Greenway here. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Kant, did you have something? MR. KANT: For the record, Edward Kant, Transportation Services Division. Maretee Road is not a county maintained road; it's a privately maintained road. Greenway Road is, and several years ago, a Municipal Services Benefit District was provided for the folks out there to get that road paved. That's one of the roads -- there were probably, oh, I was GoinG to say half a dozen, maybe only two or three, of those relatively rural roads. Greenway0 RigGs is another one that some of you may be familiar with, that the folks out there Got together and paved them. And one of our concerns -- and I think it's been addressed in all of the reviews and I haven't had any negative or other feedback from the petitioner -- was that Greenway Road be maintained and restored, if necessary, because of the fact that it was paid for -- the paving was paid for with private funds. MR. NINO: I would like to add -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I'd like to interrupt you. For those of you here-today that want to speak on thi~ petition, the way we usually do it, is staff makes ,their presentation, the petitioner will make a presentation, and then anyone here that wants to speak will certainly have the opportunity to come up to the microphone and do so. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Yes. Just let me add for the record that in these types of petitions, the position taken by staff one, is that the area needs aggregate material; it's a very essential building block material. And that in areas that are remote and where the impact appears to be relatively minimal and can be mitigated to a large extent, and where we can put a window on the length of the development, that we believe that a property owner should have a right to extract valuable natural resource material, which in this case, of course, is aggregate material. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any other questions of staff? Mr. Nelson. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Just one. Mr. Nino, is it possible to put hours of operation in the resolution? MR. NINO: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Wrage? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: My question was is the way it's written now Page 26 1}Al- May 15, 1997 there is no petition -- there is no termination date; is that right? MR. NINO: There isn't. And we've asked you to include a condition that would limit the operation to five years. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. Petitioner? MIR. PURSE: For the record, my name is Geoffrey Purse of Purse Associates, representing R.H. of Naples. I apologize; I just caught a cold the other day, so my voice is messed up. To clarify where the project is and the surrounding area, I'll show you on the aerial again. The project is located basically in the middle of a 42-acre tract and we are only excavating 16.5 acres of it. It's about 400 feet away from our east property line, 200 feet away from our north, 200 feet away from our south and 200 feet away from our west property line. This is based on basically borings. There's rock over in this area and we decided to move everything over, to pug it in the middle, to get away from the rock. This is Maretee Road that is presently a lime rock, unimproved type road. We have a cross section on our plans that indicates that we will put it up to 12-inch subgrade, 6-inch lime rock, and then tack coat it and sand it, so it will be a dustless surface. We've also agreed to pave the intersection here at Greenway and Maretee to the right-of-way of Maretee, to improve this corner so the corner is not torn up by the trucks. Also, we have also agreed to the bonding requirements that are required to ensure that Greenway Road -- there is a fund available to make the improvements to Greenway if we do, in fact, cause damage to it. Also, you can see by the aerial that it's a very sparsely populated area, and that the homes i9 there are by metes and bounds, which, from the old days, is what we'call now an illegal subdivision, because you can no longer do that. The length of the excavation we had put at five years. We feel that it will be done prior to that, long before that, because the pit will be market driven. Now, because the code says that the only thing I can do in there is earth mining, I really consider it a lake excavation based on its size, in the sense that I could have come in through a PUD process, put a subdivision in there, and done a lake excavation. It's the same thing. That's a typical, on a square type tract, to put the units around the lake. we have no plans at all to do any development on that land in there. The remaining of the land will be used for farming. At this time, I'd just like to answer any of your questions and then be available to respond to any public input. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. York. COMMISSIONER YORK: Geoff, a question. Looking at this, the property right below that toward 41 to the south, marked A on that map -- MR. NINO: Yes; agricultural. COMMISSIONER YORK: -- is that owned by the same people where Page 27 · ' 13A1__ May 15, 1997 this property is? MR. NINO: No, I don't believe so. MR. PURSE: No, sir. We only own that 42-acre tract. MR. NINO: You also notice here there is a VTTR Zoning District. That's not developed. COMMISSIONER YORK: Is that currently being farmed or is that -- Section A there, is that being farmed or is it fallow? MR. PURSE: Our section, we've gone out and redisked it. It 'is not being farmed presently. It's gone fallow, as I believe the terminology is used. COMMISSIONER YORK: The land to the -- MR. PURSE: The land to the east? COMMISSIONER YORK: -- to the south? MR. PURSE: To the south? I don't believe it's being -- COMMISSIONER YORK: It's just kind of there? MR. PURSE: Yes. It is, if you look at the ~Lerials, all the land around it had been farmed at one point, and I don't know of their activity at this present state. