Loading...
CEB Minutes 01/25/2001 RJanuary 25, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY Naples, Florida, January 25, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the North Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: NOT PRESENT: Clifford Flegal Roberta Dusek Don W. Kincaid Kathryn M. Godfrey-Lint Darrin M. Phillips Peter Lehmann George Ponte Diane Taylor Rhona Saunders ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney, Code Enforcement Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Maria Cruz, Enforcement Official Page1 C__ODE ENFORCF. R~TTI' ~0~RD OF CO~,T,I~.R COUNTY, FLORIDA Loca:ion: January 29, 2001 ac 9:00 o'clock A.M. 3301 E. Tamial~i Tr., Naple;, Florida. Collier County Government Center, Administrative Bldg, 3r~ Floor NOTE: ANY PERSONWHO DECIDES TO APPEALA DECISION OF THIS BOARD WIr.t. leaFeD A RECOKD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSUR~ THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF TH~ PROC~EDZNGS IS HAD~, WHICH R~CORD INCLUDES THE TESTimONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCF~14~NT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS KEC0~tD. 12. APPROVAL OF A~ENDA A~PROV]~L OF I~TE.~ November 30, 2000 December 18, 2000 A. BCC rs. Robert E. Cadenheaa Et. Ux. B. BCC rs. Lynn V. Cadenhuad C. RCC rs. Lynn V. Cad~nhead D. BCC rs. Leonard Wisn~wski ~C rs. ~.;.C. ~en~als, ~nc. ~d ~e~ Nebus A. ~C rs. ~avelo, Inc. B. ~C vs. Fravelo, Inc. ~. ~C rs. Fravelo, Inc. D. ~C rs. Naples D~a~ Tone ~d Telephone E. ~C rs. BF~ K. Grueling F. ~C rs. Mar~ A. ~d sus~ A. ~a~on ~T~I~E Feb~a~ 22, 2001 CEB NO. 2000-046 CEB No. 2000-047 CRR No. 2000-048 CF.~ NO. 2000-049 CEB No, 2000-03S CEB NO. 2000-037 CER No. 2000-038 CEB No. 2000-039 CEB No. 2000-040 CEB No. 2000-026 CKB No. 2000-034 CEB No. 2000-02& January 25, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good morning. We'll call the meeting of the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County to order, please. Please make note that any person who decides 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 call, please. MS. CRUZ: Good morning. For the record, Maria Cruz, code enforcement investigator. Let the record show that Rhona Saunders indicated she was going to be absent, due to a schedule conflict. Roberta Dusek? MS. DUSEK: Here. MS. CRUZ: Clifford Flegal? MR. FLEGAL: Here. MS. CRUZ: Kathryn Godfrey-Lint. MS. GODFREY-LINT: Present. MS. CRUZ: Don Kincaid? MR. KINCAID.' Here. MS. CRUZ: Peter Lehmann? MR. LEHMANN: Here. MS. CRUZ: Darrin Phillips? MR. PHILLIPS: Here. MS. CRUZ: George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. CRUZ: Diane Taylor? MS. TAYLOR: Present. MS. CRUZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: With the absence of Ms. Saunders, Ms. Godfrey-Lint will participate this morning. Approval of our agenda. Are there any changes? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, there are. For the record, Michelle Arnold. We have not received the December 18th minutes yet, so we're taking that off the agenda. Additionally, Items A and C under public hearings are in compliance, so we're removing those. And we're recommending continuance of Item B, which is Page 2 January 25, 2001 Code Enforcement Board Case 2000-047. That one, the respondent has applied for a permit towards compliance, but they're not fully in compliance at this time. And we would recommend that we continue it to the next hearing. Additionally, we're removing Item G under reports. The petitioner called and requested that be removed. That was placed on there at their request. And staff wanted to add under comments the -- wanted to bring up the item of officer -- election of officers and clarification as to positions on that particular item. So comments, add election of officers. And that would be 8-A. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You withdrew the Item 9? two eights, so I assume -- MS. ARNOLD: Oh, okay, 9, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: really Item 107 MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other changes? Or we have And we have no Item 10, so Item 11 is Okay. And Item 12 is Item 11. Cool. MS. ARNOLD: No other changes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If not, I would entertain a motion to approve the agenda as changed. MS. DUSEK: So moved. MR. LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as changed. All those in agreement, say aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. from November 30th. Any changes? motion to approve. MR. PONTE: I so move. MS. TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to approve our minutes from November 30th. Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? Approval of our minutes If none, I would entertain a Page 3 January 25, 2001 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. We'll now open our public hearings. First case, 2000-049, BCC versus Leonard Wisniewski. I hope I'm saying that right. Wisniewski? If I'm not, I apologize. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, let the record show that Mr. Leonard Wisniewski, the respondent, is not present. The notice of hearing, along with the evidentiary packet, was forwarded to the respondent via certified mail, and there is a receipt for such notice being received. I'd like to request that the packet be admitted into evidence, marked Composite Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear a motion to entertain such? MS. DUSEK: So moved. MR. LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And we have a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MS. CRUZ: This is a violation of a Right-of-Way Ordinance No. 93-64, Section 4. The violation is the concrete apron across the right-of-way-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.: Excuse me. MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, thank you. MS. CRUZ: The violation exists at the Right of 411 Jones Street, Immokalee, Florida, and is more particularly described as Mainline, Block 5, Lots 33 and 34. The owner of record is Leonard Wisniewski. His address of record is 2630 Northeast 35th Avenue, Naples, Florida. The violation was first observed on December 29th, 1999. A notice of violation was provided to Mr. Wisniewski on May 4th, year 2000, requesting compliance by May 11th, year 2000. A last reinspection was conducted yesterday, resulting the violation remains at this time. At this time I'd like to call Investigator John Marsh, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. MARSH: For the record, I'm John Marsh, code enforcement investigator of Collier County. Good morning. Counselor. Page 4 January 25, 2001 My last inspection was yesterday, and along with the inspection, I did take photos, and the violation still remains. Numerous attempts have been made to talk to Mr. Wisniewski at his property on 35th Avenue Northeast. The gentleman doesn't seem to care what we do with his property. I've been told so in so many words that we, the county, can do whatever we want to do with it. He just doesn't want to do anything. We've had weed cases against this property which the county has had to abate. And we have another weed case starting against it now. He owns quite a bit of property in the county and a lot that he just does not take care of. That's where we are. MS. TAYLOR: May I ask you, did he give a reason for pouring this piece of cement here? MR. MARSH: I would assume at the time he just wanted to firm up the right-of-way piece there, you know, the crossing from the street to his property. There's never been a permit obtained for that. And you can see by the rough and crude finish of it, you know, it's not very good. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: About how big is this? MR. MARSH: The approach piece there, the concrete, sir? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That we're talking about. MR. MARSH: It's probably approximately 10 or 12 feet wide across the right-of-way. Well, probably about 12 foot square. MR. PONTE: Inspector Marsh, would you just tell me what your -- what's the reason or what would you guess the reason is for the bridge and road department to just have ignored all of the direction from code enforcement to remove this? MR. MARSH: I was asked by them who was going to pay for it. In other words, pay for their time, I guess, which being new on the job I assumed that it would just be worked out through the county. MR. PONTE: Is it unusual or is it such an insignificant piece that it doesn't -- didn't bother them? MR. MARSH: It's probably that it's an insignificant piece. It's not hampering anything at this time. The water does flow. It's just that there's -- it wasn't done properly, there's not a permit for it. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold. With the road and bridge department, they're -- like all of our Page 5 January 25, 2001 other departments, would have to have some sort of budget to identify -- to pay for the removal of the actual improvements to the right-of-way. And if this board finds this to be a violation and order the removal, we can, through our budget, pay for -- or reimburse the road and bridge department, if they're the ones that actually does the removal, or if we contract someone else to do it. But at this time, this is not something that's on the road and bridge department's budget or is it a priority for them. Because they've got other things that they've planned for the year to take care of. MS. DUSEK: How does this violate -- what is the violation? I mean, it's -- the water flow is fine and -- MR. MARSH: Well, a permit would have to be obtained to make sure that it's put in properly, the right size pipe, the right size fill, the correct size to go across the right-of-way. If everybody just did what they wanted, then therefore you wouldn't have -- you'd have 10-inch pipe, 12-inch pipe, six-inch pipe, and it wouldn't conform and therefore, you know, you would have obstructions. MS. DUSEK: So he just basically threw a lot of cement down there? There's no piping or anything? MR. MARSH: What he did, he put a pipe down there. I believe there's a photo showing the pipe. There's another photo somewhere. And you can just see the pipe there. And then he put cinder blocks along it, some dirt and stone fill. And then he put a thin layer of concrete over the top of it with a rough finish. MS. TAYLOR: Well, it obviously is a violation. We all can see that. And if he doesn't care, I can't see why we waste many words up here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL'. Any more questions for Inspector Marsh? Thank you, sir. MR. MARSH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL'- Michelle, to obtain a permit for this, what are we looking at, roughly, time limit? MS. ARNOLD: This would be through the planning department's engineering section, and I think that most of their things that they were -- when they -- the workshop to us said about a couple of months for review. But our recommendation, because Mr. -- the property owners Page 6 January 25, 2001 indicated to us they're not -- he has no intentions of doing anything, would be to -- for you to direct staff to go ahead and get the violation abated. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If the board were to find that there's a violation and one of our methods of solving it were to be to obtain a permit or remove the obstruction, if the board already knows it's going to take a couple of months to get the permit, we really can't shorten that time limit; is that correct? MS. RAWSON: That's correct. You have to give him time to get a permit. And then if he doesn't get a permit, one of the things you can do is have staff make arrangements to have it removed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: And then we can charge it back to the respondent. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But that stretches it out because we have to give him the proper time limit to get the permit. On the other hand, based on what the county has told us that this gentleman has told them -- MS. RAWSON: You could give him a shorter length of time to apply for a permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And if he fails to make the application, we can then order it removed? If he fails to make that application within that time limit? MS. RAWSON: I think so. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: What if he applies and doesn't get approved because his application isn't acceptable to the county? MS. ARNOLD: If it's in applied status, that would be compli -- if you give him a certain amount of time to apply and he submits it within that time and it's going through the review process, it would be in compliance with your order. MR. LEHMANN: That's my point. That would allow the respondent -- MS. ARNOLD: Additional time. MR. LEHMANN: -- a loophole to, say, get a bogus application into the county so that the time clock stops and I'm now in Page 7 January 25, 2001 compliance and the county can't touch me anymore. And it gets rejected, and we have nothing in our order to say what happens then. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. PONTE: I think it's a good point. And seeing this has been going on since December of 1999, but if we just do it the safest way, the most secure way, we ought to take that as the step and the time -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I first want to make sure we're allowed to do that. Ms. Rawson, can we -- let's see how I can phrase this. Based on -- again on what the county has told us that the respondent has said, since he's not here to tell us in his own words, that's the only information we have at this time, is it in our purview to accept that and rely upon that and just order the removal of the item? MS. RAWSON: I would give him time. I know that hearsay evidence is admissible, but I still would give him time to go through the permitting process. Then if he fails to do that, then remove it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The easiest way would I guess be to tie in, if we choose, give him so long to apply and at the same time do we have the wherewithal to -- I guess if an application is made to the county, can we order the county to move along on this process somehow? I don't want it to drop through the crack, like everybody seems to be scared of, that he makes an application and then it just stays this way for the next 100 years. MS. RAWSON: Well, if staff tells us that a person who applies for a permit today should, assuming everything goes all right, be able to get one within a certain period of time, what you could do is you could order him to apply within a certain period of time. Then if he never applies then you could move forward and obtain the permit within a certain length of time. So you could give him two dates. And then if either one of those dates -- in other words, if he never applies, then you can go ahead and remove it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And if it's not issued within a certain time period, we then can move forward -- MS. RAWSON: Correct. Page 8 January 25, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- on that basis. MS. RAWSON: I think you can do that. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, I think it's pretty simple. MS. ARNOLD: The section that we cited the respondent under was Section 5, which says removal of offending material -- or, I'm sorry, under -- the ordinance that we cited him under has Section 5 where it goes on to kind of give a remedy for the removal. And that's removal of offending material. Section 5, offending material in public is a public nuisance and subject to the removal by Collier County as follows. And it gives specifications as -- or directions as to how we can correct that particular violation. It says upon becoming aware of the presence of offending material, Collier County shall attempt to notify any reasonable person by certified mail, receipt requested, or other actual notice of the obligation to remove the offending material no later than 30 days of receipt of such notice. After expiration of that 30-day grace period, Collier County may cause, and then remaining -- may cause any remaining offending material to be removed and be disposed of in a reasonable manner, at the expense of the reasonable person or persons. So in that ordinance it's providing us a 30-day grace period for notice of the offending material, and then after that 30-day grace period, giving us the authority to remove that offending material. MR. LEHMANN: And Section D of the code specifies the fact that the county has the right then to go and recover expenses incurred. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MS. TAYLOR: And what if he sold the property by then? Because it's for sale. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It would run with the property. MS. RAWSON: It certainly does. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And the new owner would be under the same constraints. MR. LEHMANN: Right. MS. TAYLOR: Well, he's not going to do anything. We all know that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would -- let's first do this, let's first find that there in fact is a violation. MS. DUSEK: Before we do that, maybe I'm Page 9 January 25, 2001 misunderstanding. You talked about Section 5, but in the statement of violation, all I see is four. MS. ARNOLD: We cited them -- that's the section that would state that they're in violation of the ordinance. And Section 5 gives a remedy for correcting when a violation is found. So we wouldn't cite them under the section that gives the remedy, we cite them under the section that they would be violating. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But I'll get to that after we find a violation. Let's first find a fact that there is a violation. Do I hear such a motion? MS. DUSEK: I'd like to make a motion that in the case of the Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Leonard Wisniewski, in Case 2000-049, that a violation does exist, and that violation is of Section 4 of Ordinance 93-64, the Collier County Right-of-Way Ordinance. The description of the violation, a concrete apron across right-of-way. MR. LEHMANN: I would second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.: Okay, we have a motion and a second that there in fact is a violation. Do we have any comments? All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Next, order of the board. I would make one comment, that Section 5 that Michelle is talking about does in fact give the county the right to do this, and they could do this without coming to this board, if I read this section right. So that really should have no bearing on what this board does. This item has been a problem since December 28th of '99, so the county's had 13 months to solve the problem and they've chose not to solve it under that Section 5. So I think we should give him a short amount of time to apply for a permit, take Ms. Rawson's recommendation, and also give a certain amount of time to attain the permit. And if neither one of those, any fine should be tied to those two dates. I throw that out for your consideration. MS. DUSEK: So for obtaining a permit, is five days a reasonable time, instead of 107 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Say apply for the permit. MS. DUSEK: Yeah. Page 10 January 25, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Yeah, I think to fill out the permit form, if he can't do that within five days, I'd find a problem with that personally. MR. LEHMANN: What's involved in filling out the permit application? Are any documents submitted with the application? MS. ARNOLD: With this particular permit I would imagine that they would have to provide some drawings with -- you know, indicating that it's meeting county specs in terms of the engineering and the piping and those types of things. MR. LEHMANN: It's not an express permit? MS. ARNOLD: I don't believe so. MR. LEHMANN: So my comment to my colleagues is I think five days might be a little bit restrictive. If we're including some sort of drawings, I would recommend maybe 10 working days. And again, if you just say 10 days, we run into weekends and all that. MR. PONTE: Excuse me, I just have to ask a question because don't understand. Who is to prepare the drawings? Who -- the respondent has said he's not interested in doing anything. I believe that. Now, if we're talking about drawings, we're talking about this little patch of 12-foot concrete, and we seem to be getting very, very complicated. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, but you have to give him the opportunity. You just can't take that away from him. MR. PONTE: Then why can't we just take staff's original recommendation and say that's it, and do just exactly what staff has suggested. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: First of all, staff didn't even have to come here. In the code, they could have removed this without us. They chose to bring this forward. Now what I want the board to understand is let's not us do anything that would be in violation of his rights. So we have to give him some kind of time. We just can't arbitrarily say get it done tomorrow or we're going to remove it. So if it's going to take 10 days to submit for a permit, give him the option. If he chooses not to, that's just 10 more days. We've waited 13 months. Ten more days isn't going to kill anybody. This hasn't been that drastic a problem or the county would have resolved it before bringing it here. MS. ARNOLD: I'd like to speak to that, if I may. You're Page 11 January 25, 2001 absolutely right, we could have resolved this problem beforehand. This -- because of the newness of the investigator, he was not aware that that was something we could do. It slipped through the crack. We provided notice to the respondent of this hearing, and I decided to keep it on the agenda because of that fact. We do have the ability to give him 30 days notice, which we well -- we