The URL can be used to link to this page

CEB Minutes 09/28/2000 RSeptember 28, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY Naples, Florida, September 28, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the North Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Clifford Flegal Roberta Dusek Don W. Kincaid Kathryn M. Godfrey Darrin M. Phillips Peter Lehmann George Ponte Rhona Saunders Diane Taylor ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney, Code Enforcement Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Maria Cruz, Enforcement Official Page I CODE ENFORCEM~NT/~'UISSANCE AnATF/~NT DOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA September 28,12000 a: 9:00 o'clock A.M. 3301 E. Tamia~i Tr., Naplee, Florida, Collier. County G~ernmen: Center, Adm~nistratlv~ Sldg. 3~d FIoor NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND T~EREFORE MAY NE~D TO ENSURE T~AT A VERBATIM RECOP, D OF T~ pROCEEDINGS IS MADE, ~ICH RECORD INCLUDE~ T~E TESTINON~ ~ EVIDENCE UPON W~ICH THE ~PP~AL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENPORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. ROLL CALL APR APP V MINUT pUBLIC HEARINGS A. BCC rS. John B. BCC re. CO, hOly! C. BCC rs. Harmon D. BCC re. I.E.C.iRentals, Inc. E. BCC vs. Hous~on~Unlimited, Inc_ August 24. 2000 gEE NO. 2000-031 CEB No. 2000-032 CEB No. 2000-034 CEB No. 2000-035 CES No, 2000~036 5. NEW BUSINESS ~e~e~t for Xa~o~i{~on o~ Fiues/L~en A. BCC rs. Shad DaVis, Inc, B. BCC rs. Pentecostal Church of God C. ~CC rs. Dale L.i& Cheryl A. HorDal CEB No. 2000-022 CEB No. 2000-010 C~B No. 99-069 OLD BUSINESS BCC vs. Anthony Va~ano BCC vS. Anthony Vasano BCC rs. Charles Holland 7. REPORTS Filing A~£idavits 0£ ¢~m~Xianae A. BCC vm. Capri I~terna~ional, Inc. C. BCC v~. Elhanon ~ Sandra S. combs D. ~CC rs. Joann a~d Thomas Pinchhey E. BCC rs. Shad DaVis, Inc. October 26, 2000 CEE NO. 94-005 CEB No. 97-029 CEB NO. 99-076 ~EB No. 2000-021 CES NO. 98-024 CEB No. 2000-025 CEB No. 2000-022 CEB No. 97-004 22. ADJOU~ September 28, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll call the meetings of the Code Enforcement Board to order, please. Could we have the roll call? MS. CRUZ: Good morning. For the record, Maria Cruz, Code Enforcement Board investigator. Roberta Dusek? MS. DUSEK: Here. MS. CRUZ: Clifford Flegal? MR. FLEGAL: Here. MS. CRUZ: Let the record show that Ms. Godfrey has a new last name. Catherine Godfrey-Lint? MS. GODFREY-LINT: Present. MS. CRUZ: Don Kincaid? MR. KINCAID: Present. MR. LEHMANN: Peter Lehmann? MR. PHILLIPS: He's here. He's in the restroom. MS. CRUZ: Darrin Phillips? MR. PHILLIPS: Here. MS. CRUZ: George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. CRUZ: Rhona Saunders? MS. SAUNDERS: Here. MS. CRUZ: Diane Taylor? MS. TAYLOR: Present. MS. CRUZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Approval of our agenda. Are there any changes, additions, deletions? MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, code enforcement director. We have one addition under reports, and that would be Item F, BCC versus Charles Holland. And that was Code Enforcement Board Case 99-076. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other changes? I'd entertain a motion to approve the agenda as changed. MS. SAUNDERS: So moved. MR. PONTE: Second. MS. SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the agenda as changed. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 2 September 28, 2000 (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let the record note Mr. Lehmann has joined us. Since we have -- all our regular members are here, the two alternates may participate, but they shall not vote on items. Approval of our minutes of August 24th. Are there any changes to the minutes as presented? MS. SAUNDERS: I move for approval. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second on approving the minutes from August 24th meeting. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. We'll now open our public hearings. BCC versus John Danks. Case 2000-031. MS. CRUZ: BCC versus -- for the record, I'd like to make a correction that the respondent should read Jon and Sonja Laidig Foundation, Inc. and John Danks. Jon and Sonja Laidig Foundation, Inc. is the owner of record of the property in question, and Mr. John Danks is the tenant. I'd like to request that the board enter into evidence a composite exhibit that was provided to the respondents, marked Composite Exhibit A at this time, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is the respondent present? MR. DANKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you gentlemen have any objection to the package being submitted as evidence? Have you received such a package? MR. DEMAREST: We've received it. Sir, I'm here on behalf of the Laidig Foundation. We received it. MR. PALOCI: We've received it also. I'm here on behalf of Mr. Danks, and we have no objection. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you very much. We have a request to enter the exhibit. Any questions from the board? Someone make a motion to accept it, please. MR. LEHMANN: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Motion to accept the package. MR. KINCAID: Second. Page 3 September 28, 2000 aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying Any opposed? (No response.) MS. CRUZ: The alleged violation before this board today is the violation of Sections 1.5.6, Section 2.1.11, Section 2.1.15, Section 3.3.11 of Ordinance 91-02, the Collier County Land Development Code. Section I of Ordinance 81-42, which is a Collier County occupational license ordinance, and Sections 103.5.1 and Section 104.1.1 of Ordinance No. 98-76, which is the Collier County Building Construction and Administrative Code. The violation describes as an active ongoing commercial occupancy use of a concrete block and frame type structure without obtaining Collier County occupational license on an agricultural zoned property. Interior and exterior renovations made to the structure to include a reroof without first obtaining Collier County building permits. And also, the building in question not meeting the Collier County fire electrical and structural code. The owner of record is Jori and Sonja Foundation -- Laidig, Inc. Let me correct that. That's Jon and Sonja Laidig Foundation~ Inc., and the tenant in question is John Danks. The owner -- the address of record is 5000 Davis Boulevard, Naples, Florida. The violation was first observed on April 4th, year 2000. A notice of violation was provided to the respondent on June 2nd, year 2000, requesting compliance by July 30th, year 2000. A reinspection was conducted on September 27th, revealing that the violation remained. At this time, I'd like to call Investigator Cathy Van Poucke~ please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. VAN POUCKE: For the record, my name is Cathy Van Poucke. I'm a Collier County code enforcement investigator. This investigation was initiated due to a citizen complaint. The initial complaint was that there were repairs being done to a commercial building without permits. I visited the site on April 4th and found that there were repairs being done to the roof of this commercial building and no Page 4 September 28, 2000 permits had been issued. I spoke with John Danks, who was the business owner, a tenant, and informed him that he would need to hire a licensed contractor to pull the necessary permits and do the repairs, or else he would have to remove the repairs that he had already done. On April t8th, Supervisor Bill Bolgar granted a one-month extension to Mr. Danks to either remove the improvements or obtain the proper permits. Due to additional information that we received from the complainant, at that point I met with Fire Inspector Nick Biondo -- and his name is spelled B-I-O-N-D-O -- and conducted an investigation of the property. A number of violations were found. There should be a report that Mr. Biondo had filed. Also, at that time, we notified the owner of the property and the tenant of these violations, and that he should cease and desist his business at this time because of the violations. Also, a notice of violation was issued, indicating that to the property owner and the tenant. MS. DUSEK: I have a question. The fire violations, are they still in existence? MS. VAN POUCKE: My last visit there yesterday, he has -- he has done repairs there himself without permits and without a contractor. He has also removed the repairs he had done to the roof. MS. DUSEK: So the repairs -- what I'm concerned about the fire violations. We don't know if they have met the code. MS. VAN POUCKE.' Exactly, because there's been no permits, there's been no inspections. MR. PONTE: Would that be true of the electrical work that was done? MS. VAN POUCKE.' Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Fuel tanks still on the property? MS. VAN POUCKE: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN FI. EGAL: Are the fuel tanks still on the property? MS. VAN POUCKE: Yes, sir. MR. PONTE: Did Mr. Danks give any reason for not complying? I mean, what was the reason all of this happened? MS. VAN POUCKE: He really didn't give a reason. I should also point out that during the investigation, it was Page 5 September 28, 2000 discovered that the occupational license that he holds is not for that structure. There's two structures on the property, and the license was actually issued for the other building. MR. PONTE: I see. Do you know why he would be using one building and not the other, the one he was licensed for? MS. VAN POUCKE: I don't know for sure, but this building is much larger than the first one he was in, and that may have been the reason that he moved into it. I'm not sure, though. MR. PHILLIPS: How close are the nearest adjacent properties? The properties in the immediate area, and how close are they? MS. VAN POUCKE: You're talking about the two structures? MR. PHILLIPS: Uh-huh. MS. VAN POUCKE: Within a few feet of each other. MR. PHILLIPS: Okay, but other property owners, do they have property nearby, and how close are the nearest property owners' property to the subject? MS. VAN POUCKE: There's a development right next to it and behind it. MR. PHILLIPS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Do you know what the zoning is on this property? MS. VAN POUCKE: It's zoned agricultural. MS. DUSEK: In order to run a business on an agricultural property, you have to get a special license? You have to get a special variance, or -- if this is zoned agricultural, do you have to go through the zoning board in order to -- MS. ARNOLD: No, if the use that's being done on the property is permitted under that district, they would have to just go through and get the appropriate occupational license and the site improvement plan, if it's required, and building permits. And I believe this is a landscaping business? MS. VAN POUCKE: Landscaping supply business. MR. PONTE: You said it's a landscaping supply business? MS. VAN POUCKE: Yes, sir. MR. PONTE: That suggests to me that there are lots of people in and out all of the time. The traffic, that is, the buying traffic, the customer traffic, would be relatively high. Do these violations, any of these violations, pose any kind of threat to life Page 6 September 28, 2000 because of the electrical, for example? MS. VAN POUCKE: I would assume so, yes. MR. LEHMANN: So to summarize the situation right now, we have a building that has reroof and work been done without a permit, we have fire and electric structural code violations, a possibility thereof, and we have a business that's operating without an occupational license. MS. VAN POUCKE: Yes, sir. MR. LEHMANN: Any other issues pertinent to this case? MS. VAN POUCKE: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I note on the fire safety report that the fire extinguishers are outdated, which I guess increases the risk, if a problem were to develop on the site. Any other questions for the county? Thank you. Representatives for Mr. and Ms. Laidig and Mr. Danks, whichever would like to go first. MR. PALOCI: I have a feeling that what you say is going to be germane to what I'm going to say. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. DEMAREST: Good morning. My name is Jim Demarest. I represent the Jon and Sonia Laidig Foundation. We are in fact the owners of the building. We have no reason to doubt any of the testimony or evidence that we've heard this morning regarding the condition of the structure. Our position has been that our ownership -- our owners are out-of-state owners. They have been assured and reassured by the tenant that these series of problems and violations would be taken care of, which, according to the testimony we have just heard, has not yet happened. As a result of that, I have two letters, one dated August 30th, one dated September 5th. The substance for which are that we are currently asking this tenant to vacate the premises, and absent his cooperation at the end of this month, will be beginning eviction proceedings. So to the extent that action is contemplated or taken today, I wanted to make it clear that the landlord is taking steps to correct this problem to the extent he can under these circumstances. And that's really all I wanted to present this morning, aside Page 7 September 28, 2000 from what I may hear across the counter. MS. SAUNDERS: I have a question. Do you have -- you have a lease arrangement, I assume, with the tenant? MR. DEMAREST: Yes, ma'am. MS. SAUNDERS: Does that lease entitle you to inspect the property, to go in and take control of it if there are illegal actions or violations there? What protections do you have under the lease? MR. DEMAREST: I don't know the answer to that question, because I was asked to appear here yesterday late afternoon, and I've reviewed everything that we have. And one of the things that we don't have in our office right now is a copy of the lease. I do have a copy of the letters that we have transmitted as part of our eviction, but I'm sorry, I can't answer that question. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You do understand that as the owner, you have a responsibility, that's why both of you have been cited, MR. DEMAREST: Absolutely. And that's why we're here, because we understand ultimately as the owner, we bear the responsibility. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Very good. Any questions for Mr. -- MR. DEMAREST: Demarest. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- Demarest. I'm sorry. I had to find it. I wrote it down, so -- thank you, sir. Yes, sir. MR. PALOCI: Good morning. My name is Henry Paloci, P-A-L-O-C-I. I represent Mr. Danks. I have represented him and his company, Gulf Coast Landscape Supply, Incorporated for three, three and a half years. I've been out to the site -- MR. KINCAID.' Speak up a little big, please. MR. PALOCI: I've been out to the site several dozens of times. I know a lot personally about what's going on. I did not have knowledge of the citation. I did not have knowledge that this was an issue until a few days ago. As a threshold issue, I'd like to point out to you that the tenant is not John Danks personally, it's Gulf Coast Landscape Supply, Incorporated. They were incorporated about three years ago. I did the work. They have been operating as a corporation. Page 8 September 28, 2000 The corporation has been sending the rent checks to the landlord. There is no written lease. It's a month-to-month arrangement, as far as I know. And the landlord has given us notice the beginning of September that they want us out, and ! have a feeling that this is part of the reason why. There's also a contract for sale pending on this property. The buyers, perspective buyers, are highly interested in keeping us, but we need to of course resolve our problems with you folks first. Obviously they don't want us there if we're in violation of code. So what I'd like to point out is that Mr. Danks has been served personally, but I submit to you that you can't really sanction Mr. Danks, because Gulf Coast Landscape Supply, Incorporated is the tenant, okay? Mr. Danks owns 60 percent of the corporation and Elizabeth Rose, who is here today, she owns 40 percent. We think that you would have to serve the corporation. The corporation does hold a valid occupational license as to the property, 5000 Davis. I heard it said today that they're in the wrong building. These two buildings are adjacent. They're dead next to each other. And frankly, I don't see why the board can't consider them as one building. That said, as to the other violations that have been alleged, Gulf Coast is blatantly in the wrong, and there's no two ways about it. What we'd like to do is have an opportunity, now that I'm involved, to take the right steps with the board and with the landlord or with the next owner and try to work through our problems. And I know that Mr. Danks and Gulf Coast have had since April to deal with this. But quite frankly, I wasn't involved, and I don't think it was given the attention that it should have been at the time. And I think that Gulf Coast is more than willing to do whatever it takes to make this board happy and do what it takes to stay on the property. And if we can't work things out with the landlord and with you folks, then they're going to have to close down and move somewhere else. But we'd only ask to be given a little bit more time to do whatever is necessary to correct what's been done wrong. MR. LEHMANN: Let me ask a question. The two buildings Page 9 September 28, 2000 on the property, do they have the same address? MR. PALOCI: Yes, there's only one address. And the occupational license has that address on it, 5000 Davis. MR. LEHMANN: Michelle, typically on an occupational license, it's to an address; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: So how are we saying that they're operating in the wrong building or the wrong address? MS. ARNOLD: I think the investigator's comments were in response to the fire inspector's comments during his inspection. I don't believe -- if it's the same legal description and it has the same address, it wouldn't matter what the occupational license is for. MR. LEHMANN: I'm sorry, say that again? MS. ARNOLD: If it's the same legal description, one legal description for both buildings and one address for both buildings, the occupational license would apply to both buildings. MR. LEHMANN: In his report -- and I'm reading from a report dated July 1st, third line down -- business does not have occupational license for this structure. He has occupational license for small building besides this building. So at this point in time, I'm not sure whether we have an occupational license issue or not. MS. ARNOLD: I'm not -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'd say not. MS. ARNOLD: I'm not sure either. I mean -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If there's only one address for this plot of land and he's got an occupational license for that address, there is no violation. It's really that simple. You can have 20 buildings on it, but if there's only one address for 20 buildings, that's -- on a piece of property, that's that. MR. PALOCI: I'd submit that that's really moot, because we're here about the major issues. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. MS. TAYLOR: Yes, sir, and -- MR. LEHMANN: We just want to take them one at a time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We just want to make sure, you know, that we -- if it's not a violation, we want to get rid of it and we want to understand it. MR. PALOCI: We're all in favor of that. Page 10 September 28, 2000 MS. SAUNDERS: Sir, can you tell me if your clients have ceased and desist operation out of the -- whatever the second -- let's call it Building A and Building B, Building B being the one that has the violations on it. Is your client still using that building, have they ceased and desist all operations on it, have they closed it up completely? What has happened? MR. PALOCI: As of right now, they're still in that building. I don't like to think of it as Building A, Building B. I've been out there so many times. The smaller structure that they referred to is dead behind the one that you might refer to as the shop where people would come in. Typically this time of year, it's about ankle deep in water and it is not a nice place to do business out of. And they're doing what's practical for them to do business out of this other structure. One thing I'd like to point out is that a comment was made earlier about the traffic that must be coming in and out of this place. A whole lot of the business my client does is delivery with large clients, delivering sod to this place, delivering rock to that place. A smaller portion of their business is walk-in traffic. So I don't want the board to get the impression that there's a whole lot of traffic coming in and out like you might have at Wal-Mart or Home Depot or whatever. We have mostly a business that takes the supplies and delivers to it wherever it needs to be delivered to for the order. MS. ARNOLD: Can I address the board regarding the question on the occupational license? The investigator has indicated to me that when the fire inspection was done to okay the issuance of an occupational license, it was -- the only inspection that was done was for the other building. No inspection was done for -- in the building that's in question where all the building activity's occurring, thus the comment from the fire inspector that the occupational license wasn't for that other building. MR. LEHMANN: Thank you. And now that you mention it, I do remember. It is a requirement for you to have a fire inspection on the particular building that you are occupying and using as a residence -- or excuse me, an office. Even though it's of the same address. MS. ARNOLD: Right. And there was no inspection done on Page September 28, 2000 the building that's in question. MR. LEHMANN: Right. So the issue really isn't necessarily the address, it's the fact that it did not pass the fire inspection -- MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. LEHMANN: -- when the tenancy might have transferred from one building to another. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But that has nothing to do with the occupational license. MR. LEHMANN: Yes, it does. It has to do with the issuance of the occupational license. Whenever a tenant transfers occupancy from one building to another -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But he's in both buildings. MR. LEHMANN: It doesn't matter. MS. ARNOLD: He can only go to authorization -- MR. LEHMANN: He needs to go through a new fire inspection -- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, I have several of you speaking at once. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand about the fire inspection. MR. LEHMANN: -- to get the occupancy license to be effective. So it is in essence the occupational license. My understanding is it is invalid until that fire inspection has been passed for the new building. MR. PALOCI: May I make a comment on that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is that correct, Michelle? MR. LEHMANN: Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, the occupancy that was authorized by the inspection of the fire department was for the other building. There was no inspection done on the building in question, so therefore, there was no authorization under that occupational license that was issued to occupy the building that we're discussing today. MR. LEHMANN: So my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, please, but my understanding is that the occupational license that the respondent has in possession now is invalid because he's occupying the wrong building on that site; the building that has not been approved by the fire official. MS. ARNOLD: I'll have to ask the investigator to answer or not he's not -- if he's occupying the building that the occupational Page 12 September 28, 2000 license was issued for, then the occupational license is valid. But the question of validity of it comes into play with the dual occupancy of both buildings. Because he didn't obtain any occupational license or authorization for occupancy for the other one. MR. LEHMANN: I just want to be clear on this. Because if we don't have an occupational issue, I want it off the books completely. Or if we do have one, I want to be clear on what that issue is. MR. PALOCI: We still disagree that there are two structures. They're right next to each other. MR. LEHMANN: Are they connected? MR. PALOCI: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: By what? MR. PALOCI: By a wall. MR. LEHMANN= A wall that connects the two? MR. PALOCI: Yes. But I'm pretty sure that the wall is part of our violations that are here today. It appears that that was part of the additions -- MR. LEHMANN: Renovations. MR. PALOCI: -- that are without permit. We're still not out of the woods, but that's how we see it. I'd like to point out that the occupational license was issued to Gulf Coast on August 7th of this year. And I'm wondering why it was issued if this was an issue. How -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' You're asking the wrong people. MR. PALOCI: My point is, how could we be on notice that this was an issue if they issued this occupational license to us? MR. LEHMANN: Well, I think the occupational license is a secondary issue. I just wanted to be clear on what we're doing with that one, or get it off the books. MR. PALOCI: I agree. MR. LEHMANN: The primary issue here is actually the permitted -- the unpermitted construction. MR. PALOCI: I agree. MR. LEHMANN: Which I apologize to the board for taking up so much time on that issue. MR. PONTE: Just by way of clarification, on these buildings or building, as you like to call it, is it under one roof, or are there two roofs? Page 13 September 28, 2000 MR. PALOCI.' I really don't know. I've never been up there. When I -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Excuse me, you just said you've been to the site -- this whole conversation, you've been to the site many times. Now you say you've never been. Which is it? MR. PALOCI: No, I said I've never been on the roof. I've never looked up -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, but if you've been to the site, you can see a building when you drive on -- MR. PALOCI: If you ask me, it's one structure, one roof, okay? I think at one point there were two separate structures. It's a difficult question for me to answer. Maybe we have an answer here. MS. ARNOLD: And I'd like the investigator, because the investigator has actually been at the site several times, to describe for the board what this picture is of and where the building that the occupational license or the fire inspection was conducted is located in proximity to this building, so that everybody is clear. MS. VAN POUCKE.' The building in the picture is the building that he is currently occupying. The building that he obtained his occupational license for is actually, as you're facing this building, to the right of this structure. Not connected by a wall, not sharing a roof, it's a totally independent structure. MR. KINCAID: Is there a picture of that structure? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, we don't have one. MS. VAN POUCKE.' No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There are two distinct -- how many feet separate these buildings roughly? One, 10, 20? MS. VAN POUCKE: I'd say 15 to 20 feet. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So you have two distinct buildings. MS. VAN POUCKE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And the license is for this building or the other building? MS. VAN POUCKE.' The other building. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The other building, okay. Can you tell me what's in the other building? MS. VAN POUCKE: It's not being used, and it looks like it Page 14 September 28, 2000 hasn't been used for some time. It looked like at one point it was probably used more like an office building. There was a restroom and a couple separate rooms. It's a very small building. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, thank you. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Paloci, could you tell me real quick, going back to the permitting issue that we have here, we still have fuel tanks with temporary wiring that are still being used; is that correct? MR. PALOCI: As far as I know, it is. MR. LEHMANN: And we still do not have a permit that's been issued for the renovations to the existing structure. MR. PALOCI: That's right. And I've talked to my clients about that. And they recognize the need to either deal with that or take down what's been done. MR. LEHMANN: Right. MR. PALOCI: I've only been involved with this for a few days, and I've not had the opportunity to deal with the appropriate authorities in getting steps taken on that, and we'd like an opportunity to do that. At the same time, we recognize that the board probably perceives a danger here and an ongoing violation. All we'd ask is to be able to either continue doing business under some set of circumstances, or be given an opportunity to relocate if things don't work out with the landlord. MR. LEHMANN: The board does not have the jurisdiction to waive any requirements for allowing you to operate in business or anything of that nature. All we can do is make a determination whether or not we have a violation or not. MS. DUSEK: I have a question for you. Since you're representing Gulf Coast, can you answer why they haven't corrected these violations. Even though you've only known about them a few days, they've known about them for a while. MR. PALOCI: The answer is not a pleasant one to give you, but put bluntly, I don't think that they took the violations as seriously as they should have. And they're very acutely aware of how serious it is now. And I think something should have been done a long time ago, but that's the truthful answer. MS. TAYLOR: How long has it been since you've been out there? MR. PALOCI: I was out there -- Page 15 September 28, 2000 MS. TAYLOR: Other than just the last couple of days. I mean, before then. MR. PALOCI: When I took on Gulf Coast as a client, I was practicing out of Naples. And I've since moved out to Fort Myers, and I do most of my work in Hendry and Glades County now. I've been here twice in the last week. But before that, it had frankly been several months since I've been down here. I used to live in Countryside, right down the street from Gulf Coast on Davis, and I used to stop by there once, twice a week. He was a very good client for me. I used to be there quite often. But I have not been there -- MS. TAYLOR: But you had stated that you were there many, many times, and if you had been there many times, you certainly would have seen all these violations, correct? MR. PALOCI: This year I've been there a whole lot less than in the past. And it was never presented to me as an issue, so I didn't much think anything of it until I received the packet and the notice of this hearing. I'm not typically a land use attorney. ! do a whole lot of things. I didn't think of it as an issue, I just assumed that he was taking care of things. And when it was presented to me that we had this issue, well, I got involved and I said you've got a big problem here and we have to deal with this. And now we're dealing with a potential eviction proceeding. And if we don't deal with the violations that no doubt are here, regardless of whether you can sanction Mr. Danks personally, we're going to be out of the property and that's going to cripple of business, and nobody wants that. MR. LEHMANN: Ms. Rawson? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: Real quick question. The staff's recommendation, first item on their recommendation is to cease and desist operation of the business. Does this board have that authority, to order the respondent to cease and desist? MS. RAWSON: If you think that there is an ongoing violation that is a health and safety problem, yes. MR. LEHMANN: Only if it's a health and safety? MS. RAWSON: I think so. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson, let's go to the question of citation to Mr. Danks direct, rather than Gulf Coast. Page16 September 28, 2000 MS. RAWSON: I don't know who the resident agent of that corporation is who would have been the proper person to serve, but I see that Mr. Danks and -- perhaps he's not here, but he's here by counsel. And the other shareholder, Elizabeth Rose, I believe I understand is present. So it seems to me that they're here, and, you know, they probably waived notice. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, since he owns 60 percent of the corporation and he was served, the fact that it's written to his name and not Gulf Coast, does that present a problem to the county? MS. RAWSON: If you were citing the -- what he's saying is that you should have cited the true tenant, Gulf Coast Landscape Supply, Inc., I don't know whether you know who the real tenant is. Mr. Danks is a 60 percent shareholder of a corporation. I don't know who the residents agent is. But again, they're here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MR. LEHMANN: But regardless, we cite the owner as opposed to the tenants; is that correct? MS. RAWSON: Well, and you did cite the owner. You cited both. And it's not unusual in a case like this for to you cite both. MS. DUSEK: Should we be directing all of these questions to the owner? Because ultimately he's the one who's going to have to make sure that everything is corrected. MS. RAWSON: Ultimately he is going to have to see it's corrected. And if it's not corrected, as Mr. Paloci has pointed out, they won't be a tenant any longer. MS. DUSEK: That's right. It appears as though there's a time element in here when we're no longer going to be concerned with Gulf Coast, but ultimately it's the owner of the property. So I feel we should be directing all of our comments to the owner of the property to take care of these violations. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think you should direct them at both, correct, Ms. Rawson? MS. RAWSON: Well, yes, I do. You can -- and we have before had the tenant make the corrections. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, the fact that Mr. Danks, quote, is part of the corporation, the prime owner, I don't think alleviates the responsibility, because the corporation wasn't cited, so to speak. MS. RAWSON: And we -- Page t7 September 28, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And especially since they showed up and he sent representation by his attorney. MS. RAWSON: Correct. We don't have a copy of the lease, we don't have a copy of -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, he said there is no lease, so -- MS. RAWSON: And I don't know how we would know who the tenant was, other than Mr. Danks. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. I mean, and he accepted the citation when it was handed out and didn't say oh, excuse me, you can't give this to me, you have to give it to my corporation. I mean, you know, he didn't tell the county that they had erred, so to speak. I mean, he just stood there and kept his mouth shut and didn't even advise his attorney that he'd been cited since April. So six months had gone by before he even said anything. Leaves me to believe he wasn't real interested in the citation to start with. But anyway, I think we will proceed against the owner and Mr. Danks, and the owner can, as a result of whatever the board comes up with, take whatever steps they need to do to rectify the problem. And if Mr. Danks chooses to participate, fine. If not, I think he'll be out as a tenant pretty quickly. MS. SAUNDERS: If I may ask, sir. I don't like to put any business out of business, but I do think there's major safety and health violations. Is it possible for your client to move back in the building that has the occupancy permit while this is going on, or does he need to basically cease and desist all operations on that location? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You'd have to come up and be sworn in if you're going to give us information, ma'am. I mean, if you want to go talk to her -- MR. PALOCI: I would like to. MS. SAUNDERS: Ms. Rawson, while we're waiting for that, under a month-to-month lease, is it possible -- how fast can the landlord have the right to basically evict the tenant? Within 30 days, or do they need to give a 60-day notice, or -- because we're assuming there's no lease, basically. MS. RAWSON: A month-to-month is a 30-day notice to vacate the premises. MS. SAUNDERS: Does it need to start from the first of the month, or-- Page 18 September 28, 2000 MS. RAWSON: It depends on when the month-to-month started. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. MR. DEMAREST: We gave the notice on August 30th, effective September 1st, for eviction by October 1st. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But in this case, Ms. Rawson, we're not interested in their eviction process if we find violations. MS. RAWSON: Well, I don't think we have -- we don't have jurisdiction over their eviction. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. But if there's health and safety issues, then what we order -- I don't know how to use the right word, but I'll use it this way -- would take precedence over while they're going through some kind of eviction process. MS. RAWSON: Correct. Your basic concern is just bring it into compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.- Right. And if it means you have to stop today -- MS. SAUNDERS: Then you stop. CHAIRMAN FI. EGAL: -- and fix everything and then go back in business, that's what you have to do. Okay, that's what I thought. MR. PALOCI: As a temporary solution, my client advises me that it is possible to move back into the building that is allegedly the one that's been licensed for use for us. MS. SAUNDERS: So immediately vacate the second building, or the building that they're in at this point, until all violations have been -- MR. PALOCI: It is possible. There's a substantial amount of things to move. But if they were told to and they were told that they would have to cease and desist operations if they didn't, then when I went back to their place after this hearing and told them so, I'rn sure that they would begin moving things right away. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any further questions for either of the gentlemen? MR. LEHMANN: Do we have any other evidence as far as life safety issues exist, other than the fire report that we have? Because in Mr. -- in Mr. Harrison's letter to Mr. Bolgar, he didn't reference life safety issues. However, the fire safety inspection Page September 28, 2000 report does list a number of issues. And he has not classified them, whether they are immediate life safety or not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Other than the package, no. In looking at the inspection, the fire inspection report, I think being self-explanatory, if you have fire extinguishers that are out of date, that would kind of worry me if something broke out immediately. Fuel tanks that aren't to code. And wiring that's done through extension cords and not in conduit, especially hooked up to fuel tanks, I think you get real close to what I would classify as safety issues. MR. LEHMANN: Well, my interpretation of this also is that we do have what I would consider life safety issues, albeit, they may range in seriousness from minor to more major. Electrical panels -- blanks in the electrical panel. What's to prevent someone from sticking their fingers into, in essence -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, accidentally falling against it with some tool. MR. LEHMANN: Just things like that. So I think that we have at least a definition of life safety issues. Although the degree of seriousness may be in question. MS. TAYLOR: The whole problem that's being brought before this board is being resolved by the owner. They have an eviction notice. They have to be out by October 1st. MR. DEMAREST.' Correct. If they don't leave by October 1st, they will be forced into legal proceedings for eviction, which will leave them in possession of that property potentially for several more weeks. So I don't want to represent to you that they will be gone October 1st, because the legal system doesn't move that quickly. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. That's-- MR. LEHMANN: And unfortunately that's out of our purview. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. The purview of the board is, is there a violation. If so, what do we want the owner and/or tenant to do to correct it? In what period of time? The fact that the owner and tenant are doing something else on the side is really immaterial. We first have to decide is there in fact violations. If so, what do we want done to get them corrected. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Demarest, a few quick questions in that line, basically. First off, assuming that your client takes over possession of Page 20 September 28, 2000 the property, we have here staff~s recommendation to submit a site improvement plan within 30 days for Collier County Planning for review and approval. I look at that date as saying, you know, that's an undoable thing, since the earliest you can gain possession of the property is within 30 days. MR. DEMAREST: That's correct. I don't think there's any way we could gain possession until mid to late October, even if we're afforded a summary procedure. And this is a commercial eviction, so we don't -- we're not afforded the same expediency in court as if it were a residential eviction. So that's a correct observation. MR. LEHMANN: So in essence, all of our time lines for staff's recommendation kind of get kicked back about 30 days. The question for the board, though, I think is do we want to take an action and say kick everything out another 30 days so that we tie both the tenant and the owner into that, or whether we want to take action immediately against the tenant and then unfortunately the owner has to deal with that decision. MR. DEMAREST: And the problem again for the owner is that the owner has no right to access the property. We can't go in and fix these problems. So that's the one thing that I point out in terms of the time of this process. We would just request there be sufficient time so that when we do have a possessory right, we can takes action. If you demand us to do something in 30 days and we don't have access to the property, we by definition can't comply legally. MS. ARNOLD: But if-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson? MS. ARNOLD: -- the owner is -- if the owner is intending on taking possession, or evicting the individuals, their intent is not to use it for a site im -- for the use that is currently there, is it? MR. DEMAREST: That's correct. I can represent that the intended use going forward is being contemplated in the sale. The current owner is negotiating sale of this to another entity. I'm not sure what that other entity is planning on using it for, other than I believe they have an interest in the fact that it's zoned agriculturally. We're not evicting this tenant to put somebody else back into that same spot to do the same thing without any Page 21 September 28, 2000 corrections. But I can't represent to the board exactly what the owner's plan is regarding the property. They haven't told me they're going to go in and raze the buildings or fix any of these things. They need to get these people out first. MS, ARNOLD: Couldn't the recommendations apply to the tenant and not to the owner? Because we understand, you know, they won't have -- they have the potential of not having occupancy of the building if they evict. MR, LEHMANN: I don't think that's a -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Would I be correct in assuming that whatever the decision of the board, to request that the owner and tenant abate violations, if such are found, understanding that the owner may not be able to comply with any time constraints that would be set up, that down the road -- I mean, our intent would be to get the, quote, problem abated immediately, and in the shortest time frame. But down the road, the owner has the right to come before this board at a later date, since they can't get on the property, and a fine kicked in to them, they can come before the board down the road and say excuse me, we couldn't do this, could you, you know, waive my fine. MS. RAWSON: Yes, that's true. But what Mr. Demarest is telling you is known as a legal impossibility. It is legally impossible for the landlord to correct the violation if they don't have possession of the property. And so that's a valid defense in law. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. What I'm looking for is because the owner has no legal way to correct the problem, the board is faced with well, do we give some exorbitant amount of time so that the owner can get control and thus abate the problem. In the meantime, you have a tenant who has been in violation since April, so to speak, doesn't seem to want to correct the problems, and now we're going to give them some other exorbitant amount of time to try and correct the -- what I find us doing is prolonging this. MS. RAWSON: Well, I don't think you need to prolong it. I think what Ms. Arnold suggested would work. You could order the tenant to do something in a much shorter period of time and Page 22 September 28, 2000 then order the owner to do something if the tenant doesn't, at the time when he is in repossession of the land. But given the fact that it's going to be at least 30 days and probably more before he has the legal possibility to do something. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So if you're saying that if we gave the tenant, picking numbers off the wall, 30 days to do something, we could then turn around and give the owner 60 days to -- MS. RAWSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAI.: -- accomplish the same thing. MS. RAWSON: Sure. MS, DUSEK: Okay, I'd like to start by making a motion that there is a violation. And then we can go to the recommendation from there, if that's all right, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Jori and Sonja Laidig Foundation, Incorporated, and John Danks, CEB Case No. 2000-31 -- 031, that there is a violation. The violations of Sections 1.5.6, 2.1.tt, 2.1.t5, 3.3.11 of Ordinance No. 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code, section of Ordinance No. 81-42, the Collier County Occupational l,icense Ordinance, and Sections 103.5.1 and t04.1.1 of Ordinance 98-76, the Collier County Building Construction Administrative Code. And the description of the violations, repairing roof of structure without first obtaining proper Collier County building permits, and number two, operation of a landscape business without first obtaining proper Collier County occupational license. Also, in that, just as a comment, Michelle, will that include the fire violations? The description of the violations? MS. ARNOLD: The building code is general, but I'm not sure the section that we cited, you know, clearly specifies the electrical. But the notice that was issued to the property owner references the fire inspection that was done. MR. LEHMANN: Bear in mind, this finding of fact needs to be worded correctly. MS. DUSEK: I just want to make sure -- MS. ARNOLD: I think it would help your finding to include elect -- including but not limited to electrical code violations, identified by referenced fire inspection. Page 23 September 28, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me ask a question. In line with that, the codes that were cited were based on approved site development plans. Do such exist for this site? MS. ARNOLD: No. MR. PALOCI: Are you asking me, sir? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, I'm asking the county. MS. ARNOLD: There aren't any approved site improvement plans, I don't believe. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And that's what they need to do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what I'm getting to. To get a site development plan, do you not have to submit all these documents and go through the fire inspections and so on, so forth? MS. ARNOLD: Correct, that's -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So since they're in violation of not having -- MS. ARNOLD: You're absolutely right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- a site development plan, they're automatically in violation of all the fire codes. MS. ARNOLD: Well, it would be covered once they correct the violations, absolutely right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct, okay. MS. DUSEK.' So are we okay with this? be-- I mean, it's going to CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That covers everything we need covered? Because they don't have a site development plan, the only way to abate these violations is they're going to have to get a site development plan. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Which in essence when they do that is also get all these inspections. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MS. DUSEK: Now, that's for the tenant. But if the owner owns it and doesn't -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's okay. If we do what Ms. Rawson suggested, if we give the tenant "X" days or whatever to do this and then we more or less double that time for the owner, the owner can either do that or eliminate the buildings from the property altogether and then he doesn't have to get a site Page 24 September 28, 2000 development plan. Would that be correct? MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. SAUNDERS: Then I will second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does that cover everything you need covered, Ms. Dusek? MS. DUSEK: I think so. I think I'm clear on that. I just -- I'm concerned that the tenant has to get the site development plan, but if he doesn't, we're saying that the owner has 60 days to get a site development plan when he may not in fact be doing that kind of business there? MR. LEHMANN: No, you have found someone in violation. It's not -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We haven't told them what to do yet, we're -- MS. DUSEK: I understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- just finding that they're both in violation. MS. DUSEK: I just want to make sure it's -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What I'm trying to do is -- MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- cover you in your concern for the fire codes and everything, that since they're in violation of these sections, these sections say they don't have site development plans. And the only way to abate these is they're either going to have to get them or -- MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- remove everything from the property. MS. DUSEK: All right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So we have a motion and a second that there in fact are violations of the codes referenced. Any further questions? All those in agreement with the motion, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Motion carries. Gentlemen, you can sit down. I'm sorry. MR. DEMAREST: Thank you. MR. PALOCI: Thank you. Page 25 September 28, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now that we've found there are violations, what is the order of the board? And I would suggest that what we do is basically the order in two sections, Ms. Rawson? MS. RAWSON.' Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: A section geared toward Mr. Danks and then another section geared toward the Laidig Foundation. MS. RAWSON: Well, I think the owner just needs to basically bring it into compliance by whatever means, when you get to the owner's part. MS. DUSEK: So when we refer to the respondent, are we going to refer to the respondent i.e. tenant John Danks, or Gulf Coast? MS. RAWSON: You've cited them both, so ! think in your order you can say what you expect each to do. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Question on, I guess, terminology. Just to make sure we don't -- when we talk about the respondent John Danks, since Gulf Coast or whatever it is -- MS. DUSEK: Gulf Coast Landscaping. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- Gulf Coast landscaping isn't named specifically, should we name them specifically, since they are not on this violation? MS. RAWSON: Well, we've only cited John Danks. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: And I don't think that we can probably legally do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what I thought. So we want to talk about Respondent John Danks. MS. RAWSON: Correct. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, if there's no other questions, I'd make a motion for an order. And this is in reference to the tenant, Respondent John Danks. That we follow staff's recommendation for a cease and desist order for operation of the business and all occupancy use of the structure immediately. That will continue until compliance has been met with all occupancy requirements. Second, the respondent must submit a site improvement plan within 30 days to Collier County Planning for the review prior to obtaining appropriate permits for any and all Page 26 September 28, 2000 improvements to the said structure. Upon approval of the site improvement plan, the respondent must engage the services of a licensed contractor to obtain all necessarily building permits or construction of all improvements, which must be completed within 45 days of approval of the site improvement plan, and comply with all Collier County codes and ordinances. Should the respondent be able to do this using an owner/builder caveat to that, that's fine, as long as code compliance is met. Upon accomplishing all the above, an occupational license for the proposed future use of said structure must then be obtained within 15 days. If the site improvement plan is not approved, the respondent must then obtain a demolition permit and remove any and all non-permitted improvements and resulting debris within 45 days of denial of the site improvement plan. If the respondent fails to comply with the aforementioned remedies, a fine of $150 would be imposed for each day the violations continue past said date. MS. ARNOLD: May I just make a clarification? I don't believe Mr. Danks is able to get owner/occupancy building permits, because he's not the owner -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He's not the owner. MS. ARNOLD: -- of the property. MR. LEHMANN: Good clarification. If you could strike that from the order, please. Second -- go ahead, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The -- when you talk about respondent, we want Respondent John Danks, so we don't have any confusion. MR. LEHMANN: That's correct. This particular portion of it only applies to tenant Respondent John Danks. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And your recommendation of $150 fine for each day of the violations, is that for the total violations, or is that per violation? MS. SAUNDERS: I'm not sure we know how many we have. MS. DUSEK: I was just going to say -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, they've been cried for -- MS. DUSEK: The occupational license. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They've been cited for seven Page 27 September 28, 2000 violations. MS. DUSEK: Seven. MR. LEHMANN: Which seven? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Section 1.5.6, Section 2.1.11, Section 2. t.15, Section 3.3.11 of 91-102. Section t of Ordinance 81-42. Sections 103.5.1 and 104.1.1 of Ordinance 98-76. That's seven violations. MR. LEHMANN: My intention was looking at it primarily in two different violations, the occupancy and the permitting. I wasn't looking at each individual section as a violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm just asking the question because WE-- MR. LEHMANN: I understand. And that's at the board's pleasure for a comment. If I can continue anyway, and we can have a discussion on it later on. The second part of this order I would direct towards the landlord tenant, the Laidig Foundation. And in essence I would direct the same order to that respondent, with the exception that a 30-day extension on all of these dates be granted to that particular respondent. Is that sufficient, Ms. Rawson, to cover what we intend to do? MS. ARNOLD: Or could it be when -- that we would give him 30 days after his possession of the property? Because there's -- that time frame is undefined. We don't know when they're going to have occupancy of the property to proceed with all these other steps. MR. LEHMANN: I see what you're saying. The only concern that I have -- and I have no problem doing that, Ms. Arnold. But the only concern I have is should the respondent, the tenant respondent, choose not to comply, the board has the right to impose fines upon that respondent. And then when ownership actually transfers to the landlord again, the landlord now has the ability to go in and achieve compliance. We do have separate cases in essence against both respondents; is that correct? MS. RAWSON: Yes, you do. MR. LEHMANN: That's the intention of this particular order. MS. RAWSON: But when you impose a lien, it's on the land. MR. LEHMANN: That's correct. Page 28 September 28, 2000 MS. RAWSON: Which is the owner's responsibility. MR. LEHMANN: Correct. MS. DUSEK: Now, along that line, Ms. Rawson, if the tenant chooses not to do anything and they're occupying the premises as a holdover for another :30 days, and we've imposed a lien on them, how do we collect that? Is it on a personal basis? MS. RAWSON: It would have to be. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. RAWSON: It -- yes. Or other real estate that they own. But the lien on this particular property is going to run with the owner. MR. LEHMANN: And correct me if I'm wrong in the wording of this particular ordinance. The intent of this order is to direct the tenant respondent to correct the actions. If he does not do that, then we're directing the landlord respondent to correct those within a time period. So I'd like to amend the order to read within 30 days after possession, as opposed to an extension of 30 days. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Yeah, I guess the only amendment I would like to see, when you're dealing with the owner landlord, you've geared the tenant toward that if he doesn't get a site development plan, then get a demolition permit and so on, so forth. I don't think the owner even wants to go through that process, I would guess. So I'm wondering if it's -- if there's an advantage to telling the owner landlord that if you don't get your site development plan approved, get a demolition permit. Do we gain anything by -- MS. SAUNDERS: Could we not simply say, Mr. Chairman, that the owner, within 30 days after obtaining control of the property, must bring the property into compliance? Any way he wants. If that means demolishing the building, that's fine; if that means him putting it to another use, whatever. But he must -- he has 30 days after obtaining -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, if he chose to keep the buildings as they are, he couldn't bring the buildings into compliance in 30 days. Because there's no site development plan. MR. KINCAID: Bring the property into compliance. MS. SAUNDERS: Bring the property. He could cease and desist all operations on the property until he was able to do the Page 29 September 28, 2000 rest of those things, and then it would be in compliance if it's not being used. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, but we've told him -- we're telling him to get into compliance he has to submit the plan or tear the buildings down. That's what bothers me with the owner part of it. We're giving him the exact same requirements as the tenant, and we know he doesn't really want to do that. We already know that on the front end. MS. SAUNDERS: That's why I'm saying he's only got 30 days to bring the property into compliance. Now if his decision on the property is to use it in the same, then he has to go through these steps. If it's to simply board it up and not use it until he transfers ownership~ then that's in compliance, if it's not being occupied. MR. LEHMANN: No, let me interject something here, we might solve this. The fifth item of my motion was basically stated, if the site improvement plan is not approved, the respondent must then obtain a demolition permit and remove any and all non-permitted improvements within 45 days. We can amend that statement for the landlord respondent to basically say that if the site improvement plan is not desired to be obtained or anything else, that we're just obtaining compliance within 45 days. It's not my intent to injure the landlord respondent, but I do want compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, what I'm worried about with the landlord is when we tell him to do something, just boarding up the property would not meet the requirements, Mr. Lehmann has set out. That doesn't solve the problem. That's what bothers me. You're giving the landlord the exact same requirements as the tenant, and we've already been told that his intent is he doesn't want to do this. So we already know up front he's not going to do it. So when you put the exact same requirements that you must do this, that's what bothers me, because we already know he's not going to do it. MS. DUSEK: Well, can we make it more general as -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think when you're dealing with -- MS. DUSEK.' -- Rhona suggested -- Page 30 September 28, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAI.: -- the landlord, you need to be as general as possible for him. MR. LEHMANN: Would it be better just to amend the landlord's order to read achieve compliance with all the codes and ordinances within 45 days? MR. PHILLIPS: That's the ultimate issue. I don't think -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MR. PHILLIPS: -- we should be concerned with how they do it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I think with the landlord, you need to give him -- I hate to use the word, but the broadest brush to do what he wants to do. Because I think he would probably, given his druthers, he's probably going to sell the property. But tear the buildings down is probably the easiest for him, rather than go through all of this. MR. LEHMANN: And that is the intent of the order is to not injure the landlord respondent, and give him the broad brush. So I certainly don't mind amending that -- that order to say basically that. We are looking for compliance with all codes and ordinances within 45 days, after obtaining ownership rights. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does that accomplish our feat, Ms. Rawson? MS. RAWSON: I think it does. I'm still unclear as to whether or not your motion included per violation. MS. DUSEK: We haven't decided. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we haven't got that far yet. MS. DUSEK: I also have a question, Ms. Rawson. The recommendation that we have for the tenant, if the tenant does not comply, does that mean that the landlord then must assume that responsibility, the order that we've given to the tenant? CHAIRMAN FI. EGAL: No. MS. RAWSON: No. Because we have two different -- MS. DUSEK: Okay. I just want to make sure it doesn't -- MS. RAWSON: A and B. MS. DUSEK: -- transfer over. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You have two different sections of this order, one for the tenant, one for the landlord. And one wouldn't go to the other. MS. DUSEK: Okay. Page September 28, 2000 MR. LEHMANN: With regard to the fine, my recommendation to the board is we just keep it a fiat $150 a day plus any prosecution fees that we may have as a board. MS. DUSEK: I would agree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, that's fine. I just want to make sure that everybody's working out of the same page. MR. LEHMANN: What we're looking for is that $150 continues until all violations are corrected. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. MR. PONTE: Before we do that, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. PONTE: Just one other consideration here. On the first recommendation, we've said that the tenant cease and desist operation and use of the structure immediately. I suggest to my members of the board that this is a business, and that there are probably some contractual obligations that the owner has, that is, that the tenant has, business owner, business operators. And that we should give him, let's say, five business days rather than close of business tonight. MS. SAUNDERS: I agree. We have to define what immediately -- what's reasonable with immediately. What is practical. Are we -- you know, we're not saying we want to go in and lock the doors. We were saying move back into the structure that has the operating -- has the occupancy permit and you're allowed to use. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That wasn't part of the order, so -- the order was to cease and desist operation immediately. MR. PONTE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It didn't say move back into another building. So with the cease and desist, you must also take into consideration that these problems have existed since April. He's made no attempt to try and correct them. He has, under whatever level you want to assume, that the safety codes are with the fuel tanks and the fire extinguishers and so on, so forth, and the bare wiring, put the public at risk. I'm prone to say cease immediately, get them fixed and go back into operation. I'm really not prone to give him another week to continue something he's already had six months to correct. MS. TAYLOR: I agree. Page 32 September 28, 2000 MR. PONTE: We have to think about the practicality of it -- MR. LEHMANN: And that's a very good point. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He should have thought about that six months ago when he was told. MR. LEHMANN: My thought is, the only violation that we have as far as the occupancy license is that the respondent is working out of the wrong building; is that correct? MS. SAUNDERS: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: So it's relatively easy for this respondent to transfer his operations on-site to the next building and achieve compliance. All I'm looking for -- I don't care how the respondent works his business, I don't want to know. All I care about is whether we achieve compliance or not. That needs to happen relatively quickly. But as my colleague pointed out, there are just normal time periods that you can accomplish certain things. And it's not my intention to close the business down per se, it's my intention to achieve compliance. I certainly would not mind amending the order to a time period, but -- five business days, three business days, something of that nature? MS. SAUNDERS: Mr. Flegal, our order says cease and desist operation of the business, and I don't think that's really what we're saying. We're saying we want to -- I think what we want to say is cease and desist operation and all occupancy of the business within the structure cited. MR. LEHMANN: Correct. That was the intent. It's not to close the business down, it is to cease operation of that particular structure. MS. SAUNDERS: I concur with you there. And I think I would give them three days from today to do that, which sounds to me to be a reasonable thing~ if you bring some crews in and move what you have to and basically get out of the structure that is in violation. I think that -- you know, that way we're not destroying a business. MS. ARNOLD: I think we heard testimony from the attorney that they would -- if this board found that there was safety issues, that they would start moving things out -- MS. SAUNDERS: They would start immediately. MS. ARNOLD: Right. Page 33 September 28, 2000 MS. SAUNDERS: Do we think that -- maybe the inspector can tell us, do we think they can complete that within 24 hours? Do they need 48 hours? I don't know how much is there in order to completely cease and desist operation in -- MS. ARNOLD: I think the concern is the occupancy, the use of that building, not the operation of the business. MS. SAUNDERS: Right. MS. ARNOLD: And I don't know whether or not they're -- I mean, it sounds as though that they could continue operation of the business and start moving what they needed to out of the structure in question into the other structure. MS. SAUNDERS: Michelle, how long do you think they would need to complete, if they really worked most of the night or whatever, to complete the removal of all of the things that they need to remove from the structure we're discussing? MS. ARNOLD: I think in light of the safety concerns, I think you probably want to limit to it 24 hours so that, you know, we don't prolong the occupancy of that structure. And -- MS. SAUNDERS: I'll defer to staff if -- but I would still suggest that we say cease and desist operation of all business and occupancy of the structure that's not permitted within 24 hours of this notice being presented. MS. DUSEK: I think that's -- MR. LEHMANN: Well, I think we should leave the word business out, because cease and desist any occupancy of the structure basically does what we want. I don't want there to be any reference in there that we're trying to actually shut this business down. This is a viable business entity. We don't have any right to touch their -- MS. SAUNDERS: So we're agreeing that -- MR. LEHMANN: -- method of operation. MS. SAUNDERS: -- cease and desist operation -- cease and desist occupancy of the structure immediately, defined within 24 hours. MR. LEHMANN: Cease and desist occupancy of the structure within 24 hours. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You understand that that doesn't solve the fuel tank problem. MS. TAYLOR: Right. MR. LEHMANN: That's correct. This is just occupancy on Page 34 September 28, 2000 the structure. The fuel tank problem still exists. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Which is a major safety concern because it's hooked up to improper wiring and the tanks themselves. So you're telling him that he can move out of this building in 24 hours, but he can still continue to operate the fuel tanks, even though they're unsafe. MR. LEHMANN: I hate it when you play devil's advocate. MS. TAYLOR: Well, he's right. MR. LEHMANN: No, he is, that's why I hate it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sorry. That's why when you cease and desist operation of the business, he has to solve the problem. If you just move him from one building to another building, he can continue to operate unsafely. I don't want to put him out of business, but I want him to solve the problem, and if you tell him he has to quit today, I suspect he'll have somebody in there real rapidly to solve the electrical problem and get a fire marshal or somebody to say, you know, do I need to buy other tanks or do I -- what do I need to do. In fact, you know, I don't even know if he wants to stay in business. But if it's unsafe, I would hate to see, based on the size of those tanks, something go wrong and both those tanks blow up, especially since they're next door to a housing project. MR. PONTE: If we go to the tanks and start focusing on the tanks, we have yet another thing to look at. Because he could cease and desist operation and the tanks remain. So something in the order has to then address the tanks. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, but if he cease and desist, then you've stopped the electrical, okay? Now the tanks don't have a problem. MR. PONTE: I don't know what the tanks do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, they pump fuel into his trucks his and tow motors, or whatever he uses over there. I assume they're some type of fuel tank. It's what they look like. And they've got a pump on them. So I assume that's where he's getting his diesel fuel or something to operate his trucks and tow motors and -- to run his business. I mean, if we're worried about the safety issue, then I think you need to take that into consideration. Otherwise, you're -- all you're doing is moving people from one building to another building and you haven't solved the safety problem. Page 35 September 28, 2000 MR. LEHMANN: Can we address the safety issue without forcing this respondent to close his business? In other words, can we request that he cease and desist use of those fuel tanks CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. And they can still go buy -- MR. LEHMANN: -- and put them into a safe condition within 24 hours? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Because he can buy fuel down the street. There's a -- from where this is, I don't know, probably a quarter of a mile down the street, there's a gas station. MR. PONTE: But my question is, I guess when we start to focus on things like the fuel tanks, are we -- are we now astray of the issue? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we're trying to let him remain in business, and since this is one of the safety issues, I think it's something that he can solve immediately. Your choice is you can either let him operate everything or you can tell him to move bodies from one building to the next. But that doesn't address the safety issues. The fire extinguishers being outdated don't worry me as much as fuel tanks that are hooked up with improper wiring. MS. DUSEK: Can we address -- MR. PONTE: I just think we're straying from the violation as originally put forward by code enforcement. I mean, we're enlarging it. MS. DUSEK: We're being very specific because we're trying not to put people out of business. I wondered if we can address the safety issues to be taken care of immediately, and still, as Rhona said, have them move out of the building and still be able to operate their business, but the safety issues, not being specific as to what they are, but -- MS. SAUNDERS: You want to say -- I'll try again -- cease and desist occupancy of the structure immediately and correct all fire violations in the licensed structure; something to that effect. MR. LEHMANN: Let me interject again. Again, I think a few messages need to be sent to the respondent. Number one, this board is very serious about this; number two, it's not our intention to close your business, it's our intention to achieve compliance. I think probably that first sentence in there should read cease and desist occupancy and use of structure and fuel Page 36 September 28, 2000 tanks within 24 hours. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: Once compliance for the fuel tanks has been met by whatever means, then the use of those fuel tanks can continue. Hopefully that would eliminate any safety issues regarding the structure and the fuel tanks immediately, and allow the respondent to remain in business and only suffer the downtime related to those elements for whatever period of time to bring those elements back into compliance. I think the rest of the order should stand the way it was. MS. SAUNDERS: You worded it very well, as far as I'm concerned. MR. LEHMANN: Well thank you. MS. SAUNDERS: That works. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does redoing the first item work for everybody? MS. DUSEK: The rest of the safety issues are in that structure, is that correct, so -- MR. LEHMANN: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Lehmann, would you say it one more time, please? MS. SAUNDERS: I think I wrote it down. Can I help you here? MR. LEHMANN: All right, the first order is to cease and desist occupancy and use of the structure and fuel tanks within 24 hours. Use and occupancy of both elements can continue once compliance has been met with all codes and ordinances. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Everybody understand the redo of the item one and the order for the tenant, Mr. Danks? Okay, let's do A and B separately so we don't get confused. Would that be best, Ms. Rawson? MS. RAWSON: Yes, it would certainly be best. I'm not sure what the second part, Mr. Lehmann, of your use and occupancy can continue, what did you say? MR. LEHMANN: As long as all codes and ordinances have been met. As long as we come back into compliance, it can continue. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does that work, Ms. Rawson? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So we have a motion. I hope we all Page 37 September 28, 2000 remember what it is. MR. PONTE: Well, we do, we do have a motion. But I'm just going to ask all the members of the board to -- there are a lot of words on the table -- to go and take a look at section -- Page 2 of the statement of violation and request for hearing, and just read quietly to yourself the description of the violations contained in No. 2. I think we're far off the mark. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't think so. With all the violation sections that were cited, the site development plan that's not been submitted, you can't operate the business without it, you can't get the license without the site development plan, so -- MR. PONTE: Well, then why can't the recommendation or the finding be reduced to the few words here in the description of the violation? MS. ARNOLD: I think we provided -- we provided that information in details because there are specific steps that need to be taken in order to come into compliance. And we wanted the respondent to be clear what needed to be done. MR. PONTE: But if we would say, say, repair the roof after you get the building permit, that's the first violation cited here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think everyone -- you're reading a piece of paper that was one piece of paper about the hearing. You need to go back to the -- MR. LEHMANN: To the notice. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- the notice of ordinance violations that were issued to both Mr. Danks and Laidig and read what they say. And I think you'll find there that, you know, that he's talking about the correction is complying with all the codes and ordinances, and information has been submitted from the fire marshal about these, and the site development plan is required before you get the occupational license for the particular building that he's in. And to do that, you have to have the fire inspections. We have safety violations that have been brought to our attention. It's not something you ignore. They're covered by the ordinance paragraph cited. I think we must address them that way. All those paragraphs are listed in the violation certificate that was issued. I do not think we're far afield. MR. LEHMANN: Not only is it in the notice of violation, but we've also received testimony today -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. Page 38 September 28, 2000 MR. LEHMANN: -- to verify the fact that those violations still do exist. It's not just limited to -- MR. PONTE: I was just wondering whether or not we weren't making this more complicated than it really needs be. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not from the standpoint of trying to get it corrected. But I do understand where you're coming from. Okay, we have a motion. Hopefully everybody remembers, because I don't think I can repeat it. MS. TAYLOR: I second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, and a second. Are there any further questions? Now, we're dealing with the tenant, respondent tenant Danks, so everybody understands. Any further discussion on Respondent Danks? All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, now we'll go to respondent, the owner, the Laidig -- Jori Laidig. MR. LEHMANN: Do you wish me to repeat that motion? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you can shorten this one. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. For the respondent -- the landlord Respondent Jon and Sonja Laidig Foundation, Incorporated, we are -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: May I stop you and just say again, I think we have a citation to Jon Laidig. I think we need to follow the same procedure we did with Mr. Danks, since it's specifically to him. Do we not need to continue that, Ms. Rawson? MS. RAWSON: Well, this one's to the foundation. That Jon and Sonja Laidig Foundation, Inc. we're talking about, right? MS. SAUNDERS: That is who we cited. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, that's the notice of the hearing. If you read the citation, the citation is Jon Laidig, who we -- MS. RAWSON: Well, the statement of violation is to Jon and Sonja Laidig Foundation, Inc. and John Danks. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I just wanted to make sure we -- MR. LEHMANN: I think on this order we should make it short and sweet and basically achieve code compliance within 30 days of possession of the property. MS. RAWSON: A while ago you said 45. Page 39 September 28, 2000 MR. LEHMANN: Oh, I'm sorry, I apologize. 45 days. MS. SAUNDERS: Or a fine of $150 per day, plus expenses. MR. LEHMANN: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, any question, when we're dealing with the landlord? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Do you need a break? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's take five minutes, please. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next case is BCC versus Connolly. Case No. 2000-032. MS. CRUZ: Let the record show that respondent is not present, neither a representative of the respondent. Staff prepared a composite exhibit and provided it to the respondent. It was sent certified mail. There is proof of receipt of the notice of hearing and the entire packet. I'd like to request that this packet be admitted into evidence, marked Composite Exhibit A, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear a motion from the board to accept the exhibit? MS. SAUNDERS: So moved. MR. LEHMANN: Second. MS. TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) MS. CRUZ: The alleged violation before this board is unlawful storage of litter and abandoned property to include but not limited to vehicles, trucks, cars, boats and numerous vehicle parts and trailers. This is a violation of Ordinance No. 99-51, the Collier County Litter and Weeds Ordinance, Sections 6, 7 and 8. The violation exists at 2697 Brantley Boulevard, Naples, Florida, and is more particularly described as Naples Farm Sites, Inc., south 165 feet of the west one-half of tract 37. Page 40 September 28, 2000 The owner of record is Gayle Connolly Estates. Personal representative is Stephen Karl Kress. The address of record is 4501 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 204, Naples, Florida. The violation was first observed on January 12th, 1999. Two notices of violation were issued to the respondent. One was issued on October 13th, 1999, and the other one was issued -- correction, one was issued on September 8, 1999, with the correction date of October 13, 1999. The second one was issued on November 23rd, 1999, with a compliance date of December 15, t 999. A reinspection was conducted at the property today, September 28th. This reinspection revealed that part of the violation remains. At this time, I'd like to call the code enforcement supervisor Ed Morad, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.} MR. MORAD: Good morning. For the record, Ed Morad, code enforcement supervisor. I'm presenting this case. The previous investigators who did the earlier investigations are no longer with the department. As Maria noted, the owner of record is Gayle Connolly Estates. Stephen Kress, personal representative of the estate, was notified of the violation. He was sent a notice of violation. On November 23rd, we also had a gentleman on-site, Charles Wright. He produced an agreement for a deed, and he had that with Tropical Investments Corporation. President is Chuck Holland. He admitted to having the equipment and everything being his violation, the litter also. And he agreed to abate the violation, which shortly after that, he died. After numerous site visits and also phone conversations or attempt at phone conversations with Mr. Kress and also Mr. Holland, that's when I got involved. April 12th, I spoke with Mr. Holland, who did state that he had an agreement to buy that property from Mr. Kress, and then he turned around and deeded it again to Mr. Wright. I called Mr. Kress on April 13th, and I told Mr. Kress that he was the responsible party because of the fact that he's the legal property owner of record, and he also paid the last taxes on that Page 41 September 28, 2000 property. Mr. Kress contacted his attorney. His attorney agreed. At that point he told me he spoke with Mr. Holland, who said he was going to take care of the problem, called me back to confirm that. I never got a call, and that's where we're at to this point. Early a.m. inspection of the property this morning indicates that some of the litter has been not removed but contained in a dumpster. There's a little bit of litter left. Two vehicles that remained, one's off the property sort of in the right-of-way and the other one's been put on a different piece of property, we think owned by Mr. Chuck Holland. So the violations still exist. Michelle pointed out that I said Mr. Holland's deceased. That's not true. Mr. Wright is deceased. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. PONTE: Mr. Morad, it seems that many of the violations or the individual items have been removed, that the problem has been considerably abated. That's how it reads. As we look at the photos that were included, I mean, is it now looking like what? It looks pretty bad here. But the abatement has proceeded to the point where it's now a -- not as serious a violation, it's minor? How much litter is left? MR. MORAD.' yOU, MR. PONTE: MR. MORAD: little dark. MR. PONTE: Very early this morning. MR. MORAD: Yeah, we work 24 hours a day. MS. ARNOLD: So it's minor. MR. MORAD: Yeah, the litter is minor. There is a dumpster on-site, field -- all indication is from Mr. Holland, who called this morning, that that will be removed and the remaining litter will be put in a dumpster. That's the picture of the dumpster, I believe. MR. PONTE: And the dumpster then will be removed as well? MR. MORAD: Per Mr. Holland, yes. This is the motor home -- one of the motor homes that was towed out of there and put on another piece of property -- I'm sorry, that's the one that's close to the road. We have some current photos here we'll show Thank you. This was taken early this morning, so it is a Page 42 September 28, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Is it still on the property or is it -- MR. MORAD: Yes, it's in -- probably close to right-of-way, yes, on that property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But it's on the property. MR. MORAD: That's correct. MR. PONTE: Doesn't look like it would take much time to clear this up. MR. MORAD: If we continue to be get the cooperation, you're right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Have you had any conversation with the -- I know you've been talking with Mr. Holland about removing this stuff. Have you had any conversation at all with Mr. Kress? MR. MORAD: Yes, sir. I believe it was Wednesday that he called and said it -- he assured me that Mr. Holland assured him that the violations will be corrected prior to this hearing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, but they haven't been. MR. MORAD: Almost. MS. SAUNDERS: Sounds to me like they're getting very close, and what we as a board need to do is simply keep the pressure on just a little bit as the staff recommended, I think. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions for Mr. Morad? MR. LEHMANN: Just one for Jean. Jean, again, just clarifying, this assignment of agreement for deed, we do have the right people here as far as the respondent? This is the Gayle N. Cormoily Estate; is that correct? MS. RAWSON: We do. MR. LEHMANN: That's it. I just wanted to know. MS. RAWSON: You want me to explain how that works? These agreements for deed basically don't pass title, first of all. Second, were not recorded. The proper legal title of the property now is the estate of Mrs. Cormoily. And we have named the estate and the personal representative, and have served him -- it looks like this is an accounting firm. So I presume that they must be working on the estate. MR. LEHMANN: That's fine. I just wanted to make sure that we had the right people. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thanks, sir. MR. LEHMANN: I make a motion that we accept staff's recommendation, that the CEB order the respondent to remove Page 43 September 28, 2000 all abandoned properties more than two weeks -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, let's go back first and find that we do have a violation. MR. LEHMANN: Oh, I apologize. I'm getting ahead of myself. I'd make a motion that we do have a finding of fact and the violation does exist, as stated in the statement of violation, Sections 6, 7 and 8 of Ordinance No. 99-51, County Litter and Weed Ordinance. Description of violation is unlawful storage of litter and abandoned property, included but not limited to vehicles, trucks, cars, boats, and numerous vehicle parts and trailers. The location where the violation exists would be 2697 Brantley Boulevard, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 0000061735160005, Naples Farm Sites, Incorporated, south 165 feet of the west half of Tract 37 or Book 1209, Page 2301-02. This is in the case of BCC versus Connolly Estate, Case No. 2000-032. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. SAUNDERS: I think I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that there in fact is a violation. Any further questions? MS. RAWSON: Based on the evidence that was presented to you today, you might want to amend your motion to -- because the motion that you made includes vehicles, trucks, cars, boats and vehicle parts. And you were shown some pictures from this morning, so the evidence does not show all of that. MR. LEHMANN: Well, we still do have the vehicle. MS. RAWSON: Correct. MR. LEHMANN: Let me go back over that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Why don't you amend it to just read the unlawful storage of litter and abandoned property, period. MR. LEHMANN: That's fine. MS. TAYLOR: Remaining. Remaining. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, let's just say period, rather than remaining. Let's not give them an out. I'm afraid when you say remaining, he's liable to say well, that wasn't there today but tomorrow it's there. So that just -- I don't want to give him any corners to slip out of. MR. LEHMANN: So amended. Page 44 September 28, 2000 MS. SAUNDERS: Agreed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Now recommendation to the board. MR. LEHMANN: And again, I would just follow staff's recommendation, that we order the respondent to remove all the abandoned properties and litter within two weeks, or the county will abate the violation and assess the total cost plus prosecution fees to the respondent. And I might add that probably ought to assess the prosecution fees to the respondent, regardless of whether the county takes care of it or we take care of it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. Okay, if they fail to abate within two weeks, you're just going to tell the county to do it. MR. LEHMANN: Right. MR. PONTE: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: Were you looking for a fine particularly? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. And your recommendation would include if the county does abate the violation themselves, that the county would be reimbursed for the cost of the abatement and also the cost of prosecuting the case before this board. MR. LEHMANN: Correct. But if the county does -- if the respondent takes care of it, the respondent is still responsible for the cost of prosecuting the case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And a second. Any further question? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.} CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. The next case is BCC versus Harmon, Case 2000-034. MS. CRUZ: Let the record show that the respondent is present, Sheila Harmon. MS. HARMON: For the record, it's Susan Harmon. Page 45 September 28, 2000 MS. CRUZ: Correction. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Thank you, ma'am. MS. CRUZ: Before we request to enter this packet into evidence, I'd like to make a correction in the packet to replace the last page, Page 19, the warranty deed. The incorrect copy was provided to the board, to the respondent. And in this packet, I have a current copy of the deed, the correct deed, and I'd like to replace that with Pages 19 and 20. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Harmon, do you have any objection to the county submitting this package to us? MS. HARMON: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. I'd entertain a motion to accept the package as Exhibit A to the county. MR. LEHMANN: So moved. MS. TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to make a request to change the respondent's name in the packet where it identifies the respondent. Of course it's Board of County Commissioners versus Collier County, Florida -- I'm sorry, Board of County Commissioners of Collier County versus Mark A. and Susan Ann Harmon. MS. HARMON: I'm sorry to interrupt, but there really is another correction. There really is no Mark Harmon. We're officially divorced. The property is completely in my name. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, I believe that we are supposed to keep the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Until we -- MS. CRUZ: -- respondent because the deed identifies Mark and Susan Harmon. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: When she gets up here, she can inform us of what she'd like, but right now, the current recorded deed will have to be accepted as is. MS. CRUZ: The alleged violation before this board is unlawful accumulation of litter, consisting of vegetative debris dumped on a non-improved lot and a porch-like structure added to the main house without obtaining a Collier County building permit, and encroaching in the required -- encroaching in the required west side setback of the abutting lot. Page 46 September 28, 2000 This is in violation of Section 2.7.6, paragraph one and five of Ordinance No. 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code, and Section 6, 7 of Ordinance No. 99-51. The violation exists at the property located at 2536 Lee Street, Naples, Florida. And is more particularly described as Tamiami Heights, Lots 4 and 5. Owner of record is Mark and Susan Harmon. Address of record, 2536 Lee Street, Naples, Florida. The violation was first observed on March 13, year 2000. A notice of violation was given to the respondent on April 12th, 2000, requesting compliance by April 28th, 2000. A reinspection was conducted yesterday, September 27, revealing a violation remaining at this time. I'd like to call investigator -- Code Enforcement Investigator Kathy Van Poucke at this time, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. VAN POUCKE: Good morning again. This case was initiated from a citizen complaint; the complaint being that at the property there was a dumpster, some litter and the construction of a porch-like structure that was encroaching on the neighboring property. When I visited the site on March 9th, I did not observe a dumpster on the property, no litter on the property, and no new construction being performed. On March 27th, the complainant called back and explained that the litter was in fact on the unimproved lot to the right of the property and consisted of vegetative debris; the dumpster had been removed; and that the porch-like structure in question was actually added years ago. On March 30th, the code enforcement supervisor, Ed Morad visited the site and observed the palm fronds on the unimproved property to the right; spoke with Ms. Harmon, who stated she had deposited the litter there and that she would remove it; and also, that the porch had been added years ago, and that she would try to provide us with a copy of the survey. After reviewing the survey, and other information researching the property, it was determined that the porch is in fact encroaching the neighboring property. You should have a copy of the survey that shows that. Also what was determined, that at one point these Page 47 September 28, 2000 properties were subdivided, which is what caused the porch to encroach on the property. To date, the porch still exists and the litter still exists. MS. SAUNDERS: Would the covered carport also be encroaching on the property, if I'm looking at the survey correctly? MS. VAN POUCKE: No. MS. SAUNDERS: It's not. MS. VAN POUCKE: No. MR. LEHMANN: You had mentioned that the property was subdivided. Was this prior to or after the porch construction? MS. VAN POUCKE: It was subdivided after the construction of the porch. MR. PONTE: Is there any reason the palm fronds have not been removed? I mean, it just looks like a small pile of pond fronds. MS. VAN POUCKE: I'm not sure what the reason is. MR. PONTE: And no response from Ms. Harmon as to why she hasn't done it? MS. VAN POUCKE: Well, she indicated that she would do it. MR. PONTE: But hasn't. MS. VAN POUCKE: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Did you give Ms. Harmon a notice of violation at any time? MS. VAN POUCKE: Yes, sir. On June 2nd, a notice was served. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But other than that, you didn't provide her with any kind of notification prior to that or anything? I mean other than personal visits or telephone calls, you didn't actually give her a written notice of violation? MS. VAN POUCKE: What's when I had her sign the notice, on June 2nd. MS. ARNOLD: For the board's information, Supervisor Morad is here. And I believe he spoke to the Planning Department to get information as to what had to be done to correct this violation. So if you want that testimony, you can have that, too. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions for the investigator? MR. PHILLIPS: The respondent's not on lot three, correct? MS. VAN POUCKE: I believe she's got Lots 4 and 5. Page 48 September 28, 2000 MR. PHILLIPS: The encroachment's on lot three. MS. VAN POUCKE: On lot three, yes. MS. DUSEK: I think it would be good to hear from Mr. Morad. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions for the investigator? Thank you. MR. PONTE: I have no questions. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Morad, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.