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Purse, the ribbon of land that surrounds the actual earth mining operation you're proposing, it is previously farmed land and therefore doesn't have much in the way of a natural buffer to it? MR. PURSE: No. It's just farm land with the perimeter ditches already around it. It's obviously been cleared before. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions of the petitioner? Thank you. MR. PURSE: I'd like to reserve the right to respond to public input, if I could. 'CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes. That will be fine, Mr. Purse. If you'd please come to the microphone and I know that you were sworn. Please state your name for the record and while one is up speaking, if someone else wants to come up and get in the area, kind of get in line, so to speak. MR. MORALES: Good morning, gentlemen. My name is Neil Morales and we're residents of this area. And the question that we really want to ask is how exactly is this earth mining procedure going to take place; what exactly are the activities that are going to be taking place here; and if those activities have any effect to our well water area, or should I say, as well as, let's say for example, if there's going to be any dynamite going to be used. We're very curious about that, because we used to have this menace on the side here, and they used to cause a lot of explosion, a lot of commotion in the area, and we want to make sure it doesn't occur here as well. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: It's on the record, sir, by county staff that blasting is not allowed, so it would be basically only an excavation. MR. MORALES: So how exactly would that take place? Would that just be a lot of heavy machinery trying to excavate some in that area? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: We can certainly have the petitioner address the specifics of that. Page 28 May 15, 1997 MR. MORALES: Okay. Thank you. MR. RODINSKY: Good morning. My name is Paul Rodinsky. I live at 11231 Trinity Place and there was -- he called it the Duda pit which 6-L Farms owns. 6-L Farms paid hundreds of thousands of dollars so that we wouldn't draw any water from that particular area. I had a lot of problems before 6-L Farms bought that area. They weren't supposed to blast, they didn't have any permits, but they did. They damaged my house in that particular area. I called the county, they said there was no blasting in the area. I had to call people from Fort Lauderdale who came over to take pictures of my house, the cracks all over the slab. My neighbors saw the mushroom clouds coming from that particular area and pit. And after a seven month investigation, they come back and tell me it was jets at 45,000 feet that were causing mushroom clouds on the ground. Another thing I'd like to say, the people on Greenway Road, the reason why the houses are sparsely populated in that particular area is because the county only allows one house on a two and a half acre tract. There is houses that run all along the whole side of -- COMLMISSIONER THOMAS: Two and a half or five? MR. RODINSKY: Some of them they let them build on a two and a half tract. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That's agricultural zoning. It's one house per five acres. MR. RODINSKY: Well, Trinity Place is one house per five acres on Trinity Place, but I thought it was two and a half acres for a house on Greenway Road, if I'm not mistaken. I might be mistaken on what side of the road that is. MR. NINO: It's five acres. -MR. RODINSKY: Well, they seem ~o be building them awful close together there on Greenway Road. And another problem I have with that road, they want to improve the road. What about the road going from Greenway Road to 417 I have seen them replace that guard rail over there for years, because there just isn't enough room to make that corner over there, to make that turn to bring that dirt up to 951 to build it up. That's what they mainly want to do. Then after they finish with this, what are they going to do, sell it to SSU so they can draw the water and put thousands of people and migrants and farmworkers out of business? I mean this has all happened in the same area before. That they wanted to excavate and dredge the water out, and SSU, and now we've got the same thing again. Hundreds of thousands of dollars was paid to stop that before and here we go. Back in, it was 1992, we all stood in front here and tried to stop a pit in that particular area before, because we're afraid it's going to put the farms out of business. There's over 5,000 acres of farmland there; there's hundreds of migrant workers, and there's at least 200 people that work year round on that farm down there. And a project like this, and in five years they come back before this board or sell it to SSU, and the next thing you know, they want to suck our water dry out of there. Page 29 May 15, 1997 And as far as the blasting goes, they can say there's no blasting, but when you people don't know what goes on there at night in a rural area, we just had a blast last week; we don't know where it comes from. Call the county. What do you call, the Sheriff's Department, I"ve been assaulted by a blast? Nobody does nothing for illegal blasting in Collier County. I know. I've had the problems there. This