have done. And this board has the same ability to give the 30-day notice and then direct to us remove it. MS. DUSEK: And following along with Mr. Ponte's comment about who does the drawings, does an engineer have to do that, or can he himself do those drawings? MS. ARNOLD: I'm not sure if the county would require it to be an engineered drawing. I have a feeling it would have to be. MR. LEHMANN: Simply because it's in the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would think so. Because you're dealing with a pipe which somebody's going to drive over and it's kind of structural. Because if you did something less, you could see somebody driving over that and the whole thing collapse. So I would suspect it's probably some type of engineered drawings. MS. ARNOLD: Right. And there's no approved use on this property. It's a vacant lot. So the Ilkeli -- I mean, for him to get a permit for right-of-way access to no use is probably not likely. I mean, to spend the funds to hire an engineer and draw up the plans and those types of things, he probably wouldn't want to do that. So the remedy for this particular one would probably be to remove it, because it does not meet county codes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think the board needs to -- again, let's keep the respondent's rights in consideration also. Give him a time limit to apply. I don't think he's going to apply either, but let's give him the time limit. If he doesn't, then we can order the county to, you know, remove it. At the same time, if he did apply, I think we should again put a date in there to obtain the permit so that he doesn't just leave it lay there forever. And the county has said it would take "X" months. I think those probably should be two dates. Give him 10 working days to apply, if he doesn't, it's a fine. And at that time the county can remove it. The second being if he does apply, he must obtain in "X" number of months, based on the county's recommendation. If he doesn't get it within that time limit, again, he's fined per day and the county can remove it. Page 12 January 25, 2001 So I think these are just short time periods, based on what's already transpired. In reality, I think that's what the board should do to protect their position based on protecting the respondent's rights. And we will solve the problem, it's just going to take possibly another couple of weeks. MS. TAYLOR: Unless he sells the property. Then there's going to be a big confab over that. Then they'll have to come back before the board. I can just see all this in the future. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But our order will be filed in court, so it will be against the property. So when he buys the property, the new property owner is going to have to do it, period. He's going to have to comply. It will run with the property. So it's just like anything else, if there's a lien on your property and you go to buy it, somebody new goes to buy it, they have to satisfy the lien before they can get any kind of title. MS. DUSEK: Ms. Rawson, I have a question. Since the staff has the ability, with or without us under Section 5 to remove this, the fact that we have now cited him for a violation, does that in any way change the staff going out there? MS. RAWSON: No. MS. DUSEK: Whether we say get a permit or not get a permit? I mean, do we even have to even follow through with this process? MS. RAWSON: Well, since it's on the agenda, since he was noticed about the hearing, since he's failed to appear, you need to go ahead and make findings of facts and some remedy. But in answer to your question, they would -- you can say get a permit within 30 days, because they still have the same rights to remove it under Section 5. But since it's on our agenda and he was noticed to be here, you probably need to go through with your findings of fact and so forth. MR. LEHMANN: Well, I would suggest to the board just to -- in a matter to expedite this, if we do set two separate time limits. I think we should set a time limit of 10 workings days to obtain a permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: To apply. MR. LEHMANN: To -- yes, I'm sorry, for the application of the permit. And set a second date of 90 days for either full compliance with permit requirements or removal. And if it is not Page 13 January 25, 2001 removed within 90 days, the county has the right to remove that, to abate the violation by removing it and assessing all costs of the violation and removal plus any operational costs back to the owner. I think that preserves the county's right to do things in 30 days, if they choose. We don't have to sit here and debate this again and it shouldn't ever come up again after 90 days. MR. PONTE: I hope that's a motion, because I'll second it. MR. LEHMANN: Well, it wasn't, but I shall certainly put it in as a motion, yes. I would so move that we do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, does everybody understand what Mr. Lehmann -- his motion? Okay. MS. DUSEK: I'd like to hear you repeat it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I knew you were going to say that. MR. LEHMANN: Can I give you a synopsis? Basically the motion is that we allow the respondent 10 working days to apply for a permit. The second option, or the second date is within 90 days the respondent has either complied with the permit requirements and constructed this apron in accordance with the governing authorities, or has removed it, period. And if the respondent does not remove it or comply within 90 days, then the county immediately can thereafter abate the violation by removing it themselves and assessing all costs of the violation removal, plus any operational costs against the subject property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Are you -- if he doesn't do either one of these, are you going to apply a fine to any of these dates? MR. LEHMANN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: And just because of the seriousness of this violation, I would assess a fine of $25 a day. And that's obviously open for the board's discussion. But that fine would initiate at the 11th day, if an application for a permit has not been received, or at the 91st day. So if he does not apply for a permit, he's going to pay a fine of $25 thereafter until the 90 days expires, at which case we'll abate it. I think we're giving this whole thing too much thought and too much effort. MR. PONTE: I agree with you. Page 14 January 25, 2001 MR. LEHMANN: This respondent obviously doesn't care what we do with the property. Otherwise, he'd be here. I think we just need to preserve his rights and take care of the problem, make it go away. MR. PONTE: I agree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, I'm with you so far. Just to make sure everybody's clear, in addition to the $25, you are saying that if he fails to comply with either of these dates, the county has the right to remove -- you know, to abate, correct -- MR. PONTE: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- as part of your motion? MR. LEHMANN: If he does not comply with the 90-day deadline, not the 10-day deadline. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, if he doesn't apply, then it's -- MR. LEHMANN: I take that back. That's right, if he does not apply with the application, he's obviously demonstrated no intent do so. So why should we wait the 90 days? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what I wanted to get in there. MR. LEHMANN: I would amend my motion to reflect that. MS. DUSEK: So that the $25 would only kick in if he applies; is that right? Because if he doesn't apply, then the county goes out and abates. That's the way I'm -- MR. LEHMANN: Correct. MS. DUSEK: -- hearing it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And at the time the county abates, the respondent is to pay the cost for the abatement. MR. LEHMANN: Plus any optional costs we may have in prosecuting the case or handling the indicates. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, I just wanted to make sure everything was on the table so everybody understood. Ms. Rawson, do you understand our motion? MS. RAWSON: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I have a second for the motion? MR. PONTE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. And I will not repeat the motion. Are there any further questions? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Page 15 January 25, 2001 That concludes the public hearings. Next is request for imposition of fines. MS. CRUZ: This is the request for imposition of fines of BCC versus I.E.C. Rentals, Inc. and Ivy Jean Nebus. This case was brought before the board on October 26th for violation of storage of wood frame residential type structures on iron skids on unimproved industrial lot without first having obtained a Collier County site development plan, and storage of demolished construction materials and commercial equipment on the same unimproved site. The board issued a findings of fact, conclusions of law and order, finding the respondent in violation and ordered the respondent to remove any and all storage structures, construction equipment and construction debris from premises to the site -- to a site, and by ceasing and desisting any and all storage and processing uses of the industrial lot. We have an affidavit of noncompliance reflecting that all of the -- the order of the board was corrected with the exception of one stored structure remained at the subject property as of -- the last day was January 19th, 2001. We -- staff has prepared the affidavit of compliance and is requesting an imposition of fines of $5,750 for the period of December 27th through January 19th, year 2001, at a rate of $250, plus $776.42 for the operational costs. MS. ARNOLD: I'd like to mention for the board that we do have a representative for the property owner here. I don't know if that person wants to speak to that issue. CHAIRMAN FI. EGAL: Has the violation been abated? MS. ARNOLD: As of this morning, yes. MR. KINCAID: Did you say it was abated? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it has been. What's before you is for the period between December 27th and January 19th. There were multiple violations, all with the exception of the structure had been abated within that time period. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think -- Ms. Rawson, I'm trying to think ahead, even though the gentleman may be here. We first must impose a fine before anybody really can come and ask us for permission to reduce it or remove it. Would that not be correct? We don't impose it, then there's nothing to remove. Page 16 January 25, 2001 MS. RAWSON: That's true. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So everybody understands, from a paperwork process, I think we need to impose the fine and then the violator still has the right to come before us and ask us to reduce it or waive it totally. But first we must impose it. You're not on the record, sir, so -- is that not proper, Ms. Rawson, we first must impose it? MS. RAWSON: Well, I think what he is -- I don't want to speak for him, but I think what he's maybe requesting is that you not impose a fine. Maybe he's asking to be heard on your not voting to impose a fine rather than reducing it or abating it. And I suppose he can do that. MR. LEHMANN: Do we compromise the county's position or the respondent's position with their rights in either way? MS. RAWSON: Neither way. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Pleasure of the board? Respondent is -- the violator is here and he would like to speak to us. What's the pleasure of the board? MR. LEHMANN: I would suggest that we hear the respondent as far as what's happening. Michelle, do I understand correctly the violation has been abated as of what day, the 19th or today or when? MS. ARNOLD: The violation -- the remaining violation, which is the structure, has been abated as of this morning when we went out there. We went -- I believe we went there yesterday or earlier this week to -- and they were in the process of removing the structure. But we verified this morning that the structure is actually gone. MR. LEHMANN: So that the fines that we see here that we're looking at is not the total picture yet. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. LEHMANN: This is just a particular window of time -- MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: --we're looking at. MR. PONTE: And just one other thing, Michelle, another point of information, is the Robert Cadenhead mentioned in many of the cases we were to have heard this morning the same Robert Cadenhead who is involved in the I.E.C. Rental case? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it is. MR. PONTE: Thank you. Page 17 January 25, 2001 MR. PHILLIPS: Ms. Rawson, in the interest of consistency, is it -- the board's practice in the past has been -- our position has been that the imposition of fines is not a public hearing whereby the respondent has a right to speak. And I'm just trying to remember back on some of the previous board meetings, and seems to me that the board has taken that position that at this time where fines are being impo. sed is not a so-called public hearing. MS. RAWSON: It's not a public hearing, but we've always allowed respondents, when they come to address the board, minimally, and it's not a hearing, but we've -- I don't think we've ever denied anybody that was here the right to speak to the board. MS. DUSEK: Another question, Ms. Rawson. If we go ahead and impose the fine, today would not be the day for him to ask for a reduction. Would he not have to be put back on the agenda? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. MS. RAWSON: That's true. Because it's not set on today's agenda for motion for reduction of fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Today is strictly the administrative function under the statute for imposing a fine. MS. DUSEK: Another question. If he does want to speak to us in reference to not even imposing the fine, he's not on the agenda to do that, can we do it? MS. RAWSON: Well, what's on the agenda is the request for imposition of fines by the county. And I think he got a notice, so that's why he's here. And it wouldn't -- it's at the pleasure of the board, because it's not a public hearing, but it's at the pleasure of the board if you wish for him to address you before you vote on whether to impose fines. MR. PONTE: I think if he was noticed, then we must hear him. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, he was noticed that this would take place. He wasn't ordered to appear or anything. MR. LEHMANN: Again, as Jean said, it's really at the pleasure of the board, because this is an administrative hearing, it's not a public hearing. The board does not have the responsibility to hear respondents during these administrative hearings. We can, simply because we're not following the true -- Page 18 January 25, 2001 we're not governed under the strict sense of a court, in essence. MR. PONTE: Just refresh my memory, didn't we travel this trail once before and then find ourselves -- I've forgotten the case -- and find ourselves then in a bit of a sticky mess, actually? MS. GODFREY-LINT: Yes. MR. PONTE: And if that's the case, then let's not do it again. I'm just very vague on what case and when it was, but seems we've done it before. MR. LEHMANN: This is why I suggested the respondent is here, the board has the option to hear the respondent, if it so chooses. It does not have to hear the respondent. But I think the respondent is here, we should allow him a short brief moment to at least address the board and then air his concerns. Bearing in mind that nothing that the respondent says has to alter the decision of the board as far as the fine imposition. We're here now to impose a fine, as an administrative duty. But I think the respondent is here and I think it's only courteous and proper to allow the respondent to at least address this very shortly, but it should be brief. MS. TAYLOR: I have a question, Michelle. How long was this in violation? MS. ARNOLD: Let's see if we have that in here. MR. PONTE: I think it goes back to September of '99. MS. ARNOLD: I think it has been in violation for some time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There's one thing the board needs to understand, because I think we're tending to get somewhere we shouldn't be: An imposition of fines is that we gave an order, it wasn't complied with, and a fine started. And at "X" period, the county comes before the board and says we want to impose fines for this period. And that's what the statute says we should do. And we do that periodically. Now, the item has still not been abated. So whatever someone would come before us to say prior to the abatement can have absolutely and should have absolutely no effect on imposing a fine which our order said was going to be done until you abate the violation. You need to keep that in mind. So if the gentleman comes up and you permit him to speak to you, whatever he says should not in any way influence imposing a fine that is due because the order of this board has not been complied with as it was issued. You need to keep that Page 19 January 25, 2001 in mind. I think we tend to get -- go the other way, that we listen, we say okay, maybe we shouldn't do that. That's really not what we do. The order said do something by a certain date or you're going to get fined. That hasn't happened. The county's come before us and said we want to impose this fine because there is no noncompliance, period. MS. RAWSON: If I could just read to you from Florida Statute 162.09, the pertinent section. If a finding of a violation has been made as provided in this part, a hearing shall not be necessary for issuance of the order imposing the fine. If -- well, then they talk about irreparable and irreversible. But that sentence is important. A hearing shall not be necessary for issuance of the order imposing the fine. Nevertheless, it's been the practice of this board to notify the respondent when you're having this administrative hearing. And often they appear before you. And whether or not you want to hear from the respondent is at the pleasure of the board. MR. LEHMANN: And I -- MR. PONTE: I think that in order to make certain that the board is not influenced and that the letter of the law is complied with, that we should go ahead with the fining procedure first and that way we're not in any way going to be influenced by whatever the respondent has to say. MR. LEHMANN: Well, I think Cliff really said what I was trying to say much more succinctly. I was not trying to infer that the board should hear. I said we have that option. But bear in mind again this is an administrative hearing, and it should not bear on our decision. So maybe George, your recommendation would be best is that we go ahead and just find an imposition of fines and then we can at a later date hear a rehearing for a -- or excuse me, a motion to reduce the fines or something. But oftentimes we do -- as Jean said, we do have respondents coming to us, simply because we notify them and they're concerned about -- MS. TAYLOR: Well, isn't it amazing that when it comes right down to the nitty-gritty, here they are. But before that, nothing, nothing is done. And then all of a sudden they're here. MR. LEHMANN: I agree. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, when the notice is sent out, does it Page 20 January 25, 2001 specify that this is an administrative procedure and that they will not be heard? MS. ARNOLD: The notice has been modified to say that it's just a courtesy notice, and it's not a mandatory -- all of our other notices that -- for our public hearing says that it's a mandatory -- or you're requested to appear. Whereas, this notice does not say that. It's just informing the respondent that we're going to be imposing fines. MS. RAWSON: The notice is in your packet. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. Okay, we need a -- what's the order of the board, the pleasure? Do we proceed with the affidavit of noncompliance imposing the fine, or would you rather hear from the respondent, since he is present, first? MR. PONTE: Proceed. MS. TAYLOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would entertain a motion to impose the fines. MR. PONTE: I'll second. MR. LEHMANN: I'll make the motion then. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion by Mr. Lehmann and a second by Mr. Ponte. MR. LEHMANN: You did that to me twice, George. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further question? All those in favor of the motion imposing the fine just submitted by the county, signify by saying aye. Opposed? MR. KINCAID.' Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, 6-1. MR. LEHMANN: It is very important for me as a member of the board that respondents understand what we're doing in this aspect. And part of the problem may be in the notices that the respondents receive. This really is an administrative task and it is not a hearing, per se. We're not rehearing the case. But we have to do certain administrative duties as a board, and this is one of them. My concern is that respondents often do come and do not understand what we are doing in this phase of a particular case, and view it as if we are not allowing them to be heard or we are Page 21 January 25, 2001 trying to trample over their rights. That is not the intent of what's happening. The intent of what's happening is that we have already had the hearing, we have already had a finding and an order of the board. And as subsequent action to that, as an administrative action, we have to take certain action such as this. The respondent always reserves the right to request a motion for a reduction in fines, if something has happened, but this is not the time and the place. And my concern is that the respondents do not quite understand that, and that's why I'm speaking to you on that issue. And possibly the