} MR. MORAD: I checked with the Planning Department because this porch meets definition of a structure. It's encroaching on the side setback and into the abutting property. The options that Ms. Harmon has would be to try to file for a variance or to remove the structure. It would not be permitted, you know, with the encroachment. MS. SAUNDERS: Sir, is the entire structure in the encroachment -- in the right-of-way, or just that tiny little portion? MR. MORAD: It's not in the right-of-way. It's -- yeah, it's encroaching on the -- what is that, Lot 3? Lot 3's property line, side setback. MR. PONTE: I think I read that it was over the property line; is that right? MR. MORAD: That's correct. It's encroaching on her side setback and then over into the abutting property line. MR. PONTE: By about how much? MS. ARNOLD: On the survey, the encroachment, what exists on the other property, is about t.3. MR. PONTE: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And then the setbacks for that zoning district was seven and a half feet. MR. MORAD: I believe it's seven and a half feet. MS. SAUNDERS: So it really is about eight and a half feet too big. MR. MR. we have MS. MR. MORAD: Encroaching, correct. LEHMANN: So regardless of the encroachment issue, a setback issue also. ARNOLD: Correct. MORAD: That's correct. MR. LEHMANN: That's my confusion, is how do we subdivide a piece of the property that also has a structure on it? Page 49 September 28, 2000 MR. MORAD: From what I understand, the previous owner had four or five lots all into one parcel. And after constructing the structure, the house, the principal structure and the porch, he subdivided this parcel into lot sizes, which created the encroachment, and then sold off those pieces of property. MS. ARNOLD: However, there was no permit at all. MR. LEHMANN: That's my question. Previous testimony says that the structure was built prior to the subdivision of the lot. My question is, was it built by permit. Because the permitting issues should have raised a red flag when the -- MR. MORAD: Well, if it was -- I mean, it would have been allowed to be permitted because of the continuous lots. They had plenty of room. It wouldn't affect the side setback at all. Until they subdivided this parcel, that's when it affected the side setback. Think of Lot 3 as being the owner's piece of property also. Okay, so if you build that porch say 10 foot out, you still have plenty of room before you encroach on the next lot's side setback. MR. LEHMANN: But at this point in time the respondent does not own lot three. MR. MORAD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Unfortunately, it's I guess the old adage, buyer beware. The owner bought something that was -- seems to be illegal to begin with. MR. MORAD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And now they're caught. MR. MORAD: When she got -- when she purchased the house, she got this survey, from what I understand. So that showed the encroachment. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. That's the way I understand that. Yeah, she just got trapped. Now, you say the side setback is seven and a half feet? Is it seven and a half or 107 MR. KINCAID: Must be 10, because if you add 8.4 and 1.3, you come up with 10. MR. MORAD: I believe it's seven and a half feet side setback. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And the reason I'm wondering is on Page 11, we've got setbacks and how do we get from anything Page 50 September 28, 2000 here down to seven and a half? What are you trying to tell us? MR. LEHMANN: I've got 10 feet from attached screen porch. MS. SAUNDERS: It's not screened, I don't think. It appears that the porch is not screened. That may make a difference. MS. ARNOLD: The property line that is in question is a side yard setback? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. ARNOLD: And this is an attached screen porch. It's -- and the setback would be the same as a principal on the side. That's what SPS stands for. And the principal structure setback MR. MORAD.' Yeah, going to the zoned area where it's at, the principal side setback is seven and a half. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Seven and a half feet. You just didn't give us that page. MR. MORAD.' I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You just didn't give us that page to review. Okay, seven and a half feet. Any other questions for Mr. Morad? Thank you, sir. Ms. Harmon? (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. HARMON: I have a couple of points, I guess, because there is a couple of points, so I guess I want to divide them up. Number one, the unlawful accumulation of the litter consisting of vegetated debris dumped on an unimproved lot. Yes, I did admit to doing that when I originally had spoke with Cathy, or I believe possibly it was Mr. Morad when I spoke to him originally. I had told him that the owner of that property had requested that I do so. And that is the truth. I'm a landscape lady and I had a large dumpster on the site at that time. I went out of my way to actually take some out of the dumpster and put over there for the gentleman, because there had been flooding in the area, and we both -- actually three or four of us in that area had been suffering greatly from a lot of flood. And he felt that, you know, some things laying down like that would help him build up his base of his property so it wouldn't flood. So I did it at the owner's request. And at the present time, it is completely environmentally gone back into the earth and Page 51 September 28, 2000 cannot be found. And I would, you know, completely deny it existing at this point in time. So I would like to just request that that violation be completely wiped away. If you'd like to respond to me now, you know, one to one just on that violation, we can do that, or I can just continue, because I'm a talker. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, go ahead. MS. HARMON: Okay, I'll go to No. 2. By the way, they say it's kind of a fool that does her own defense here, and I would rather be considered frugal. I cannot afford an attorney, and that's why I'm here, so -- okay. But anyway, I took the liberty of looking up the word encroachment this morning in my Webster's dictionary and it's defined as this and I quote it, to intrude gradually upon the possessions or rights of another such as to encroach upon the neighbor's land encroachment. Now, the neighbor and I are in agreement to this. I know it's a very old violation, and I really don't deny a violation, per se, but he doesn't mind and has told me, quote, I don't care if your building goes over a foot over in my land. And I said cool, I don't care either. So between the two of us, we don't care. Now, I'm sure that the board probably has a whole lot better to do than care, but I understand care. So if we have to care, then here. legally that I guess you have to we're going to have to care I personally would like to hire an attorney, if I could afford one, to go back to the people that are responsible for my caveat emptor, or however I learned it in high school, which was the buyer beware thing, and I would like to say okay, surveyors, okay, past owners, okay, whoever you are that's responsible for this violation, let's go ahead and get a variance and let's go for it and let's get this line corrected. I can't afford to do it. I understand it's $800. I don't think so. You know, I'm a part-time worker as it is. I'm trying to get my business going. I'm selling my home. I'm selling the property. So this is something that Mr. Don Ross, attorney would like to address, I'm sure. This is something my real estate man would like to address. We certainly don't want to pass this encroachment on to someone else. But I can't afford to do Page 52 September 28, 2000 anything about it other than to say let's find somebody who can and they can all pitch in this $800 and we'll get it solved. That's about all I've got to report. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You do have an encroachment and it is a violation. Whether the two of you agree or not is really immaterial. It's a violation. Sorry. You know, it s that you agree, but it is against county ordinances. MS. HARMON: All right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And we can't tell you that it's okay. All we can do is say it's a violation, and try to resolve the problem or suggest ways for you to try to resolve the problem. And what I'm envisioning is there's only two ways, you either get a variance or you take the porch down. I mean, that seems to be the only two choices you're going to have, I think. The litter that you had, this litter was on your neighbor's property or was it on your property? MS. HARMON: It's on -- well, both, but it's on the neighbor's property. I'm sure that the original one in question -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. HARMON: -- was on -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Was on the neighbor's property, not your property. MS. HARMON: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. PHILLIPS: Ms. Harmon, just so you understand, we're talking about two issues here. We're not really talking about the issue with you and your neighbor. What you agree with your neighbor, that's entirely separate. We're talking about the issue between you and the county -- MS. HARMON: Correct. MR. PHILLIPS: -- and the issue of the side setback. What you agree with with regard to, you know, your neighbor, that's not the issue here. Do you understand that? MS. HARMON: Yeah. Yeah, I do. I just find it unfortunate, number one, that the county, since 1967, I believe is when the building permit was issued. And by the way, there is a building permit. When that was issued, nobody ever said a word. And it's been since 1967, probably four owners later on my home, and all of a sudden Sue Harmon is you're the bad guy. You got the foot, sweetie and you pay the 800 bucks. I don't think so. Page 53 September 28, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, based on what we heard, I think where the problem come in is maybe back then it was one big piece of property and they built a house and then somewhere down the line later he said gee, I got all this empty land, I'm going to cut it up and make more money. That's when the problem came up. MS. HARMON: Yeah, I know, I know. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So originally it was a good deal. It's unfortunate that as they chopped it up, they come up with the problem. And ! understand, and I think everybody does, you kind of got trapped into this. But we don't have a way to help you, yet. At least I haven't found one myself, other than get a variance or take the building down. I'm going to ask for some options, but right now that's about all I could come up with. MS. HARMON: I thought of one other one. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. HARMON: And I have a call in to them, and this is the National Historical Society. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, that isn't going to help us today. MS. HARMON: Well, no, but I would like to request time to hear back from them. Because my house was built back in 1939 and it is a fisherman's cottage. And it's very, very old. And if in fact it's going to be on the historical register, I don't suggest we tear down anything. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But you're probably still going to have to get a variance for that. MS. HARMON: Probably. MS. SAUNDERS: Let me deal with one part first. One of the two parts of our violation is the removal of litter. It seems to me we can't cite Ms. Harmon if it's not even on her property. MS. ARNOLD: Well, we cited Ms. Harmon because she admitted to placing it on that property. MS. SAUNDERS: But it is gone. Have we done -- MS. HARMON: It is gone. MS. SAUNDERS: -- have we done an inspection? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we did an inspection yesterday. And the vegetation's now overgrown with weeds. MS. SAUNDERS: Do we still need to have it removed, or is Page 54 September 28, 2000 that a natural state at this point? MS. TAYLOR: It's a fire hazard. MS. HARMON: With reference to a fire hazard, I would like to make a statement, if I could, please. I'd like to trace it back approximately a year and a half ago, and that property was cleared, clear cut, actually, and the owner had a pile approximately 30 to 40 foot high on that land at that time. I dealt with code enforcement myself only on a talk basis. You know, his car would pull up, that kind of thing. Four different times, four different violations, four different requests on my part to please remove that pile. Talk about a fire hazard, you better believe it. Scared me to death. Finally after several months, the man got a bulldozer in there at his leisure and moved that stuff, which took forever. There is still some debris left from that little episode. And the weeds have overgrown that land completely and my stuff is like a pea in a -- you know what I mean, compared to that land and what's going on over there. I on my own could probably put in a request to say hey, there's a fire hazard next door to me and it's not my stuff I put there. MS. ARNOLD: With respect -- we would have to put a notice to the property owner for the overgrown weeds now. So that would be separate from -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's deal with Ms. Harmon. Let's not deal with something that hasn't been issued here. MS. SAUNDERS: I'm very uncomfortable asking her to remove the vegetation that is no longer easily removed on somebody else's property. And I don't think we can do that. If there is a safety or fire hazard there, I do think we have to cite the other owner. And if he has as problem with the fact that she dumped on his land, whether he gave his permission or not, then that's between the two of them. I don't think -- to me this doesn't sound like a violation with Ms. Harmon. I don't know how the other people feel on that one. MS. TAYLOR: It's a violation if she put it there. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, not if she did it at his instruction. I think for those purposes, she would be his agent if he instructed you to do it -- MS. HARMON: Exactly. Page 55 September 28, 2000 MR. PHILLIPS: -- and it's on his property, I wouldn't think that Ms. Harmon would be responsible. MS. SAUNDERS: And the part that she put there is no longer easily removable in any case. So we can't say you put all this or that. So I don't think -- it's after the fact. I don't think we can cite, I really don't. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Under the violation that was cited, it says it shall be unlawful for any person to throw, discard, place, drop, blah, blah, blah. Whether she was his agent or not is immaterial, because it's illegal for anybody to do it. MS. RAWSON: If in fact you decide that the litter still exists in such a state that you can ask her to remove it. But that's correct, that's what it says. I have one question, Ms. Harmon. Did I understand you to say that you are divorced from Mark A. Harmon? MS. HARMON: That's correct. MS. RAWSON: And incident to that divorce, was there a quitclaim deed? MS. HARMON: No, actually his half of the home is in the bankruptcy court and I am presently buying his half from the bankruptcy court. MS. RAWSON: So the legal title then is still in both names; is that correct? MS. HARMON: I don't really know. I don't think so. I think it's my name and the bankruptcy court. I really can't say. CHAIRMAN FLEGAI.: Well, the only one recorded is -- MS. RAWSON: The two of them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- the two of them. MS. RAWSON: Right. MS. ARNOLD: I believe Supervisor Morad has testimony. He also spoke to the owner of the adjacent lot. So I don't know if you want to hear that testimony. CHAIRMAN FLEGAI.: Any other questions for Ms. Harmon? MS. DUSEK: Yes, I have one. In the best case scenario, if you had your choice and were able to do it, would you remove the porch or would you get a variance? Would you want to keep the porch there? MS. HARMON: Oh, I would definitely want to keep the porch. MS. SAUNDERS: Ms. Harmon, did you get title insurance when you purchased the property? Page 56 September 28, 2000 MS. HARMON: Yes. MS. SAUNDERS: Because title insurance, if I'm correct, would mean that they couldn't give clear title if there was a violation. MS. RAWSON: Well, it's probably an exception on the title policy. And maybe they insured over it. I'd have to look at her title policy to know the answer to that question. MS. SAUNDERS: That may be another -- MS. RAWSON: But there had to be a survey, so there had -- MS. SAUNDERS: Yeah, and if the survey shows something that's -- but I know that's not our problem if the setback exists. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, the survey -- the warranty deed and the survey are taken at the same time, so it was obvious when title passed that the encroachment existed, because the survey shows it. Okay, any other questions for Ms. Harmon? Thank you, ma'am. MS. HARMON: Okay, thanks. MR. LEHMANN: I have a question for the board. The violation itself references Land Development Code as far as weeds and litter ordinance, but it also references the structure as opposed to -- without obtaining a building permit. I don't see any evidence that we haven't obtained a building permit for the structure. I think we have an issue of encroachment, which would be a different code section. MS. ARNOLD: A permit was obtained, but it was not final, and therefore, the permit was voided out. They never obtained the CO for that permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: When was this permit? MS. ARNOLD: In 1978. MR. LEHMANN: That's for the additional -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: For the porch? MS. ARNOLD: For the porch. MR. LEHMANN: So at the point in time, in t978, we had a permitted use, or at least an application, and a permit was issued to construct the porch in its present location. It just never received a certificate of occupancy. MS. CRUZ: That's correct. MR. LEHMANN: The ordinance -o excuse me, the statement Page 57 September 28, 2000 of violation references the permit itself. We have been talking about encroachment issues and setback issues. MR. MORAD: I could clarify that, if you'd like. MR. LEHMANN: Please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. MORAD: There is another notice of violation which was posted and I believe mailed to Ms. Harmon that dealt with the sections dealing with encroachment. It should be in the packet. What page? MS. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I apologize, but I'm going to need to leave and turn my vote over to one of the alternates. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, I understand. We talked about that. (Ms. Saunders exits boardroom.) MS. DUSEK: Ms. Rawson, I have a question for you. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. DUSEK.- Since both names are on the deed, we don't know for sure if it's just in Susan's name now, or Mark and Susan. Assuming that it's in both names, and if in fact his share of it is in bankruptcy, how -- who do we cite? MS. RAWSON: You cite them both, because they're both legally on the title. And, you know, I don't know what the bankruptcy court's going to do with this, and if they're divorced, it may not be his homestead anymore. Just lots of issues that this board doesn't have jurisdiction over. But all we can do is cite them both and the violation if any exists will run with the land. So we'll let -- she's selling it, apparently, so we'll let the title company on her end and the bankruptcy court on his end deal with what happens. CHAIRMAN FLEGAI.: What I don't see in this package is this Section 2.7.6, paragraphs one and four of 91-102. MS. DUSEK: That's right, I don't have that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't have that. MS. DUSEK: Nor do I. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does anybody have it? Does the staff have it, so we can see what it says? MS. RAWSON: I probably do. MS. ARNOLD: No, we do not. MR. LEHMANN: I also do not have the second notice of violation that Mr. Morad had referred to. Page 58 September 28, 2000 MS. ARNOLD: That wasn't included in the packet. MS. RAWSON: Would you give me the citation again, Mr. Flegal? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 2.7.6, paragraphs one and five of Ordinance 91-102. MS. RAWSON: I'm sure I have it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have a -- then I have an additional question, once you find out. MS. RAWSON: Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's Ordinance 91-102, which I believe is the Land Development Code. While we're all looking, since we had one of our regular members leave, one of the alternates will now participate. And I believe Ms. Godfrey-Lint was our first alternate, so she will participate fully by voting. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, if you go back to Case No. 2000-036, there's a copy of the LDC in Section 2.7.6, paragraphs CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Which case was it? I'm sorry. MR. LEHMANN: It's the next case. MS. RAWSON: I found it also. MR. LEHMANN: There's Sections I and 5 in there, and those are basically-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: My other question, Ms. Rawson, is I notice in our package we have a notice of violation, i.e., one of their citations they hand out, that references another -- other sections of the Land Development Code. And yet the statement of violation that was issued doesn't reference that. MS. RAWSON: We have to go with the statement of violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what I thought. MS. RAWSON: And the descriptions are unlawful accumulation of litter and a porch-like structure without first obtaining a permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's where I was headed. I just wanted to have you tell me that. MS. ARNOLD: I need clarification of what other sections have been cited in the NOV, because Section 2.7.6 was in another NOV that the respondent did not receive. We received the letter back. So that's not -- I wasn't aware that that Page 59 September 28, 2000 particular NOV was in your packet. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Under your Page 2, statement of violation and request for hearing. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, I see that now. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I didn't type this, you folks did. So if you typed the wrong thing, I can't help you. MS. ARNOLD: I thought you were making reference to an NOV, and so that needs to be corrected, that's exactly right, we shouldn't have had that information in there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So the -- that section, paragraphs one and five, and -- well -- MR. LEHMANN: Ms. Arnold, you had testified earlier a permit was issued. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. LEHMANN: But a CO was not. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. LEHMANN: The ordinances reference the issuance of a permit. They do not reference the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Is that correct, incorrect? MS. RAWSON: Well, I think it says both. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. I mean, if you get a permit, you are required to follow through that permit process through certificate of occupancy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, and it says that in Item I of 2.7.6, the second sentence, no building or structure shall be erected, moved, added to, altered, utilized or allowed to exist without first obtaining the authorization of required building permit or permits, inspections and certificate of occupancy as required by the Collier County Building Code, and no building permit application shall be approved, blah, blah, blah, and it goes on and on. So yeah, they have to have a CO. So they issued the permit and then they just never followed through by finishing it, correct? MR. LEHMANN: I'm a little confused again as far as what we're looking at. Are we reviewing the statement of violation, or we're looking at just the litter and the permit issue, or are we talking about encroachment issues now, setback issues? What -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, they were written up for, according to Page 2, violation of 2.7.6, paragraphs one and five. And then -- of Land Development Code. And Section 6 and 7 of Page 60 September 28, 2000 99-51, Litter Ordinance, the litter being there. And the other is the porch added without permits. What people have talked about is the encroachment which is you can talk about it, but the problem is you've got a porch that's illegal. It doesn't meet setbacks. The fact that it encroaches just happens to be another item. But they have a porch that's illegal, which is what they were cited for. MR. LEHMANN: That's my concern, is that if the board is getting a little off track in dealing with encroachment issues, it may be the fact that it does encroach and all these issues, but that's not what the violation was for. MR. PONTE: The violation's been in existence since 19787 MR. LEHMANN: No -- that's correct, 1978, '79. MR. PONTE: Something of that order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. It was just brought forth, so we can't just agree with it. I mean, sorry. Yes, it's a violation because there is a porch and it doesn't meet code, period -- MR. PONTE: Which has nothing to do with the encroachment. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- kind of just part of it doesn't meet code, it doesn't meet setbacks. You know, it encroaches, doesn't meet setbacks, and it's not been CO'd. Which is really the basic violation, it hasn't been CO'd. MR. PONTE: But that's the only violation, it hasn't been CO'd -- I mean, it hasn't -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Permitted and CO'd. MR. PONTE: Right, it was permitted. MR. LEHMANN: The complicated part of -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, part of the permit is you continue to it get it CO'd, and the permit lapsed. MR. LEHMANN: The complicated part of this issue is that today it might -- in 1978 it might have received its CO without any problems. Today it might have a problem receiving its CO because of the encroachment, due to the subdivision that occurred after it was built. MR. PONTE: Given all the changes that have happened since 1978, is there any record? I mean, is there a possibility that the CO was lost? I mean, it's -- it's ancient history we're dealing with. I mean, I just think of the changes that have gone Page 61 September 28, 2000 on and the paper that has been moved. I mean, it's well within the possibility that the CO might have been lost or misfiled. MR. LEHMANN: I see what you're saying. But again, it,s the board's -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't think the board can make that determination. Otherwise, anything that comes before the board that was done even yesterday, somebody could stand up and say well, they lost the paperwork. MR. PONTE: Well, yes, that's right, except that we ought to be -- maybe take regular notice of the fact that this is old and a lot can have happened. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But do you have evidence that's been submitted to say that it was lost? You're making an assumption. MR. PONTE: That's correct. That's true. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Which is not evidence. MR. LEHMANN: I think the board's only decision here is to achieve compliance. And unfortunately, I think to do that, one of two things has to happen. Either the porch has to come down -- it's totally up to the respondent how they wish to pursue -- or a building permit for the porch must be obtained, which probably would involve a variance because of the encroachment. But again, that's not our jurisdiction, that's not our concern. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, she's going to have to -- there's really only two things: Either take the porch down or you get a permit. MS. RAWSON: Well, can I just say something in terms of procedural violations, due process? If you look in your packet on Page 6, this is the notice of violation that was served to Ms. Harmon, that notices her that she's in violation of Ordinance 91-102, Sections 2.6.2.111. And also, the other one, which is the litter, 99-51. Now, if you look at the statement of violation, it's 2.7.6, paragraphs one and five of 102. And also the litter. So I don't think she's had proper notice of violation to correct, because these two sections don't comply with one another. I really think we probably have to go back to the drawing board and hear that particular issue on another day. I think that really the only thing that you can do procedurally today is talk about the litter. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What about 2.7.6, one and five? Page 62 September 28, 2000 MS. RAWSON: She was never notified of a violation of that in the notice of violation. She was only notified that she was in fact in violation of 2.6.2.11t, which is not on the statement of violation for today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I have not yet seen, and I haven't gotten that far -- there was a violation issued, I think she said in June, which we don't have. MS. RAWSON: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What does that say? MS. ARNOLD: That says Section 7. -- it's 2.7.6, paragraphs -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ah, so she was notified. MS. ARNOLD: But that was not received by the respondent. It was mailed and it was returned to us. There were, you know, several attempts by the post office, but it was returned to us unclaimed. MR. LEHMANN: Ms. Rawson, am I to understand that -- if we have a conflict between the notice of violation and order to correct and the statement of violation and request for hearing, which one takes precedence? MS. RAWSON: Well, they have to agree. Because it's not procedurally -- it's a violation of her 14th Amendment due process rights if you notify her that one violation exists, and then when she gets the statement of violation, you've changed the site on her. What's really happened here is that we have now, and maybe we can just like hand it to her today and notify her that there is a violation under 2.7.6, paragraphs one and five. But I don't think you can make a ruling on that today is the problem. MR. LEHMANN: I agree, and that was my concern. MS. RAWSON: But the litter, she was notified and it's on the statement of violation. MR. LEHMANN: Consideration for the board is I would take that recommendation and redirect staff to correct the problems that are arising with this particular violation, and for us to proceed with just the weeds and litter ordinance. MR. PONTE: I would agree. MS. ARNOLD: Question for counsel. Would today's hearing, the fact that the respondent's here and -- serve as notice, or do we have to -- MS. RAWSON: If she would waive notice, we could proceed. Page 63 September 28, 2000 MR. LEHMANN: The next -- in proceeding with the litter issue, the concern I have is if we have an overgrown state at this point in time, do we have a problem anymore? MS. TAYLOR: Yes, you do. I lived in the Estates. I can tell you right now what a fire can do from a pile of dried up stuff like this. And it doesn't go away overnight, I can tell you that. The little leaves, the little green leaves, they may dry up and fall off, but those branches are there for many, many moons. And those are piled up. In this picture they are piled up. Just because weeds have grown up over them, that doesn't mean they're gone. They're still there. And somehow a fire could start in there. That's just like throwing gasoline on something, to have a pile like that in there. MR. LEHMANN: Do you think at this point in time it hasn't biodegraded enough to the point -- MS. TAYLOR: No, it absolutely has not. MR. LEHMANN: Is there a method to go in there and pull this out right now, sort of land clearing? MS. ARNOLD: Well, as I indicated before, now we have a violation to the property owner for the weed removal of weeds that we've got to address. And once he removes those weeds, it's going to expose the vegetation debris that was there. You know, the board needs to make a finding as to whether or not it's still there and if we're going to hold Susan Harmon responsible. Otherwise, we can pursue it with the current property owner; that is, the property owner of Lot No. 3. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have to back up. First of all, there's a violation against Ms. Harmon, period. I don't care about the property owner. He's not here, you haven't cited him, not interested. MR. PHILLIPS: Which violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: With the litter, the weeds. He's not in this. He's out. MS. ARNOLD: My point was -- MS. DUSEK: It's his property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He wasn't cited. It doesn't matter. You can't bring him into the picture because it's his property. You didn't cite him. He's out. You cited this lady. Unfortunately that's all we can deal with. MS. DUSEK: I'm concerned about -- is that a -- this is a legal Page 64 September 28, 2000 question. MS. RAWSON-' Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK.' We've cited her. She doesn't own the property. MS. RAWSON: Right. MS. DUSEK.' Can we cite her to remove that litter? Can she be held responsible, just because we've cited her? Yes, she said that she put it there. Is she legally responsible? MS. RAWSON: Under that ordinance it says any person and any property, so yes. MR. LEHMANN: Let me, just for my colleagues' clarification, Section 6 of the Ordinance 99-51, it states, and this is Section 6, unlawful to litter. It shall be unlawful for any person to throw, discard, place, drop or deposit litter in any manner or amount, in or upon any public property, private property, highway, street, right-of-way or body of water within the unincorporated areas of Collier County, except in such areas and containers specifically provided and appropriately designated for the disposal of litter. In any case where litter is ejected or discarded from a motor vehicle except at approved and permitted disposal sites, the operator of the motor vehicle shall be deemed in violation of this ordinance. So my interpretation, and I understand this is an interpretation from a lay person, is that we have a violation of the respondent personally in this particular ordinance. The fact that the respondent deposited this on somebody else's private property complicates the matter, but in essence we have a violation of the respondent. The next section, which is also cited in the violation, addresses accumulation of the litter on property. I feel that we don't have a violation of that section, at least not with this particular respondent. MR. PONTE: No. And in addition, there's a complication, because whose pile of litter is whose pile of litter? MR. LEHMANN: I understand. MR. PONTE: Ms. Harmon said there was already litter. That is, the owner had created -- dumped some pond fronds there. And now there are palm fronds that she put on the lot. MR. LEHMANN: Well, to make a long story very short, I think have a very compli -- or we've made this case very complicated, in essence. We have a respondent who has deposited litter and Page 65 September 28, 2000 testified that she has in fact committed that act. MR. PONTE: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: That is a violation of the code. MR. PONTE: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: I think that we need to have a finding of fact to that degree. The other issues may have to be further addressed by staff and brought back to the board for any type of determination or action thereon. Because I think at this point in time we cannot take action on the other issue of the unpermitted use and -- MR. PONTE: I agree, because we can't tell from the photographs what is old accumulation, what is new accumulation. This does look grown though. Maybe that's the old accumulation. MS. DUSEK: Well, following that same argument that you gave, George, if we cite her and we say you must remove the litter, are we talking about the litter that she put there? Are we asking -- MR. PONTE: It can only be -- MS. DUSEK: -- so how can you say all right, you move 10 palm fronds? I mean, at which point do you give the owner the responsibility, the landowner? MR. PONTE: I don't see how -- MS. DUSEK: That's why I think this is a little bit -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, unfortunately-- MR. LEHMANN: I think we're micromanaging. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Unfortunately, please remember the owner wasn't cited, so -- MS. DUSEK: I understand that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- quit talking about it. MS. DUSEK: I understand that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean -- MS. DUSEK: For the amount that -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- you need to -- MS. DUSEK: -- she put on the property, that's what she's cited for, so how do we determine how much that amount is and CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, she was cited for putting litter. It never said how much litter she put there. MS. DUSEK: So if there's -- Page 66 September 28, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You've gone below what the county said. MS. DUSEK.' Let's say there's a quarter of an acre of litter there, and we say you must remove the litter. I don't -- I'm a little bit confused on how we can recommend what to do. MS. GODFREY-LINT: There's a picture of the litter, clearly of the litter that she placed there. MS. DUSEK: I see that picture. MS. GODFREY-LINT: She should go back and remove that. MS. HARMON: Excuse me, may I say something? Or no? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' You need to come up front, ma'am. MS. HARMON: That litter -- that litter is undetectable. Totally. And if in fact Cathy was still in the room -- she agreed with me yesterday. She was out and said whoa, oh, well, you can't even see anything here anymore, can you? I said no, you can't. There's nothing there to remove. And I'm so sorry, but this feels like a real fiasco. What it feels like to me is, is that I have admitted I stole a Twinkle and I've eaten it and the board is saying you're naughty because you stole, but nobody can prove anything. It's gone. MS. TAYLOR: It isn't gone. MS. HARMON: It's gone. MS. TAYLOR: It isn't gone. I'm telling you, it is not gone. MS. HARMON: Some of it was little leaves and stuff. They are -- I am in the business. I know about compost piles. We're talking March. MS. TAYLOR: Excuse me, excuse me, this is not compost. I lived in the Estates. I know what this does, and I know how much of a fire hazard this is. This is a fire hazard. MS. HARMON: I can respect that -- MS. TAYLOR: Excuse me. MS. HARMON: Yes, I know. MS. TAYLOR: Excuse me. Just because the weeds have grown up and are covering it doesn't mean it isn't still there, because it is still there and it will be there. MS. HARMON: Excuse me, thank you. MR. LEHMANN: Might I ask Investigator Van Poucke to come back again. Cathy, would you tell us again, you say you've been to the site recently? Page 67 September 28, 2000 MS. VAN POUCKE: Yes, yesterday. MR. LEHMANN: And what is the condition of what we see? What is remaining at this point in time? MS. VAN POUCKE: The palm fronds are still there, but it is overgrown with weeds. MR. LEHMANN: Is it easily removable? MS. VAN POUCKE: I would think so. I mean, it's not as easily removable as if she would have done it in the first place. MR. LEHMANN: I understand. Okay. And the next issue comes to mind is can the board -- this is really directed to you, Jean. Can the board direct the respondent to go on somebody else's property to remove what she deposited there in the first place? MS. RAWSON: Under this ordinance, yes. MR. LEHMANN: Without the other person's permission? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. PONTE: He asked her to put it on the property, as I understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, but that's immaterial. I wish we could separate -- quit bringing the owner of the property. It's immaterial, unfortunately. Would you put up picture 17 -- Pages 17 and 18 out of the package, please? Maybe we can clean this up, realistic. MS. ARNOLD: That's 17. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. 18 I think is just from another angle. MS, ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what it looks like to me. Okay. I envision that you put these pictures in here because this is what the investigator saw and cited the person for; am I correct? Yes, she's sake shaking her head. Okay, staff's recommendation I don't like because it says remove all litter from unimproved property. If this thing is a quarter acre, half acre, t0 acres, whatever, you can't tell somebody to remove all the litter. I'm prone to say based on the pictures on Pages 17 and 18 that were submitted as an exhibit, that we would ask the respondent to remove that litter, period. Not all litter, that litter, which is a pile of pond fronds, if they still exist. And that will be for the investigator to find out. Page 68 September 28, 2000 So we narrowed it down to just a pile, which you have submitted in your exhibit, period. MR. PONTE: I'd like to ask the investigator whether or not there were any other piles she did not photograph. MS. VAN POUCKE: No, there were not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm interested in what is submitted as an exhibit. This is it. That's all -- that's what we're going to live with. She didn't submit any other pictures of any other piles. This is her exhibit. I think that's -- let's get this over with. You know, we're asking somebody to pretty much clear something that's unclearable to start with, maybe. Let's get it down. You know, it's overgrown, I don't want to see somebody bring in a D-9 Caterpillar and start clearing land because we want all litter -- I mean, we're getting a little ridiculous here. This exhibit shows a pile of pond fronds. I think we need to focus and let's get that removed, if it is removable, or whatever is remaining of it. If some has deteriorated, great, that's less to remove. Let's narrow our focus down to this, if we can. MS. DUSEK.' I have one question. Cathy, is this how it looked yesterday? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL-' You can't see it because it's grown over, correct? She just nodded her head yes. MR. LEHMANN: I agree with the chairman, I think we're micromanaging if we try to go over and above that. I would make a motion that we do have a finding of fact for a violation of -- let me step back. This is in the case of 2000-034, Board of County Commissioners versus Mark A. and Susan M. Harmon. We have a violation of Section 6 -- excuse me, Section 6 of Ordinance 99-51, the Collier County Weeds and Litter Ordinance. The description is the -- let's see how the ordinance actually reads. It is the unlawful deposit of litter in a manner and amount on public property or private property. And I'd like to just take a vote on the finding of fact first. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' We have a motion that there in fact is a violation of Section 6 only of Ordinance 99-51. MR. PONTE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 69 September 28, 2000 (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Fine. Now, what is the order of the board? MR. LEHMANN: My recommendation -- motion for an order of the board is that we order the respondent to remove said portion of litter deposited as defined by -- MR. PONTE: Photographic evidence. MR. LEHMANN: -- as defined by investigator -- by the county's investigator. Let me just -- yes, the order is to remove all litter, as defined by the county investigator, pursuant to this particular case, from the unimproved property within seven days, or the county will abate the problem and assess the cost to the respondent personally, along with prosecution fees. I think that the definition of the amount that needs to be removed should be defined by the photographs in the evidence package and as verified by an on-site visit by the code enforcement investigator. When the respondent and the investigator agree as to what's been done, then the case is closed. MR. PONTE: If that's a motion, I would second that. MR. LEHMANN: That's a motion. MS. ARNOLD: Can I have a point of clarification? What is the reasoning why there's no finding that there's a violation to Section 7? MR. LEHMANN: Because Section 7, as I read it, has to do with the property itself. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: With ownership of the property. MR. LEHMANN: Right. This has to do with the unauthorized accumulation of litter on the property. And it refers to the property owner. I don't believe that we have the authority to do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She's not the owner of the property. MS. ARNOLD: It says any property owner, tenant, occupant, agent, manager or other person who causes -- or who -- I can't read that word. Whatever that word is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' That word is owns, O-W-N-S. MS. ARNOLD: Who owns, maintains or controls private property, whether improved or unimproved -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She does not own or control this Page 70 September 28, 2000 property. MR. LEHMANN: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So you can't cite her for something she doesn't own or control. MR. LEHMANN: And my recommendation to staff is to go back and pursue the other violations that we have dismissed today. And she can either resolve that -- I'm sure that the respondent knows the board's position about the permitting and the porch. So I'd like staff to work together and get those as new issues brought before the board, if that's required. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's go back to your motion on removing it. Your motion includes that she should remove it -- did you have some kind of time limit in there? I didn't remember whether I heard a time limit. MR. LEHMANN: Yes. Within seven days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Okay. MR. LEHMANN: And that's seven calendar days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And if that doesn't occur? MR. LEHMANN: The county will abate it and assess the cost back to the respondent. What's the board's pleasure, rather it be a fine or abatement? MS. DUSEK.' I would like to give her more time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think it would probably, based on what Ms. Harmon told us, and maybe her trying to take into consideration her financial position, that if we give her time and we put a fine in, she's more likely to do it. If the county has to do it, the bill could be of such a nature, maybe she couldn't afford it, whereby. But if it's a fine, she can work at it, and since we make the order with the fine, we then -- it's recorded. And if she's trying to sell the property, the people buying it know that, you know, this problem exists, so she's going to be real prone to try to get rid of whatever she can and get this thing erased from her -- MS. DUSEK: Except this is not on her property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, but that's okay, it's still going to -- the fine would go against -- the lien would go against her property. This would go against her property. MS. DUSEK.' I think it only goes against personal, since it's Page 71 September 28, 2000 not her land. Is that not correct, Ms. Rawson? MR. LEHMANN: I think so, too. MS. RAWSON: I don't think -- this basically would just be a judgment. And it doesn't run against this land because it's not hers. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So we can put a judgment against her MS. RAWSON: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- and anything she owns. MS. RAWSON: Right. Well, you put a judgment against her, and then later on there's another proceeding supplemental to execution on the judgment that you have to do to find out what she owns. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. But I mean, I just think that if we ask the county to do it, she's going to get a bill from the county and it may be more than she can pay anyway. So I think the fine might be more incentive to do something. MR. LEHMANN: And your recommendation for that fine, the time line? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't have one. I mean, I don't have a problem with the time limit, whether it's seven working days or 10 working days. I mean, it's next door and I don't know what's there and where it has to go. I don't know, the pile's probably not this big. I don't know if she has a method to tote it off, or -- MR. PONTE: How long did it take her to put it there? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's get something from Ms. Harmon, maybe she can recommend something. MS. HARMON: I would just like to ask what the board would propose I do to enter this land? For one thing, I am a bit nervous just going over there and making myself at home with equipment that it will take to remove the top off whatever's there to look at the bottom to see if whatever I did put there originally is still there. You know, I don't even know where to begin here. Will the board be responsible to call the landowner and tell him I'm coming over? MS. GODFREY-LINT: Well, he told you to put it there, so why should he have a problem -- MS. HARMON: Well, I don't know. He might. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, the board's not going to call him. Page 72 September 28, 2000 MS. HARMON: I have no one to help me. I -- you know, I'm going to have to do this alone. MS, GODFREY-LINT: Well, it's your business. Don't you go in and do landscaping? MS, HARMON: Ma'am, my man just had a stroke. MS, GODFREY-LINT: Well, I live in the Estates and I get out there with clippers and a machete and I -- MS. HARMON: Good for you. MS, GODFREY-LINT: -- pull my vines, so -- MS. HARMON: Good for you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The board's not going to call anybody. I mean -- MS. HARMON: Okay. Well, I just didn't know what to do, you know, alone over there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're going to order you to do something and you're going to have to do it. MS. HARMON: I'm going to go in there and I'll tell you what, I'll do my best to take out, you know, whatever those original things I put in there was. But that's -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All we want you to do -- MS. HARMON: -- about all I can promise. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- is comply with the order when we finish it. MR. LEHMANN: Ms. Rawson, again, you had mentioned the board does have the right to order the respondent to enter onto somebody else's property to remove this. MS. RAWSON: In this instance, it would not be trespassing, yes. MR. LEHMANN: Even if the owner said no? MS. RAWSON: Well, you're ordering her to do it, so she has a legal defense. MR. LEHMANN: I just wanted to clarify that. As far as my motion -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, I just throw that out for consideration. I think based on what she said that it -- you know, I -- the county isn't a low cost operation, and I can envision by the time they send trucks and men and a machine down there, I mean, you're not talking a hundred dollar bill here. MR. LEHMANN: No, I know. I certainly don't have any problem with that, and I certainly don't have any problem Page 73 September 28, 2000 extending the time period, if you have anything in mind. All I'm interested in is compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think Ms. Dusek was a little concerned. MS. DUSEK: Well, I was thinking of at least two weeks for her to get some help there to do it. Because ! think it's probably a little bit more laborious than we realize. It's not just picking up palm fronds. MR. LEHMANN: And you have a fine amount envisioned? If you want a fine, I'm thinking of maybe $25. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, I can live with that. MR. PONTE: I agree. MR. LEHMANN: I'm not thinking of anything major. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I can live with that. MR. LEHMANN: So I would amend my motion then to remove the litter that we had discussed within t4 days, or a fine of $25 a day would kick in. And hopefully Ms. Harmon, that gives you plenty of time to take care of that. MS. DUSEK: And maybe somebody's watching today who's going to come out there and help you. MR. LEHMANN: It's not the board's desire to cause you a hardship, we just want to get compliance. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Would you amend your motion to include costs of prosecuting the case? MR. LEHMANN: Thank yes. Thank you for reminding me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MS. TAYLOR: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Ms. Harmon, do you understand? MS. HARMON: Not really, but -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, you have 14 days to -- the two pictures that we had, I don't know what's left, but you have 14 days to get rid of it. Okay? Page 74 September 28, 2000 MS. HARMON: Okay. Yeah. And the other part, I take it you will cite me on that other issue. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you don't have it done within 14 days, we're going to start charging you 25 bucks a day till you get it done. MS. HARMON: Oh, I heard that part. No, I'm talking about the other porch thing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We didn't find you in violation of any of that. The staff is going to revisit that. MS. HARMON: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: The issue may not be dropped, but -- MS. HARMON: It's been interesting. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That wasn't part of our finding. Okay, Board of County Commissioners versus Houston Unlimited, Inc., 2000-036. I think it's Houston, maybe it's Houston. MS. CRUZ: Let the record show that Mr. Houston is present. He is the president of Houston Unlimited, Inc. I'd like to request the board to present into evidence a packet that was provided to the respondent, as well as to the board, marked Composite Exhibit A, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Mr. Houston, did you get a packet in the mail, sir? MR. HOUSTON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have any objection if it's entered for us to see? What they sent you in the mail, is it all right if they give it to us? MR. HOUSTON: He's opposed to send it to you all. Wilson. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll get to that in a minute. Let's deal with the packet the county sent you. Did the county send you something in the mail? MR. HOUSTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have any problem with them giving it to us? Yes or no. MR. HOUSTON: Yes. I mean, Wilson supposed to send you a copy of these, 20. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, let's back up, sir. What I'm trying to find out is the county sent you something. Forget Mr. Wilson. The county sent you something. MR. HOUSTON: Yes. Page 75 September 28, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have any objection to the county giving that to us? MR. HOUSTON: (Shakes head negatively.} CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. He shook his head no. I'd entertain a motion to accept the county's Exhibit A. MR. LEHMANN: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do we have a second? MS. GODFREY-LINT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. CRUZ: The alleged violation before this board today is the placement of a mobile home without first obtaining proper Collier County building permits. That's a violation of Section 1.5.6 and Section 2.7.6, paragraph one and five of Ordinance No. 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code. The violation exists at 216 Fourth Street South, Immokalee, Florida, and is more particularly described as Carsons addition, block 9, lots 8 and 9. The owner of record is Houston Unlimited, Inc. Representative or president is Albert Houston. The address of record is P.O. Box 7294, Naples, Florida. The violation was first observed on December 11th, 1998. A notice of violation was served to the respondent on January 6th, 1999, with a compliance date of January 20th, 1999. A reinspection, the most current reinspection, was conducted yesterday, September 27th, revealing violation remaining. I'd like to call, first of all, Investigator Gary Dantini at this time, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. DANTINI: For the record, my name is Gary Dantini, Collier County code enforcement investigator. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen -- or good afternoon now. Good morning, Mr. Houston. I hope this should be short and sweet on this. On January 5th, I noticed on a patrol that there was a trailer, a mobile home, that was -- wasn't tied down with the hurricane straps. And through my investigation, I notice that there had not been any permits issued for this mobile home to be at this location. On the 6th of September, after my investigation, I sent a certified mail notice of violation that there was one mobile home Page 76 September 28, 2000 set without Collier County permits, no hurricane tie-downs, and installing the siding without permit. And my recommendation was to remove the mobile home or to obtain all necessary Collier County permits to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. And through the time I gave Mr. Houston to January 20th to obtain that permit. On the 22nd of January, 1999, I noticed that the violation remained and there was no permit obtained. In February, I spoke to Mr. Houston again, and he requested at the time that he didn't have enough funds to move the mobile home and to obtain the permit. And I granted Mr. Houston, I felt, enough time. It was April 1st that -- to obtain the necessary permits or to remove the trailer. On April 2nd, I observed the violations still remained. I had spoke to Mr. Houston again about the violation. He stated to me that he had a new location that he could put this trailer, but he still again was short of funds and he needed some more time. So I did grant him the extension again. And on April 27th, I revisited the location again, and the same thing had happened, the violation was still there. Mr. Houston had just informed me that he had to pay $5,000 in child support. And again, he was not able to obtain the permits or had the funds to move the trailer. At that point in time I was reassigned to a new assignment in Naples, and I was withdrawn from Immokalee. And another investigator at that time took over, and I believe it was Sal. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Is Mr. $oldano here? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, he is. (Speaker was duly sworn.} MR. SOLDANO: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. For the record, my name is $al Soldano, investigator with the Collier County code enforcement. And as Gary indicated, I was assigned to that area in May, and I took over the investigation of that case. At which time I spoke to Mr. Houston. A lot of this is redundant so I'll try to be as brief as possible. I advised him of the violations again, and we went round and round on several dates, and the violations still existed. And finally August he was cited to court. He did not show up. The Page 77 September 28, 2000 judge granted a fine against Mr. Houston. And right through August the violations still existed. And from what I understand, as they exist today, he hasn't paid the fine and the violations still exist. MS. ARNOLD: Could you speak to the difference in violations? Because there were two different court dates, one in August and another one in November. MR. SOLDANO: Yes. The one in August -- on August 2nd, the judge asked for recommendations, and I gave him the recommendations and he fined him $1,000. Unfortunately, that was beyond their maximum fines, so it was rescheduled again and the fine was lowered to $500. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I notice that it says it was an initial fine of $1,000 and $100 a day. Was that in fact the fine? MR. SOLDANO: That was the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The initial fine. MR. SOLDANO: -- first, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Then they reduced it to what? MR. SOLDANO: 500. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Flat $500, no per day, no nothing. MR. SOLDANO: No, that was the maximum they were allowed to do, and that's why we're here today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Because of the type of violation. A misdemeanor only allows $500. MR. LEHMANN: And why did this proceed to a court versus a CEB prior to this? MR. SOLDANO: Well, we thought that would expedite the matter. And it would have, but unfortunately the fines were -- MS. GODFREY-LINT: Is this January of '99 or 2000? I've got 99. MS. MR. MR. year. ARNOLD: '99. SOLDANO: It started in '99, yes. LEHMANN: So this has been ongoing for well over a MR. SOLDANO: Yes. As of January of '99 till today. MS. TAYLOR: Is this his home or does he rent this? MR. SOLDANO: I'm sorry? MS. TAYLOR: Is this his home, or does he rent this? MR. SOLDANO: Apparently he rents it. Page 78 September 28, 2000 MR. LEHMANN: And is it occupied now? MR. SOLDANO: I don't know if it's occupied now. The last time I was there, it seemed to be occupied. The utilities were hooked up to it. There was nobody home, on my last visit. However, another investigator has taken over the investigation since then, because I've been reassigned to another area. So you might have to ask him. MR. LEHMANN: Explain to me a little bit more about the court case. Mr. Houston has a judgment against him that has already been filed. MR. SOLDANO: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: He has a $500 fine. MR. SOLDANO: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: He chooses not to pay. MS. ARNOLD: We have the county attorney's office here, Robert Zachary, that can speak to that particular fine and, you know, what court proceedings could occur to recover the fines and try to get the violation abated. So if you would like to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, now-- MR. LEHMANN: I'm just trying to determine the relevancy of this case with -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I guess -- well, I don't know, since I haven't seen what the document says. But I envision the fine from the court to be a flat $500. Not necessarily to abate the violation. MS. RAWSON: Well, and I suspect that the misdemeanor -- well, I know it has to be against him personally. And you have cited his corporation today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So, I mean, the 500, if he pays the $500, the violation can still exist. MS. RAWSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So the two aren't conjoined, as they say. Okay when was the last time you were out there, Sal? MR. SOLDANO: January 12th, I believe. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any further questions for Mr. Soldano? Let's have the next investigator who took over after you. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. MARSH: For the record, my name is John Marsh, code Page 79 September 28, 2000 enforcement investigator for Collier County. Good afternoon, commissioners. My first involvement -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're not commissioners, but thank you anyway. MR. MARSH: I'm sorry. It was close. My first involvement with the case was on May 1, 2000, when I was working out of the Immokalee area. And on my first visit to the site out there, I did observe the violation still existed. There was a mobile home there, was not tied down. At the time I did not observe anybody living there, and I didn't observe any utilities hooked up. Since then I've made numerous visits to the site. I've talked to Mr. Houston a few times about the violations. He's promised that he's going to move it and so on. Finally it got to the point, talking to my supervisor and that, that possibly we would try sending it to the board, since nothing was able to get done prior to that. My last visit to the site was yesterday, which is a picture here that I took. The violation still exists. There's still no tie -- well, there are no tie-downs, nobody's living there and there are no utilities. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And there are no utilities? MR. MARSH: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any questions for Mr. Marsh? Okay, thank you, Mr. Marsh. Does any member of the board have any interest in listening to the county attorney? I think that's really pretty cut-and-dry. Really has noth -- one doesn't have anything to do with the other. He's going to get a -- he has a $500 fine against him, and it doesn't have anything to do with the violation, really. Okay, Mr. Houston, would you like to come forward, sir? (Speaker was duly sworn.} CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir, you tell us what you'd like. MR. HOUSTON: I want to thank you for being out here to the board, because I've been trying to get to the board a long time. Haven't been here since I had a church involved. But I want to thank them for bringing me to the board, because I've been having some problem with this mobile home right there. Been sitting there 19 years. That's how long it's been sitting there, 19 Page 80 September 28, 2000 years. And so I had one while it was sitting there because I couldn't get a permit. I couldn't get a permit to move the trailer. And I wasn't going to move now another one without getting the permit. And I told him I didn't had -- couldn't get no permit. I come up there to try to get a permit, and he said it wasn't zoned for a mobile home. And I didn't have nothing there but mobile homes there. And so I -- I got code to -- Wilkens (sic), and he's been doing a lot of work for me trying to show the board what -- how my property was located. I don't have much property because the county give it all to Ms. Houston. They're the one that separated my property. I only had -- left me with three lots there. So I maintain to buy the lot from Mr. Huggin there where you see Lot 7, Block 9. And so they was going to -- I got a letter from the county, and they told me to make some kind of a -- set it how I wanted it, and they give me till December. I got the letter here. They give me to December to get it all ironed out. And so I been having Mr. Wilkins (sic) doing a lot of work. And I'm paying him for doing this work, to show the county that the property that I left -- that they left me with out of about I reckon 25 lots. I only had three left. And no money at all. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Houston? MR. HOUSTON: So I wanted to -- what I wanted to do, I wanted to set that lot -- set that trailer on Lot 6, because I had one break down there on Lot 6 there, which I had there about nine years. And I wanted to set it on Lot 6. I had one burnt down on Lot 6 there. Been setting there about nine years. And I wanted to replace it over there where -- No. 9, this is sitting over there by my house on a brick wall, a brick wall where I was going to build my home at. Two-story building. Brick wall, two-story building. And I got a print for it. And so I didn't have the money to fix it with, so I put that trailer in there about 18 -- before my children last two children was born. So that's why I know it's been there over -- they're grown now. The last one is 18. So I wanted to put that trailer around over here after this one burnt down, and I couldn"t get a permit. I don't know why -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Houston. Page 81 September 28, 2000 MR. HOUSTON: -- I can't get a permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Houston. MR. HOUSTON: I been to court so many times. So I wanted to do, I wanted them to stop telling me about moving it. And I couldn't have nowhere to kept it, because I got too much money into the trailer. And I would like for them to give me a permit to set it over here where this trailer -- I been here with that showing where -- showing where the trailer got burnt down. I brought them the copy of it and everything. And that's all I wanted to do, get a permit. I'm not going to move it until they give me a permit. And I don't see why they wants to fine me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's me ask you a question sir. This paperwork that you have, have you submitted any of this to the county? I mean, you're talking from -- we don't have any of this, so, I mean, we don't know what you're talking about. MR. HOUSTON: You don't? Well, he was supposed to pick stuff -- he might be down here somewheres at the courthouse. He's supposed to had 20 sheets fixed up for me. He told me to pick up mine to the office. Supposed to have it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Has anything been submitted at all to the county? MS. ARNOLD: No, we haven't -- MR. HOUSTON: He sent it to where you get your permits at, I guess that's where -- MS. ARNOLD: Do you know when he sent it? MR. HOUSTON: 20 sheets. MS. ARNOLD: Do you know when he sent it? MR. HOUSTON: Yeah, with code survey. MS. ARNOLD: I think he's making reference to an engineering -- MR. HOUSTON: I picked up mine Monday, and he said we'll just send it -- I said well, get it on down there to the court because I've got to go to court on the 28th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is this for -- I think this is for his permits, not something for this? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, I think he's making reference to the engineering firm Wilkison and Associates, and they had an office out in the Immokalee area, or near there. And it looks as though he's done a survey of the lots that he has left, and identified what's existing on those lots. Page 82 September 28, 2000 And upon submitting that to the county, he then could probably obtain permits to locate or move the mobile homes in appropriate locations in accordance with the county's codes. So -- but we haven't received it and I'm not aware that the Planning Department's received it at this point yet. Maybe he has intentions of sending it to us. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: Michelle, am I correct in understanding that we had testimony that the lots were not zoned for trailers? MS. ARNOLD: That's what he said. MR. HOUSTON: I believe he's down there because he -- MR. LEHMANN: He, meaning who? MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Wilkison -- I mean Mr. Houston has testified that today. But staff has not testified that mobile homes are not permitted on the lot. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, any questions for Mr. Houston? All right, sir, you may sit down. Thank you. MS. DUSEK: Before he sits down, I'm just a little fuzzy here. Mr. Houston? Mr. Houston? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Mr. Houston, we have one question for you, sir. MS. DUSEK: I just want to ask you a question. You're submitting some engineering plans in order to move the trailer that's in violation. MR. HOUSTON: Right. MS. DUSEK: Is that correct? MR. HOUSTON: That's right. MS. DUSEK.' Your intent is to move that trailer to another lot? MR. HOUSTON: That's right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' He said yes. MR. HOUSTON: On No. 6. MS. DUSEK.' On No. 6, okay. You have to talk on the microphone. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: To move to the place where the one got burnt down over on Lot 6 is what he wants to do. MS. ARNOLD: To answer your question about -- I think the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Mr. Houston. You may sit down, sir. MS. ARNOLD: I think the problem is that there may be too Page 83 September 28, 2000 many structures on the lot where he wanted to permit that particular mobile home. So they wouldn't allow an additional mobile home on there. It's not that mobile homes aren't allowed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So-- MS. DUSEK: Do you know, Michelle, if he moves this to the Lot 6 that he speaks of, if that's okay? I mean, he said one was there and it had burnt down. So would this allow him to move this trailer to that lot? MS. ARNOLD: I can't answer that at this point. I don't know -- I haven't seen any of that information so, I'd have to look at it first before I answer it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. He's been cited for having a mobile home without a permit, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You know, a placement of the home. If -- in order target the proper permit, Michelle, what's the time period he might be looking at? MS. ARNOLD: To obtain a building permit for that structure? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, whether -- I mean, just -- you know, is it a two-week, one month, six -- I mean, give us a hint of how long this might take. MS. ARNOLD: To obtain it? Once he submits or issues -- or requests -- submits the permit to the county, the review time period is maybe a couple weeks. That's not -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And where -- and as long as he tells them where he wants it on his property -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- that's part of that process that he submits originally, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Right. He would have to -- when he turns in his permit, he would have to indicate on what lot it will be located. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So once he gives that to the county, then say in a 30-day period, he could have his permit to put it there. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And we're -- then he's legal. MS. ARNOLD: He'd have to strap it down in accordance with the code -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Page 84 September 28, 2000 MS. ARNOLD: -- and then we'd do an inspection, and then we issue a CO, and then he would be legal. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm trying to get a feel for if we find him in violation and if we try to give him some time to do that, what are we looking at from a time period rather than just say you've got till tomorrow to remove it? I mean, it seems like he's working with somebody to get drawings done up, so he's headed down the path. How long it take is what interests me. MR. LEHMANN: We don't have any SDP or SIP issues to deal with. MS. ARNOLD: It looks like he's working towards that end with those plans of Wilkison & Associates. Be we didn't -- all we merely are addressing is the location of this mobile home on this particular lot. And all we were asking is that he relocate it. And once it's removed from this lot, it would be fine. MR. LEHMANN: No, I was just looking at pretty much similar to what the chairman is saying, the time period, is if we have an SDP or SIP issue -- MS. ARNOLD: No, we don't. MR. LEHMANN: -- to deal with, that is a longer process. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Finding of fact from the board? MR. LEHMANN: Go for it. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that a violation does exist between the Board of County Commissioners and Houston Unlimited, Incorporated, Case No. 2000-036. The violation is of Sections 1.5.6 and 2.7.6, paragraph one and five of Ordinance 91-102. Description of the violation, placement of a mobile home without first obtaining proper Collier County building permits. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion that there in fact is a violation. MR. LEHMANN: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.} CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. What is the order of the board? MS. DUSEK: In the recommendation by the staff, it specifies Page 85 September 28, 2000 that removing the mobile home is the way to go. Is that the only option, or should we just say come into compliance? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I don't think the board should order it removed if there's a way he can get a permit to put it somewhere else on his property. MS. ARNOLD: Well, we're only talking about this particular lot. He can't get a permit to keep it on this lot. MR. LEHMANN: Would it not be better if we kept it open and just to say we achieved code compliance by whatever method within a certain period of time? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Well, if we order him to remove it -- what I'm looking at is he's going to have to get a permit to remove it someplace, and since he has a lot next door, which he's obviously trying to do, I think it would be better to not say remove it, period, just -- MS. DUSEK: Just come into compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' -- come into complains by obtaining whatever permits or such is required, and then give him some date to do that by. Now, if he can't get permits to move it to another lot, then he can get a permit to remove it, period. But whatever it takes, I don't like to just tell him to remove it, period, since I know he's working towards some other process. MS. DUSEK: And the time frame that was discussed earlier, is 30 days reasonable, or should we give him more time? MR. PONTE: I think because there is another party involved, right, Wilkison Engineering, whatever, that we need to take that into consideration and to extend the time beyond 30 days. MS. DUSEK.' So is a 60-day time frame -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Yeah, I would think that would be more that sufficient. I was going to say 45. I'm comfortable with either, 45 or 60. MR. PONTE: 60. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, he's working on the problem. Granted, it's taken him a long time to get there and trying to understand the problems that put him in this position, but he's already got one judgment against him. I mean, just adding fines on top of fines isn't going to really resolve the problem. I'm more prone to give him a little time to try to work it out first. MS. DUSEK: Well, then I recommend that the order -- that Page 86 September 28, 2000 we order the respondent to correct the violation by coming into compliance within 60 days, or a fine of $100 will be imposed each day the violation continues past said date. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion for a 60-day abatement or a fine of $100. Would your motion include -- MS. DUSEK: And costs to the staff. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, ma'am. Do I hear a second -- MS. GODFREY-LINT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- for a change? We have a second from Ms. Godfrey-Lint. MR. LEHMANN: Well, the only consideration I have was in the amount of $100. MS. DUSEK: Well, I thought about that, and I -- you're thinking of a lesser amount? MR. LEHMANN: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: I would go along with that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have a recommendation? MR. LEHMANN: I'm looking on the line of $50, as opposed to 100. MS. DUSEK: I would amend my motion to say $50. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does the second have any -- MR. PONTE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second. I'm asking her if she objects. MS. GODFREY-LINT: No, I don't object. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion. 60 days or $50 plus the costs. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Houston, do you understand what we've done, sir? Do you understand what we've just done? We're giving you 60 days to get either all the permits you need to move your trailer or remove it from the property. Okay? And if you don't do that in 60 days, a fine's going to go into effect of $50 every day until you do that. MR. HOUSTON: I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. That closes the public hearing. Let's take five minutes so Page 87 September 28, 2000 our court reporter can adjust. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If the board doesn't object, we're going to do -- because of a time constraint and another meeting, we're going to do a couple of things differently. First let's drop down to reports where we're going to file some affidavits of compliance, because that's real quick. There are one, two, three, four, five cases with affidavits of compliance that have been submitted. I would entertain a recommendation to accept the affidavits of compliance on these five firms. aye. MS. DUSEK: I so move. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear a second? MR. KINCAID: I second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. On the request for imposition of fines, those are not hearings. Under the ordinance and under the statute, they are not hearings, they are administrative procedures. Normally what we do is if the people are here, we will let them talk. I think a couple of the people are here. We have some -- again, some time constraints that were placed upon us, and unfortunately I just heard about that, so what I would advise the people is on the imposition of fines is that when we impose a fine, it's an administrative procedure. You always have the right at some point to come back before the board and ask for us to waive the fines, reduce the fines, or whatever. Right now is really just administratively we impose them. Because that's the way under the statute -- we issue an order, we find you in violation, we issue an order. If you don't comply, we impose the fine. But the law also gives you the right to come and ask us to waive it if there's some kind of conditions or whatever. So we haven't taken that away from anybody, and we wouldn't do that. What we're going to do now is we're going to impose the fines, because of the time constraint on the board, without Page 88 September 28, 2000 getting any input from the public. But you do have the right to come back. We're not taking that away from you. So please don't think we're doing something illegal. It's not illegal. It's an administrative procedure. We always like to try to give you the opportunity to come listen to what we do. And in this case it's just an administrative process. And it will be imposed. And again, you can ask the county to get back on the agenda and say we want it waived or whatever. Ask to be heard. Do any of the board members have any objection to proceeding that way? Okay. Let's impose the fines on the first case, 2000-022. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, that case was heard on July 27th, 2000. At that time the board found the respondent in violation and ordered correction within the certain time frames or fines of 250 per day would be imposed. As of August 28th, the property was not in compliance, and staff is requesting imposition of fines in the amount of $19,750 for the period between July 28th, 2000 through September 5th, 2000 at a rate of $250 per day, plus $658.01 for operational costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, now, this is also one which you filed an affidavit that they are in compliance, correct? MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL-' Okay. So what we're doing is doing the administrative paperwork prior to them coming into compliance, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL-' Okay. And even though we do that, they still have the right to come and ask the board at a later date to reduce and/or waive these fines. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So everybody understands. Okay, now your motion to impose the fines as presented. MS. DUSEK: I so -- MR. PONTE: I so move. MR. LEHMANN: May I ask a question? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. LEHMANN: If I remember this particular case, the dates, July 29th, that fine really is kicked in because the Page 89 September 28, 2000 respondent failed to lock up? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: I didn't hear your question. MR. LEHMANN: The July 29th date, on the first date of your imposition of fines, that fine kicked in because the respondent failed to lock up the unit? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. LEHMANN: Secure the unit, even though the unit was not occupied. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, he was asked to secure the structure. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. The next date is the health and safety electrical violations, and you're saying that that did not occur within seven days, so there's an amount of fine for that. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. LEHMANN: Do we know what that amount is? MS. ARNOLD: From August 4th through September 5th it was for $8,000. MR. RIINA: Is that my case you're talking about? And you don't want me to go home and go to sleep? Are you sick? You people are sick. You people are sick. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Did you get your answer? MR. LEHMANN: I think so. MR. RIINA: You people are nuts. MR. LEHMANN: And the third date, basically August 28th to whatever is for how much amount? MS. ARNOLD: August 27th through the 5th of September is for $2,250. MR. LEHMANN: So the remainder is for the first amount. So I've got $19,750, the total amount. MS. ARNOLD: The first one was from July 29th through September 5th for 9,500. MR. LEHMANN: So we have a -- so basically we have a fine of $9,500 because the respondent failed to lock up the unit? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. LEHMANN: Secure the unit. MS. ARNOLD: Secure the unit. MR. LEHMANN: The second amount of $8,000 is because the respondent failed to correct the health and safety violations within seven days, as ordered. Page 90 September 28, 2000 MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. LEHMANN: And the third amount of $2,250 is for correcting all other violations. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. LEHMANN: If I remember this case, this case, the biggest problem with this one is the fact that we did not lock the unit, as opposed to the respondent had vacated the unit. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, the first part was to vacate and secure the unit. MR. LEHMANN: And to secure, correct. Now, the respondent did vacate it, he just did not secure it. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. LEHMANN: I personally have a problem with this in fining somebody $9,500 because he forgot to put a lock on there. He did vacate the unit. And I know that I was one of the people that was trying to push that. So that's my consideration for the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Since this is again administrative to impose the fines, what you want to do rather than impose the fines, you want to reduce the fines. MR. LEHMANN: Gee, I guess I'm thinking that way, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You want to change the order of the board, reduce the fines down from what they originally were of 250 a day? MS. ARNOLD: Or what you'd have to do is change the order to change the direction. Because your direction was to -- MR. LEHMANN: Right. MS. ARNOLD: -- vacate and secure the building. And the part of my recollection of the testimony is the respondent said, you know, he kept having people occupy the building that didn't want to occupy the building, and I thought that was part of the board's -- (;;HAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson? MS. RAWSON: Yes. GHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Rather than take the recommendation to impose the fines as cited in the order, which gets us to the 19,750, the board can, in imposing these fines, override that by just picking a different amount flat fee or something, correct? MS. RAWSON: Yes, you can. You have that prerogative. GHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Without changing the order, we just Page 91 September 28, 2000 have the prerogative of saying rather than 19,750, we want to impose a fine of "X". MS. RAWSON: And you've done that before. Usually when someone comes before you with a request for reduction. But you can certainly do it without a request. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do it on our own because the board feels it should be done. Okay, do you understand, Mr. Lehmann? MR. LEHMANN: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So right now the request is for the 19,750, plus costs. If you'd like to do something different, throw it out, see what happens. MR. LEHMANN: Well, my recommendation to the board is we let the other two fines stay. But certainly the fine as far as securing the residence, the respondent did I feel follow through with the board's intent to get everybody out of the place and make it -- MR. PONTE: Why are we making an exception here? I mean, if he was ordered to do something and he didn't do it, he didn't do it. MR. LEHMANN: I understand what you're saying, but my issue here is we're talking about a lock. Or is the board looking at this as far as -- MR. PONTE: Or an electrical plate, or a -- you know what I'm saying? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, we have three fines. What did you say, there was $9,500? What was the other one? MR. LEHMANN: 8,000. And the third one is 2,250. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, so -- MR. LEHMANN: Plus operation costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The 9,500 goes with leave and lock. So let's for the sake of argument say right now we have 10,250 that nobody objects to, but the 9,500 is the part being objected to, correct? MR. LEHMANN: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Of the 19,750. So if you want to reduce it, I think what you need to present to the board is for that $9,500, you think it should be some number less, and the other two should remain as they are. So that everybody understands you're not trying to lower the Page 92 September 28, 2000 number because of electrical or something, you're really concerned about Item A and not B and C. MR. LEHMANN: That's correct. I'm not trying -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does that help, Mr. Ponte. MR. PONTE: Not really. MR. LEHMANN: I understand what my colleague's -- MR. PONTE: Not really. Because my concern and my discomfort factor is that the violation existed, he was ordered to do something, he did not. If we take the recommendation that's before us, we reduce the total fines by almost 50 percent. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. MR. PONTE: And if it had been a situation where someone didn't have an electrical plate, where do we then start drawing the line in saying okay, it was not locked up so therefore the fine should be reduced 50 percent, or the electrical plate wasn't there? MR. LEHMANN: I think the line was drawn in the fact that we achieved compliance. We have an affidavit of compliance, that's what this board is here for. We're trying to get compliance. MR. PONTE: That's correct. MR. LEHMANN: We did do that. MR. PONTE: This case had this board in a terrific state of concern. And I think it's wonderful that it's in compliance. However, I'm not -- you haven't convinced me that the fines should be reduced by 50 percent. MS. DUSEK: I think part of securing the property was a major safety factor. And the fact that he didn't do it -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, the recommendation is -- and I'm sorry I'm trying to push you, but our time's running out. It's 19,750. Mr. Lehmann is uncomfortable with that. He's recommending something else. If he'd like to put it in the form of a motion, we'll see if it gets a second and/or passes. And if it fails, then we'll entertain a motion for the number as submitted, or some other number. But we need to move on, folks, please. MR. LEHMANN: In consideration of one of my colleague's comments, I'll withdraw my motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So right now we have the recommendation of staff that we impose the fines as presented, understanding that some other date the -- even though the Page 93 September 28, 2000 respondent is now in compliance, he can come back to this board and ask for to us reduce them or waive them entirely. We're not taking that away from him. So do we have a motion to impose them as recommended, or something different? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we impose them as recommended. MS. TAYLOR: I second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Motion passes. MR. RIINA: What was the motion? Mr. Chairman, don't I have a right to speak? No, sir -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, sir. MR, RIINA: -- I waited here all day for this, okay? You want me to 9o home and tell my wife you imposed a $19,000 worth of fines, you think she's going to sleep for the next couple of weeks? You think your wife would sleep? What the hell are you people? You're a bunch of nuts. First of all, all the allegations this person did, they're all erroneous, they're all lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies. Okay? Mr. Chairman, there was no defective outlets out there. There was a compliance with the Health Department, received before the meeting. Everything that she's submitted is all lies. And I've got a right to attend before the podium and express my feeling. You people could judge whatever you want. Do you want to go home telling your wife you received a $19,000 fine? You think she could sleep? The property's not worth that kind of money. And you say no, sir, I can't speak? You got some nerve, sir. I waited here all morning. I'm entitled to express what's going on to this board, to let them know what ! had to go through to clean it up, by hand with four containers of garbage taken out. The tenants themselves violated -- I didn't violate, they violated, destroyed the property. They filled the pool, they destroyed the floors, they destroyed -- they ripped the fixtures, and it was -- Page 94 September 28, 2000 now you want to fine me on top of that? And it's cost me already $12,000 for all the damage that was done by the people. MS. DUSEK.' Sir? MR. RIINA: Yes. MS. DUSEK: If I might interject. MR. RIINA: What? MS. DUSEK-' Here I am. MR. RIINA.' Time to what? I got time to stay here all I want. This is the United States of America. You people are all out of line and they're all liars, all liars. All they want to do is collect fines. So would you get excited if you got hit with t9,000 and you apply yourself to the ultimate degree to clean it up at the same time? MS. DUSEK: Sir? MR. RIINA: Would you? Yes, yes, you answer me. MS. DUSEK.' Excuse me. MR. RIINA.' Yes. MS. DUSEK: You have an opportunity to come back to this board. MR. RIINA: No, I don't want the opportunity. I want to go home with a fresh head. I don't want to tell my wife that I got fined $19,000 by a kangaroo board and whereby you agreed, together with the county, you side with the county, you lay in bed with the county, all you want to do is collect fines, and that's not right. And I tried for a month myself, okay, worked night and day to clean up the place and get the people out, evicted, and at the same time you want to fine me. I'm a public servant. I serve the public. Yes, I got people out there. I serve the people. They live in my places. They're all good people. But once in a while you get a rotten apple. And I forced them out. It cost me money to force them out. I did improvements to the unit. Electrical alone was 7,000. Another 3, 4,000, container to remove all the garbage. At the same time, you want to stick it up my ass? What are you people, nuts? You are sick. So you tell me I got a right to respond to the allegation. She is lying and been lying and lying and lying. All they're interested in is collecting fees. Look at her. Okay, and you want me to go home and expect my wife, the feeling of this board, after I Page 95 September 28, 2000 cleaned up and I worked hard at it, to say hey, Mr. Riina, 19,000. Is that the way it goes? And you want me to go home. First I want an answer. I want to be able to address the board of what goes on here. Now, if you got wives and kids at home, how would you feel? You want to live another month knowing that i'm going to be paying $19,0007 Would you feel comfortable? Would your wife feel comfortable, sir? You're the chairman. If you were served a $19,000 fine, would your wife sleep for another month and know what time outcome would be? So I think I got a right to be heard. I've been waiting here. And I'll go item by item and even if I have to stay today or tomorrow or the next day. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: To start with, you don't have the right to be heard. MR. RIINA: Yes, I do have a right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, you don't. MR. RIINA: Listen, if that's your attitude, that's a kangaroo court. You won't even hear my say -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, sir. MR. RIINA: -- that's fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's an administrative procedure and unfortunately, you do not have the right to be heard. MR. RIINA: I don't have a right, in other words, to speak. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not right now, sir. MR. RIINA: Not right now. When is my right? After I go home and tell my wife you just fined me $19,0007 Is that the time? When is the time? You tell me when the time is. I mean, don't you have any conscious? I mean, how can you people go home and sleep at night? How can you? MS. DUSEK: Sir, this is an administrative procedure. MR. RIINA: Listen-- MS. DUSEK: No, you -- MR. RIINA: -- listen, admini -- MS. DUSEK: Excuse me. MR. RIINA: You're all nice like this. You blow with your finger, and you judge other people. MS. DUSEK: Excuse me, we've sat here and listened to all of your insults. MR. RIINA: Your-- Page 96 September 28, 2000 MS. DUSEK: Excuse me. MR. RIINA: -- you pay the 19,000 for me? You pay the 19,000, I'll go home. MS. DUSEK: You have an opportunity to contact the staff and come back and be heard. MR. RIINA: Yeah, but-- MS. DUSEK: Then-- MR. RIINA: -- what do you think I should say to my wife? You're a smart person. What do you think I should say to my wife? MS. ARNOLD: Can I make a suggestion? That we place him on the agenda for next month and he would be assured time to speak at that time? MR. RIINA: No, I don't want to wait till the next month. I want to be able to sleep at home with my wife and know that I don't have $19,000 that you people are thinking about and while they lie and you just submit the fines. MS. ARNOLD: We could give him five minutes. MR. RIINA: Then in other words -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, time's up. MR. RIINA: I want to continue the hearing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There's a time constraint. The other two items, we need to carry over to next month. The other two imposition of fines. Okay? MR. RIINA: I'm not going home until I get heard, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next meeting is October 26th. MR. RIINA: It's a farce. It's a farce. Look at him. Look at him smile. Look at that guy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'd entertain a motion to -- MR. RIINA: Okay? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- adjourn. MR. RIINA: It's a farce. See how you like it? Huh? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we adjourn the meeting. MR. RIINA: You go home and tell your husband -- you love it. MS. GODFREY-LINT: I'll second it. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor? (Unanimous vote of ayes.) MR. RIINA: I want to be heard, sir. Mr. Chairman, I want to be heard. Page 97 September 28, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Meeting is adjourned. MR. RIINA: I want to be heard, Mr. Chairman. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:55 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL~ CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE~ INC.~ BY CHERIE' R. LEONEl RPR Page 98