project should not be. It's not a good project at all a~d if anything, they need to fix 41. That road is too narrow. Coming from Greenway Road is far too narrow. That guard rail's been knocked in that culvert I don't know how many times just with normal cars. If you look back and see how many people were killed there at that particular intersection, because it's a very bad road, that and Westwinds, as we see all the tire, rubber marks over there all the time, where people are Getting killed. The Duda farm, where they're always getting killed, it's a whole bad area. That whole area's bad. But my main concern is the blasting and my main concern is putting these -- eventually it will put a lot of people out of work down there. And we've already gone through this in 1992 and '93, which I'm sure you'll have other petitioners up here complaining about it. And it's not such a rural area. It's the last -- in Southwest Florida that particular area is the last particular area that's just starting to be built up now. And they all seem to be coming off the island because all of the new rules on the islands; you can't park your trucks and you need cqmm_ercial land, and all they're doing is wanting to ruin the land down here. And I want to thank you very much for listening to me CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. Next speaker. I'd remind all of you this board is constrained by the criteria that you heard Mr. Nino to discuss, and that's all we can consider. So as best you can, if you could focus your comments to that criteria, we'd appreciate it. Yes, sir. MR. FIELDS: Yes, sir. My name's Dan Fields. I own the property next door to the proposed site. And as far as the road and stuff Goes there as Mr. Rodinsk-y had said -- COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Can you tell us which property? I'm sorry. You said adjoining, which way? MR. FIELDS: Yes. I've Got the last property that's located here on Maretee. So that's going to put i°c, they are saying what, 400 foot setback; that's Going to put it about 500 feet from my house there. And as far as the road goes, this is like a one lane road that goes through here, which I maintain. And there's really not enough room to allow to put a road in that's going to accommodate all this trucking and stuff in here. The other problem is the environmental part of it. We've got a lot of owls, eagles, a lot of different wildlife in that area. We got deer, hogs; we got bobcats. There's, you know, a number of different Page 30 May 15, 1997 wildlife in this area. And if they come through there and start doing this excavating and all this trucking, we're going to have a lot of problems; a lot of animals, a lot of road kill. There's going to be a lot of lost habitat and everything also for a lot of the wildlife that's in that area. There is so much development all around there that it's pushing everything that way, and that's something, you know, to think about. The other thing is going to be the water. If they start digging this out and everything, we're going to have problems with our wells going dry. We're going to have problems with the diesel fuel and stuff in the water getting down into our water supply. There's quite a bit to think about on this. Then you've got all the noise and everything of the traffic through the neighborhood. You got all the kids and stuff to contend with that are through the neighborhood that play back in there. This is really not a good location. The other problem, we're located right in between Rookery Bay and Collier Seminole State Park, and any of this runoff is going to run right into our, you know, salt water supply there. So this is really a touchy situation on this. And all the property around there was zoned agricultural for farmland. And I was confronted about a year ago from some people that said they bought that property and I was under the understanding that it was going to be a farm, and now I've just received paperwork that's saying this pit's going in. So I don't know what's been going on, but there's been a lot of misleading information on this whole situation here. And I hope you can, you know, stick with us and try to stop this p~ti~ion against this rock pit. I think it would really do a lot of damage to our area~as far as, you kn~w, the noise and the pollution and the property values and everything. So I really hope you consider it and deny the rock pit to go in. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you, sir. Next speaker? MR. SIMPSON: Good morning. My name is Glen Simpson. I work with Wilkison & Associates. I'm representing 6-L°s Farms, Thomas Farms, TGL Corporation, which is Thomas, Gargiulo and Lippman, Southwest Florida Tropicals, and I could go on and on. But it basically covers over 11,000 acres right within this same area of primarily farming and other agricultural activities. Southwest Florida Tropicals is a fish farm which grow tropical fish in that area immediately to the north of this project. I'll help put in perspective where those properties are. The property here, that you see a little strip of right here, is actually part of the 6-L's Farms. The property immediately to the south of this project is part of Thomas Farms. They grow primarily green beans. W"nat you see here is the southern border of Southwest Florida Tropicals where the fish farm is, and they grow their tropical fish in small pools. And this area is -- Southfield Farms, which has been -- excuse me. Southwest Florida Tree Farm. It has recently Page 31 May 15, 1997 changed hands and it currently is not one of our clients. This piece of property right here, if you may remember, some of you had the pleasure of being on the board