way that we can improve that would be to possibly reword how that notice of hearing is so that the respondents have a better understanding of why we're having this particular administrative hearing. And the fact that you may not have the opportunity to speak. The board, although it's not governed by the strict sense of how normal boards operate, we do have leeway. It is often not the board's position to allow the respondent to speak because it is an administrative task, and we're not doing a rehearing, and it's kind of a waste of time because we've already heard the case. But my concern is always with the respondent. It is important for me that you understand what we're doing, and the fact that we're not trying to just roll right over you. You had certain opportunities to be heard before the board. Those have transpired, we're now taking an administrative task. And there are other things that you as a respondent can do and your rights are still protected under those guidelines. But it's important that the respondents understand that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: Did I pontificate again? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, but that's okay. MR. LEHMANN: I apologize. MR. CADENHEAD: How do we go about getting -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You'll have to get with the county and asked to be put on the agenda. No old business. Reports. Filing affidavits of compliance. MS. ARNOLD: We have several items. First one is Board of Page 22 January 25, 2001 County Commissioners -- or actually the first three are all the same respondents, Board of County Commissioners versus Fravelo, Inc. These were the phone cases. All three, 2000-037, 38 and 39 were in compliance, as well as Item D, Board of County Commissioners versus Naples Dial Tone and Telephone, 2000-04, all of which have come into compliance with -- into compliance with the board's order. The fifth one, Item E, Board of County Commissioners versus Brian K. Greeling, was a case where they did improvements to the property without obtaining permits. The permits were obtained in accordance with the order of the board. And on all five items, we're asking for filing of affidavit of compliance and release of order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have five affidavits being filed. MS. ARNOLD: I don't believe on these a motion's required. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, you don't. It's just general information. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: Item F is a filing of satisfaction of lien or fine. This one is Board of County Commissioners versus Mark A. and Susan A. Harmon. The board imposed fines for the amount of -- well, actually, we imposed fines, but the total amount at the time of abatement came up to $1,341.58. Is that correct? And the fine was paid by the respondent. And we're filing a satisfaction of lien. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: This particular document, we do have the original. It requires the chairman's signature. So if we could get that before we leave. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. Okay, that concludes reports. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now we're down to comments. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. The -- I wanted to bring up this particular item. I got an inquiry from one of the board members as to whether or not the ordinance requires us to select another chairman. And clarification was, is it possible to have the same chairman over and over again. And I think we discussed that last Page 23 January 25, 2001 year. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we changed the rules. MR. PONTE: I think we changed it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The rules specify that -- MS. ARNOLD: It's just an annual process -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's an annual. MS. ARNOLD: -- and it doesn't matter if -- okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. Whoever receives the most votes. Good democratic way. MS. RAWSON: The rules and regulations on Article 4 on election of officers say nomination of the chair and vice chair shall be made at the annual meeting in March. This is January. So I'm just mentioning that we need to do that in March. But it did say that you can succeed yourself. And I can't remember exactly where we put that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, it's in Section 2. It says which term is not limited to one year. So that is what was recommended to change it. And everybody will be here in March. George, you will be back. MR. PONTE: I will be back. MS. ARNOLD: As well, I just wanted to note for the board that the Board of County Commissioners this past Tuesday reappointed both Roberta Dusek and Cliff Flegal to the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're in trouble, Bobbi. MS. TAYLOR: I have a question about the chair and vice chair, both of whom shall be permanent members. What does that mean, permanent members? Does that mean forever?. MS. ARNOLD: No, as opposed to alternates. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, that means you can't appoint alternates. MS. TAYLOR: Oh, I thought they were going to be on here forever. Even after death. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, that's so that we can't elect any alternates to those two positions. MS. ARNOLD: So you thought it was as opposed to a permanent record the principal keeps? MS. DUSEK: I'd like to bring up something in reference to this imposition of fines that we had today. I'd like to see some rewording of the notice that goes out. MS. RAWSON: Ms. Dusek, I just wrote Michelle a note. Page 24 January 25, 2001 MS. DUSEK: Did you? MS. RAWSON: And here's my suggestion: If you add one sentence to the last of the first paragraph, maybe in bold print that says the following, this is an administrative hearing; not an evidentiary hearing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I think the opening sentence may be a little misleading, if you look at it. MR. PONTE: How about deleting the use of the word hearing. Because it sounds like a hearing, and just call it a procedure, so it's not a hearing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The first sentence of the notice says that there's a public hearing. MS. RAWSON: Well, it is a public hearing in that the public's invited. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. But I think they're being misled, probably, that since they got the letter, they're going to come here and -- MR. PONTE: Be heard. MR. LEHMANN: Be heard. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- they're going to be allowed to be heard. So there might be another way to do that without being too quote, unquote, legalese about it. Remember, we're dealing with the general public and let's not overpower them with some fancy words. MS. DUSEK: Well, I think more of a definition. When you say public hearing and then in parenthesis perhaps in layman's terms explain what that is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, everything is open to the public because of the Sunshine Law. It's just that we have in our agenda quote, unquote a true public hearing section where we actually do a public hearing, as the County Commissioners do, and then they close that section and they get on with the normal course of business and no one's allowed to stand up and speak. MS. RAWSON: You know, what's interesting about this, if you look at 116.209, I read you one sentence that it's not necessary to have a hearing. But the next sentence says, if after due notice and hearing a Code Enforcement Board finds a violation to be irreparable or irreversible in nature, it may order the violator to pay a fine as specified in paragraph 2-A. And that goes on to say can't be more than 250 a day. So -- Page 25 January 25, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I always interpreted that to relate to the original hearing where we were finding a fact. In other words, I think there's a sentence in there that's kind of out of place. And I don't know who wrote the statute, but that's the way I looked at it. MS. ARNOLD: We can look at the notice again and possibly put it as instead of public hearing, notice of public hearing, put it as notice of administrative hearing. MS. RAWSON-' We can call it an administrative hearing, because in fact it is. MS. DUSEK: I think that is much better, because if I as a lay person were getting this, I would think it was an opportunity for the public to speak. MR. PONTE: Why can't we say administrative proceeding? MS. ARNOLD: Well, it's a hearing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What does it call it in the statute, Jean? MS. RAWSON: Well, that second sentence calls it a hearing. And in fact it is a hearing, even though evidence -- you have hearings when evidence is heard and hearings when evidence is not heard. You are in fact considering evidence from the county, you are just not considering evidence from the respondent. And it is open to the public. So in fact it is a hearing, though not an evidentiary hearing. The only correlation I can give you is in the court system, we have hearings and we have evidentiary hearings. And when we have hearings, only the attorneys speak to the judge, and they don't let people testify. If we have evidentiary hearings, we have to notice that they are evidentiary hearings. If you don't do that, nobody gets to testify. And so I liken that -- this hearing to the hearing where we only get a report from the county whether or not they've complied, and we don't hear from the respondent. And so it's not an evidentiary hearing. So we can reword this to make that clearer. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Because that's what it really should be. We need to keep to it the administrative function of imposing the fine. Because until we impose the fine and get the paper filed in court, our lien position for the county doesn't start. MS. DUSEK: I understand all that. I'm just thinking of the Page 26 January 25, 2001 person out there, the respondent, who -- it's just not clear. And I think Michelle was on the right track in rewording it, and maybe just say with that rewording it is open to the public. MR. LEHMANN: My concern primarily is Cliff is right, this is an administrative hearing. MS. DUSEK: We know that. But they don't. MR. LEHMANN: We know that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, they don't, unfortunately. MS. RAWSON: Well, in fact, the notice has been revised once. Because it used to be like the other ones that said -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, the order. MS. RAWSON: -- for you to be here. So we took that part out. But I think we can work on it some more. MR. LEHMANN: Well, I certainly don't mind the notice advising the respondents that we are having this administrative proceeding. And they may want to attend it just to see what's happening, as opposed to getting a letter in the mail. But I think it's important that they understand that it is just an administrative task, that they will not have the right to speak. It may be over very quickly. And I think we're doing a poor job in expressing that to the respondent, so that the respondent gets a feeling is if we're just rolling over them and abusing the rights. And that's not what's happening and that's what concerns me. And we as a board, when the respondent is there, you constantly feel just to avoid that perception, you often are -- you often feel like you should allow the person just to speak, even though when he speaks, it really has nothing to do with the hearing or the administrative task. So that's -- maybe just rewording that hearing note properly would alleviate that problem across the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson, I have a different type of question -- MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- in this same venue. Fines. I am of the opinion, and we've been doing it, so hopefully it's correct, it's been done for years, the board has the right/authority to reduce fines, does it not? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I say that because I assume everybody got a copy of the letter from the assistant county Page 27 January 25, 2001 attorney on the subject. And I personally am not for stopping the process of reducing fines while somebody comes up with a procedure. I think we've been doing it, I won't say correctly, but to the best of our ability, hearing information and so on, so forth. If somebody comes up with something they'd like to present to us, that would be great, but I don't think we should stop that process. The letter was dated in December. I just got it on the 22rid of January at 12:30. It was dated December 19th, so it took a month to get to me, for some reason. MR. PONTE: Is there a paragraph or a page that you're referencing so I can see what you're saying about that letter? Where does it say that exactly? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's see what section she had in there. I have to reread it. MR. PONTE: I mean, I just wondered if she highlighted it so I could find it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'll find it, no problem. Second page, next to the last paragraph. Starts with the word since. MR. PONTE: Yeah, okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Says it is my recommendation, Michelle and this board, that no motions to reduce fines be scheduled prior to these rules being adopted. We're working on our own rules, in our own mind, hearing what we think, and I think we should proceed. If the county would like to present something to us, we will be glad to review it. MS. RAWSON: Just for your information, 162.09(B), simply says that -- oh, it's (C). An enforcement board may reduce a fine imposed pursuant to this section. But that's it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Yeah, so I would recommend to the board that if such gets put on the agenda, we proceed. Again, if the county would like to submit something to us to review, the board will be happy to review it. Next meeting is February 22nd. I know already that George won't be here. He's going on another one of his famous trips. I notice he didn't invite us to go along. Anything else? If not, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. MS. DUSEK: I so move. MR. LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All Page 28 January 25, 2001 those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Thank you very much. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:10 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, RPR Page 29