Loading...
CEB Minutes 10/26/2000 ROctober 26, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY Naples, Florida, October 26, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County, 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: CHAIRPERSON: Clifford Flegal Roberta Dusek Don W. Kincaid Kathryn Godfrey Lint Peter Lehmann George Ponte Rhona Saunders Diane Taylor ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney, Code Enforcement Board Lisa Nocus, Attorney, Code Enforcement Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Maria Cruz, Enforcement Official Page 1 CODg ~FORCEMENT BOA~D OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLOHIDA Da~e: O=tob~r 26. 2000 at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Location: 3301 ~. Ta~i~ Tr., Naples, Florida, Collier A~inis~ra=~ve Bl~. 3r~ Floor NOT~: ~ P~ON ~O D~IDES TO AP~ A D~CISION 0F THIS B~ W=LL N;~ A RE~O~ OF ~E PROCEEDINGS PERTAINI~ TH~, ~ TME~;FORE ~Y ~ TO ENSU~ ~T A VER~TIM ~=CO~ OF ~; P~EEDINGS IS ~E, ~VIDENC= UPON ~;C~ THE APP~ IS ~ ~ BASED. NEITHER CeLLUla CO~TY NOR ~; COD; ;~ORCEMENT BO~ S~L BE RESPONSIMb~ FOR PR~IDING ~ZS BECel. 1. ROLL CALL P R F September 28, 2000 lNG A. BCC vs. I.g.C. Rentals, Inc~, and Ivy Jean Nebus E. BCC vs. Marie D. & Ninetta MagiGtro CEB NO. 2000-035 CEE No. 20~0-017 5. N~ BUSIN£SS ReVues= for ~at~on of FInoS/L~ A. BCC vs. Pentecostal Church of ~od B. BCC Vs. Dale L. & Cheryl A. Rorbal C. BCC vs. Todd A. and Lisa A. Maitre D. BCC Vs. Brian K. Greelin~ R. BCC vs. Mark A. and Susan A. ~az~on F. BCC VS. Gladys Rodriguez C£B No. 2000-010 CEE No. 99-069 C~B No. 2000-029 CEE No. 2000-026 C~B ~o. 2000-034 CEB No. 2000-029 GCC va. Charles Nolland Eec vs. Sha~ Davi~, Inc. ~C rs.Bruce G. W~d and Bruce G- Wo~, T~s~ee BCC vs. Terence L. Fitzgerald amd Phili9 0'Conner ~C vs. Grace and willi~ Z~avkovic, Trus=ee REPORTS A. BCC VS. Elhanon and Sa~dra Combs E. BCC vs. Eria~ K. Greanling C. BCC vs. Ralph Ja~e~ Williams, TR D. BCC vs. Charles Holland A. BCC vs. ~olland E. BCC vs. Surin a~O Rob&nson 11. EXT~T November ~0, 2000 12. ADJOURN CEE No. 99-076 C~B No. 2000-022 C~E NO. 97-004 CEB No. 99-046 C£B NO. 97-020 CEE No. 98-024 CEE NO. 200-026 CEB No, 2000-020 C~B NO. 99-076 CEE No. 99-076 CEE NO. 99-067 October 26, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's nine o'clock. I'm calling the Collier County Code Enforcement Board to order please. Please take note, any board on -~ person wishing to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May we have the roll? MS. CRUZ: Good morning. For the record, Maria Cruz, code enforcement investigator. Roberta Dusek? MS. DUSEK: Here. MS. CRUZ: Clifford Flegal? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Here. MS. CRUZ: Kathryn Godfrey Lint? MS. GODFREY: Present. MS. CRUZ: Don Kincaid? MR. KINCAID: Here. MS. CRUZ: Peter Lehmann? MR. LEHMANN: Here. MS. CRUZ: Let the record show Darrin Phillips informed our office that he was going to be absent. 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: Since all our regular members are present, our alternate, Ms. Lint will participate but not vote. Approval of our agenda? Are there any changes, additions? MS. ARNOLD: No changes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'd entertain a motion to approve the agenda as submitted. MR. PONTE: I so move. MR. LEHMANN.' Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to Pa~e 2 October 26, 2000 approve the agenda as submitted. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Approval of our minutes from the September 28th meeting? Any changes, corrections, additions, so forth? If not, I would entertain a motion to accept the minutes as submitted. MS. DUSEK: So move. MS. TAYLOR: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Dusek made the motion. We have a motion and a second to accept the minutes as submitted. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. We will now open our public hearings. First case, BCC versus I.E.C. Rentals, Inc., and Ivy Jean Nebus, I believe. if I've pronounced it incorrectly, I apologize. Case number 2000-035. MS. CRUZ: Yes. The staff has provided the respondent a packet and -- with a notice of hearing for today's hearing. This packet was sent certified mail. We do have a receipt for it. I'd like to let the record show that the respondents are not present, and I'd like to request that this packet be admitted into evidence at this time as -- marked as composite Exhibit A, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since the respondent is not present but it has been mailed and we have proof of mailing, any objections from the board? If none, I'd entertain a motion to accept the packet as an exhibit from the county. MS. TAYLOR: So move, so move. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the package as evidence. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. You may proceed. MS. CRUZ: The alleged violation before this board here is the unauthorized storage of two wood frame residential-type Page 3 October 26, 2000 structures on iron skids, a storage of demolished construction materials and commercial equipment, and allowing the activity of processing demolished construction materials for reuse and redistribution on an unimproved industrial property without first having obtained a site development plan. This is an alleged violation of sections 1.5.6, 2.1.11, 2.1.15, 2.2.16.2.1, section 3.3.9 of ordinance number 91-102, which is the Collier County Land Development Code, and sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 of ordinance number 99-51, the Collier County Weeds and Litter Ordinance. The violation exists at 3994 Mercantile Avenue, Naples, Florida. The owner of record is I.E.C. Rentals, Inc. The address of record is 3100 North Road, Naples, Florida. The violation was first observed on August 31st, 1999. A notice of violation was given to the respondent on September 1st, 1999, with a compliance date of October 1st, 1999. A last reinspection was done yesterday, October 25th, which revealed the violation remains. At this time I have investigator Dennis Mazzone to relay the findings of the violations. (The speaker was sworn.) MR. MAZZONE: For the record, my name is Dennis Mazzone. I'm an investigator for Collier County Code Enforcement. This case, as you just heard, was started in August of 1999 in response to a citizen's complaint. It took place on -- it takes place on an unimproved industrial lot in Naples Production Park. And as recently as October 24th of this year I met with the brother of the owners, Mr. Bob Cadenhead. And up to that point we saw minimal compliance, but the litter and the waste materials all have been removed from the site. It's the -- what remains are two pieces of commercial equipment and one wood frame structure, which Mr. Cadenhead assured me they are in the process of obtaining a permit to remove the wood frame structure. He said that they would need approximately 60 days to obtain the permit. Of there -- they are in the process of doing that from what we understand. We checked the site for approximately a year every 15 days and saw progress made. In the Cadenheads' behalf -- I don't see anybody here today from that family. They said they were probably going to be tied up working in their business. But in Page 4 October 26, 2000 their behalf, they are taking part in a project with Collier County of removing rock from the -- from our beaches, and that tied up some of their equipment and their time, of course, so it has taken time, but they assured us they need no longer than 60 more days to remove this remaining equipment, which I have photographs -- I think there's two or three pieces of equipment -- and the wood frame structure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's -- the pictures that are in the exhibit show piles of debris and all that. Do your current pictures show that all that has been disposed of, or does it still remain or-- MR. MAZZONE: All of the debris, all the recycled materials have been taken off that site. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So we're down to -- MR. MAZZONE: We're down to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- a building? MR. MAZZONE: We're down to one wood frame structure, which they're in the process of obtaining a permit for removal, and I would say three pieces of heavy commercial equipment, which one couldn't be removed because it needed some mechanical work done to it to remove it. It will take some time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have pictures of these? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, sir, I do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Could you show them to us, please? MR. MAZZONE: Certainly. MS. TAYLOR: Mr. Mazzone, Mr. Cadenhead have anything to do with this at all other than being -- what is he, a relative, is that what you said? MR. MAZZONE: The corporation in question is one that's formed by the Cadenhead sisters, and Bob Cadenhead does not own this property, but certainly he is working on behalf of the sisters, you know, diligently, as quickly as he can. MR. PONTE: Is he an officer of the corporation? MR. MAZZONE: No, sir, he's not. He has got nothing to do with the corporation. It's only the sisters that are officers, but he's trying to assist, of course, because his property abuts this. And these are his pieces of equipment, and, you know, he's responsible. He's using the land that abuts his land that's being used legally in the park. MR. PONTE: I see. Page 5 October 26, 2000 MR. KINCAID: I've been there. It looks terrible. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Back in May when you spoke to Mr. Cadenhead, according to the information you've given us, he said he needed 30 days to get rid of the recycled building materials. So did he do that when he told you he would, roughly? MR. MAZZONE: Roughly. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. MAZZONE: It took a little more time than that, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since then till today, I mean, we're roughly another five months and now he needs another two more months to get permits? I mean, was he not working on this permit deal prior to this? Surely it's no big surprise. MR. MAZZONE: No, I can't answer for the Cadenheads certainly. It's no surprise to anybody now. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is 60 days for these permits~ is that reasonable for him to ask? MR. MAZZONE: I believe so, sir. First they have to approve the site that the structure will be located to, then get the permit for the structure to move it. MS. DUSEK: Do you know if he's started this process, and if so, when did he start the permit? MR. MAZZONE: I've been told he has started this process, and it was started about a week or two ago. And he thought he'd have the permit in hand to actually give me a copy of the permit as recently as yesterday, and he did not. MR. PONTE: Mr. Mazzone, is this case, 035 of this year, is it a repeat violation of very much the same violation on the same property that we were involved with a year ago? MR. MAZZONE: The property we were involved with a year ago is the property that abuts this property, and he has the ability to use that property for the storage of equipment and such. MR. PONTE: I see. MS. TAYLOR: Mr. Mazzone, in this picture, all this stuff around here, what is that, all around this building? What is all this stuff? MR. MAZZONE: That -- in that paragraph, you're looking at the building and the property adjacent to it. You're not looking just at Mr. Cadenhead's property there. That photograph is of just the building, ma'am. Page 6 October 26, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think the question more lies in, since there are buildings and materials in the background, is that on the same piece of property, or is that on a different piece of property that you-all are working on? MR. MAZZONE: There's only one building on this property at this time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. MAZZONE: It was difficult to photograph without getting other buildings in it because there are other buildings behind it and on the side of it. MS. ARNOLD: Dennis, could you provide for the board some kind of description as to what we were dealing with -- what parcel we're dealing with now in relation to, you know, some of the other things that they're seeing in the background? MR. MAZZONE: Yes. The property that is able to be used is 153 feet along Industrial Boulevard right here. It goes in this direction. And then Cadenhead starts and goes, I believe, 123 feet from that, and then there's another site right next to it. We're only speaking of the 123 feet, which lies right in this area. MR. PONTE: Just as a -- so I can understand it. We have two sites, both of which look very much the same, that is, that have the same industrial equipment, one is permitted and the other is not; is that correct? MR. MAZZONE: That's correct. And it's because -- well, he has so much equipment on the first site, a lot of it spilled over on to the second site. Through the 20 something years the Cadenheads have been there, they've utilized the property to the maximum. MR. PONTE: So it would be a very simple matter to obtain the permit. I mean -- you're just really extending the permit to an adjacent site? MR. MAZZONE: No, sir, it's not that simple. It requires engineered drawings, and he would have to come on in and get the site improvement plan approval by Collier County Planning. It's a timely process. It is not simple. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold. The process has changed over the years. Initially when Mr. Cadenhead got authorization to use the adjacent property for storage, you know, there was less requirements. Now if he were to expand that use, the county would require him to come in for a site development Page 7 October 26, 2000 plan, identify what is going to be located on, you know, the property, and where drainage is going to occur, you know, be placed, and all the different elements that we're concerned with, traffic access and all those things. MR. PONTE: That's really starting from scratch. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: Investigator Mazzone, would you explain to me how we run into violations? This is -- my apologies. This is ordinance 91-102, you're referencing sections 3.3.9 and sections 2.2.16.2.1. It's the last two sections that are listed for that ordinance. How are those applicable to this particular case? MR. MAZZONE: Well, the 3.3.9, sir, would be regarding the need for a site improvement plan approval by Mr. Cadenhead and the county prior to the issuance of any permits for the use of the land. Without it, he's in violation of not having that in place. MR LEHMANN: That's not my reading of it. The violation basically states, no building permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued except in compliance with that. I'm not so sure that we actually have a violation of this particular section, even though the other sections may stand. MR. MAZZONE: I don't agree. MR. MR. district. utilizing an unimproved lot. MS. TAYLOR: Mr. Mazzone. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. MS. TAYLOR: I still want you to tell me, what is that? What is that big thing right there? MR. MAZZONE: May I step up and take a look? MS. TAYLOR: Sure, please. MR. KINCAID: It might be a generator. MR. MAZZONE: I don't know what that is, ma'am, from the photo. MS. TAYLOR: But that shouldn't be there, right? This looks like junk all over the place. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But if that's on a different parcel, that may be permitted, and -- MS. TAYLOR: How can you permit junk? MR. MAZZONE: I can explain exactly what that is. There is LEHMANN: And in the former section, the 2.2.16.2.17 MAZZONE: I believe that's the industrial -- the industrial He's in violation of not having proper permits for using -- Page 8 October 26, 2000 another photo of a large piece of yellow equipment. I think that's the front end of it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Mazzone, is that on this property? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I mean, what she's referring to in the picture, it's on this property? MR. MAZZONE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And it's one of the items you told us about, he's removing? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. MAZZONE: Yeah. These photos were taken on the 25th, and the photo that's on the screen right now is a piece of equipment loaded, of course, with debris that he's going to haul away. MS. SAUNDERS: Mr. Mazzone, and the owners' reason for not having removed this before is that they were working on a contract to remove rocks from the beach and they were busy, is that basically what they said? MR. MAZZONE: Oh, I believe they're -- I can't speak for the owners, ma'am, but I believe, and, of course, we all know that the Cadenheads were working for Collier County in that beach project. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. MR. MAZZONE: And there are other projects that they're working with. I can't say why they haven't done what they haven't done. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Mr. Mazzone? Thank you, sir. MR. MAZZONE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is there, on behalf of the board, a finding of fact that there, is, in fact, a violation? MR. LEHMANN: I would so move. MS. TAYLOR: I'll second it. MS. SAUNDERS: Second, Rhona Saunders. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson, do we need to get specific and go through all the sections? Would you like us to do that? MS. RAWSON: Well, you don't need to go all -- through all Page 9 October 26, 2000 the sections, but you might get a little more specific as to what the violation is, since it's different from the notice that they got of the violation, because some of it's cleaned up now. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think instead of two wood frame structures, we're down to one. Storage of, I would guess I would call that commercial equipment, it says it can demolish construction equipment. Reprocessing, that's not applicable. So I believe items one and two out of the three that were the original description of violation is probably all that remains. Mr. Mazzone? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Originally the violation was described as one, the unauthorized storage of two wood frame residential-type structures on iron skids, item two, storage of demolished construction, materials and commercial equipment, item three, allowing the activity of processing demolished construction, materials for reuse and redistribution on an unimproved industrial property without first having obtained a site development plan. He's not processing anything anymore. He just has these things sitting there trying to get them removed, correct? MR. MAZZONE: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAI.: So that violation, in essence, has gone by the wayside? MR. MAZZONE: That's correct. There's no longer the processing going on on the property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But the other two items -- MR. MAZZONE: And also -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- remain, other than he's reduced it from two structures to one? MR. MAZZONE: That's correct, sir. MS. DUSEK: Does he still have to get a site development plan? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, ma'am. In order to utilize that property for any use, unless he removes everything from the property, then no plan would be needed until he wants to use it. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, I -- MR. PONTE: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that it might be easier just to follow exactly the staff recommendation that contains a couple of important words, cease and desist, so that Page 10 October 26, 2000 there is no chance of future spillover? I think if you just take a look at it, it might just directly satisfy your current needs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, item one, he no longer has construction debris. ! think Mr. Mazzone said he's done all that. Item two, I agree with, item three, I agree with, and item four we'll discuss later, so -- yeah. Other than maybe the construction debris in item one, I think that's a good sentence. I don't have any problem with that, if somebody would like to make that part of the finding of fact. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, I would recommend that we just use the executive summary, the description of violations to define what the violations are. We can reference the individual code sections. Then if we want to go further, to the board's order, we can use the staff's recommendation to formulate the order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Fine with me. Would you like to make that motion? MR. LEHMANN: The description of violation would be the storage of wood frame residential-type structures on iron skids on an unimproved industrial lot without first having obtained Collier County site development plan approval. The second is, storage of demolished construction material -- excuse me. The storage of commercial equipment on the same unimproved site without Collier County site development plan approval. That would be the formulation of the finding of fact in the definition. The code sections that we would be referring to would be ordinance 91-102, sections 1.5.6, 2.1.11, 2. t.15, 2.2.16.2.1, and Mr. Chairman, I disagree with the last one, item 3.3.9. I do not believe that should be included. And to continue on, the other sections that are to be included would be sections 6, 7, 6 and 9 of ordinance number 99-51. Location where the violation exists is in accordance with the statement of violation. Ms. Rawson, if you could just fill that in. MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask that Ms. Rawson read 3.3.9 to determine whether or not she concurs with -- MS. RAWSON: I did read it, and I think you have to read it in conjunction with everything else. And I know why he cited that one, because you read that along with everything else. It Page ll October 26, 2000 basically says you can't get a permit, and I think it says you also can't get a site development plan -- you can't get a CO in compliance with the approved final site development plan. So I think what Mr. Mazzone is saying is, the reason that they're in violation of that is because they're never going to be able to get a building permit or a CO or site development plan unless they clean up the violations pursuant to the other ordinances that were cited. Is that basically why you cited that one? MR. MAZZONE: (Nods head.} MS. RAWSON: I think you have to read them all together. MR. LEHMANN: What I'm looking at is really the last sentence, violation of the terms identified in the approved final site development plan shall constitute a violation of this code. Do we have an approved final site development plan for this property? MS. RAWSON: No, of course not, because that's one of the things we're citing them for, that they don't have one. MR. ARNOLD: Right. MR. LEHMANN: All right, so -- MS. RAWSON: They can't get one until they correct the violations to the other sections of the ordinance. MR. LEHMANN: Correct. And that's my point, is how can we cite them in violation of a code section where they don't have the prerequisite to be cited for that particular code section? MS. RAWSON: Again, I think that they basically are just reading it all together. MR. LEHMANN: And that's -- I'll leave it up to the board's pleasure whether we add that in or not. MS. DUSEK: I think I agree with Ms. Rawson. We have to read it all together. It all congeals. If -- you can't leave out one part and satisfy the other part. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think the board should be real careful in that, if it's -- we read a section that's brought before us that's clearly black and white, and for evidence presented we disagree with it, I think we have some latitude. Where it has any kind of question and we're advised by our own attorney that it's -- if you read everything together, it should fall in the basket, I think we should take that advice and not try to remove presented violations. Pa~e 12 October 26, 2000 MS. TAYLOR: I agree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think that would be good practice. MR. LEHMANN: I don't have any problem withdrawing that statement, and we'll include section 3.3.9 as part of the violation itself, same on the violation. MS. DUSEK: The only thing that I am concerned about, in the description of the violation, do we need to include in that that he must obtain site development? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: When we get -- we're just now finding a fact that there is a violation. When we get to the order, we can put in there that he must do his site development plan. Let's first find him in violation, and then we'll go to section two, which is -- we'll tell him what he needs to get. So we have a motion that there, in fact, is a violation that Mr. Lehmann described, the description and the sections. Is there a second to that? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion about that there is, in fact, a violation? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Order of the board. MS. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I'm inclined to accept the staff's recommendation as presented with giving him 20 days rather than 60. It sounds to me like this has been going on for quite a while, that there was other work being done and, therefore, this property was taken advantage of, and that's certainly the owners' option; however, they prioritized. And I think that it's our job to prioritize according to the codes as well, and I would like to add in that prosecution costs be -- so -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL'. I guess the only thing I would ask you to think about is that Mr. Mazzone said he felt pretty confident that for them to get the permit to move the structure was going to take 60 days, so if we only give them 20, we already know up front he can't comply, so I don't think that's quite fair. MS. SAUNDERS: But I'm looking at staff recommendation, unless, Michelle, you'd like to change that, that the corrective action must be completed within 20 days. Do you still feel that's Page 13 October 26, 2000 a good recommendation? MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Mazzone was able to get further information after we prepared this recommendation, and the 60 days, as the chairman mentioned, would be a little bit more fair, as they've indicated to us how long it would take them to remove that structure. They've already obtained the permits. It's just relocating it. MR. MAZZONE: They're in the process of obtaining .. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, okay. They're in the process of obtaining a permit. MS. SAUNDERS: The other concern I have is that this case has cost us, I'm sure, a great deal of money to prosecute. We've been inspecting the property every 15 days for a year and a half. I do feel that the county has a right to recoup that portion of the costs, even if we do give them their full 60 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't disagree with that. We do that on other cases, and I think that's fair. One thing we haven't decided on yet is amount of any fine, which we normally include the prosecution costs as part of that, so if we could kind of do this in step A and B, step A being what the board wants him to do and the timeline, and then B, if he doesn't do all that, any type of fine and/or prosecution costs. So let's deal with A. What do we want the I.E.C. Rental, Inc., to do? If it's follow staff's recommendation, I don't have a problem with that. And then we must, if you would, change the timeline based on what Ms. Arnold and Mr. Mazzone has said, I think would be legitimate. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. MR. PONTE: Just clarify for me, because I'm a little confused on the timeline at this point. Is it 60 or 20? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, Mr. Mazzone said they have started, and he thought the 60 days that they requested was what it would take to get the permit. So I mean, if they've only started a week ago, I don't think we should split hairs and say, well, let's make it 55 days. I mean, at this point we've waited all this time, they have cleaned up the site, I guess, quite a bit, and we're down to three items. And if moving the house from point A to point B, wherever that might be, is what's requiring this permit, we're kind of at whoever issues that permit's mercy, and I don't know whether that -- is that a county permit, Ms. Arnold? Page 14 October 26, 2000 MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. PONTE: It just seems that the case has gone on for a while, and -- but maybe we could find a place in the middle here and say 40 days, because 60 days to do something that should have been done long ago just seems overly generous to me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not that I disagree, but unfortunately it took 13 months for the county to bring it to us, and we had no control over that, so -- we're -- MR. PONTE: But as the county was working on it, they knew this had to be done. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying, you know, all the time it's taken to get to us is something beyond our control. All we can control is, order him to get it accomplished, and I don't want to make an order -- I think it would be unfair to order him to do something if, in fact, we felt that you couldn't get it done. You know, telling you to drive from here to Orlando in an hour, we know that can't happen, so why tell you to do it. MR. PONTE: Well, I might suggest, rather than 40 days, we accept the staff's recommendation, which was 20 days. MS. DUSEK: I would like to suggest something, that perhaps we do the 60 days, and if he comes into compliance, still ask that he pay for what it has cost the staff to handle this case for the last 13 months. MS. SAUNDERS: I would agree with that. Whether he comes into compliance tomorrow or comes into compliance in 60 days, I would like the staff's costs to be -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mrs. Rawson, under our ordinance and the statutes, as I understand it, if you're found in violation, we have the right to require the prosecution costs? MS. RAWSON: Absolutely, no problem. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. SAUNDERS: And that can start just about immediately? I mean, that can be put into effect now so that we don't have to give him 20 or 30 days to comply before we impose the costs? MS. RAWSON: Well, I think you need to give him some time, reasonable time to comply, but I don't have any problem with your -- I mean, he's in violation. You've already -- well, you haven't voted yet. You've made a motion that he's in violation, Page 15 October 26, 2000 so you have a right to collect the costs. But you need to, before you do the fine, give him a reasonable time to come into compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But even though he does come into compliance, we still have the legal right to request the costs, as I understand. Maybe you can correct me on the ordinance. It says, if you're found in violation. MS. RAWSON: I think you can. We don't usually do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: But I think that you're not prohibited from doing that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS, DUSEK: So does that have to be in the form of two different motions? Do they have to be separated from each other, or can -- MS. RAWSON: No, I don't think you have to separate them. You found the violation. Now you're going to find what the fine and/or costs may be in the event that he doesn't do what he's supposed to do to come into compliance. CHAIRMAN FI, EGAI.: Right. And the sentence that, if you don't come into compliance by X, you get fined so much per day until you come into compliance, plus you must pay any prosecution costs on behalf of the county. It's not, you know -- MS. RAWSON: Well, actually I always put plus in there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I thought you did. I was trying to remember. MS. RAWSON: In my orders, I always use the word plus. So technically under any of our orders, you could collect the costs. CHAIRMAN FI. EGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: Even though he's come into compliance within the time frame? That's my question. MS. RAWSON: I can word it so that your -- if that's your vote, I can word it so that he's going to pay the cost even if he's in compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. DUSEK: That's what we're looking for, I think. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what we want, I think, specifically on this one, although I think it works on all of them. So the board feels comfortable, I think specific words on this particular one would work for us. Page 16 October 26, 2000 MS. RAWSON: I think-- MS. TAYLOR: I have a -- excuse me. I have a strong feeling that this is never going to end with this area right here. It's a blight on the earth, and it just seems to be a major game, constant. It's constant, constant. I think we just need to get tough, really tough, and let him know that this is going to stop. This is a mess all the time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're down to the order of the board. Part A is, what do we want him to do, or what do we want -- I'm sorry. We keep saying him. It's I.E.C. Rentals, Inc. Mr. Cadenhead is not part of that corporation. So what do we want the I.E.C. Rentals, Inc., to do? MS, SAUNDERS: I believe we want them -- MR. PONTE: If Mr. Cadenhead is not part of the corporation, can he speak for the corporation? I mean, he said he's doing this, but other than being the brother of the owners, legally, can he speak for the owners? MR. MAZZONE: If I may speak. I have spoken to each member of the corporation, the sisters, who are members of the corporation. MR. PONTE: Okay. MR. MAZZONE: Not just Mr. Cadenhead. He spoke in their behalf in the field, and certainly things were being done as we were speaking. There was a bulldozer working as we were talking. The sisters are not actively running the bulldozer. They run the business, sir, but they own the property. MS. SAUNDERS: I would recommend or move that we follow the staff recommendations with the exception that recommendation number four be revised to state that all corrective actions must be completed within 60 days or a fine of 150 dollars would be imposed, and with a fifth recommendation that indicates, regardless of the time at which this violation is corrected, all court costs -- all costs of prosecution will be due and payable when -- despite or separate from the -- MS. DUSEK: Fine. MS. SAUNDERS: -- correction (sic) of the fines, yeah. However Ms. Rawson puts it so we collect the fines. MR. LEHMANN: Does the entire -- does the entire order need to be read into the record? MS. RAWSON: As long as you're -- as long as you're pretty Pa~e 17 October 26, 2000 clear on the record what your recommendation is, your findings of fact, you don't need to read the entire thing. And I think you did cite the sections earlier -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yep. MS. RAWSON: -- and you were pretty specific about what the violations were, so now you just need to do what Ms. Saunders is doing, and she's being pretty clear. I'm trying to keep up with her here. MR. LEHMANN: In that case I would -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Before you second, noticing the concern of several members of the time it's taken to get this far and the seeing that it gets done and to put some pressure on them, I might throw out and ask you maybe to amend your motion from the 150 to 250 dollars a day. MS. SAUNDERS: I would be very happy to do so. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think that adds additional pressure. That would be my only comment. MS. DUSEK: I'm a little reluctant to accept that because he is in the process and has already taken steps to correct, so the 250, I think, is a little harsh, even though he has had 13 months from the first citing to correct this. MS. SAUNDERS: But he has also told us that 60 days will be sufficient, and we've given him his 60 days, so we're doing what he asked us to do, we're just saying, we're not quite sure we trust you to finish it, so let's put a little more strength behind it, I think. MR. PONTE: I think that's right. I think that's down the middle. It does give him -- put a little burr under the saddle. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion for the 60 days and 250 dollars. Is there a second to that or -- MS. TAYLOR: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any further discussion on it? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? MS. DUSEK: Nay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One against. Six to one. BCC versus Mario and Ninetta -- I hope that's correct -- Magistro. Case 2000-017. MS. CRUZ: Let the record show that the respondent is present, Mario Magistro. Before we go on, I'd like to make a Page 18 October 26, 2000 correction in the packet that was provided to the respondent and to the board. Pages two and four should be replaced, please. And the reason these pages are being replaced, some of the sections that were cited in the notice of violation were omitted on these pages. I'd like to request that the packet -- this packet that was provided to the respondent as well as to the board be admitted into evidence at this time, marked Composite Exhibit A, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Magistro has a copy of this? MS. CRUZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sir, do you object to them submitting this to us, this packet? MR. MAGISTRO: You talking to me? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MR. MAGISTRO: I can't hear you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you object to the county submitting these papers to us? MR. MAGISTRO: I don't understand why they should. I thought I was here to get an extension of time because of the fact, the guy that's going to put the rig there to pull that stump out is waiting for a permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, let Ms. Arnold talk to you. That's not why we're here, so -- MR. MAGISTRO: If I object to anything, I want to object to the dates. I would like to extend it for a week or two, whatever it is. I accept the evidence. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That all right with you, sir? MR, MAGISTRO: Fine with me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's all right that they submit these papers to us so we can read them? MR. MAGISTRO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you, sir. The county wishes to submit Exhibit A. Do I have a motion to accept? MS, DUSEK: I so move. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Second, please? MR. LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the exhibit. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) Page 19 October 26, 2000 MS. CRUZ: The alleged violation before this board is the existence of a wood piling encroaching into the property line approximately six to seven feet inside the water area. This is a violation of section 2.6.2.2, paragraph 5 -- 14, section 2.6.21.2.4, and section 2.7.6, paragraph 5, of ordinance number 91-102. The violation exists at 387 Tradewinds Avenue, Naples, Florida, and is more particularly described as Connor's Vanderbilt Beach Estates, unit 2, block M, lot 30. The owner of record is Mario D. and Ninetta Magistro. Their address is 387 Tradewinds Avenue, Naples, Florida. The violation was first observed on October 1st, 1999. A notice of violation was given to the property owner on June 20th, 2000, with a compliance date of August 10th, 2000. A current reinspection was done October 25th revealing the violation remaining. At this time I'll let Investigator Shawn Luedtke relate the findings of the violation. MR. LUEDTKE: Good morning. For the record, Shawn Luedtke, code enforcement investigator. This complaint was received by complaint from a neighbor reference a boat and a piling on the property line restricting the neighbor from getting his boat off of his dock. On October 9th, I did verify that there was a boat and a piling approximately five feet inside the property line violating the 15-foot side setback. On October 14th, I obtained permits for the dock to see if the pilings, et cetera, were in that. They were not noted in the dock permit. So the piling is not permitted. We mailed a notice of violation on October 27th with a compliance date of November 14th. On November 29th I did a reinspection, and the boat was removed, solving that part of the complaint, but the piling remained at the location. We re-served a notice of violation on June 21st of 2000 with a compliance date of October -- or August 10th, 2000, excuse me. On August 24th of 2000, I visited the site and the piling appeared to be removed, violation abated. On September 18th, 2000, I received another complaint from the same neighbor who advised, at low tide, the piling appeared to have been cut and still protruded approximately a foot, a foot and a half off the bottom of the water. I went out, verified on September 28th that the piling did remain at that location and Page 20 October 26, 2000 did appear to be cut and scheduled the case for CEB. I did -- the last site visit was this morning at 7:30 a.m. and the violation remained. MS. DUSEK: So what he needs to do is remove that piling completely? MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, ma'am, the remainder of the piling. MR. PONTE: Investigator, just so I understand it, the piling that is shown in the bottom picture on your screen -- MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, sir. MR. PONTE: -- blocks the entrance of the egress of the neighbor's boat that's on the lift? MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, sir. MR. PONTE: I see, okay. MS. GODFREY: Mr. Luedtke, is this a hazard as to the other boaters, being that it's under the water line, they can go by and -- MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, ma'am, especially now that it's been cut. You can't see it except when it is at low tide. MR. KINCAID: Can I ask you, if -- the neighbor's property is to the right of this piling as you're viewing it? MR. LUEDTKE: It's to the west. If you're facing the waterway, it's going to be to the left. MR. KINCAID: Okay. Then that's the dock of the neighbors that you see there? MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, sir. MR. KINCAID: Okay, thank you. Can I also ask you, what happened to the smaller piling that was inside of that, on that picture? That's not on this one but it's on the other pictures you had. Yeah, you can see it on that one. MR. LUEDTKE: You're referring to this piling here? It was found within the dock permit and is a permitted structure. MR. KINCAID: Permitted to be there then? MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, sir. It's not in violation of the setback. MR. KINCAID: It's inside the eight feet then; is that correct? MR. LUEDTKE: Fifteen foot, yes, sir. MR. KINCAID: Fifteen foot. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions for Mr. Luedtke? Thank you, sir. MR. LUEDTKE: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Magistro, if you'd like to come up, sir. Pa~e 21 October 26, 2000 MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to provide the board a copy of a proposal that was given to Mr. Magistro from Dock Master (sic) for removal of this piling, and you'll see in that copy that this says, work to be finished by October 27th. I'd like to request this item be admitted in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit A, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'd entertain a motion by the board to accept this as Respondent's Exhibit A. MR. PONTE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye, this. Swear Mr. Magistro in. (The speaker was sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir? You may tell us your side of MR. MAGISTRO: Oh. Well, first of all, when I moved my boat, I found out I was not able to put it in a position to make my neighbor happy, so I gave the boat to the YM (sic). i thought that would make them happy. Now, in reference to the piling, the piling was put there about 10 years ago by Dock Master, and I don't believe Dock Master knew that prior -- maybe about a year or so or less, that they had passed an ordinance that you couldn't exceed so many feet. And the reason why the piling was put there was because my neighbor had his davits almost on my property line, and he had a boat hanging on it. And the gentleman that owned Dock Master, Bill, he suggested and said, you know, you've got a sailboat, very difficult to handle. He says, rather than hit the boat with the bumper pole -- and that was the reason why the bumper pole was put in. Now, the thing was inspected after the lift was put in. I didn't know anything about coding. And I don't believe Bill knew that they had passed that ordinance. The next thing, you know, to meet your deadline, I panicked, and so I got the gentleman that trims my trees, and I asked him, I says, hey, would you please cut that pole down? So we tried to pick the best time for tide. Unfortunately there was no full moon, and so we got the best low tide we could, and we did cut it down, but my neighbor still wasn't satisfied. Pa~e 22 October 26, 2000 So right now I do have Dock Master coming back. But now you people are holding them up because he's waiting for a permit to go over on Heron Avenue to do a job, and he hasn't received a permit yet to do that, and so he would bring his rig in at the same time when he gets the permit. So all I'm asking for is just time so the gentleman can get in there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. You need to understand, we don't issue permits, so -- that's Horseshoe Drive's. We don't have anything to do with that, so we can't help you there. Anybody have any questions for Mr. -- MR. MAGISTRO: He did tell me the 27th, but I haven't had heard from him. You know, the cost for getting the piling out has all been paid for. Everything's ready. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, I do have a question for Mrs. Arnold. Would you explain the permitting process for us, especially the time frame? MS. ARNOLD: Well, I think the permit that he's making reference to is for another property, and Dock Master wants to come in and remove this piling at the same time that he's working on the other property. So, you know, I don't know what the holdup is for his particular permit, you know. If something hasn't been submitted accordingly, it's rejected and requested for additional information, and I don't know if that's what's holding up that particular permit, but it -- a dock permit shouldn't take that much time in total. MR. LEHMANN: What is the time frame for Dock Master or anyone to go to the county to pull a permit for this particular piling? MS. ARNOLD: For this piling? MR. LEHMANN: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: One day. I mean, it's to remove it. MR. LEHMANN: So he could have a permit within a 24-hour time? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, but that's not what Mr. Magistro is making reference to. It was another permit that Dock Master was waiting to obtain. MR. LEHMANN: I understand. Thank you. MS. DUSEK'- So essentially Dock Master doesn't want to come out unless they have a permit for the other property and do this at the same time, because this is probably a smaller job? Pa~e 2~ October 26, 2000 MS. ARNOLD: Exactly. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He doesn't want to waste the money to take his equipment to do one job when he can do two. MS. GODFREY: However, that's -- it's a safety hazard to boaters~ should they rip their hull out, so -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Mr. Magistro? MS, SAUNDERS: No. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Magistro, did Dock Master say to you how much time they would like? MR. MAGISTRO: You mean when the rig is here? MS. DUSEK: What did they -- what time frame? MR. MAGISTRO: Oh. How many more days he needs? I guess until the permit is given. MS. DUSEK: Okay. So there was no time frame given by Dock Master to you? MR. MAGISTRO: Well, he gave me a timetable. He says -- he says, I should be there by the 27th. MR. PONTE: It says, the work should be finished by October 27th, tomorrow, but the Exhibit A is dated October 19, so he was thinking it was going to happen very fast. So I don't see why we should allow any delay. The vendor said he'll do it by the 27th. It's a simple job. Do it by the 27th. The two permits -- or the other permit has absolutely nothing to do with this particular case. MR. MAGISTRO: Possibility is that he doesn't want to move that rig unless he knows he's going to be doing two lobs. MR. PONTE: That's the only reason. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's his problem. MR. PONTE: That is his problem. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Mr. Magistro? Thank you, sir. You may sit down. MR. LEHMANN: I agree with my colleague. We do have a safety problem here. We've got sufficient time to take care of this. I would move that we do find a finding of fact that a violation does exist and that we order the respondent to correct the violation by removing the piling within five days as opposed to the 15 as recommended by staff, with a penalty of 50 dollars a day if he does not comply, along with prosecution costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let's first do a finding of fact that there, in fact, is a violation, then we'll go to the second part. Page 24 October 26, 2000 So can we use the first part of your motion that there is, in fact, a finding of fact -- MR. LEHMANN: Certainly. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- of a violation? And -- MS. DUSEK: Do we need to read that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- the violation would be the existence -- I've got to find it. Existence of a wood piling encroaching onto the property line approximately six to seven feet inside the water area, which is in violation of section 2.6.22, parens 14, and 2.6.21.2.4 and 2.7.6, paragraph five of ordinance 91-102 of the Collier County Land Development Code, at 387 Tradewinds Avenue. MS. SAUNDERS: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and second that there, in fact, is a violation. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Order of the board. MR. LEHMANN: My motion same, as far as the order of the board, I recommend that we order the respondent to correct the violation by removing the piling within five days. If the respondent fails to comply, a fine of 50 dollars will be imposed each day the violation continues past said date, plus any prosecution fees. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion. MR. KINCAID: Can I say something? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. KINCAID: This gentleman is at the mercy of the Dock Master; am I correct? MR. LEHMANN: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, there's other people that could do this work. He chose this one, but there's other people that could do this work. MS. GODFREY: There's a safety hazard to boaters. They could run right into that and rip their hull out. MR. LEHMANN: We have a safety issue that we're worried about. MR. KINCAID: Right, I agree. MR. LEHMANN: We have no restraints as far as getting the Page 25 October 26, 2000 permit. It's a 24-hour turnaround with the permit -- MR. KINCAID: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: -- and there are many people to handle this job. MS. DUSEK: My comment is -- well, first of all, Michelle, you-all chose 15 days. Was there a reason? I mean, obviously there was. MS. ARNOLD: I think we were just taking into consideration the timing of getting someone contracted to do that work. MS. DUSEK: Okay. And the other issue is the five days. Today is Thursday, tomorrow is Friday, two of those days are the weekend and we know that there's not going to be anybody that he can get there for the weekend. So I know there's a safety issue, but I'm a little concerned about him being able to do this in five days with a contract. MR. LEHMANN: I don't have any objection to amending the motion to reference five working days as opposed to five calendar days. MR. PONTE: In addition, let me just point out that, although there may be other people available to do this service, this service has already been paid for. MS. TAYLOR: That's right. MS. DUSEK: That's right. MR. PONTE: Paid for by check on the 19th for 150 dollars. MS. TAYLOR: That's right. MS. GODFREY: Is there any way we could order the respondent to place a marker there so other boaters won't strike that piling until the -- it is removed, being that it's a safety hazard and it's a weekend? MS. ARNOLD: I would imagine that you could, you know -- MS. GODFREY: Put a buoy, a little buoy there so other boaters won't run into it? MS. ARNOLD: Can they do that, yeah. MS, RAWSON: I think so. MS. SAUNDERS: I think that's a good suggestion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. If Mr. Lehmann would like to amend his motion to a different timeline and maybe the inclusion of a -- some type of a marker buoy until it is removed to avoid any type of accidents? MR. LEHMANN: I think a marker buoy is a good idea. As far Page 26 October 26, 2000 as a timeline, do you have a recommendation? Would you like to go back with the 15 days as far as the staff's recommendations? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I just throw that out because there have been a couple people comment on it, so -- MS. DUSEK: If we can be assured that there's something to mark that piling so it is not a safety hazard, then I would want to go back to a little longer time frame. MR. LEHMANN: I don't have any objection. If we include the demarcation of the location of that, I don't have any objection to extending it back to the 15 days that staff recommended. My concern, of course, is just making sure we know where it's at so nobody else has a problem. MR. PONTE: Before we set a timeline, could we ask Mr. Magistro what his relationship is with Dock Masters? I mean, is it cordial, are they cooperative, or are they dragging their feet? Can -- MR. MAGISTRO: Very cooperative. MR. PONTE: They're very cooperative? MR. MAGISTRO: I couldn't get anyone else. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Magistro, if you can come up and speak into the microphone. MR. MAGISTRO: It was next to impossible to get any rigs, because they were all working down on Marco Island. Then, of course, the weather change, that made it even worse. Since Dock Master was the original person who put the pole there -- I never suggested to put a pole. It was just given to me for the reason I said about the boat, and that's why the pole was there. Mr. Dock Master did it, and I went back to him. MR. PONTE: But we ask you, because you're working with Dock Master, what you think would be a realistic time for you to get them out there to do that. MR. MAGISTRO: I wouldn't want to guess on anything, not here. MR. PONTE: Well, that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to guess. So we're asking you, seeing as you deal with them, do you think you could get them to do it in t0 days? MR. MAGISTRO: If I made a timetable and the guy doesn't get there, what do I do? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand the prob -- I think we just -- we have to make the decision. Our order has to be our order. Page 27 October 26, 2000 MS. DUSEK: I'd like to go back to the 15 days with some sort of marker showing where the piling is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MS. GODFREY: Within 24 hours have a marker there, because it's the weekend, and then give him -- MS. DUSEK: Okay. Let's ask him -- Mr. Magistro, do you understand what we're considering now is that you mark that piling so that boaters will see it when it's below the water line? MR. MAGISTRO: If you'd like me to, yeah, I'll do it. MS. DUSEK: Can you do that? MR. MAGISTRO: Let me say one more thing. I've never seen my neighbor's boat in the water. MS. DUSEK: Well, that doesn't matter. MR. MAGISTRO: I know, it doesn't matter. MS. DUSEK: But can you do this within 24 hours, mark that piling so that when it's low tide it's going to be shown above the water? MR. MAGISTRO: It will be done. I'll get a flag or whatever. It will be done. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, under those conditions, I have no problem amending the motion, he'll demarcate the buoy within 24 hours and we'll allow t5 days to correct the violation. MS. DUSEK: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second for, the piling can be marked within 24 hours and the violation to be corrected within 15 days. If not, fine of 50 dollars per day past that period. Do we have any further questions? MR. PONTE: May I just suggest that -- seeing Mr. Magistro has already paid to have this removed, that a 50-dollar-a-day fine against the respondent is heavy. He must get Dock Masters to remove the piling. So I think the fine should be reduced, and I take the -- any recommendation from the board as to what it might be reduced to, but 50 dollars a day for this fine -- or this violation when the respondent is trying his best and has already paid for the removal of the violation, I think, is a little heavy-handed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: My argument to that -- MS. TAYLOR: Agree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: --would be, Dock Masters, on the 19th, said they would solve the problem by the 27th, period. Now Pa~e 28 October 26, 2000 we're giving him an additional 15 days. MR. PONTE: But we're not fining Dock Master. CHAIRMAN FLEGAI.: That's fine. It's not our problem. We're not in control of Dock Master, so Mr. Magistro, if he has these contacts with them, they committed to him, he's got a written contract. Let's get it together. You know, if we reduced the fine down and, you know, Mr. Magistro doesn't have a hammer. Right now he would have a hammer. He's going to get fined 50 dollars a day if they don't do something. I think that might be a little incentive. MR. LEHMANN: Might I recommend -- or remind my colleague that this case has been going on for over a year already? So I'd like to just get it solved, taken care of. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? The 50 dollars has not been reduced yet. MS. TAYLOR: I would like to reduce it to 25. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we have a motion and a second for 50, so we need to vote on that and -- either turn it down and then redo it, unless somebody would amend their motion. MR. LEHMANN: No, sir. Mr. Chairman, I choose not to amend that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. All those in favor of the motion as it stands, 15 days, 24 hours to mark the buoy and a 50 dollar fine, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? MR. PONTE: Nay. MS. TAYLOR: Yes, me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Two against, five for. Motion passes. You understand what we've done, Mr. Magistro? We've given 15 days to get the piling removed. You must mark the piling within 24 hours. If you don't get it removed in 15 days, we're going to impose a fine of 50 dollars a day, okay? MR. MAGISTRO: Okay. CHAIRMAN FI. EGAL: Can I -- MR. MAGISTRO: And if they do have problems getting there, I mean, what do I do now? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'd go back and call them. MR. MAGISTRO: You know, I gave away a 12 thousand dollar boat to the YMCA. Nobody's asking me, you know, whether or not the pain is higher than the 50 dollars you people Page 29 October 26, 2000 want to put on me in case this guy doesn't come over there and pull that pole out, who put it in there in the first place, and i'm talking 10 years ago. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Magistro-- MR. MAGISTRO: Does that make sense? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand what you're saying, sir. MR. MAGISTRO: I mean, you want me to be a good citizen. MR. LEHMANN: If you have any undue circumstances -- MR. MAGISTRO: I can't hear you. MR. LEHMANN: If you have any undue circumstances that prohibit you from complying with the board's order, you can always come back to the board -- MR. MAGISTRO: Excellent, I like that, I like that. MR. LEHMANN: -- and we can review the fine. MR. MAGISTRO: Okay. I agree with it. MR. LEHMANN: It doesn't mean that the fine will be changed, but you have that option to come back and appeal that fine. MR. MAGISTRO.' Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There are no other cases, so the public hearings are closed. MR. KINCAID: Can I ask Ms. Rawson a question? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MS. RAWSON: Yes, sir. MR. KINCAID: Is this board issue -- the order issued to this gentleman so he knows that he can sort of hammer Dock Master with it? MS. RAWSON: MR, KINCAID: MS. RAWSON: MR. KINCAID: him, Absolutely. I mean, right away? Yes. I'll probably do the orders tomorrow. I saw him walk out. I was trying to catch MS. RAWSON: He gets a copy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We don't give them to them before they leave, but -- that's why they're here in person. MR. KINCAID: Well, I just-- MS. RAWSON: He will get a copy of it in the next few days, yes, MR. KINCAID: That's all. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: New business. We have a request for Page 30 October 26, 2000 imposition of fines. I would like to remind the board that imposition of fines is an administrative function. They are not public hearings of any type. Hearings are not required under the ordinance or the statute. The board has been kind enough at times to listen to people that come before us. I think when we impose fines that we should impose the fines and let the process continue until the violation is corrected, and then at that time hear from the violators to reduce, delete, whatever word you would like. I think doing it midway works against what we all sit around and kind of try to do in the beginning, a very lengthy discussion, so if you would try to keep that in mind, please, it might help us move along. Ms. Rawson, let me ask you a question on imposition of fines. We must vote on a case by case basis, correct? MS. RAWSON: Yes, probably. I think that would be the best procedure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Answered my question. First, case number 2000-10, BCC versus Pentecostal Church of God, request for imposition of fines. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. For the record, Michelle Arnold, code enforcement director. On the 23rd of March you-all found that the property was in violation of the codes in the sections cited of the codes, and the respondent was ordered to correct the violation by obtaining a site development plan or site improvement plan or removing all of the improvements that were made to the interior of the structure, and they were given 120 days, until July 21st, to comply. If they failed to comply with that order, fine of 50 dollars per day would be imposed. Also, you-all extended your time for compliance. I don't know if you-all remember that a member of the agency that was intending to purchase the property came in and said that they were going to purchase and try to comply. Unfortunately, that has not happened to date. We're asking that you accept our filing of an affidavit of noncompliance reflecting the dates August 30th, 2000, through September 22rid, 2000, which is a total of $1,300 -- I'm sorry. The imposition of fines would be in the amount of $1,300 for the amount (sic} of August 28th through September 22nd, at a rate of $50 per day, plus $655.37 for operational costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I have a motion to -- Page 31 October 26, 2000 MS. DUSEK: I so move. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- accept the imposition of fines? MR. LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the request for imposition of fines. Any questions? MS. SAUNDERS: I do have a question. Michelle, why not -- why stop it at September 22rid? Why are we not going through the end of October? MS. ARNOLD: We usually go to the last date that we actually, you know, did all of our checks, and that was the last day that we checked the property. The fines would continue to accrue. We'll do additional investigation as far as the ownership and the compliance. But at that time it had not been in compliance. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Case 99-069, BCC versus Dale and Cheryl Horbal. MS. ARNOLD: Again, this is a case that you-all heard in -- January, 27th, 2000, regarding two java plum trees, which are exotics and should have been removed at the time of certificate of occupancy. You have found there was a violation and gave the respondent t80 days to comply, with an extension as well. To date the property is not in compliance, and staff is requesting that the board approve our filing of an affidavit of noncompliance reflecting the dates of -- the date of September 5th. Staff's request for imposition of fines is for $8,050 for the period of August 28th, 2000, through September 14th, 2000, and an additional cost for operational expenses of $630.85. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear a motion to accept the request? MR. PONTE: I so move. MS. TAYLOR: So move. MR. LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and second to accept staff's recommendation for the imposition of fines against Page 32 October 26, 2000 Dale and Cheryl Horbal. Any questions? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Case 2000-029, Todd and Lisa Mastro. MS. ARNOLD: This case was heard by the board on August 24, 2000. I would just like to note to the board that the respondents are present. This was for the construction of a playhouse without obtaining proper building permits. The respondents were found in violation and were given until September 7th for compliance. Failure to comply with that order would impose a fine of $50 per day. Staff is asking the board accept the affidavit of noncompliance reflecting an October 16th date and filing of imposition of fines in the amount of $1,050 for the period of September 8th, 2000, through October 16th, 2000, at a rate of $50 per day, plus $577.28 for operational expenses. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The respondents are here. Does the staff have any comments as to that? I would, again, throw out and recommend that, obviously they're not in compliance yet because we don't have an affidavit of compliance. I would think it would be in the best interest of everyone that the respondents come before us when they're finally in compliance, by whatever means that is, and then ask for some type of relief rather than mid term, but that's the pleasure of the board. MS. DUSEK: Would it be possible to give them five minutes? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Whatever the board's desire is is what's possible. MR. PONTE: Well, give them five minutes if there's anything new to add to what we have already heard, rather than rehearing what has already gone before us. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. We will not rehear the case. This is for the imposition of fines, so ! guess my only comment would be, if they would ask us to do something different than impose the fines. Other than that, there's nothing we can hear, because they're in compliance. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, again, I agree with you. This is an administrative act. I think once we achieve compliance, then that's the proper time for the respondents to come before the board and ask us to adjust the fine, waive it or do something else. I think if we sit down and rehear this case, I think we're just kind of obstructing what we're trying to do. But I certainly Pa~e 33 October 26, 2000 would recommend to the respondents if they feel that that's what we need to do, then that would be the appropriate time, when we could have the time to sit here and listen to them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Are both of them here, just one of them? MS. MASTRO: I'm here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Would you come up front, ma'am? Do you understand what we're saying? MS. MASTRO: Yes, I do. Unfortunately my husband's been the one that's been in front of you. I'm very nervous. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, well, that's okay. Nothing to be nervous about. We're just folks. Would you come over here, please, and just to make sure -- MS. MASTRO: There's only a couple of things that I would want to say. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. One moment. Just to make sure that we're on line, would you swear her in, please? (The speaker was sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I want you to understand -- and don't be nervous -- that we don't want to rehear your case. We've already done that previously, and we've made a decision. MS. MASTRO: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What we're here to do is, since you haven't complied, we want to file the paperwork for a portion of the fine that has kicked in to date. MS. MASTRO: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What we would recommend to you is that you wait till when and if you come in compliance or -- by whatever means, whether you get permits or whatever, and then come back to us and ask us to either reduce it or waive it totally based on X. Our purvey (sic) right now is to -- we're just trying to administratively keep the ball rolling. MS. MASTRO: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So with that, if you have something to say, that's -- MS. MASTRO: Well, my only question then would be, is on -- it's taken a lot more time than we ever imagined it would take to accomplish the task at hand. On August 24th my husband came in. Our first meeting with somebody that would be able to assist us was on September 5th, only two days before the deadline. Page 34 October 26, 2000 My only request is that you would allow us -- actually by Monday we would be able to have the whole thing, I think, taken care of. We are moving the structure. My husband did go down to apply for a permit. It cannot be granted because we are on the easement -- over the easement. For the permit to be accepted, we have to be within our property lines. To do that, we have to move the structure. It was extremely expensive, which I'm sure doesn't matter, but we finally found somebody that was willing to assist us at a reasonable cost, with a family of four, and they're to be here today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What I would recommend to you is, since you obviously are almost solving the problem, that if you're that close, you ask the county to get you on the schedule for next month, because then the problem will have been solved, come back to us and say, gee, this is what we did, it's all solved, we have our permits. Could you either reduce it or waive it totally based on these facts? MS. MASTRO: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And then we can make a decision. How would that be? MS. MASTRO: That's fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Rather than us do something now, let the process go forward and come back next month and ask us to either reduce it or waive it based on this process, you know, timelines and all that. Would that work? MS. MASTRO: That would be fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Terrific. See, that wasn't hard. Okay. We have a request for imposing the fines. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the imposition of fines, affidavit of noncompliance. MS. SAUNDERS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and second to accept the affidavit and the request for imposition of fines. Any further questions? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next case, 2000-026, Brian Greeling. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. This case was heard on the 24th of August, 2000, and at that time the board found the respondent in Page 35 October 26, 2000 violation of the construction of a guest house without obtaining proper permits. The respondent was given 21 days to remove the violations, which consisted of electrical work and some plumbing work, or obtain the necessary permits. To date, or as of October 16th, the property is still in violation and staff is requesting that the board accept our affidavit of noncompliance reflecting the October 16th date and requesting the imposition of fine for a total of 1,555 for the period of September 15th, 2000, through October 16th, 2000, at a rate of $50 per day, plus an additional $1,070.36 for operational expenses. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Do I hear a motion to accept the affidavit of noncompliance and request for imposition of fines on Brian Greeling? MR. LEHMANN: So move. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion. And do I hear a second? MR. KINCAID: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Susan Harmon. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Next case, 2000-034, Mark A. and This case was heard on the 28th of September. Again, the respondents were found in violation and were given 14 days to comply with the removing -- removal of litter, which consisted of palm fronds. As of October 16th, the violation remained. Staff is requesting that the board accept our affidavit of noncompliance reflecting the October t6th date and authorize the imposition of fines for the amount of $75 for a period of October t3th through October t6th at a rate of $50 per day, plus an additional $566.58 for operational expenses. MR. LEHMANN: Ms. Arnold, should that not be $25 a day? MR. PONTE: Yes, there seems -- there's a typo. MS. ARNOLD: I'm sorry, yes, $25 a day. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't have, what -- MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it was 25. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What does the actual order say? The Page 36 October 26, 2000 order says $25. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you redo your calculations now -- MS. ARNOLD: Yes, and the calculations are correct. I just said $50 rather than 25. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Very good. Do I hear a motion to accept the affidavit of noncompliance and the request for imposition of fines? MR. LEHMANN: So move. MR. PONTE: Just before we do that -- and I'm not sure if this is the place or not. Did we not discuss during this particular case that the county was going to go in and remove the vegetation? Was that done? MS. TAYLOR: No. MR. PONTE: Remove the palm fronds? MS. ARNOLD: That wasn't what -- the final -- there was some discussion about whether or not we would do that, but no -- MR. PONTE: So that -- that problem still exists. Is it possible at this point to say, all right, County~ go in and get rid of those palm fronds? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You would have to amend the order issued. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. PONTE: Because it just -- as I recall, Ms. Harmon was moving or going through a divorce or something of that order. May not even be there. MS. ARNOLD: The respondent is still there, as far as I know. And at the hearing she admitted to placing the palm fronds there MR. PONTE: Right, I remember that. MS. ARNOLD: -- and has been since contacted to ask -- been asked to remove and identified exactly what litter we're talking about. There was also some discussion about the weeds that have since grown over, and that would be handled at a different -- on a different case, and we would not be contacting the respondent that's involved in this particular case that we're talking about, but the property owner to correct that weed problem. MR. PONTE: I guess my only concern -- yeah, that's exactly as I remember it. Is there any way that we can abate the palm Page 37 October 26, 2000 frond problem? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we have to amend our order. That's the only way we could get the -- order the county to do it. MR. PONTE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We would have to amend our order, but that would be separate from -- I mean, she's already in violation -- MR. PONTE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -o so you must impose these fines. If you want to -- I guess under new business we would have to have another item, and to bring that order -- MR. PONTE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAI,: -- back before us and amend it. MR. PONTE: Okay. I think we ought to do that. MR. LEHMANN: If I remember correctly, the board did address that issue about abatement, and our decision was not to have the county involved in it, to try to spare the additional cost that the county would impart on the respondent. Because if I remember right, I think we were looking at it and saying, if the county did it, it would be much more expensive -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Going to be expensive. MR. LEHMANN: -- than if she did it herself. CHAIRMAN FLEGAI.: Correct. MR. PONTE: But she hasn't done it. MR. I,EHMANN: But she hasn't done it. And I think that's why we backed off on the county doing it and just wrote the order the way it is written. MR. PONTE: So when we get to the proper time and place for it, maybe we should address that. MR. I,EHMANN: Well, we can handle it under new business or just impose a fine and let it keep running. MR. PONTE: Do what the chairman has suggested, impose the fine, then take it up -- CHAIRMAN FI,EGAL: Yeah. I guess my personal recommendation would be, I'm really not interested in amending the order to get the county involved, because I think the amount of money that the county would spend to do this would be far in excess of -- even if she took another couple of weeks to do this at 25 dollars a day, it's not even going to come close to what the county would have to charge. MS, DUSEK: Is that correct? Pa~e 38 October 26, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'd be better off with the county kind of keeping after her to get this done. It's not a big pile, as I remember. MR. LEHMANN: No. MS. TAYLOR: She put it there. She can remove it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. We're not talking four or five truckloads here, so -- but anyway, back to the current request, which is accepting the affidavit of noncompliance and the imposition of fines for the current three days. Do I hear a motion to accept? MR. LEHMANN: So move. MR. KINCAID: Seconded. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Motion and a second to accept the affidavit and impose the fines. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MS. ARNOLD: If I may interject on that same item. The investigator is present today, and she's indicated to me that Ms. Harmon mentioned that she has no intentions of removing that debris, so -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Well, we must impose the fine -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- because that's the only way we can get a lien started on the property, so -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. And if you-all were to bring it up as new business on another date, you know, we can continue to monitor the project, or the property, and see whether or not compliance is obtained. But if we feel that the only way that the debris is going to be removed is if we did it, we'll make that recommendation at a later date. MR. PONTE: Why would it have to be a later date as opposed to now, today? MS. ARNOLD: Well, because we do have a weed complaint on the current property right now, and I'd like to pursue contacting that property owner to see what we can work out in terms of getting the whole thing abated. MR. PONTE: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And, you know, then I could bring back a more complete recommendation to the board at that time. Page 39 October 26, 2000 MR, PONTE: Makes sense to me. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Final request, case 2000-027, Gladys Rodriguez. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. On August 24, 2000, the board heard and issued findings of facts, conclusion of law, and found the respondents in violation, and at that time ordered compliance within 45 days. If they failed to comply with that order, which was the improvements of interior renovations in a structure and -- they would be fined $250 per day each day the violation continued. Staff has done an inspection of the property, and as of October 16th, found compliance was not met and is asking that we -- you accept our affidavit of noncompliance and impose fines for the amount of $1,750, reflecting the dates of October 9th through October 16th at a rate of $250 a day, plus $795.70 operational expenses. Also, I'd like to note that the respondents are present today. They have submitted some information to us, and I haven't had an opportunity to review any of it. And as you-all have mentioned, it's in noncompliance. I don't know whether or not you want to accept this information. We just got it today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, since we don't know what the information is, I think staff needs to read it and understand it before they just give it to us, because we're going to ask you what you think about it. And, again, the compliance has not taken place as of August 16th, so they are in violation. My recommendation would be that we impose the fines. I would offer to the board, as before with the other lady, that if the board wishes to hear these folks, if they have something to tell us that's different, if you'd like to listen, fine, but I think you need to keep in mind that they're still not in compliance, so we must really move forward with imposing fines. It's quite important that we get this filed and on the county record so that the lien process take place. Without filing this document, liens are not in place on the property. So what's the pleasure of the board? MS. DUSEK: Under the circumstances of the information given, and we don't know what that information is, I think at this time we'd just go ahead and impose the fines. Page 4 0 October 26, 2000 MR. LEHMANN: I would so move to do so. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second to accept the affidavit of noncompliance and impose the fines. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: For general information, Ms. Rodriguez -- okay. Do you understand that you still have the ability, whenever you correct this problem, or whatever you do to abate the problem, to come back to the board and ask us to reduce it or waive it totally? MS. RODRIGUEZ: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. You still have that ability. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. FERGUSON: We've just got one thing to mention. Peter, you asked me -- MS. ARNOLD: Could you -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're going to have to come up front, sir, then. We really didn't -- MR. FERGUSON: I appreciate that. I just want to make one point right here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Swear him in. (The speaker was sworn.) MR. FERGUSON: William E. Ferguson. The -- Peter, you asked me about the zoning situation. I have proof in this packet that it has been zoned multi-family when it was built, and I have also some proof where there's some alterations done to the property and also there's revisions in the thing. It's saying on a nonconforming, that we're allowed to do what we did, okay? And that's the reason. We didn't have this information. It's been very hard to obtain this information back to 1959. The staff have been very cooperative, code enforcement, especially Ed over there has been very cooperative. We're working very hard on this program. We did solve one of the violations as far as the washer and dryer. We got that solved. We've got a permit in process on that, coming into compliance there. Page 4 1 October 26, 2000 But we're trying very hard to make this thing work. And realizing Ms. Rodriguez, this is her income, that's the reason why we're working on it very diligently. The past record from the county, unfortunately, is not the best, and that's not anybody's fault, but it takes time to go through and get stuff. Getting a simple permit anymore -- we've been 60 days getting this washer and dryer permit with a constant going in and going out. Ed, I met several times with him, and we're doing our best to make this thing -- but I understand the fines and stuff, but we'll come back at a later date. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's-- MR. FERGUSON: But I wish you would review -- we did send a packet. We wasn't informed of this meeting. We didn't receive any mail. They had the wrong address again. And you know, the packet would have been submitted before time, and you received a packet on October 8th. It was sent by our attorney. That's all I have to say. Just be -- you know, be -- you know, have an open mind on this thing, that this thing will work out. We just need time to get it done. MR. LEHMANN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That concludes new business. Old business. First item is request for waiver of fines by Charles Holland. I will make the comment to the staff that I notice that you have a request for waiver of fines under old business, you have an affidavit of compliance under reports, and you also have a request for foreclosure under reports, all against Mr. Holland. So if he's in compliance, I see no reason to foreclose. So explain to me what we're doing. MS. ARNOLD: The foreclosure action has nothing to do with the compliance. It's reflecting from the three-month time period for imposition of fines. If they have not paid any of the fines or any of those things, we -- the board can consider foreclosure on the particular property, even though they're in compliance, because we have several cases that are out there that are in compliance, and the fines stop accruing, but there's no payment that's made on that particular fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And the request for waiver has been requested by Mr. Holland, and he is here today to approach the Page 42 October 26, 2000 board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Mr. Holland. MR. HOLLAND: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Come forward, sir. (The speaker was sworn.) MR. HOLLAND: Good morning. My name is Chuck Holland. I've been before the board here once before, I think, concerning this same problem. This is in reference to my request for waiver of the fines on this property at 2721 Van Buren Avenue. I'd like to do a little chronological survey (sic) rapidly to let you know exactly what has -- what transpired on this property so you know my position. I sold this property June the 12th of 1998, to Ms. Rodriguez, as a matter of fact, on an unrecorded contract for deed, and the property remained in my name and still remains in my name. October of '99 I got a notice of violation on the property that the screen enclosure on the back of the house was being closed in to a utility storage. I contacted Mr. Ferguson. He advised me that he was making arrangements to get permits for this enclosure. December the 20th of '99, I received notice from the code enforcement I was to come before the board here because the permits had not been acquired. At that time I was given 30 days to acquire the permits, which would pull me up to January the 23rd. In the meantime, I got the fax from Mitchell and Stark Contractors, who were working with Bill Ferguson to get a permit for this property. Come to find out then, through the building department, that Mitchell and Stark were not licensed properly, didn't have insurance to pull the permits. Then I came in to get an owner permit, and I was denied after about two weeks. I diligently searched to get a contractor, but no one wanted to bother it (sic) because it's such a small project, a 10 by 20 closed-in shed, it's too small, number one. Second one, and maybe this is the first problem I had, they didn't want to get involved because the code enforcement had already red-tagged the project, and they knew they was going to have a real problem with it, so that's what I kept getting from the contractors that I did contact. Finally, I did have a contractor that said, I'll do it for so Pa~e 43 October 26, 2000 much money, so I had to pay him to do this for me, but he didn't have time to run -- do the footwork, so we got a lady that -- Shalondra Washington over at the permitting services to do the work. So we met with the building department with Wanda and also with Jackie, with Shalondra, and also with my contractor, and the permits were submitted at that time. Two weeks later, my contractor called and said, we've got a real mess. The code enforcement has a hold on this. We cannot pull permits. We've got to go to get it straight. So I go talk to Ed Morad. And he says, we don't have a hold on it. I said, well, what's the problem? I have diligently searched to try to get permits. I have tried through myself, through Mitchell and Stark, now I have a contractor that is licensed and insured. Now I have a problem. He said~ well, let's get Johnnie, who's the supervisor, I guess, of the building department. So we talked to her, and she says, let's set a meeting with all the departments so we can see what this problem is. So two days later, passed, we had a meeting, and I was assured that all departments were going to work with me and get permits for this property. That was in March already. I was requested to draw new plans for the complete building of two buildings there to show exactly the location of this existing screened porch that had been closed in to a utility room, which I did. In the meantime, I met before this board here, March the 24th, and I was imposed fines because I still did not have permits, even though they were in the working. I was diligently working with the contractor, with code enforcement, with the building department. But finally the plans I did submit to the building department March the 27th were accepted. And April the 4th, plans were finally approved. And I got the permits April the 24th, and we finished the little project, finally, and got a final inspection on it, final building inspection. I've provided kind of a history of what's going on. What has actually happened, I lost control of the property because I sold it on an unrecorded contract for deed. I did not have possession of the property, but I was the scapegoat, so to speak. You's (sic) Page 44 October 26, 2000 the only one I could come after, so here I am asking the board to waive the fines that has been imposed on me because of something that was beyond my control. I couldn't even go on to the property. I did go in with a dumpster and clean the property up after this little addition was put on to make it look presentable. From the conflicts I've had with the building department, waiting on them to respond, also the zoning, with the code enforcement -- I'm sorry, my hands were tied, and I submit to you today that I was not the violator of this, but I am the victim because I'm the property owner, so I'm having to suffer the consequences of a lot of expenses and a lot of work to get this thing done, which it is finally completed. I'm not here asking for anything except justice, and I think that justice, as you see, hey, I have met my commitment to the board, to the county, I have -- permits have been provided, the job is completed. I'm asking you to -- a waiver of the fines and the administrative fees that have been imposed on me and recorded against the property and against me at the county. I thank you. MS. TAYLOR: Michelle, is everything that he has said, is it true, that all of these departments met, et cetera, et cetera? MS. ARNOLD: I'm not privy to that information. Ed Morad is here. He's one of the parties that was mentioned in that discussion. I don't know whether or not -- or what time frame Mr. Holland's met with Ed, and maybe Ed can address that rather than me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody have any questions for Mr. Holland at this time so he can -- you can sit down, sir. Thank you. (The speaker was sworn.) MR. MORAD: For the record, Ed Morad, code enforcement supervisor. Diane, I didn't hear your question. I'm sorry. MS. TAYLOR: I just would like to know if everything that he stated is true. Did you-all have these joint meetings, et cetera? MR. MORAD: We did have a meeting with the building department official. This was a little bit more difficult than Mr. Holland's stated. It had -- it was a combination of this violation with a building project on the same property, to combine Pa~e 45 October 26, 2000 everything into what started out as a single-family into a multi-family project, and that's where the real holdup was. MS. ARNOLD: So they were trying to combine the enclosure with an additional construction that needed to occur? MR. MORAD: That's correct. And what they attempted to do, obviously, wasn't a simple task. It involved a lot of departments, a lot of plan review, a lot of inspections. So the simple shed being enclosed, which could have been, I guess, torn down and rebuilt at a later date, wasn't -- I was involved with that more complex project. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Morad, if the respondent had chosen to isolate just the issues in front of the board, would he have had those problems, where the permitting process has been so difficult and timely for him? MR. MORAD: If the other project wasn't involved, yes, it wouldn't be difficult at all. MR. LEHMANN: All right. So in essence, the respondent has more or less created his own problem? MR. MORAD: That's the way I see it, yes, sir. MS. DUSEK: Just so I understand, he could have isolated this process from the major construction that was going on? MR. MORAD: Yes. MS. DUSEK: Okay. MR. PONTE: Was there any advantage to him for not doing that? I mean, what was -- if there was that simple solution, do you have any idea why he might not have taken that easier route? MR. MORAD: Well, I think where it got complicated was that it's an agreement to buy, like he stated, with Ms. Rodriguez, and I think they wanted to make it into multi-family. So, you know, it would be a matter between those two, but he is the property owner of record. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Mr. Morad? Any further questions for Mr. Holland? MR. HOLLAND: I'd like to clarify a couple questions. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, Mr. Holland, if -- thank you, Mr. Morad. You have something else to tell us? MR. HOLLAND: This other project we're talking about was already permitted. I went through the proper zoning to get the addition put on. It was partially completed at the time that Page 4 6 October 26~ 2000 someone came in and did this other project without the permit, and that locked everything in. It was nothing -- I tried to get a permit separately for this little screened-in addition. They would not give me a permit for it because of the problems that existed, so it was beyond my -- I could not get a permit. It had to all be done together. Even though we had an existing permit, it expired because I couldn't get any more inspections on it because of this conflict, so it's just on and on and going. I couldn't do anything, that's why all the departments met, to hope to get this thing resolved. So we finally had to draw plans of complete, both front, back house, and the unit that had been illegally built in, and resubmit it and get new permits for the whole project. So I tried to get it separately. I could not get it separately, the little 10 by 20 I'm speaking of. It had to all be done in one. MR. LEHMANN: Could you cite specifics that prevented you from separating -- MR. HOLLAND: I'm sorry? MR. LEHMANN: Could you cite specific conditions that prevented you from separating these two permitting processes? MR. HOLLAND: Well, it was two different permits totally. The other one's an existing building. We got legal permits for it. It was two buildings. We was going to make it a duplex. We had plenty of -- we had three lots. We combined the lots to make them a duplex. We had to tie them together with a screen breezeway, and we had permits for that. Then this little screened porch on the front house became (sic) in violation because of it being enclosed without a permit, and it put a stall on everything, and I couldn't get a -- no more inspections on my back addition, and I couldn't get permits on the little 10 by 20 enclosed utility shed. I should have torn it down is what should have been done probably, but I kept being promised it was going to get worked out, so I worked diligently day in and day out trying to get this thing resolved. MR. LEHMANN: The question I have in my mind is, could you have made the conscious decision to take all the rest of the matters and put them at bay until you solved this one particular matter which was causing you the problem? MR. HOLLAND: I tried to. It couldn't be resolved. That was the problem. That's why I had to meet with everybody, with -- we Page 47 October 26, 2000 had a group meeting. We had the fire department, we had -- I don't know who we had. We had a round table meeting with Mr. Morad and Johnnie, and they assured me they would all work together and get this thing resolved. It took two more months after that to get it resolved. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Morad's testimony just a few minutes ago was a hundred percent contrary to what you're saying now. MR. HOLLAND: He said Johnnie only, but if he will restate it, he'll know that the building department was there, the -- I don't remember their names, but it was about six people total at the round table when we spoke. MR. LEHMANN: I understand that. But the testimony I'm referring to is whether or not this process could have been split apart~ and the requirements to meet compliance for the order of the board would have been an easy task. MR. HOLLAND: That's what he said. That's what we went in for. I have copies of the permits that we submitted three different times, and they're all rejected for that specific little addition. They would not give me a permit for it. I wasn't trying to involve the other existing building that had already been permitted. We was working on this 10 by t0 (sic) only. I could not get permits for it, because then they tried to tie it into the back building because of the -- now my permits were expired because I couldn't get an inspection on it. MR. LEHMANN: Something just doesn't ring true to me. MS. DUSEK: I'm getting confused by this whole thing. You tried to begin with to get a permit for what you were in violation for from this board? MR. HOLLAND: That's correct. MS. DUSEK: And they wouldn't give you a permit, why? MR. HOLLAND: That's correct. Well, first, they wouldn't do it for me as the owner/builder, and they wouldn't do it through Mitchell and Stark because they weren't properly licensed. Then I get a contractor, licensed contractor, to go in, and then it takes -- two weeks later they say that you've got a real problem, that code enforcement has a hold on it. Well, I go to Ed Morad~ he says, no, we don't have a hold on it. I said, well, what is your problem? Why can't I get a permit? And he said, let's get in touch with Johnnie, let's do a round table, get all the departments in here and see if we can get this Page 48 October 26, 2000 thing resolved, so that's when we did. MS. DUSEK: I still don't understand why they wouldn't give you a permit. MR. HOLLAND: I don't know why. Said there's too many problems there, they kept telling me, so that's -- I diligently tried. I can't answer for the board, for the building department. It just wasn't done. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Holland, do you have a date that you submitted the permit for the large expansion? MR. HOLLAND: Yes, I have dates here every -- we first submitted a permit, an application permit, January the 3rd of this year. MR. LEHMANN: And that is for what work? MR. HOLLAND: Through Mitchell and Stark. And it went on for-- MR. LEHMANN: Excuse me, sir. The permit you submitted January 3rd is for what work? MR. HOLLAND: That's for the 10 by 10 (sic} screened addition that was illegally enclosed. MR. LEHMANN: This is -- the order of the board, the issue that we're talking about? MR. HOLLAND: That's correct. MR. LEHMANN: And the other dates? MR. HOLLAND: The 24th I filed, and after Mitchell and Stark were turned down because they were not a contractor that was fitted for the -- doing this addition, I filed as an owner/builder January the 24th. MR. LEHMANN: For the -- MR. HOLLAND: For the little 10 by 10 (sic} addition. I was turned down because I could not do it as an owner/builder because it's a multi-family, and I was not living there. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. MR. HOLLAND: So then I searched for a contractor. February the 10th, I found the contractor. MR. LEHMANN: And was that the date that you submitted again? MR. HOLLAND: Then he wanted me to get with a permitting service, Washington submitting (sic). I got with her and drew the plans. We met with the contractor and went into the building department, February the 15th, and submitted these plans to Pa~e 4 9 October 26, 2000 Wanda, and the application. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So that's your first actual -- MR. HOLLAND: With the contractor -- CHAIRMAN FI. EGAL: -- permit submission date, February 15th. MR. HOLLAND: Yes, February 15th. MR. LEHMANN: And with that permit submittal -- MR. HOLLAND: Two weeks later the contractor called me -- MR. LEHMANN: Excuse me, sir. With that permit submittal on the 15th, was your scope of work limited to only addressing the issue with the order of the board? MR. HOLLAND: That's correct, just what I had been cited for only, nothing else. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. It was not to try to incorporate some of this other additional work? MR. HOLLAND: That's correct. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. Please continue. MR. HOLLAND: Okay. Then approximately two weeks later -- I got the 12th. I don't know if exactly -- the 12th, 13th, something like that, of February, that's when the contractor checked in with the building department, and they said, no way. No permits were going to be issued because you've got a hold on it by code enforcement. That's the way he related it to me. He said, you need to get this straightened out with code enforcement. So immediately I go down and talk to Ed Morad, which was that very day, the 15th. And Ed says, no, we don't have a hold on it, and I question, what's the problem, what can we do? That's when he called Johnnie, and whoever else he called, and said, let's set up a meeting, and we did that two or three days later after this date, so probably around the 18th, 19th, something like that, of February. And that's when I was assured by -- Johnnie said, we'll help you get the permit. Let's get it all straightened out, after I explained to him the problems I had had. MR. LEHMANN: So when did you file a permit for the expansion or try to -- the enlarged scope of work, whatever that would be? MR. HOLLAND: Well, we had -- finally we go back in March the 27th when I submitted the complete new set of drawings with a new permit, March the 27th. And April the 4th is when Pa~e 50 October 26, 2000 they finally approved the plans and approved the permit. At that time they wanted to incorporate it all, after I had to redraw the plans. MR. LEHMANN: Correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding of this is that you said you initially filed a permit application on the 3rd of January. MR. HOLLAND: That's correct. MR. LEHMANN: That was turned down simply because you had an unlicensed builder. The second time, on January 24th, you submitted an owner/builder. MR. HOLLAND: That's correct. MR. LEHMANN: That was turned down because you're not allowed to do that on that type of structure. MR. HOLLAND: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: Then you filed another application on the 15th of February with a licensed builder. And up until this date, you're telling me this is only for the screen enclosure? MR. HOLLAND: That's correct. MR. LEHMANN: But you're telling me that on February 12th your licensed builder had checked in with the county, and they'd already put a hold on it because of some permitting process prior to this whole action? MR. HOLLAND: No, no. I said we submitted the 15th, and approximately two weeks -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. HOLLAND: -- later is when he called me after he checked with the county if the permits were ready, and they said, we cannot process them. You have a problem with code enforcement. So I don't know -- ! didn't put the exact date down, but it was about two weeks after, so it would have been around the last part of February. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. So if you're looking at the last part of February, you still have another permit that must have been in the system prior to the last part of February for him to get that information. MR. HOLLAND: That he submitted the t5th. February the 15th, that he submitted at that time, signed it in, and he was anticipating getting an answer and having permits to be issued, but two weeks later he found out they weren't. MR. LEHMANN: I'm still confused on the issue here, and Page 51 October 26, 2000 part of my confusion is that, knowing the system the way I do, I'm having a hard time understanding that you did not have a prior permit application in the works for them to tell you that, no, we can't do this because of this problem with another permit, we have a hold on it because of another permit. I must not be understanding something here somewhere. MS. ARNOLD: If I may try to clarify. What I heard Mr. Holland say, he is -- in January he attempted to pull a permit but found out the person pulling it was unlicensed with the county, then he attempted to pull it himself and found out he couldn't. MR. LEHMANN: Right. MS. ARNOLD: Then finally on the 15th of February is when he got a licensed contractor to pull the permit but later found out the building department wasn't inclined to issue that permit for the 10 by 10 (sic} structure because they felt that there was excessive code enforcement issues, and then we cleared that up once we all met together with all the necessary parties, the fire department, the building department, and so on, and then he later submitted a plan or a permit, or request for a permit for the entire project. The addition that was mentioned had previously had a permit, but that permit expired; is that correct? MR. HOLLAND: That's correct. MS. ARNOLD: So if the board is trying to come up with maybe some reduction in fine, I think the pertinent date is the February 15th date, because at that time is the first, you know, permit that -o or application that was issued for a permit for that particular structure in -- you know, in response to the board's order. So February 15th would be a date that you could look to, to go back to for reducing the fines, because that was the first date that he actually submitted something that was in response to the board's order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The permit that he submitted on the t 5th was for the 10 by 20 structure? MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. HOLLAND: That's correct. Which is the only thing involved in our CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: order? MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. ARNOLD: Right. Period. Page 52 October 26, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: When did that permit get issued? MR. HOLLAND: That was issued 4/24, April 24th. MS, ARNOLD: Right, CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 4/24. MR. HOLLAND: I have a copy on file. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, now I'm really confused, because the county's telling me, by an affidavit of compliance, that on 3/27 they were in compliance. If he didn't get a permit till 4/24, how do you get in compliance a month before? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. The date of 3 -- that March date is the date he issued (sic) that permit, or applied for that permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He just said he applied for the permit on 2/15. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. But at that time is when -- the whole confusion as to whether or not they were going to issue a separate permit for the 10 by 10 (sic} structure and then another one -- because the permit that he previously had for the expansion was now null and void because it expired. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I'm only interested -- our order is for a 10 by 20 structure. MS. ARNOLD: Right. And then the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's all I want to know. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. So the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't care about other permits, please. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. So the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So what's the affidavit of compliance for? MS. ARNOLD: For the 10 by 10 (sic) structure because it was included with the rest of the -- the permit that was issued for that structure was included with the other expansion. So instead of issuing two separate permits, they issued one permit. MR. LEHMANN: And didn't that occur on the 27th of March, or the 24th of April? MS. ARNOLD: Well, he submitted the application for that permit on the 2?th of March, and the approval was in April. MR. LEHMANN: All right. So you're basing your fees -- MS. ARNOLD: On the submittal. MR. LEHMANN: -- on the submittal dates -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. Pa~e 53 October 26, 2000 MR. LEHMANN: -- not the issuance dates? MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. LEHMANN: All right. I take that back, your compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You've lost me. He submitted a permit on the t5th. Now you're saying that permit got null and void somehow? MS. ARNOLD: It wasn't accepted. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So that permit got canceled? MS. ARNOLD: Right, and they had to resubmit, and that permit was resubmitted on the 27th of March. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And it didn't get issued till -- MS. ARNOLD: April -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- April 24th, so -- MR. HOLLAND: Twenty-sixth, actually, is on the permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So if it was issued on the 26th, he doesn't come into compliance until the permit's issued, because the order says, obtain a permit. The fact that he applied means absolutely nothing, so he didn't get it till April 26th -- MS. ARNOLD: So our-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- that would be the date rather than March 27th for compliance -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, so our affidavit is -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- so your affidavit's wrong. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. Well, we can -- we can approve -- MR. HOLLAND: You can see it took a month and a half laying (sic) the building permits, and by the time I submitted until I received the permit, so it was out of my hands. I had no control. It's like you say, don't let it rain, I'm going golfing. If it rains~ I'm fined. What can I do? MS. ARNOLD: But the request that's before you is waiver of fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Well, if we just go to the 26th, which now isn't the date, it now should be 4/26 rather than 3/26. MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's another 31 days. Ballparking, we're a couple dollars shy of everything being about $8,000 round figures, $7,996.14 fines, plus costs, roughly, since day one until April 26. MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And what he's asking us to do is Page 54 October 26, 2000 waive all of that because of these problems? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Or whatever problems, if we accept them, or some portion thereof. MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, if I understand this right, the order of the board provided a 30-day period to correct the action. That would start January 23rd, but the first action to actually submit permits -- well, I shouldn't say the first action to submit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: First correct action. MR. LEHMANN: The first correct action occurred two months later. MR. HOLLAND: ! did go into the board -- to Collier County code enforcement the 2tst, which is two days before this expired and told them I need an extension. I didn't know I had to came before this board to get it. My assumption was, since I was in there workin', that was okay, but my understanding was incorrect, and that's why I'm here, I guess, today. But like I say, I've become the victim of this. I did not have control of the property, someone else did, but I have to be the one that's a suf -- that's why I'm requesting or begging for mercy or whatever I may do to get this lifted so I don't have to suffer the consequences of this financial strain. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any further questions for Mr. Holland? Thank you, sir. What's the pleasure of the board, based on what you have heard? Again, I remind you the fines are close to $8,000, including costs. You need to leave, Ms. Rawson? MS. RAWSON: Not yet. MS. DUSEK: I'm in favor of, at a minimum, a reduction in fines, because he has worked throughout this time frame. There have been some obstacles that maybe he's caused himself or through the county. I just, at this point, have not come to a decision on what that reduction should be. But I am in favor of reducing his fines. MR. PONTE: Maybe a reduction of fines is a good idea, and we ought to know what the costs to the county were. It's mind boggling to me that we should have fire people and other Page 55 October 26, 2000 executives at a round table meeting involved in a 10-by-20 foot structure. So whatever -- is there a way to find out what the cost is to the county and maybe look to at least recouping the costs? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think -- Ms. Rawson, correct me if I'm wrong -- the ordinance and statute states, in prosecuting the case before the board, so, I mean, what happens after we issue the order, we can't tack on to the costs. MS. RAWSON: Well, you're here today pursuant to his request for a waiver -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. RAWSON: -- and/or reduction. You've already tacked costs on at 621.14, and ! don't think you can change that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. That's what I'm saying. Because things have happened after the order was issued -- MS. RAWSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- you can't add to those numbers because there's been 47 meetings. That doesn't count. MS. RAWSON: That doesn't. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, I think my colleague was just trying to say that if we wanted to reduce the fine, we had to consider those additional expenses as part of that. I know he's not -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The fine is the fine. The additional expenses the county goes through to try and solve whether they created the problem or someone else did really isn't pertinent. I mean, the costs that we can collect is what it cost to bring the case to the board, and we issue the order. Costs after that point really don't matter, because we understand that they're going to have meetings to try and help them get permits or get this or -- those costs don't matter. We're only allowed to ask for the cost to prosecute, which, i.e., gets them to the day we issue the order. Costs after that, as I read it, and Ms. Rawson can correct me, aren't applicable, even though we know they do them, we really can't slide them in somewhere. MS. RAWSON: You can't slide them in. You don't have the authority to tax them to the respondents, but certainly, you know, I'd say the staff, they do count. MS. ARNOLD: Sometimes. MS. TAYLOR: I think George's point is that you ought to Page 56 October 26, 2000 reduce the fines, but yet we have all these extra added costs, and that's what he's trying to say to us is that, okay, we reduce the fines, but we have all these extra costs on top of that. It doesn't balance out. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand, but you have to remember that the cost is against the violator. So to say that -- I mean, if he's working diligently and staff's working diligently, you can't say, well, I'm going to fine you. I would have reduced a hundred dollars, but since the staff had to work so hard, I'm only going to reduce it 10 dollars. I mean, the fines against him, you shouldn't, you know, charge him because they're both working hard. You've got to keep those two people separate. MS. DUSEK: I also look at it differently. I look at it that these boards are here to help the public, and if they have to help them through the process, that's not a cost. That's what they're there for. And so I don't consider that a cost, the different meetings that they had with different staff members, boards. I think it's just what was said, it's the prosecution of the case and that's it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, he's worked hard, so that's really what we should consider. He's taken all these steps, even though maybe some of them have been his fault. Are we willing to reduce the fine based on that? He's been diligent. He's made mistakes. How do you equate the 75 dollars a day? How would you like to reduce it? MR. PONTE: Or to waive it? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Or would you not? MR. PONTE: Or to waive it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, you know, reduce it or waive it totally, based on his actions, understanding that he's tried, maybe he's made mistakes, rightly, wrongly, whatever, that's really what you should consider in a reduction, slash, waiver. MS. DUSEK: I agree. MR. PONTE: I think the work that Mr. Holland has put into this is much more than I would have done, and my feeling is that the fine should be waived. MS. DUSEK: Except for the costs to the county. MR. PONTE: Except for the costs to the county. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The fines are roughly $7,375. That's going up to the 26th, when -- the day he actually got his permit, Page 57 October 26, 2000 which is what our order said, so -- I may be -- if I'm off a dollar or two. I mean, whatever it is, but it should be close. MS. ARNOLD: Our calculations are about $7,446.t4, and that's including the 621. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I'm leaving the 621 out. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm just interested in the fines so that the board knows that if they waive the fines, they're waiving approximately X. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, $6,825. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear any motions or any further discussion? MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion that the -- based on all the proceedings, that the fine be waived, except for costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. KINCAID: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second -o THE COURT REPORTER: Who was that? MS. TAYLOR: Mr. Kincaid. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Kincaid. We have a motion and a second to waive the fines only. The costs remain. Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? MR. LEHMANN: Nay. MR. TAYLOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Nay. We have three nos. I'm a no. The people who voted aye put up their hands just so we make sure we have -- four. Okay, four to three, motion carries. Fines are waived, sir, but you will pay the costs. MS. ARNOLD: If I may request, we do have an item on report, Board of County Commissioners versus Elhanon and Combs (sic}, Elhanon and Sandra Combs, and I know that Ms. Rawson has to leave. If the board can hear that particular item. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: To which now? MS. ARNOLD: Under reports, A, 7-A. MS. RAWSON: There's not a lot of information in your packet to give you yet, but you should be informed -- and I'm sure you remember this case -- there are two appeals before -- at least there are notices of appeals that have been filed. One has to do Page 58 October 26, 2000 with the reduction of fines. If you will recall, Mr. Combs' attorney came before the board and requested that you reduce the fines. And after much discussion, you basically denied his request. And so there was a simple order that just said that his request had been denied. There wasn't really a hearing, but he did bring a motion before you, so we wrote like a one-line order that said his motion is denied. It is from that order that he has appealed. In addition, he's gone back to the very beginning order that imposed the fines, and has also appealed that order. That's all I know so far, that he's filed a notice. We'll keep you informed. I don't have a brief. We haven't gotten into the writing of the project. There may be some discussion with his attorney about what to do about this before we get into that stage, but I'm not sure, Anybody have any questions? MS. TAYI,OR: Well, yes. Who denies appeals? MS. RAWSON: This appeal, if you look at your packet, has been appealed to the Circuit Court of Collier County. In other words, you go from this building to this building, so that if the appeal went through, it would be heard by one of our Circuit Court judges. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And as I understand it, Ms. Rawson, is, on appeals -- first of all, I'm not -- since this is two parts, he's appealing the order which denies his motion, and then the other one is, he's appealing the original. The original was past date, so there's really no appeal to that; is that correct? MS. RAWSON: Well, I can only say that he has filed a notice of appeal. CHAIRMAN FLEGAI.: Yeah. I mean --yes, unfortunately lawyers could file any piece of paper, but -- okay. Now, this one, as I understand how appeals work, do they not work -- they're heard under the ordinance and the statute, if we make a mistake in the order of the law or something like that, is that how it reads? MS. RAWSON: Correct. It's not a trial de novo, which means all over again. We're not going to have another hearing. You won't be involved. The judge will simply read the transcript from -- and obviously there's not much, because he came as a request to you, and that's why we put him on the agenda, and he asked Page 59 October 26, 2000 you to reduce the fine, and -- or I think actually abate it, is what he asked you to do, and you denied his request. That's the record. And of course, there's a transcript, and then they have to look to see if what this board did was violate the law -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's what I thought. MS. RAWSON: -- based on the facts presented to you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Continued whenever. MR. PONTE: Ms. Rawson, can I just ask a question? MS. RAWSON: Sure. MR. PONTE: I was totally blank on this case. Did this case come before the -- when the boards were split -- MS. TAYLOR: Yes, it did. MR. PONTE: -- when it was just the other board? MS. TAYLOR: It did. MS. RAWSON: It did. MR. PONTE: Okay. MS. RAWSON: And it was a 1998 case, so some of you were still on the board and heard it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. MS. RAWSON: Some of you did not. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have another request for reduction of fines and liens, case 2000-022, which is Chad Davis. MS. ARNOLD: And they're not present, so I would remove it from the agenda. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would remind the board -o I notice in the letter that was submitted, they wanted 30 to 45 minutes. Again, these are administrative things. I think we should keep them to something reasonable. And you also need to keep in mind, if this is going to be moved to another agenda, this is the gentleman that was here last month. So I would recommend we remove this since they're not present rather than deny it since he's not here to present his request. So I would make a recommendation that staff move it to next month if they want to make such a request. MS. ARNOLD: MS. TAYLOR: here? MS. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Did he notify you that he wasn't going to be His request just says, I'm asking to be Page 60 October 26, 2000 allowed to appear. Since he's not here -- MS. SAUNDERS: Well, we grant his request to be allowed to appear. He just didn't take advantage of it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There's nothing we can do on that one. MR. KINCAID: It's hard to believe, isn't it? MS. SAUNDERS: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAI.: Release of code enforcement lien. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. This is a release of lien or satisfaction for Board of County Commissioners versus Bruce G. Wood and Bruce G. Wood, Trustee, the amount of $2,058.30 has been paid, and this is just -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do we have separate -- two separate liens -- MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- or three separate liens or something? MS. ARNOLD: We have two separate liens. CHAIRMAN FLEGAI,: Okay. So if we agreed to release this lien, our other lien still is intact? MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. MR. I,EHMANN: Ms. Arnold, this is a partial release, not a final release of this lien. Do very still have something outstanding on this case? MS. ARNOI,D: Yes, it indicates that in the final paragraph, that there's still $19,655. That's still -- MR. LEHMANN.' Okay. So by granting this, we are accepting the partial release of -- or partial payment of this particular lien? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAI,: Ms. Rawson, is that okay for us to do? MS. RAWSON: I think it's fine. It probably requires a vote since -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yep. MS. RAWSON: -- it requires Mr. Flegal, as chairman, to sign. MR. LEHMANN: I would so move that we accept this. MS. SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept a partial release of fine, of a lien rather, I'm sorry. Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) Page 61 October 26, 2000 MS. DUSEK: May I just ask a question, not in reference to what we just voted on, but is the fine still running on the other? MS. ARNOLD: No. MS. DUSEK: On the '98 case? It's just a lien against the property? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, there was an affidavit of a compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, he complied, so -- he just never has paid the money, correct? MS. ARNOLD: He's paying, making payments. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He's making payments of some type? MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now we have a request for satisfaction of lien on the -- MS. ARNOLD: Terence L. -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Fitzgerald and O'Conner. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. And that was the one where you-all reduced the amount to that $878.70, and they paid that. MR. PONTE: This was the marina? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And they have -- MS. ARNOLD: They have paid it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They have paid it in full and -- MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would entertain a motion to approve the satisfaction of lien. MR. LEHMANN: So move. MR. KINCAID: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second, Mr. Lehmann and Mr. Kincaid. Any questions? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. We have a request, which I need to ask Ms. Rawson about, a stipulation as to a payment schedule. Ms. Rawson, I'm a little confused in that the board orders people to do certain things and then fines to come into compliance. If they don't come into compliance, we impose the fines and liens. Nowhere do I remember or read that this board sets a payment schedule. That's the county's problem. The board just said, do it by this date or you're going to get fined. MS. RAWSON: I would agree with your interpretation of the Page 62 October 26, 2000 law. The -- it's fine if the county, after you have levied the fine, agrees to a payment plan. And so if you look in your packets and see what's been prepared by the county attorney, there's a stipulation. I don't have any problem at all with the stipulation, because that is between the respondent and the county how they're going to collect the fine that you've levied, you've imposed. And then, of course, if they don't pay it, they're going to be back here with an affidavit of noncompliance, and, you know, then you're going to deal with it at that point. And if they choose to accept the payments in a payment plan, you know, that's fine. I don't believe that it's necessary to have an order approving and adopting. I think it should be here, presented to you, of course, for informational purposes, and it would be my opinion that it's not necessary to do an order, or have your chairman sign it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. I don't think this board should get into -- in fact, I don't read into their, quote-unquote, charter of duties that we want to get involved in setting payment plans. I think our order shall impose fines, period. If the county wants to work out a payment plan, it's their money anyway, if and when they collect it. It has nothing to do with us. I just don't think the board should get into the financing issue, more or less. MS. ARNOLD: I agree, and I've since -- this item has been placed on your agenda, and I should have removed it -- spoken with Ellen Chadwell with the County Attorney's Office, and she concurs with that position. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So we appreciate the information, how's that? MS. ARNOLD: You're welcome. MR. PONTE: That's good. The affidavits of compliance? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, and those are just report items. We're just noting for the board that the Board of County Commissioners versus Ralph J. Williams Trust, case number 2000-28, is in compliance, and -- well, there needs to be a modification on the Holland one with reference to the date, and we'll make that change, and just so that you know that we're going to make that correction. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now, as for your request for Page 63 October 26, 2000 authorization on foreclosure? MS. ARNOLD: There's no need to do that unless he does not pay that reduced amount. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. We reduced his fines. The only thing that's left that hangs out as a lien is the -- MS. ARNOLD: Six hundred twenty-one. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Six hundred twenty-one dollars. What about the other gentleman? Surin and Robinson, what is that? MS. ARNOLD: That case is a -- MS. CRUZ: They're in compliance. MS. ARNOLD: They're in compliance, and I can't recall what the violation was, but they have not made any payments or any contact with us for paying that fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you're looking for this board to authorize the county to proceed with foreclosure -- is that what you're asking us to do? MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would recommend the board make a motion to permit the county attorney to proceed if foreclosure is warranted. MS. DUSEK: I so move. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. I notice our next meeting is on November 30th. ! assume that's when the room is available since it's Thanksgiving. MS. ARNOLD: If you want to bring that up for discussion, Maria has some dates as to what we want to do with November and December, and I think too that -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: -- there may be a conflict on the side of our counsel. MS. RAWSON: Well, November 30th is fine. We don't want to be here Thanksgiving Day, right? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. Let's start with the 30th. Is the room available that day? MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: How is that date for everyone on the board? Page 64 October 26, 2000 MS. RAWSON: Works for me. That's okay? Okay. We can live with the 30th, how's that? Now, have you got a December date you want to talk to us about? MS. CRUZ: Yes. For December we have -- the only two days that are available all day is the 18th, Monday, that's Monday the 18th, and Thursday the 28th. MR. LEHMANN: The 18th sounds a whole lot better than the 28th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Yeah, when you're getting close to New Year's -- how is the 18th for everyone? Ms. Rawson? Everybody on the board? aye. MS. TAYLOR: Okay. MR. PONTE: Fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let's do the 18th. MR. PONTE: November 30th and December 18th? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anything else from staff? MS. ARNOLD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' I would entertain a motion. MS. TAYLOR: So move. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:25 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, CHAIRPERSON TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI L. LEWIS, NOTARY Page 65 October 26, 2000 PUBLIC. Page 66