back in '93, was owned by a company called Southfield Farms, and there was a significant battle fought over an excavation permit. I know there was a comment made that this same group of clients spent a couple hundred thousand dollars. In reality, it was little over three million dollars, '~ fighting that project, and basically brought it to a halt because Of ~' the potential economic impact to their operations. The economic impact does not come from the earth mining itself. There is no problem with any of my clients if this is truly a project :=to excavate the fill and move the fill out of the area. The problem 'is that this area has a very critical water resource. The water table din this area must be maintained. Another allowable use of a pit once it has been excavated or even .'through a well system in the agricultural areas is also water supply, ~muricipal water supply. The main thrust behind the previous battle .that we fought over this property that's adjacent to it was because ~Southern States Utilities was truly trying to build -- use this as a · water resource for Marco Island. Marco Island desperately needs a water resource. The problem is, is that by exporting the water -- and that's the key point -- by exporting the water out of this area, it lowers the water table. The Water Management reviews the effects on the wells, the lowering of the water table on the wells, and whether that will impact their ability to pump water. What's not considered through any of the pe_.rm~t~ing arenas, through any of the land use evaluations, including the county's, is what the economic effect on that operation would be through the effect4of lowering the ~ater table in the soil. Because of the nature of those soils, if that water table is lowered, they would not be able to continue growing crops in that area. The sand -- it's a very sandy area; it doesn't have hardly any organic matter in it, which is why this is a terrific place for a dirt pit, but it also is critical for the ability to continue to grow their crops. What I suggest, if the applicant would be willing, to a provision that'would permit the -- that would prevent perpetually the exportation of water from this area, then we would support going forward and not have any objection, but we must have some kind of support. We must have that type of limitation, because our economic success, which is one of the criteria that was stated that you're supposed to review and consider, is hanglng by a thread here. we don't object to normal runoff of stormwater, we don't object to their normal water use, we don't object to any future development where they are using the water on-site, as long as it's on-site use. It's the exportation of the water from the area that we strongly object to. That historically has been a target for pits, and we would like to see that not happen in this particular situation. Any questions? Page 32 May 15, 1997 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Nelson. CO~MISSIONER NELSON: Only one. I understand everything about the exporting of water objection that you have. I tend to agree with that. You also indicated that simply digging out the dirt would lower the water table. How would that be possible, and do you have any evidence to support that? MR. SIMPSON: No, I didn't mean just digging up the dirt will lower the water table. It will open the water table, expose it evaporation. It will have some effect, but not significant effect, on the properties, except, perhaps, Thomas Farms. I think that's one that could be overcome. But it doesn't lower the water table just by the excavation. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Simpson, you know full well our need for competent, substantial testimony by expert witnesses. Could you tell us something about your training as it relates to what you're telling us today? MR. SIMPSON: Well, to start with, I was the manager of the project for all of those same landowners that put this together. Since 1985, I've been working as project manager with natural resources development and construction.of natural resources for Collier Enterprises. I was the project manager for their citrus grove development. I have worked as an expert witness in different litigation cases regarding the impacts of surface water. I do a significant amount of expert witness coordination for attorneL,s to put together the right package of experts in addressing water or environmental issues. I have a pretty good background and understanding, not to mention I was born and raised here, and probably learned more from that than anything else. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. An~ other questions of ~tr. Simpson? Thank you. MR. SIMPSON: Thank you. COM~{ISSIONER OATES: Mr. Chairman, would you ask Mr. Purse if they would be willing to go ahead and do as they suggest, and no exportation of water? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Wait a minute. Is there any other public speakers? I'd like to hear from the rest of the public speakers. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: You have about five more speakers that were sworn in. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: We may have some other things to address with Mr. Purse. Yes, sir? MR. ORTEGA: Good morning. For the record, my name is Otto Ortega. I would just like the commission to consider my situation. I · live approximately a hundred feet from the intersection of Maretee and Greenway Road. CHAIRMAn; DAVIS: Would you show us on the map, ~ir. Ortega? MR. ORTEGA: I'm not sure which is Maretee on here. COFIMISSIONER THOMAS: Looks like Maretee there. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: Right in here. Page 33 May 15, 1997 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. Thank you. MR. ORTEGA: My living room is approximately a hundred feet from this operation. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: A hundred feet from the intersection? MR. ORTEGA: From the intersection, that's correct. We're right dead center along that proposed line haul route. My wife is a registered nurse; she works the night shift. Needless to say, the impact here would be devastating. .. The petitioner says that they're going to be done within the next five years. What are we to do for the next five years? We can't sell the property. I mean, I would just ask commission members to put yourselves in our ~ituation. A prospective buyer, because that's our onl?! alternative, coming to show the property, we've got Mack diesel trucks constantly traveling up and down that route. I would also argue that although this is primarily zoned agricultural, the nature of the development along Greenway Road is primarily residential. I would attribute the sparsity to the way it's zoned, five acres per house. But the farmland that does exist is primarily idle. It's not 6-L Farm road, by any stretch of the imagination. You've got people here, we paved -- we taxed ourselves in order to get the road paved. It seems to me that this project is justified in terms of improvements that, in my opinion, are not needed, given the current traffic flow. I'd argue that it's just not compatible the way that the area has evolved. To say that this report is comprehensive, I feel it's a question with regard to noise,. I see two sentences here, which I will out: 'We cannot say for certain that these residents will not be )acted economically or by other discomforts resulting from the )eration of the earth mining activity." Well, I carhnot say for :ertain that the'sun is not going to come out tomorrow, but it will. f This, this operation is going to have a grave impact on the []quality of our lives. I can attest to you there's not a whole lot of amenities on Greenway Road. We have no water, but what we do have is ur peace and quiet, and it seems like this project will infringe upon ~at a great deal. And I would just ask that this commission consider nat before moving ahead. ~ ~ have. no alternatives. The gentlemen that own the property, ney nave cne right to do that. But I would just ask the commission ! to consider the situation on the residents living along that line haul ~oute. Thank you. CHAI~ DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Ortega. No, you have been sworn in? COMMISSIONER THOMAS: No, she hasn't. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: You have not. Thank you. Please come, and if you would swear her in. (A speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And if you could state your name for the record. MS. TEXCELL: I'm very nervous. My name is Terry Texcell. I'm Page 34 · ' 13Al-- May 15, 1997 the second house on Maretee. First of all, Maretee is very narrow. ~ You have to pull over and stop so another car can get by. You have .i culverts on the side. What's going to happen if they do have to widen ': that road?  I believe there is another entrance. Dan has a different photocopy o~ the a~ea there. But that's a thought, too, because we ~ need the culverts ~or the drainage. We do get flooded out there quite ~ a bit. , ~ . Mainly, I do want to know about property value, too. I have ~ lived there eight years and worked very hard to bring everything up. ~Mrs. Rodinsky has property listed on the south side of Maretee for ~ sal~, so there is u- by the way, I live on two acres; evidently I got ~ in on a grandfather clause, I think. , ~ It seems like there is two houses going up every year, so it s not that sparsely residential anymore. ~ That's about all I have to say. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER THO~S: Mr. Kant, can I ask you a question? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Kant? CO~4ISSIONER THOMAS: To your knowledge, are there any easements that would allow them to have egress directly off of 41 coming in from the south? MR. KANT: Not that I'm aware of, sir. COMMISSIONER YORK: That's what I was trying to get. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any other speakers? Seeing none, I'd like to have the petitioner's representative come back up before I close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: The people down there -- - '-CHAIRF~%N DAVIS: There may be some things you'd like to say, and specifically, I think we need to hea~ from you on the issue of the exportation of water that Mr. Simpson raised. MR. PURSE: Yes. In listening to the comments, I believe there were about five major issues that I'll address. The first would be the method of construction. This plan to -- there would be no dewatering, that we would dig the lakes wet by using a piece of equipment I believe will be a Komatsu, that has a long reach, about three-quarter yard bucket, that will dig it with basically just one piece of equipment, because it's a relatively small excavation. And the excavation again is market driven, so it could be over in six months, it could be over in a year, or it could be over in three months, relative to the market need for fill. The blasting, presently the borings indicated some rock, but we have moved the excavation away from that area. It's primarily sand that we should be able to dig without blasting. The provision in the stipulations is that there would be no blasting unless permitted by Collier County. I think we need to have that left the way it is, that if we do run into rock, that we would meet all the requirements that are set forth by Collier County for blasting; notification, size, area. Page 35 May 15, 1997 no dewatering to excavate the lake, and we would agree to a stipulation that we not sell the land to SSU for exportation of water for their water use, if that's the pleasure of the Board. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Allow them to lease or get -- MR. PURSE: Lease, sell, withdraw. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Let me ask you a question. How long would this road stay dustless unless you paved it? I don't understand. MR. PURSE: Well, the procedure that I described was normally.. done when they build, like take the improvements to 951. They first went and sub-grade based, tack-coated and sanded it, and left it there until they were ready to pave it. And during that process, I mean their equipment an~ everything was driving up and down it and it didn't cause -- it's not like a dirt road that when it gets dry, the dust particles come up. With a tack-coated, it seals that lime rock. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: So when you finish doing your excavation, if we were to recommend that, would you also be willing to pave it when you finish with a regular asphalt top, like a normal road would be? MR. PURSE: We have discussed that and if it's the pleasure of the board, yes. We would go ahead and pave the road when we're done with it. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: One other question. Is there any other access you can come right up 417 MR. PURSE: Not to my knowledge. That's how we looked at it. We don't have any -- that is our access to the property. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Did I hear you say you were going to use one of those Komatsu water dredge, water bucket type things? "MR. PURSE: Yes. Standard three-quarter inch bucket, or whatever it's called. I'm j~st the engineer,~not the contractor. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: That means you're going to have mounds of sand drying up, stacked up on the land somewhere? MR. PURSE: We will have, in accordance with the county requirement for excavation, stock piles, that I believe they are required to have a maximum height and slope to them, and we'll adhere to that. CKAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Nelson? COMMISSIONER NELSON: I think one of the first speakers, Mr. Morales, asked if you could describe the operation itself. You have done a great deal of explaining. Can you talk about on an average day and on a high use day -- I know it's market driven -- how many trucks are going to be in operation? This is a dragline crane? MR. PURSE: No, it's not a dragline. It's a backhoe type of equipment. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Will that be operating continuously? When will it start in the morning, when will it end? MR. PURSE: Well, basically the hours of operation are set by the county, so I don't know if that's 7:30, 8, or something like that; 7 in the morning, or whatever. I believe our work crews normally start at 7:30 or something. Page 37 May 15, 1997 Mr. Purse? COMMISSIONER NELSON: I'd like to ask Mr. Purse if you can live with no blasting. No blasting. MR. PURSE: Can we compromise on no blasting, to limited blasting? I have a problem in the fact that I do have that one corner -- it might show it on the map -- right here in the northeast corner, where it indicates there is some rock, and I might have to blast there. ., Again, I would like to point out that this is just a 16-acre lake and if you limited me to the maximum amount, I could blast at one time -- there is a code, the county, and they have a maximum amount you can blast at one shot. Limit me to a smaller amount. I need the right to, if I can't excavate -- basically you could take away a portion of the pit, and then if I dig down to that rock layer, now I could very well not be at minimum depths as required by the county. So I might be forced to blast it just to get the minimum depth required by like excavation. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Mr. Purse, if that rock that you might have to blast is part of a shelf that might extend to the area where there are single family homes, would there be damage, could there not be damage from the vibration ca:lsed by the blasting? MR. PURSE: I'm not going to stand here and say that there won't be. The probability is there would be, erring on our side that there wouldn't be. That's why I would suggest that the board might limit us to the size of the blasting at one shot, as opposed to taking away our right to blast. Blasting, just the term "blasting", has, just like the term "earth mining operation", just brings on all these horrible stories t~a~ ~re going to ~appen. And I would r~mind the board t~at blasting has gone on in the community for years. And as I think, I know of only one instance where some large boulders landed on Airport Road, and that was just on oversight on the charges that were put in the holes. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree with you, sir. I'm not worrying about the blasting. The blasting is not the part to me. But the other things that you're planning to do over there, and the amount of traffic you are going to put on the road, does, in fact, concern me. You would have to really restrict the operation of that Komatsu to school hours, you understand, for it not to have any impact on the neighbors, except that one unfortunate gentleman who has a wife that sleeps days. MR. PURSE: Well, we would be far enough from that house where they would never hear the operation. They would just hear the truck go by. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I'm here, I'm here to tell you, sir, I'm here to tell you that I do a lot of fishing in some pits south of Immokalee, and when that big -- just what you're talking about -- comes over, goes down in the water, picks it up and drops it, and just keeps on doing it, that's a noisy operation. It's a noisy operation and it has a tendency to be a dusty operation on your property. But I Page 40 15Al May 15, 1997 think you have enough perimeter property to have the dust settle. What do you plan to do with that lake after it's excavated? MR. PURSE: We're going to, through the county, do the littoral shells and plants around the lake, and that will be our restoration, standard county procedure of doing a little more. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Make it available for recreation? MR. PURSE: I can't say that. I mean that's a liability I don't believe the owner would want to take on. .. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Anything else, Mr. Purse? MR. PURSE: No, that would be it. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. MR. PURSE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Close the public hearing. Discussion? COMMISSIONER YORK: Mr. Chairman, I have, my problem is looking at the criteria in the finding of fact, and I have a real problem with this petitioner fulfilling obligations under B and C. The ingress and egress to that property, I think, needs to have more investigation to see if there in effect can be better ways. But there is absolutely no way that that item C can be mitigated, in my opinion. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I have to agree with Mr. York. I happen to have watched my slab crack right down the middle and one wall of my house crack from blasting that was quite a distance away, and I was told by the county that it was dum~ trucks passing in front of my house that was causing it. So I can't see where the blasting would not affect these people be. in~..that close, and the trucks daily I think would be a real imposition on them. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: If I understand the petition, blasting is not allowed without a separate county permit for blasting. MR. NINO: That's correct, unless issued a permit from Development Services. That doesn't mean a permit is automatically forthcoming. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: But it can be. If they need blasting, to blast away the rock to get to the minimum depth they have to get to, there is no guarantee that the county will not grant a permit for blasting. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Uh-huh. That's true. COMMISSIONER PEEK)NE: It's a coin toss. So I have to go with that there will be blasting. I haven't seen a pit yet, really, that there hasn't been. MR. NINO: I remind you the maximum depth is 12 and a half feet, not very deep excavation. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: They excavated all the fill at the Florida Sports Park and did no blasting. Mr. Nelson? COMMISSIONER NELSON: Just a comment along the same lines. I cannot support this petition as proposed. I could support a petition that limited it to three years, greatly restricted the hours of Page 41 13AL , May 15, 1997 operation,~.~.~~. water . · approved or not, and no ex-port CHAIR/W2%N DAVIS: And include the paving at the end of it? COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes. CHAIRMJhN DAVIS: I'm with you, Mr. Nelson. Okay. I guess we're at a point where somebody needs to make a motion. COMMISSIONER YORK: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we recommend that CU-96-21 be not approved as presented. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Second. ' COMMISSIONER OATES: Actually, I think we deny it. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: No. It's a recommendation of denial. Motion of a r~commendation of denial by Mr. York, seconded by Mr. Thomas. All those in favor signify by saying aye Opposed? · Aye. So that passes four, five, six to one, with the Chairman dissenting. We're going to take a 10 minute break. (A brief recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Call the meeting back to order. CU-97-8. Ask all those present that are going to testify on this petition to please rise, raise your right hand so the court reporter may swear you in. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Hold on a minute. This is the Eagle's Nest Worship Center. Okay. Raise your hand and stay there. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Morning. MR. MILK: Good morning. For the record, my name is Brian Milk. I am'presenting Petition CU-97-8. Mr. Kepple with Kepple Engineering is representing th~ Eagle's Nest WorShip Center, requesting a conditional use for a church, child care and school on the subject 4.6 acre site. The subject property is located just to the south of Immokalee Road and fronts 24th Avenue, N.W. It is a site that is currently undeveloped and has a large forested population with a large number of exotics on the particular site. .The petitioner proposes a phased project which ultimately will ~?~lde_? s.an~ua.ry, for 700 members or 700 seats. It would provide a ~e~±owsn~p na±l with a child care facility and school, K through 5, for a maximum of 300 children, and then a future gyranasium of approximately 5,000 square feet. Access to the site is provided from Immokalee Road with a right decel turn lane into the project. They also have provided an interconnect with the fire station immediately to the east of the subject property. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: That's where the training center is going to be? MR. MILK: No, sir. COMMISSIONER OATES: No, where the existing -- Page 42