Loading...
CEB Minutes 02/22/2001 RFebruary 22, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD COLLIER COUNTY Naples, Florida, February 22, 2001 Met this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: CLIFFORD FLEGAL DON W. KINCAID DARRIN M. PHILLIPS DIANE TAYLOR ROBERTA DUSEK PETER LEHMANN RHONA E. SAUNDERS KATHRYN M. GODFREY ALSO PRESENT: JEAN RAWSON, Attorney to the Board MARIA E. CRUZ, Code Enforcement Official MICHELLE ARNOLD, Code Enforcement Director Page 1 *,.*u~tuz*qxx~ v~vl~l.,ur~ll:,l~4.4__' q tULERIt O!*' ISRD q~]OO1 CODE k~ORCEMENT BOARD OF CO%LIaR ¢0UNTY, F~ORIDA Date: Location: February 22, 2001 at 9;00 o'clock A.M. 3301 E. Tamia~i Tr-, Naples, Florida, Collier County Government Center. Administrative Bldg0 3rd Floor NOTE: ANY PERSON W~O 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 PROCEZDINGS IS MADE, ~{ICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH TNE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. N-~IT~ER COLLIER COUNTY NOR TNE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SF~J~L BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS R~CORD. 7. 8. 9. ~PRoV~ OF ~SENDa ~mPEOVAL OF .MINUTFS December 18, 2000 January 25, 2001 P~LIC ~%RINGS A. BCC vS. Karen R. Ardner B. BCC vs. Frederick & Susan Thurston C. BCC vs. Dean M. Blocker and Kenneth J. Blocker, Jr. D- BCC vs. Dean M. Blocker and Kenneth J, Blocker, Jr. E. BCC us. The Florida Conference of the Free Methodist Church & W.A.~.E. Conference of the Free Methodist Church of North America F. BCC vS. Calixto & ~renda Lazo GCC vs. I.E,C. Rentals, Inc. and Ivy Jean Nebus R~PORTS COMMENTS ~.XT HEFTING DATE March 22, 2001 CEB NO. 2001-001 CEB No. 2001-002 CEB No. 2001-003 CEB No. 2001-004 CEB NO. 200~-005 CB~ No. 2001-006 CEB No. 2000-035 10. .~DJOURN February 22, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We will call the Code Enforcement Board to order. 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. Roll call, please. MS. CRUZ: Good morning. For the record, Maria Cruz, Code Enforcement Investigator. Just let the record show that Mr. Ponte requested for an excused absence for the February meeting. Roberta Dusek? COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Here. MS. CRUZ: Clifford Flegal. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Here. MS. CRUZ: Kathryn Godfrey Lent. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Present. MS. CRUZ: Don Kincaid. COMMISSIONER KINCAID: Here. MS. CRUZ: Peter Lehmann. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Here. MS. CRUZ: Darrin Phillips. COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS: Here. MS. CRUZ: Rhona Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Here. MS. CRUZ: Diane Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Present. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since Mr. Ponte is a regular member and he is absent, our first alternate, Miss Kathryn Lent, will participate in the proceedings this morning. Approval of our agenda. Are there any changes, additions deletions? MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director. I distributed a report to you all that has some information on satisfactions and the foreclosures and the like. They're just for Page 2 February 22, 2001 informational purposes. I just wanted to add it to the record that we are -- that you were provided that information. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Anything else? If not, I would entertain a motion to approve the agenda. COMMISSIONER DUSEK.' So moved. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Be approved. Thank you. Approval of our minutes. We have two sets; a set from the December 18th meeting, and I'll do that one first. Are there any corrections to that? If none, I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes submitted. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: So moved. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes from December 18th. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Our minutes from our January 25th meeting, any changes, corrections? If not, I would entertain a motion to approve them as submitted. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: So moved. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those all in favor, signify by saying aye. Thank you. We will now open our public hearings. The first case CEB Number 2001-001. MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. The respondent in this case is Karen R. Ardner. A packet -- a composite exhibit packet was provided to the respondent as well as to the board and to the Clerk of Board. I'd like to request that this packet be admitted into evidence at this time as marked Composite Exhibit A, and let the record show that Mr. -- Mrs. Ardner is not present. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Page 3 February 22, 2001 MS. CRUZ: I'm sorry. Let the record show that Mr. Abbott is present on behalf of the respondent. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Do you know if she received this packet, sir?. MR. ABBOTT: Yes, sir, I have knowledge that she received it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Do you have any objection to its being entered? MR. ABBOTT: I wouldn't think so. No, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBOTT: I was hired to straighten the problem out. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you very much. I would entertain a motion to accept the -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So moved. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the county's exhibit. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. CRUZ: The alleged violation being brought before this board is a conversion of a utility storage area into a living area without first obtaining all the Collier County building permits. This is a violation of Ordinance Number 91-102, the Land Development Code, Section 2.7.6, Paragraph 1. The violation exists at 6 Watercolor Way. And it was more particularly described as Four Fountains Condos in Naples, Florida, Four Fountains Group I Condo, Apartment Number 6. The owner of record is Karen R. Ardner. The address of record is 8322 Archwood Circle, Tampa, Florida. The violation was first observed on April 27, 1998. A Notice of Violation was provided to the respondent May 8th, 1998 requesting compliance by June 8th, 1998. The last reinspection was conducted February 21st, the year 2001, revealing the permits had not been pulled. At this time I'd like to call Code Enforcement Investigator, Cathy VanPoucke. Correction. I'd like to call first the witness, David Hedrich, the planning technician at this time. MR. HEDRICH: Good morning. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good morning. Would you swear him in, please? (Mr. Hedrich was sworn by the court reporter.) Page 4 February 22, 2001 MR. HEDRICH: My name is David Hedrich, H-e-d-r-i-c-h. Good morning, board members. COMMISSIONER MEMBERS: Good morning. MR. HEDRICH: The case first started back in April of 1998. At that time I was still a code enforcement investigator, am now currently a planning technician still with Collier County. After receiving an anonymous complaint against several of the units in this condo complex, I made a site visit. I was able to contact the home owners in the alleged apartments where the violation had taken place. I had made several appointments and did some home inspections with their permission and it was at that time I observed where the violation had taken place. Common areas that were adjacent and connected to the living areas in these apartments had been breached or broken into to expand the living area of these condo units. Fire walls had to be cut through in order to obtain this. And it was at that time that I did permit checks to assure whether or not it had been done in compliance with the county rules and regulations or not. It was then I discovered that no permits had been obtained to do the conversion and the violation -- Notice of Violation had been sent to the property owners. It was after that we had more contact, had discussions on how to obtain the proper permits. We had meetings with the Building Department on how this could be done. The problem remained that this area did not legally belong to the property owners at the time. It had been established as a common area of the condo complex. Once the home owners association of the complex was notified, they started a process to try and work out where the common area could become part of the condos; therefore, they would be property owners and they could obtain the proper permits to do so. This did carry on over a period of time and since the folks were just seasonal visitors, we had to do this both long distance back and forth while they went up north and both while they were back down here. It was -- the case was still active at the time that I left code enforcement in January of 2000, and that's where I can bring you Page 5 February 22, 2001 up to. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: David, you're saying that the area that was closed in was a common area of a condominium? MR. HEDRIGH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And they were -- and the homeowner and the association were going to try to work out to deed this common area to the home owner? MR. HEDRICH: This is correct. The Building Department would not issue permits at that time because they -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. HEDRICH: -- could not prove that was -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions for Mr. Hedrich? Thank you. MS, CRUZ: At this time, I'd like to call Investigator Cathy VanPoucke, please. (Ms. VanPoucke was sworn by the court reporter.) MS. VANPOUCKE: For the record, my name is Cathy VanPoucke, V-a-n-P-o-u-c-k-e, a Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This case was assigned to me, basically because of David leaving the department on February 23rd, to verify whether or not the violation remained, which it had. The room was -- was still there and there were no permits pulled. I met with Mr. Ardner in our office with Collier County Building Inspector, Jeff Kucko, also to go over a checklist with Mr. Ardner in order to inform him the information he needed to provide the county in order to obtain a permit. As of yesterday, this still -- the room still exists and no permit has been pulled. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Cathy, do you know if they have had an agreement with the association to this point? Do you know anything about that? MS, VANPOUCKE: The last conversation I had with the president of the association was approximately two weeks ago and as of then there was no agreement. MS. ARNOLD: For the board's information, there was a letter that we received from the president of Four Fountains, Inc. authorizing the issuance of a building permit to three units. It's on your Page 13 of this packet. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: This letter was written May 3rd, Page 6 February 22, 2001 1999 and they still have not done it; correct? Even though they were given permission to apply for the permits, they still hadn't done it; right? MS. ARNOLD: Right. The permits have not been obtained at this point, but Mr. Abbott is here to speak on behalf of the property owners and you can -- I'm sure he'll tell you where they are in the process of obtaining permits. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any -- any further questions for Miss VanPoucke? COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Could you tell me, is this a duplex complex? MS. VANPOUCKE: They are duplexes if I remember correctly. MR. ABBOTT: 40 units with four to six -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're not on the record, sir, so if you'll wait. MS. VANPOUCKE: They're multifamily. It's not a single-family home. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It is a condo. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: A condo? MS. VANPOUCKE: Right. Right. MS. ARNOLD: The board -- for the record, there is a floor plan of the unit on the visualizer showing what the configuration of that one of the units is and the area in question is this area right here, which was a storage unit in the back originally at the time of construction, and then the one car -- single-car garage in the front. And what's been done is the entry to the storage from the garage has been closed off and an entry to the main part of the structure has been opened up and the storage area is being used as living area or office for the primary structure. Any questions of Mrs. VanPoucke? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: In looking at the deed for this piece of property, did the county go into the condominium documents -- you've said that this is common area, and I think I read on something that it was also called limited common area -- I mean, do we know whose actual area that is? When the home owner bought it that's not included? I mean, is it considered like a lanai area or-- I mean, there's a big difference here because I'm having a real problem with whose it is. Page 7 February 22, 2001 And you'll only know that -- MS. ARNOLD: On Page -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- if you read the documents. MS. ARNOLD: On Page 15 of the -- of your packet, this information was taken from the condo documents, and under the description of limited common elements, it indicates that garages and other -- let's see -- that the garage area was under that description. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And you're -- you're considering this storage room as part of the garage. MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And that's the way it's being done? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' The door that says access something to garage. I can't make out what that word is. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Close. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Close. Okay. Good. Now, I know whose property it is because it makes a difference. Very good. Any other questions for Miss VanPoucke? Okay. Mr. Abbott, is it, sir? MR. ABBOTT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Would you come up? (Mr. Abbott was sworn by the court reporter.) MR. ABBOTT: I do. I'm Charlie Abbott. I'm a remodeling contractor. I have a Class A license. And I was hired to do one of these -- not these people's permits, but a third one in this complex two years ago, obtaining the permit, because the Building Department's position was that this -- any disagreement over definitions of limited common areas, since it's for the sole exclusive use of the person whose unit and garage it is, that they would give a permit for it, and that if the people within the condo had an issue with it, they could address it themselves in a civil matter. So, that's the first part. Second, I hired an engineer, Darryl March of American Engineering to provide a drawing for me to authorize the structural considerations of cutting a three-foot hole in a concrete block wall, but given that there's a concrete tie beam directly above it, everything was judged to be suitable to do this, and apparently everybody did. Page 8 February 22, 2001 I have no knowledge of having done the work. I was not there. I'm a salvage contractor, coming along behind to try to get them legal. So, I don't think you would fine me here for doing it without a permit, but they did. I bought one a couple of years ago for $104. That was four times the fee over the issue and the two that we have now, I'm waiting to pull the permit. I have the applications here because I had a Tuesday morning meeting with Rob Griffin, the fire inspector for East Naples, and the two of us toured the entire complex with the condominium president to see the different types of units and how they were built in 1973 and how, if somebody modifies them in the year 2000, what do we do about it? So, we're discussing nuances of closure type hinges on the doors, whether there's hollow core doors between the existing garages because modern code of 2001 is very different from 1973 fire code wise. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' You're pulling these permits in the name of who? MR. ABBOTT: Of the owners; the Thurstons for one, and the Inadner (sic) or Ardner -- Ardner for the other. And I have the applications. I stopped at the Building Department on the way thinking I could just do them. I was just kind of holding back until I could hear from Rob Griffin to find out if we needed to modify anything because once you pull a permit, and particularly for a commercial one, if you come back with a revision, it's much more of a hassle than like for a single-family house. Not only do you have to pay the fee for resubmitting one, but it also has to be stamped and sealed. So, I'd rather do it all at one time if it was possible. Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Once you pull the permit, how long will it take you to get a CO on the property? MR. ABBOTT: I've already been inspected by the Building Department because they looked at the one. We've talked -- I have all sorts of pictures and such. And this is routine in my business. I mean, I do a lot of this and so the Building Department knows me and I think I have some veracity with them. Page 9 February 22, 2001 And, so, we looked at it, so we have no structural considerations that we're particularly worried about here. It's a question of making the fire marshal happy in regards, like I said, to have -- since it's a garage next to a living area, if per chance the car caught on fire and you had your garage door open, meaning the -- a passage door to the garage, would you not now instead of having a car fire or garage fire now have a house fire? The way the complex is built,' it's a whole bunch of units in varying combinations. There's like five different styles of units. There is fire walls, one-hour fire walls, everywhere throughout the unit. It's only where they share a garage is there kind of a consideration because the fire wall does not extend up to the rafters. So, the exposure is relatively limited from a fire code standpoint. It's just that the fire marshal says that he has no discretion on making a blend of issues to address this. And, so, it was a question of which is cheaper, which is more effective. And the way the garages are done now, they're all protected as drywall. None of them have air conditioning. They just have to work off their system. And the two pictures I have, they either use them as like a little den or as a office. But they can't be used as a bedroom. Everybody understands that because they have no egress. And that was a big issue with Rob Griffin. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: This all sounds wonderful, but it boils right down to the fact that since 1998 these people have known that they needed a permit. MR. ABBOTT: I cannot speak for that. I understand what you're saying. I heard tell of them at the time I did mine in 1999. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now, you've just been hired to get permits -- MR. ABBOTT: Now, just to come back, maybe they said, well, apparently these people are serious. And I said, well, yes, they are. You have to do something about it. Now, from -- from -- to say something in their benefit a little bit, they operated with the -- the approval of their board, and since most of them did the work themselves, this is truly a very minor thing. It's a three-foot opening in a block wall, and then they closed in a door. And some of them said they didn't even have the door but the Page 10 February 22, 2001 prints show that they did at one time. But when I looked at it, it was -- it was fairly reasonable work. No issues. The only thing I would have added at the time was were there sufficient electrical outlets, but that's kind of self-punishing in itself so, you know, if you don't have them. But, like I said, I think everybody is trying to observe what they could of the building code, but the total cost of the units to do them was $750 each, so at the time they thought with their approval, this was pretty small potatoes, but now they're apprised otherwise. So, I can't offer any defense for them either ignoring you all or blowing it off. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. Any other questions for Mr. Abbott? Thank you, sir. I notice it's -- this has been going on for almost three years -- two years and ten months. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: For the board's information, we do have Jeff Kucko here from the Building Department. He was the building review employee that assisted staff on, you know, providing applications to the -- the respondent and going through the checklists and explaining what would be required as far as obtaining a permit and he's here to speak on this matter as well. (Mr. Jeff Kucko was sworn by the court reporter.) MR. KUCKO: My name is Jeff Kucko. I'm a structural plan reviewer for Collier County government. Mr. Abbott stated that he had checked this out with the Building Department with an inspector. I have no record of that. Mr. Abbott also stated that it's just a fire code issue. That is also incorrect. It is a major building code issue dealing with tenant separations between the units, fire rated walls and fire rated doors. So, it is a Building Department issue. All of this was explained on March 23rd, 2000 to Mr. Ardner. It was also explained to them that because it falls under an R2 occupancy, which is considered commercial, that he would need, number one, to have a design professional do all his drawings and a licensed contractor complete the work. Mr. Ardner at that time became very aggravated and agitated Page11 February 22, 2001 to the point where, after insulting the integrity of my fellow employees and myself, I advised him he needed to leave the office. That's all I have to say. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sir, are you saying that you would not be able to give a -- an occupancy permit at this time even if the fire marshal wrote off on it? MR. KUCKO: If the fire marshal wrote off on it, no, we could not issue a building permit. The actual construction could not be verified from photographic documents that were provided. They would physically have to open up the walls to verify that there was a rated drywall used in the application, that the material used met in compliance with the construction of the building, that the doors in fact were rated, and because there may be more stringent codes at this time, the area that would be involved in this would have to meet the current criteria. There is no percentage rule for life safety issues. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: May I ask a question of clarification? Jeff, if the -- the codes that you're making reference to are fire related codes. Am I right? MR. KUCKO: No. They are standard building cOde issues. The separation is in the standard building code for a prevention of passage of fire. They deal with fire but they are not enforced by the fire department. It is our inspections and our code issues. MS. ARNOLD: Would not some of the same things that the fire inspector is looking at address some of the tenant separation concerns? MR. KUCKO: Yes. What the -- the fire department would be concerned with the tenant separation but, as I stated, it is a Collier County ordinance. It's both in the 98-80 where we require that tenant separation extend to the underneath side of roof tags and be rated at one hour, three-quarter hour opening protections and our inspectors do check that in the field. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Mr. Kucko, are you saying at this point in time, based on what you're saying here, would this renovation be permitable? MR. KUCKO: With the proper documents, yes, it would. They would need to submit an electrical floor plan showing compliance with the national electrical code. Page 12 February 22, 2001 They would have to in addition submit a new energy calculation that shows that the unit within the -- the air conditioning unit is of sufficient caliber to handle. It is a small increased area, but to extend into that area. The pictures did not really show if there was any ventilation at all to that area. They would have to submit also a plumbing detail. I do not know if they had internal washers or dryers, but if they had altered any of that, there may be necessary protection required for the plumbing penetrations. MS. ARNOLD: Just for the board's information, there were no plumbing alterations nor electrical alterations made. I believe the only improvements that were made to this structure were the wall -- you know, closing off of the wall and opening up of another wall. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: My understanding of maybe what Mr. Kucko is referring to electrical is just distances between outlets and things like that. Is that -- MR. KUCKO: That is correct. And also in the picture -- I mean, there -- there appears from the documents that were submitted that I was reviewing earlier, there's -- there are items that are plugged in. I notice that there's a ceiling fan, different things like that that, you know, they either need to verify that, yes, there were in fact receptacles, that we used them, yes, the receptacle that was installed in that ceiling was rated for the support of a fan, things of that nature that would have to be checked out. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, if they've cut a hole -- if they put a door in there -- I'm noticing a picture on Page 18. There's a light switch beside the door. I assume that's to turn the light on in the room. If that was a fire wall before, the light switch I don't think would have been there because there is nothing in there. MR. KUCKO: Well-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There was no door. MR. KUCKO: -- if you have a fire wall, you can't have a receptacle in it. You're limited to size and the device would have to be rated for installation and a rated assembly. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But I'm just saying it wouldn't have been there because that would have been a solid wall. MR. KUCKO: Quite probably, yes. Page 13 February 22, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, if they just now cut the door so there wouldn't have been a switch there to -- MR. KUCKO: It's my opinion looking -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You'd be looking at a block wall. MR. KUCKO: -- at the document, yes, there was probably electrical work. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They've added some electrical obviously. MS. ARNOLD: The photograph -- if you're referring to the photograph on Page 18 -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. If that's the doorway, they cut through there. MS. ARNOLD: Right. And -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If that was a solid block wall, there would have been no light switch there originally because to do what? It's a block wall. There was no door. You don't put a switch on the wall saying, well, some day somebody might cut a hole through here. You understand what I'm saying? That switch probably turns that lights on. I mean, having never been there -- MS. ARNOLD: As far as I know-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- I don't know. MS. ARNOLD: As far as I know, the switch is on the interior of the home and -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. MS. ARNOLD: -- and not the storage. There was an overhead. If you look at the plans, there was an overhead fixture in the storage area and I would imagine there was some sort of switch to turn on the overhead. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But the door wasn't there, so you wouldn't have a switch on just a blank wall in your house. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, it was a storage area before so -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But there was no door. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, but there was a door on the other side by the garage. Well, you can put a switch, a light switch, in your house at a different location. That's not a code violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I can -- Page 14 February 22, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're not understanding, but that's okay. MR. KUCKO: I understand, Mr. Flegal, and what you're saying is basically you're not going to have a light switch in the middle of nowhere and with a door there -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Turn a light on in a room if you have -- MR. KUCKO: -- there's a good possibility -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- to walk outside -- MR. KUCKO: -- electrical wasn't located. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- to get there, yeah. THE COURT REPORTER: One at a time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's all right. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Just for my information, have you had experience in this condominium complex with people doing this in other units and getting the permits for them? MR. KUCKO: Not that I could recall without somebody presenting me with address or permit numbers. The Building Department deals with such a volume. On an average, as a plans examiner, I'm looking at anywhere from 100 to 200 plans a month of all nature. So, to me, it's just a layout on a piece of paper with information pertinent to code. If they don't have it, I request additional information and then down the road you drive and you see a building and say, oh, I remember that. But, for the most part, I'm just looking at the plans as they come in, not putting them to any particular address. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If we -- the gentlemen were to show you a building permit that had been issued for the same condo for the same work, would you still need to go through tearing down the wall to see if the -- what had been done inside and all the rest of it? MR. KUCKO: I'm sorry. I missed the first part. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. If a permit and an occupancy permit were to be shown to you or presented to you for a similar condominium and exactly the same type of work, would you still need to go through on each of these cases all of the detail of tearing down a wall to see if they had put the right -- MR. KUCKO: Yes-- Page 15 February 22, 2001 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- electric in it? MR. KUCKO: -- I would. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You wouldn't know that they used the same materials. MR. KUCKO: No. I would have no way to confirm what was accomplished at that point. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: You would have Mr. Abbott's testimony that some of the unit owners had done their own work. There's nobody that knows exactly that they followed the same plans. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Would you consider this violation to be a complex one? MR. KUCKO: No, I would not. I would -- looking at the fact that it was just one wall that was erected, to me, in personal experience in the construction industry and stuff over the last 25, 26 years, there's a couple of hours work there. It would be a very simple matter to just verify construction and submit drawings. Because it's self-contained within the unit, it doesn't really affect any other units pending on review of what type of roof system would be above it. It -- it would have been in my opinion a very simple matter to rectify a long time ago. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Mr. Kucko, in your opinion -- you deal with a lot of permitting -- is it possible for the respondents to pull together whatever documents they need to obtain for a permit and for you to review that and go through the review rejection process within 30 days to actually get a permit within 30 days? MR. KUCKO: In a case -- number one, we try and facilitate anybody that's in a situation of duress, and I would think that after two years, these probably are very duressed. We would -- it would not take that long to run through the department. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Could you give this board an idea time frame wise how long it would take? MR. KUCKO: Generally, from the date of application, it takes approximately two to three days for them to register everything into the system and get it back to the plans coordinator in our area. At that point they divide the plans, the fire department would receive their set and I would begin the structural review and Page 16 February 22, 2001 then it would pass on to other reviewers. The -- take in a period of probably, I would say, five to eight days, working days. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Is that total time? MR. KUCKO: That's total time. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Five to eight total days from the time they submit an application? MR. KUCKO: Yeah. Now, I would also add that that would be until they either receive a permit or they receive a letter of comment and say there was something that was wrong or they omitted certain details. We generate a letter saying we -- we -- we cannot pass these plans. These additional items would be needed. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Okay. So, if the board granted a time period of maybe 30 days for the respondent to prepare all of his drawings and consult whoever he needed to consult for permit submittal to you and then you submit -- or you review those permits and either approve or reject them and go through the process until we get a permit, you think 30 days is an appropriate window? MR. KUCKO: Give them 30 days to submit? COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: To -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. To get approval. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Yes. To -- to receive approval. MR. KUCKO: I don't know that I would constrain them to the amount of time they needed for approval. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Okay. MR. KUCKO: I think I would base it more on a set time to apply for the permit because we don't know exactly what is there and if they provide 'all the necessary documents, yes, they could perceivably have a permit in 30 days. But if they have to research and find original documents or something like that, they could take an extended period of time. I think they would need leeway in that manner. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: What do you think would be appropriate to submit it? MR. KUCKO: I would say probably 45 days that the respond -- if there are any corrections required. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: You're saying 45 days to obtain a permit or to -- MR. KUCKO: Yeah. Page 17 February 22, 2001 COMMISSIONER LEHMANN.' -- submit for the permit? MR. KUCKO: To obtain a permit. I say that -- I wouldn't give them any time to obtain a permit. You had two years. You should be almost ready. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN.' Okay. And that was my question is how long would you -- would you recommend is a realistic amount of time for a respondent who is truly interested in accomplishing the task of obtaining the information necessary to submit for a permit application? MR. KUCKO.' With the checklist that was provided last year -- COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Uh-huh. MR. KUCKO: -- and considering all that nature, I -- I believe that they should be ready for permit right now. They do have Mr. Abbott. He is familiar with these kind of alterations and additions, so his knowledge in addition to that checklist, they should probably have everything at this time or within -- if he's going to apply today, as I believe he stated earlier, or try to apply today, he should have all that information already. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN.' Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions? Thank you, sir. MR. KUCKO.' Thank you. COMMISSIONER DUSEK.' I would like to ask Mr. Abbott -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Mr. Abbott, would you step back up, please? COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Mr. Abbott, are you -- MR. ABBOTT: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: -- ready to submit an application? MR. ABBOTT: I am -- Jeff -- Jeff mentioned a number of things that I didn't particularly consider germane to it like the plumbing. Of course, there is no plumbing, but the electrical work on it -- bear in mind this is not just a hurry-up effort on this part. I've already negotiated with the building official and the boss of the Building Department as to what we thought we needed to do here considering -- concerning the changes, because I do have a permit from two years ago, and Jeff just forgot it because, like he says, he does ten million of these a year. But this was from 1999 and it's the identical problem. And, so, what we were trying to do, one reason the fire Page 18 February 22, 2001 marshal and I spent as much time as we did, a couple of hours on Tuesday morning, was to decide how to answer this problem for everybody in the future, because we had to decide how many different types of units. For each one in particular, there's certain fixes that one might have to do. Some of them have concrete walls, both on all four sides and the ins. The garages, if you have living area above the garage, it's already a one-hour wall with poured concrete. If you have -- the small units that a garage attached like this material permit where there's nobody above them, then is this an issue, because there's a fire wall alongside and it's the same occupant. So, there's nuances of the fire codes, which are very exacting, and that's what Rob Griffin and I spent so much time on figuring out, and he has yet to give me an answer, and that's what I was waiting on, to hope that he would have an answer for me and I would submit exactly that for these individual problems. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Mr. Abbott, in your own -- in your own mind, how long -- how much time? Give me a time frame that you think that you require to actually submit permits for this. MR. ABBOTT: Well, Jeff gave me a lot longer than I thought it would take. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: I'm not asking for-- MR. ABBOTT: I understand that, but I like Jeff's answer better than mine. THE COURT REPORTER: One at a time. One at a time, please. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN.' I'm asking for the time it would take you to -- MR. ABBOTT: 30 days. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN.' -- submit an application. MR. ABBOTT: 30 days. And that's -- that's if I even need to submit certain items on here. I was hoping to -- to by-pass some of the -- if they were truly insignificant or were of no import whatsoever, but that requires the building official's consultation. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: And in the past two years that this has gone on, you haven't been able to accumulate the documentation necessary-- MR. ABBOTT: Well, not for their units. For the other unit, I Page19 February 22, 2001 had it. I submitted it and I got it passed. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Okay. MR. ABBOTT: But the type of issues Jeff is talking about is the number of outlets where you -- residential code says that any fixture with a six-foot power cord would have to be able to reach a fixture or, you know, to have outlets around, and so that's where you get into fixture counts and corners and such things. As far as putting fans in ceilings, that's usually pretty cut and dried because it's not a fire consideration because you're bolting to an existing slab, a horizontal slab, for the unit above. So, these are relatively Iow tech items. You just have to be careful that whenever you install something, you do not damage the existing situation. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions for Mr. Abbott? Thank you, sir. MR. ABBOTT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What boggles my mind is the attitude that, oh, they're not serious. We have paid -- this county has -- has paid to have officers go out there and check this. They have done paperwork, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And that has cost the county. Now -- now that they're before the board, they think, okay, we'll just forget this whole thing, let them go ahead and get their permits, da, da, da, da, da. That's not the way it is. Their whole attitude toward this thing was, well, they're -- this is a joke or this is not serious at all. It is serious and until people realize that when the -- when the county goes before them and tells them they need to do something, they need to do it and not wait until it's brought before the board and it becomes a money issue. Then when it becomes a money issue, here they are, begging for something. It irritates me no end. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Can we have a -- Mr. Abbott, do you have something definite to add to the problem or -- MR. ABBOTT: Not really, other than I could have submitted this last week. It's just that it would have forced changes and -- and made a further problem for all parties concerned, so no real service. I need Rob Griffin's opinion before I could really decide, but I Page 20 February 22, 2001 could have done it, yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have a slightly different take on this. I do agree that they should have done something two years ago. I also agree it's a relatively minor change that I think most people would have viewed as an internal change in their unit with the full approval of their condominium board. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Excuse me, Rhona, but it was three years. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. Three years ago. I still think it was a relatively minor change that some of the condos had already done that other people did, did not view it as a major violation of code. I don't believe it is a major violation of code. I think they agreed to -- they will be getting it fixed. I think, frankly, Collier County may be coming down a bit hard on something that we're maybe enforcing the nuances of the law rather than the intent of the law. I'm very comfortable if the fire department -- fire inspect -- marshal says this is correct, if a licensed contractor is hired to fix it, that we not put these people through all kinds of hoops just to punish them. I would on the other hand say that our -- if we find a finding of fact that this is so, I would ask them to pay the costs of the county, whether or not they correct this immediately. I have no problem with the costs, which we have incurred and they should have paid attention to beginning in 24 hours, you know, or whatever so that those costs are implied. But I really don't think these -- these guys who owned a condo, who did what everybody else in the condo was doing, intended to violate and snub Collier County. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But they did, Rhona. They did. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, that's-- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: David Hedrich told them from day one that they were in violation. They need to pay attention. They need to listen. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The board -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We have rules and regulations here. Everybody has to follow them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The board doesn't have the power to determine intent. The law and the ordinance says you must have a permit. That's it, period. Page 21 February 22, 2001 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No excuse. Do they or don't they have a permit? If they don't, they're guilty. Very simple. Whether we feel sorry for them or not is immaterial. You have to get back to did they violate the ordinance, period. You need to keep that in mind. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I agree with that. I also agree that this board then has the ability to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, let's wait until we get that to the vote. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Absolutely. If you want to go ahead and do a finding of fact, I have no problem with that. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I want you to know I concur with you, Rhona. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: At the same time I do think that there is a violation, and if you'd like, I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That will be terrific. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: In the case of the board of county commissioners versus Karen Ardner and CEB Case Number 2001-001, I make a motion that there is a violation. The violation is of Sections 2.7.6, Paragraph I of Ordinance Number 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code Ordinance. And the description of the violation, conversion of a utility storage area into living area without first obtaining all required Collier County building permits. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Lehmann. We have a motion and a second that there is in fact is a finding of fact of a violation. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Order of the board. Understanding that we have various opinions as to severity, we must all keep in mind it's taken two years and ten months to get to this point. I have a little problem with that even after people have been told and say they were going to do things and then start and then they get mad because the county tells them Page 22 February 22, 2001 they have to do other things. Yes, they've hired somebody now to solve the problem but at the same time, I think ten -- two years and ten months is a long time to finally get the job done. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Agreed. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: I concur with my colleague. I think they've had plenty of time for them to gather whatever information they need to. If they were truly interested in solving the problem, as both witnesses have testified, it's a relatively minor issue. It should have been solved easily and we're sitting here two months -- or two years and ten months later still dealing with the issue. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: I think we need to take that into consideration when assigning time periods and times. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So, what's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I may be in the minority, but actually I'm going to agree with the recommendation of the code enforcement staff and make one modification to theirs, which is that the costs be passed on to the home owners as rapidly as is legally possible. And I need to ask Miss Rawson that. Can we, without giving them any time frame basically, pass on the costs that have been incurred to date? MS. RAWSON: I think you have to give them time to comply, and then after that, you can start the costs and the fine. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So, if they comply within the -- say, a 30-day time period, we do not recoup the costs of the investigation thus far. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think what she's asking is in prosecuting the case, those costs, do we have to wait until they get their permit or can those costs be -- MS. RAWSON: Well, you found a violation so you can assess the costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The costs of prosecuting the case can be immediate. MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Then my -- MS. RAWSON: But I still think you have to give them time to Page 23 February 22, 2001 get the permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Oh, absolutely. Okay. Then my motion would be that the respondents be ordered to come into compliance, obtain a building permit for the improvements and request an inspection for the CO or remove the improvements within 30 days or a fine of $50 be imposed for each and every day of noncompliance. I would further order the respondents to pay all costs associated with this investigation and hearing until -- incurred from the time the case was begun until the case is resolved. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Might I clarify that? You're asking for a -- a request for a Certificate of Occupancy inspection within 30 days? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That is what the staff asked for. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: What is to prevent the respondent from requesting an inspection, purposely failing that inspection and then going on for another six months before the permit expires? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Are you saying that I should modify my request that they obtain a -- a Certificate of Occupancy rather than request it? COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Well, you're -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Take out the word "request"? COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: I think the order -- and that is as staff recommended it. I think the order leaves a loophole that someone who is truly not interested in working with us can take advantage of. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Then I agree. Let's tighten it, too, that they apply for the building permit and obtain a CO within 30 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'll make a suggestion. Why don't we say obtain the required building permits and approval as required by Collier County codes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Whatever that approval is, whether it's a CO or whatever. I don't care what you call it, get an approval. MS. ARNOLD: I think that's vague. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: An approval is vague? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, because an approval can constitute just Page 24 February 22, 200t obtaining a building permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. If your ordinance says you have to have a CO, you need an approval, right? Isn't that in an ordinance? COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: But it leaves them six months period of time at least. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. The ordinance allows for obtaining a building permit, requesting an inspection and failing an inspection and prolonging it for another six months and continuing that process up to 18 months before the permit expires. So, if you were specific -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Your part of it is done, sir. You don't get to speak any more. MR. ABBOTT: I just have a suggestion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You don't get to speak any more. Okay. MS. ARNOLD: So, if you're specific as to obtaining final approval, meaning Certificate of Occupancy, you probably should say that in your order. If you want it to go through the process with, you know, the points that Mr. Lehmann brought up, a continual process that could be eight 18 months, your recommendation is -- is fine. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: So, if we ask for the CO, then that would eliminate -- MS. ARNOLD: Be more specific, yeah. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: My concern is that this thing just keeps on going. And it's been going on for almost three years now. I want it closed. I would recommend that we request a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Kucko had recommended possibly 45 days for a period of period of time for that. Mr. Abbott had suggested that he's ready to submit for a permit now on some of the units and possibly needs some extra work on other units. I would certainly not want to go longer than 45 days for a complete final Certificate of Occupancy and all the work is complete and approved by the county. If the board chooses to insert a shorter deadline for the permit applications, it would be acceptable also, but what I would like to have is just something very straightforward and Page 25 February 22, 2001 easy but yet is doable in a short period of time. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Also, I would like to add on the operational costs. I know that you're asking for those to be paid for immediately, but it could be that there may be more. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Agreed. I'm not asking -- I don't mean to ask for them to be paid immediately. I mean for them to have been incurred or assessed from the beginning of the case until it's completed. I would be happy to amend my motion to say 30 days to obtain a permit and 40 -- and 15 additional days to obtain compliance. MS. RAWSON: Can I have a clarification? When would the $50 fine start? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It would start if they had not applied for the permit within 30 days for, if having applied for the permit, if 15 days after that -- or in 45 days if they had not complied with the permit. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: I would made a recommendation, and I apologize for pontificating, but I would make a recommendation that we possibly give the respondent 15 working days for -- excuse me -- 15 calendar days for -- to apply for the permit at which time maybe a $25 per day fine kicked in until they actually fine them and 45 days to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy wherein a $50 fine would kick in. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: If that's acceptable to the board. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Reasonable. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I like to keep things simple and rather than having two different fines, I would like to see one amount of a fine. And I would also like to see one time period to complete everything rather than dividing it up 15 days for this with $25 and -- why not -- I mean, if we're going to the outside of the time limit, just say 45 days to get the CO. Everything has to be done in order to get that CO. And if not, then a $50 fine is imposed. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Does it take that long really, 45 days? Does it? MS. ARNOLD: Well, you heard testimony from Mr. Kucko that it could, but I think this case is a little bit further along than somebody just starting from scratch. I mean, most of the paperwork is done. Mr. Abbott said that he was close to Page 26 February 22, 2001 obtaining the permit. He's just trying to get some additional information from the fire inspector. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I do believe I heard Mr. Abbott say that he could do this in 30 days so -- MR. ABBOTT: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: -- why don't we just tighten it to 30 days to complete, get the CO and, if not, a $50 per day fine is imposed. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What's -- is that our latest? COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Is that a motion or -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Motion. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Did you want to revise your motion? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We've revised it five or six times. Let's get it down to a new one. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. It's revised to they obtain a building permit and a CO within 30 days or a fine of $50 a day be imposed for each and every day of noncompliance thereafter. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Plus all costs. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That was a separate sentence. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That would be Item 2, yeah. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Rawson, are we on board now? MS. RAWSON: I think I got it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So, we have a motion. MS. ARNOLD: Can I -- can I before you vote on the motion make a recommendation? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We haven't got a second yet. We're just trying to get a motion on the table. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Just a quick request to change from Certificate of Occupancy to Certificate of Completion. It's the same type thing because this is a unit that's already occupied. It's not -- we're not talking about a new-- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right. MS. ARNOLD: -- construction. So, if we could just clarify that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Certainly. In my motion let's Page 27 February 22, 2001 make it a Certificate of Completion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Dare I ask this question? Any further discussion? Good. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: Question for clarification on the motion. It is 30 days for Certificate of Completion? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 30 days for the whole works. MS. ARNOLD: Right. And then a fine of $50 per day. What -- are we giving any option -- just wanting clarification, because in our recommendation we recommended they bring it back to its original state. We just want to leave it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL'- Well, it's already done. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And since it's been done in a couple of other condos, I feel pretty confident that they're probably going to get a permit, so let's not ask them to tear it out. I think they will get a permit for this since it's been done before. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't know if it made it into this motion, but if it didn't, then I would like to make a new one, that all the operational costs incurred in prosecution of this case from the start of Notice of Violation through completion of the case be required of all -- of the Ardners? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is that in our original or -- MS. RAWSON: I think you already made that motion and it passed. I've got that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It stayed there. Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. We were just changing the first part of your motion. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But did we vote on it? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It was -- that -- all she did was revise the first sentence, which was the time period and the money. We didn't change Item 2, which was the operational costs to Page 28 February 22, 2001 prosecute. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay? That's the way I understood it. Miss Rawson, is that what you understood? MS. RAWSON: That's exactly the way I have it written. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The next case, 2001-002. MS. ARNOLD: This case is a similar case. The Thurstons also own a unit in the same development. What I would suggest is just have them re-up, state for the record the pertinent information in terms of the ownership and the dates. All of the testimony is similar because we're handling these cases in con]unction or together and Mr. Ardner actually came in to our department and made representation for Miss Thurston, so we probably wouldn't have additional testimony on this one. MS. CRUZ: I'd like to request that the packet that was provided to the board be admitted into evidence as marked, Composite Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And I assume the Thurstons aren't here and -- MS. CRUZ: Mr. Abbott is here on behalf of the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Kind of doing the same thing. MS. CRUZ: -- Thurstons. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm sure there is no objections since it's the same information, just a different unit number. I'd entertain a motion to accept the county's packet be submitted. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So moved. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN.' Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Okay. MS. CRUZ: So, the violation that was being brought before this board on Case Number 2001-002 on Frederick and Susan Thurston as respondent, it's the conversion of a utility storage area into a living area without first obtaining all of the required Collier County building permits. This is a violation of the Land Development Code, Number 91-102, Section 2.7.6, Paragraph 1. The violation exists at 2 Watercolor Way, and it's more particularly described as Four Fountains Group I, Apartment 2. Page 29 February 22, 2001 The owner of record is Frederick and Susan Thurston. The address of record is 2 Watercolor Way, Naples, Florida. The respondent was notified of the violation that was observed on April 27, 1998 by a Notice of Violation on May 15, '98 requesting compliance of June 8th, '98, and the last free inspection was conducted yesterday, February 21st, revealing the violations remaining. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Rawson, question. MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Based on that, we took the packet into evidence and it's other than the unit number and the owners, which has now been entered, can the board without going through testimony from all the same parties move right on to making a finding of fact based on the packet? MS. RAWSON: For the record, I would suggest that you simply have the staff say that the testimony would be identical to the testimony in 2001-001. And, you know, for the record, then, you know, the testimony would be the same so then you can move right into your motions. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Would you do that on behalf of the county for us and then we'll ask Mr. Abbott if he would say the same thing and we can just make this real short? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. We would just ask the specific staff, Dave Hedrich and Cathy VanPoucke, to just come up and state that for the record. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. HEDRICH: Good morning again. Dave Hedrich. MS. ARNOLD: Does he have to be sworn again? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. RAWSON: Probably, yes. (Mr. David Hedrich was sworn by the court reporter.) MR. HEDRICH: Dave Hedrich. The cases in this condo complex were all handled at the same time, same dates. If I made a call to one of the persons or talked to one of the persons in reference to this, I spoke to the other on the same day. We all exchanged the same information and all kept along the same lines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. HEDRICH: Any questions in regard to that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Page 30 February 22, 2001 MR. HEDRICH: Thank you. MS. VANPOUCKE: For the record, Cathy VanPoucke, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. My testimony would be the same on this case as Mr. Ardner's case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you.~ Mr. Abbott, sir. Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot Mr. Kucko. County people first. Sorry, sir. MR. KUCKO: For the record, Jeff Kucko, Collier County Plans Examiner. My testimony per Case 2001-002 would be identical to Case 2000-001. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thankyou. Mr. Abbott. MR. ABBOTT: It can't be exactly the same because this is one of the units that had a slightly different fire issue that Rob and I were trying to work out. This one is one that has a garage attached to another garage, and so we were discussing what sort of fire issues we need to address in this particular thing. And, so, I'd say that it's almost the same, but one thing concerning the case that I'm concerned with is that I'm trying to -- I'm afraid my customer got the costs put on them when they are -- they see the light, absolutely, and I've been trying to perfect the issue so that we do it the very best we can for the county and for the customer. And, so, I really hate to see them be judged on a technicality of no permit as of today. I could have done it last week. It's just that Rob and I tried to make this happen. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's understandable, sir. It's still taken two years and ten months, so one week isn't going to make any big difference. MR. ABBOTT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay? MR. ABBOTT: All right. The other-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You wouldn't have saved them -- believe me, you wouldn't have saved them any money. MR. ABBOTT: Okay. Well, I just -- I hated to think that for not having a permit in my hand right this instant might be an issue. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Basically, all the information that's Page 31 February 22, 2001 pertaining to this unit, other than the, quote-unquote, technicalities to obtaining the permit would be the same. MR. ABBOTT: Okay. them -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: what we're into now. The second issue that affected both of Well, stay with this one because that's MR. ABBOTT: Okay. Well -- but they affect the same. So, the issue is that there's a county employee in the Clerk's Office who is also a resident of this condominium and when we thought all this issue for the 1999 permit and such, well, this was just a gone issue of relatively Iow consequences at the time, she stirred the pot again and Dwight Brock and I have had to have discussions concerning this issue as well as Ed Perico, the boss of the Building Department, Johnnie Gebhardt, who runs the county. This is no light effort. This is -- this is something again trying to do to meet the county's needs as well as the citizen of Collier County, so I say tread lightly. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It doesn't work with me. MR. ABBOTT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't tread lightly. MR. ABBOTT: That's fine. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Okay. Finding of fact by the board. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case board of county commissioners for Collier County versus Frederick and Susan Thurston in the case of CEB 2001-002, that there is a violation, that this violation is of Sections 2.7.6, Paragraph I of Ordinance Number 91-102, amended, the Collier County Land Development Code. Description of the violation, conversion of a utility storage area and to living area without first obtaining all required Collier County building permits. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion that there is in fact a finding of fact of violation. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 32 February 22, 2001 Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Order of the board. I would recommend that our order be the same as the previous case since the units are almost identical. It's basically the permitting technicalities. I don't think there's really any big difference that's going to change the time period at this point. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I agree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would recommend we do the same as we did on the previous case. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: If that's a motion, I would second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do we need to spell out the motion, Miss Rawson, or is that sufficient for you or for the record? MS. RAWSON: Well, I know how to write it, but probably for the record you should repeat -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Repeat it? MS. RAWSON: -- the motion and vote on it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Do you want to do it, Peter? MR. LEHMANN: It's your motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thanks a lot. I would -- I would make a motion that the respondents obtain a building permit and request and receive a Certificate of Compliance approval within a 30-day period. Failing to do that, a fine would be imposed of $50 a day. That's Item 1. Item 2 would be that the respondent pay all operational costs incurred to bring this case to prosecution and prosecute it. MS. RAWSON: This is also a Certificate of Completion; is that correct? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Didn't I say completion? Or did I say compliance? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You said compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Compliance. Certificate of Completion, sorry. Is that the same as the last one, Miss Rawson? MS. RAWSON: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's my motion. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: I would second that one. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Page 33 February 22, 2001 Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Thank you. Case number 2001-003. MS. ARNOLD: I have a request of the board. The next two cases, 003 and 004 are the same property owner. Different violations, same property. If we could have the investigator and the respondents just comment distinguishing the two violations and just hear it at the same time as well. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Rawson. MS. RAWSON: I don't have any problem with that. It simply is a time saving method. Just be sure you refer to the case number you're talking about and your testimony and, obviously, we will have to have two separate orders. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what I thought. Yeah, because you have -- let me back up just a second. Yeah, because we have two different violations of the Land Development Code, so if -- when talking, if they will address each individually so that we can in our minds separate them when we get around to finding of facts and orders. Okay? MS. ARNOLD: Sure, and then Maria will do the same when she's entering in the statement of the violation, distinguish between the two different cases. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody on the board have a problem with doing that? No comment. So, we'll do it that way. We'll take 2001-003, and 2001-004 since they are the same respondents together. Try and speed it up. MS. CRUZ: The case is board of county commissioners versus Dean M. Blocker and Kenneth J. Blocker, Jr., Case Number 2001-003 and Case Number 2001-004. The respondents have been provided with a composite exhibit as well as the board and the clerk of board. I'd like to request that if there's no objection from the respondent, who is present at this time, to admit this packet into evidence at this time, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Blocker, are you present? MR. BLOCKER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have any objection to submitting Page 34 February 22, 2001 all this paperwork to us? THE COURT REPORTER: Please go to the microphone and identify yourself for the record. MR. BLOCKER: Dean Blocker. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have any objection if they submit all this paperwork to us? MR. BLOCKER: No, that's fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right. Thank you, sir. I'll entertain a motion to accept the county's Exhibit A in each case as evidence. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: So moved. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. CRUZ: Case number 2001-003. It's a -- the alleged violation is cleared area of approximately ten acres without authorization of a required Collier County permit. This is a violation of Ordinance Number 91-102 as amended, Section 3.9.3, the Land Development Code. The Case Number, 2001-004. The alleged violation brought before the board is observed excavating machinery on site and an excavation of dimensions of 227 feet along the south side, 302 feet from the north to the south and 210 feet along the north side being a lake in excess of one acre in total size. This is a violation of Ordinance number 91-102, Section 3.5.3 of the Land Development Code. Both violations in Case Number 2001-003 and 2001-004 exist at the northwest corner of State Road 29 and 82, Immokalee, Florida and is more particularly described as Section 8, Township 46, Range 29, all that part of south half line of the north of right-of-way State Road 82 and westerly State Road 29. The owner of record of this property is Dean M. Blocker, Kenneth J. Blocker, Jr. The address of record is 110 12th Street Southeast, Number C, Immokalee, Florida. The violation was observed on April 18th, 2000 -- 2000 on Case Number 2001-003. A Notice of Violation was given on May 2nd, 2000 with corrected compliance date of May 27th, the year 2000. On Case Number 2001-004, this violation was observed on June 6th, 2000. A Notice of Violation was issued on June 22nd Page 35 February 22, 2001 requesting compliance by July 19th. Both violations were reinspected. The property was reinspected yesterday revealing both violations remaining at this time. I'd like to request that Alex Sulecki, Code Enforcement Investigator, come up please. Do you want to swear all the parties? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Everybody that's going to testify, if they'd stand and raise their hand, please? (The witnesses were sworn by the court reporter.) MS. SUL. ECKI: Good morning, board members. For the record, my name is Alexandra Sulecki. I'm an environmental specialist in your Code Enforcement Department. This -- speaking of the first case, the 2001-003, this came to the department's attention in April of last year through a phone call from South Florida Water Management District employee, Laura Grey. I went out to the property and observed there had been a clearing of approximately ten acres in size of what appeared to be a wetland and at the time one of the family members came to the site and I explained to him what the violation was. I had posted a Notice of Violation. And he -- he told me he would have the owner get in touch with me. A short time later, I spoke to one of the owners, Dean Blocker. The other owner, Kenneth Blocker, Jr., I have never met nor spoken to. I explained the county -- the violation of the county code. He -- he told me at that time that he was meeting with South Florida Water Management District officials to resolve the violation, and I explained that there were several jurisdictions that covered that property. One of those was county, one was South Florida Water Management District. The Department of Environmental Protection also has an interest there and the Army Corps of Engineers, so these were separate layers of jurisdiction. And the violation that I was concerning -- concerned with was the county violation. I at that time informed both other agents -- all other agencies of the violation. I spoke with South Florida Water Management District official, Laura Grey, after the meeting. She told me she had allowed them to rake and burn the debris. Page 36 February 22, 2001 After having no action on the Notice of Violation and attempting again to reach Mr. Blocker several times by phone, we set up a meeting with the Blockers, Dean and Kenneth, Sr., and environmental planning staff member, Barbara Burgeson, Code Enforcement Director, Michelle Arnold, and Community Development Administrator, Vince Cautero. At that meeting, again we explained the nature of the violation and what corrective actions would be required. We also at that time asked what the property was going to be used for and the Blockers stated that perhaps agricultural activities. We at that time agreed to consider issuing an after-the-fact permit provided that we had permits from the other agencies, which is required under our vegetation removal permit requirements. And since then, I have been attempting to reach the Blockers and find out whether they have done this, and to date, I spoke with the Army Corps of Engineers personnel and South Florida Water Management District personnel yesterday and no applications had been submitted. And just to clarify, the DEP in South Florida Water Management District permits are a shared permit, so it's only one permit that's required to cover both those agencies. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That handles the removal. What about the other case? MS. SULECKI.' Well, one more thing that I would just like to add. One of the issues that surfaced during the vegetation removal was that Mr. Blocker stated the wetland area, although the fact that it's a wetland, it's not really relevant to vegetation removal. It is relevant the mitigation that would be required. And he stated to me that it was a created wetland. And I did do some research and found some old aerials and I'd like to put that on the visualizer here. This is the parcel right here. This is a 1981 aerial. The Blockers didn't own this property in 1981. They just bought it in '99. But it does show that there was an existing wetland. If you can see the whole picture, it's part of an existing system that comes down through here. So, it -- it was existing on the site prior to any development. Yesterday when I visited the property, there were cows on the Page 37 February 22, 2001 site. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Okay. Tell us about the lake, which is Case 004. MS. SULECKI: Okay. That excavation was observed as a part of one of the site visits to the previous case. Because we have an investigator in Immokalee, John Marsh, who's here today. He assisted me with this by taking photographs, by visiting the property and by posting some -- a notice for me. So, he was involved in that respect. I initially observed the excavation. I did some research to determine whether it was something that required a permit or not. I was told by the county engineer at that time that it would either require a permit or an exemption. After Mr. Marsh made another site visit and measured the dimensions of the lake, I confirmed with the county engineer, Stan Chrzanowski, that it would require a permit. We discussed this matter with the Blockers at the same meeting where we discussed the other issue. We provided them with the paperwork to get an excavation permit for that property. One of the reasons why it's important to get a permit is that the sides of the lake need to be a certain slope for safety reasons and that was explained to them. To date, no contact has been made with Stan Chrzanowski regarding this issue, nor a permit application submitted. Yesterday -- excuse me. Yesterday when I visited the property, I did observe the fill remaining on site, which is another issue, where is the fill going to go? The property was fenced so I was not able to get right up onto the lake. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Any questions by the board of Miss Sulecki on either of these cases? COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Does this cause any environmental problems for surrounding properties or -- MS. SULECKI: The fact that the wetland was -- was cleared? It's difficult to say because there -- there exists a system of canals there that I'm not particularly familiar with, the South Florida Water Management issues out there. I do know that in order to develop that site or to do Page 38 February 22, 2001 agricultural activities on that site, you do need a South Florida Water Management permit to show where the water is going to go, so filling it and just destroying it, I would say, would have some impact just because you do need a permit to do those activities. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I have a question. Is the issue with the county that he didn't get permits? That's it. It's not -- you're not addressing the water issue. MS. SULECKI: No. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: And just clarify for me why he needed these permits? I mean, from the county. I'm looking at this at separate issues. MS. SULECKI: We have a vegetation removal permit requirement in the county. Any time vegetation is removed, you need to have a permit. Why is the excavation? Was that another question, why is the excavation permit required? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. Tell us about that one, too. MS. SULECKI: My understanding is that on properties that are zoned agricultural, you can dig a lake up to an acre in size without a permit. There was a lake dug to an acre in size by the previous owner somewhere in the early eighties. At that time it destroyed an existing wetland but that's neither here nor there for this. This particular excavation increased the size of that lake to an acre and a half approximately and it did trigger in the need for a permit at that point. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Will he have to go and replace it with other vegetation or is it just going to be left as an open field and for winds to blow the top soil and dry it out? MS. SULECKI: The requirements for mitigation are to replace it with vegetation. Additionally, because there are cows on the site, there would have to be some protection of the area so that the cows didn't come in and eat the vegetation that's planted. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: What about the cows' droppings affecting the water and having it run off during the rainy season? Have these cows and you have their -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's not part of what they were sited for, so that's really not our concern. Page 39 February 22, 2001 COMMISSIONER GODFREY: I'm looking at environmental. Aren't we? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's not part of this case because they weren't cited for that so we can't consider that. We have to stick with they removed vegetation, period. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Miss Sulecki? Thank you. MS. SULECKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Arnold, anybody else from the county? MS. ARNOLD: We -- Miss Sulecki indicated that John Marsh was at the sites but he was merely there for taking pictures. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Taking pictures. Okay. Mr. Blocker, sir. MR. BLOCKER: First of all, on water management, we did -- THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, would you give your name, please? MR. BLOCKER: Dean Blocker. We did meet with water management on that and that was a -- they primarily -- you know, they came out and sent their investigators and as far as the vegetation goes and everything, they told us to just let it, you know, grow back up and keep it mowed as far as they were concerned. There was no kind of a -- as far as keeping the cows, you know, from going in there, that's the first I've heard of that, you know, as far as to where they can't go in there. I don't know. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let's -- let's deal first of all with you removed some vegetation and you don't have a county permit, so-- MR. BLOCKER: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' -- explain your-- MR. BLOCKER: There's about -- I don't know where they got ten acres. There's about three -- probably three and a half acres in there. I don't know who originally went and measured the site but water management has the records on it exactly how big it was, And we went in there and there was, you know, a lot of pepper. You know, I've got a picture here of some stuff that was out there. It don't really show what kind of stuff. There's a lot of Page 40 February 22, 2001 pepper trees, a lot of stuff that she had written down that don't even grow in a wetland, which is on this paper here. Let's see here. Red Maple, Wax Myrtle, Cabbage Palm, Lava Plum, Palmetto, none of that-grows in wetlands. What we've done is brought that in from another piece of property that we had and had it on trailers, and being we were burning the stuff anyway, that was a good place to burn it out there on 80 acres. The reason we brought it out there, it was off of a three-acre piece that we own right in town. So, that's -- you know, that's why there were such big piles out there of stuff. But, no, we didn't know, you know, as far as the three, four acre parcel to go in there and clear it, you know. We got our own equipment or our loader that we have, went in there and done it. Then we had -- I know we had another guy that was not a -- he's not in business. He's got a -- I guess he's in business on his own or whatever. He went in and charged $50 an hour to help us do it also. But, you know, as far as going in and getting a permit, we didn't really know as far as that goes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You cleared it. You just didn't know you had to have a permit. Is that what you're telling us? MR. BLOCKER: Yeah. We didn't know and also when water management, like I said, they come in and had us go to a meeting and everything. In other words, they didn't -- they thought -- you know they just told us you don't need a permit, you know, we -- we're not going to make you get a permit. We're not going to fine you or anything, just keep it mowed. And as far as mitigation, replanting and everything, it's already three foot tall out there now, right in the middle of that what we cleared. And at the time it was dry. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to get in there with equipment anyway. But since the freeze was out in Immokalee here just a few weeks ago, a lot of people were pumping water and that kind of filled that area up because there's culverts right under State Road 82 that runs right into that property, probably four-foot culverts that -- all the water that runs out of Immokalee runs right into that, that wetland. That's why if you went back to 1960 or whatever, you know, Page 41 February 22, 2001 the wetland has been growing ever since that because the water -- you know, it's not like the piece that was just sitting right out in the middle of that 80 acres. There's -- it runs right along 82 and there's four big culverts that come out and run right into the property right there, so that's why we're -- you know, and water management kind of said, well, we can understand it because the middle of a thousand-acre piece and nothing running into it, you know, it would be a -- a fully -- you know, would have been there for a thousand years and whatever. They kind of agree that it could have been partially created and so they just, you know, they must have kind of seen it our side, too, because they didn't fine us, you know. We met with Karen Johnson and Craig Smidler who are the head people there so -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: As far as the -- the three acres or whatever it is you cleared, you -- did you have meetings with the county and were informed that you were supposed to have a permit and -- MR. BLOCKER: After the fact. See, what happened, Laura Grey, I guess she's just a secretary for Karen Johnson at water management, and I guess she's the one that turned it over to the county and got them involved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But once -- did you meet with the county at any time and they tell you that you need a permit? MR. BLOCKER: Yeah. After -- after we were meeting with water management, and we met with the county probably 60 days ago, two, three months ago, whenever it was, they -- they said that we would -- we did need a permit to, you know, to clear that, which we were working with an engineer at the time to get that demucked. Our plans were to demuck that whole area, the three acres, and refill it with this dirt that we dug off of this other acre pond. That's the reason we dug it to an acre and a half. Take that dirt, keep it on -- on site to -- to refill it in that wetland. But what we've decided, and water management knows that, is to just leave the wetland alone because we would have had -- if we would have demucked that and filled that, we would have -- you know, right now we got a three-acre reservoir. We would have to have a 12-acre -- considering it's 80 acres, Page 42 February 22, 2001 we would have a 12-acre reservoir, so we decided just to leave it alone. They said, no problem, just keep it mowed. That's basically what they told us. They didn't say let it grow up or anything. They just said just keep it mowed, and I can give you the names of the people who told us that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL-- Okay. What I'm trying to understand is that at some point through all of this when it started back in April and May of last year, you were informed you need some permits. Were you or were you not? MR. BLOCKER: From the county? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MR. BLOCKER: In this -- you're talking about the meeting that we had with them afterward? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Whichever meeting. I don't know how many meetings you may or may not have had, so I'm just trying to understand that at some point -- MR. BLOCKER: Actually, they told us to keep -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- the county told you you needed a permit. MR. BLOCKER: -- keep them informed with what happens with water management, with what -- you know, we were going to get an engineer to go in and demuck this whole thing, refill it. What we decided -- you know, it was going to be about a 90, hundred dollar process to do this, just to demuck that and fill it, dig that 12-acre reservoir in the back. We would have lost that much more land instead of three acres. We decided that it wasn't worth it now because if it was in the middle of Fort Myers or Naples, it would be worth making and losing that kind of money or putting that kind of money into that property. So, we decided not to do it and we called water management up and we told them we were just going to leave it alone. And they said, no problem, just -- you know, well, just leave it like that and keep it mowed and that was it, you know. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. What I'm looking for from you is either a yes or a no to this question. Did you at some point since April or May of last year -- we're now almost a year, because this is the end of February, so it's ten months -- have meetings or conversation with Collier County Page 43 February 22, 2001 people in Code Enforcement or in planning or wherever else that told you this violation existed and you were required to get permits. Did that ever happen? MR. BLOCKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. For some reason, I don't know what, permits haven't been acquired yet and that's why you're here, so what we're trying to understand is -- tell us why so that we understand why you didn't get these permits or what the problem is or -- MR. BLOCKER: Well, what she -- what we were told in that, and there was several people in the meeting that we went to, keep us updated on what's happening with water management, and as far as getting your permits and this and that, and it takes like six, eight months, you know, and they know that through water management to get proper permitting to demuck and refill, and, you know, and it's only -- we didn't meet with them in April. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I mean that's when it first started when the problem was found. MR. BLOCKER: Yeah, but we met with the county -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You meet with them -- MR. BLOCKER: -- three months ago, four months at the most. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But from what I've heard from the county, what this board has heard, you haven't made any kind of application to get any permits yet. So, I'm understanding -- I'm trying to understand you've been told you need them, but yet I don't -- where is the paperwork? What's -- why aren't we doing something? That's what I'm confused about right now. MR. BLOCKER: Well, that's -- you know, we -- as far as -- you know, like I say, we met with them, water management, and they just basically were out of it, you know, and as far as -- you know, we hadn't filed any paperwork to -- to, you know, get any permits to -- you know, for the clearing of the three, four acres, whatever it is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL-- Okay. MR. BLOCKER: Actually about three and a quarter acres is what -- you know, if somebody wanted to come out and measure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's fine. That's what I'm trying to understand is, you know, you were told you needed permits but so far you haven't done anything about it. Page 44 February 22, 2001 MR. BLOCKER: Well, we've had -- we've done a lot since then. It's not like we just -- we've been meeting with water management, I've been meeting with two engineering. You know, it's a long process as far as trying to get that done. And all they said -- they didn't give us a deadline. You have to have a -- get a permit in six months or four months or three months. Keep us informed on what's going on with that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But that's Southwest Florida Water Management. MR. BLOCKER: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What have you been doing with the county? MR. BLOCKER: Collier County told me that in that meeting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Collier County told you you didn't have to get a permit. MR. BLOCKER: They just -- they didn't say we're going to give you two months to get a permit, six months to get a permit. Say, keep us informed on what's going on. And then, you know, we have to -- we want to see the permits from them first and then we'll issue a permit. We want to see the permits from Southwest Florida Water Management. You know, the permits that they're requiring that you get and then we'll -- we'll issue a permit along with that. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Can I ask? MR. BLOCKER: You can get Alex or whoever back on the stand and ask them that. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Michelle, could I ask you a question of clarification? According to the executive summary, on August 10th, Mr. Blocker and many of the staff in the county had a meeting and in that meeting he was provided with the permit requirements and informed that the case was to be held in abeyance until his application could be reviewed. So, at that point in time it's my understanding that Mr. Blocker's understanding is that everything with the county is on hold until his application could be reviewed. You met again on the 7th. Then on the 19th, you sent a letter to Mr. Blocker. I don't know if I have a copy of that letter. Do we have that in the file? And that letter, I'm assuming, said, hey, all bets are off right Page 45 February 22, 2001 now, you need to get a permit. Is that correct? Can you tell us what happened in that letter? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, the letter was to inform Mr. Blocker that unless some activity occurred in terms of submitting for the permit, that we would be prosecuting this case before the CEB. We would be continuing the prosecution of the case so the holding of the case in abeyance would be off and we hadn't received any information from them. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: All right. And do we have any -- any evidence that that was received by certified mail? I don't have a copy of it in the package here. At least I don't believe. So, I think what I'm asking for, can you give us testimony or proof that we actually have that message conveyed properly to Mr. Blocker? MS. ARNOLD: The letter is not in your packet. It says -- and it was addressed to Dean Blocker on September 19th and signed for on September 22nd of 2000 as code violation of the above referenced property -- I mean, as code violator of the above referenced property, you have previously been advised of the violation described in the attached Notice of Violation and stipulation. As of this date the violation has not been corrected. Please be advised that your failure to correct the violation has resulted in this matter being tentatively scheduled by the Collier County Code Enforcement Board. This office will present the facts surrounding the violation to the board. The board then will deliberate this matter. If the board should find existence of a violation, they may impose fines of up to $250 per day per violation. Also be advised that failure to pay such fines could result in filing of a lien against your property. Immediate action on this part to resolve the matter is requested. Please contact, and it provides the investigator's name and phone number, at your earliest convenience. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That sounds pretty clear to me. MR. BLOCKER: Well, as far as a three -- like a three-acre deal, as far as getting a permit, I don't know. I don't know if they go by acreage or how it is, but if I was -- you know, why would I hesitate if I don't even know what the permits cost, two, $300 to clear a piece of property like that? Why wouldn't I just go ahead Page 46 February 22, 2001 and do that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, that's why we're trying to get the information, so that's why I ask. You know, did they tell you and now it's -- MR. BLOCKER: I've been working with -- you know, whether you believe me or not, we've been working with water management, trying to get everything worked out with them and through our two engineers. I can give you both their names that's actually who we've been talking to and trying to get everything worked out, and it just takes time to do all that, more than two, three months, or five months, you know. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Did you pass this information along to the county? MR. BLOCKER: We had a meeting actually-- COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I mean, since -- since that letter was sent to you in August, did you then call the county and say this is my progress, this is -- we're meeting with water management, this is where we are? MR. BLOCKER: In August. Now, that -- if I'm -- I'm not -- I don't remember but I -- was our meeting before or after that letter that we had? MS. ARNOLD: The meeting was before in August and the letter was in September. And if you -- if you can look on Page 2 of the first executive summary, it does indicate that Miss Sulecki spoke with Dean Blocker on the 27th of September and at that time he did advise that he had hired a consulting firm to prepare the plans and information that was required, but we had attempted to contact that firm and could find no information as to, you know, the location of that particular firm to try to assess where they were in the process. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Mr. Blocker, you just stated a minute ago you've hired somebody to -- have you hired somebody to start this process? MR. BLOCKER: Well, there's no process now that's going to be done because the two engineers I met with -- and that's what I was stating earlier. Maybe I jumped ahead of the gun earlier. But she -- Alex told us to keep her advised of our conversation, keep us advised. You know, she was real nice Page 47 February 22, 2001 about it. Keep us advised. That's reason I wouldn't as far as -- you know, I've got 30 days to do something or whatever, because there was no kind of -- you know, just keep us advised with what you're doing with water management and these engineers. So, anyway, we got quotes from two engineers and, you know, it's making these decisions, you know, moving that to a 12-acre reservoir or leaving that one and getting quotes. You know, it takes them time to get quotes back to us as far as -- you know, they had to send their people out and draw out the blueprints and everything and what it would take to do it. And it was around a $90,000 process to do it or leave it like it is and have a three-acre reservoir instead of a 12-acre one. They would have to convert that and fully mitigate that -- that 12-acre deal, you know. I was saying it would be worth that transaction if we were in the middle of Fort Myers and Naples to where the property would have been worth doing that to. So, we decided to just --just leave it like it is, the three-acre reservoir like it was, and told water management that we're not going -- you know, they -- that's what they wanted here, water management. They didn't want us to demuck it or fill it or anything to start with, so they were glad to hear that. They said, well, just keep it mowed then. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BLOCKER: They didn't fine us, didn't say anything, you know. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But we have two things. One is the lake, which is into the water management really. The other thing is the land you cleared without a permit. And there's really no way to get around that. MR. BLOCKER: If I need to get a permit, what's it take to get a permit? You know, I'm not saying -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what we're trying to understand. Okay. You have these two things. One is the lake, which you made a little bigger and you decided instead of going 12 acres, you're going to leave it like it is, but the other one is you cleared about three and a quarter acres, you're saying, and you understood you needed a permit to do that and so far that hasn't been done. Now, that doesn't sound like a big deal to me. You fill out a Page 48 February 22, 2001 piece of paper, pay the permit and say, sorry, I did it, here. MR. BLOCKER: The reason I hadn't-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Why hadn't you done that? MR. BLOCKER: If she would have said you got 20 days to come in and do that with us instead of saying keep us informed and this and that, you know -- you know, as far as that goes, if I had to do it today or tomorrow or come in and do the paperwork, you know, get the permit, and I don't know. Like I say, I don't even know what they cost to do it, if it's two, $300. You know, I don't --you know, I don't know what it costs, but-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what we're trying to -- MR. BLOCKER: It's not a big -- you know, that's what's kind of confusing me, you know. It's kind of-- if I need to get a permit, let's -- let's do it and -- COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Michelle, I have a question. I think that you and he are in agreement that you wanted to be kept informed, is that correct, that the -- that you wanted to be kept informed from what he was doing with water management? You didn't say you must get a permit by a certain time. You said, keep us informed. Then you sent the letter saying that you hadn't heard from him, et cetera, then there was a conversation after that letter. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Let -- let me just clarify. We did meet with Mr. Blocker and Kenneth Blocker in August of 2000. Now, at that time they were unclear what they wanted to use the property for. And that was the reason why we held the code enforcement case in abeyance, until they determined what they were going to use the property for. He's indicated today that they're not going to be doing what they tended on doing with the property. However, we still need to address the clearing of the property and the excavation of the property. It's -- it's been done and it's a violation to do that without obtaining a permit. For the clearing or the vegetation removal, there may be permits that would be required for this from the other districts that Alex indicated in her testimony. And upon approval or a waiver or -- you know, he's saying the Page 49 February 22, 2001 Water Management District is not going to require them to get a vegetation removal permit or any other permit. They have to write that down and submit it to the county and then he can obtain his vegetation removal permit from the county, which in this case we would require also a submittal of a mitigation plan because he took out vegetation without -- we don't just authorize the removal of vegetation without an intended use. With respect to the excavation, we provided him with a permit. That was something we thought he was going to do very quickly because it was something that the engineer indicated that they would authorize. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I guess what I'm unclear about is were you waiting to get something written from water management before you would require him to get his vegetation removal permit? MS. ARNOLD: We were waiting initially to -- for them to determine the use of the property. Since they've indicated they're not going to use it the way they were going to, we would -- we continued prosecuting the case and we were trying to address the vegetation removal. We explained to the Blockers that they would have to obtain authorization from these other agencies as well prior to submitting our -- for our vegetation removal permit, and they have not done that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: So, as a part of the permitting process, they've got to get prior approval from another agency. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. In getting this approval from these other agencies, obviously they're aware that this thing is ongoing because there's been some people involved. Do you have knowledge -- is this a long process? In other words, to get this piece of paper that the county needs from these other agencies to issue a permit to Mr. Blocker, is this a 30-day deal, a six-month deal, a one-year deal? MS. ARNOLD: I'll have Alex address that particular -- MS. SULECKI-' I want to back up just a minute. My name is Alexandra Sulecki, Collier County Code Enforcement Department. Back up just a minute and explain the permit that we required them to get. Okay. It was not a regular permit but an Page 50 February 22, 2001 after-the-fact permit. The only way we give after-the-fact permits are if the activity would have been permitted up front. They're not just given to any case. So, what we asked the Blockers to do was decide what they wanted to use the property for, if it was a permitted use, which that's why I mentioned agriculture, because that would be a reason why we would give a clearing permit. If they decided to do that, they would need to get their district permits and Army Corps permits first before we would issue that after-the-fact permit so that Collier County can be assured that all the issues have been addressed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And the district permit and the Army Corps permit would be for the agricultural use? MS. SULECKI: Correct. And if the Blockers chose not to do that and are not going to use it for purposes that would have been permitted up front by the county, then we would not issue an after-the-fact permit, so it's not as simple as getting -- filling out the paperwork and getting the permit. It depends on what their use of that property is for. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But getting these -- getting -- getting your after-the-fact permit where you need this other information first, do you know the time period to get this other, quote, permit or approval from these other agencies; Corps of Engineers and all that? I mean, is that a -- obviously some of them have been involved. I don't see the Corps of Engineers name down here, but is that a 30-day deal, six-month deal, one-year deal? I mean, if today we said we're going to give you X to do something, I have no idea what X is. MS. SULECKI: I don't know the exact time frame, but I will tell you that we would not be here today if they had even made application for those permits. They have not even made an application. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, I'd recommend that we just kind of just break this apart a little bit. Probably ought to just have a finding of fact. I think it's relatively clear that we actually do have a violation that exists that permits were not pulled. And if we can just -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let -- any other questions for Miss Page 51 February 22, 2001 Sulecki or Mr. Blocker? MR. BLOCKER: I've got a couple of things. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BLOCKER: As far as what the property was being used for is agriculture and that's what it's being used for. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BLOCKER: I don't know what they're -- you know, we've got cattle on it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's true. MR. BLOCKER: Second of all, I don't know what kind of vegetation they're talking about. If water management, and they have people that actually come out, they examine that whole -- they're the ones that originally come out and stop the project and called the county. They sent crews out there and examined the whole property. They've got pictures. They -- and they take that really serious. Now, if they -- they thought it was such a big issue, instead of just telling us to keep it mowed, and I can give you two names that they had people that told us that in that meeting, they would have fined us, they would have made us, you know, go through all kind of stuff. It was about a 30-minute meeting. We showed them pictures. They came out and looked at it, you know, and there was -- and that's what -- you know, I don't know -- understand why this is such a -- you know, making this such a big process here other than now if we need to get a permit, if it's -- as far as getting a letter from them, the two people that told us that from water management, saying that we're not going to require any permits from them, we'll just let them mow it, keep it mowed, they're going to leave it like it is, I can get them that letter probably in two days as far as that goes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Okay. Anything else you'd like to tell us? MR. BLOCKER, SR..' I'd like to speak real quick. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, you're going to have to come up and be sworn in, sir. Anything else sir?. MR. BLOCKER: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' All right, sir. Thank you, Miss Sulecki, unless you have something else? Page 52 February 22, 2001 MS. SULECKI: May I clarify?. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Yes, clarify because I'm still a little bit -- MS. SULECKI: I just wanted to clarify the type of vegetation that I observed removed. There were other types of vegetation on the site. They explained to me they had brought much of that there from other areas to burn. And I understood that. But the area in question, there was primarily willow and Brazil -- there was some Brazilian Pepper. That's primarily what was removed. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: If he gets this letter from water management saying that he doesn't have to get any permits from them, you still need something from the Corps of Engineer; is that correct? MS. SULECKI: That's correct. The -- but I would say the agricultural purpose that was explained to us at the time was row crops. I'm not sure about using it for -- for just turning out cows on, whether they would need special permits for that, and I'm -- I'm not sure how that issue would work. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Blocker. MR. BLOCKER: Well, as far as -- as far as the agriculture, you know, and I -- she should know that, as far as being a county person, you know, agriculture is agriculture. It's either farm -- but if you farm it, you would have to go through water management, the county and everything to get your permits for farming. Cattle, that's what it's zoned anyway. And we've got a hundred and something cows on there right now and, you know, like I say, as far as the -- I'm wanting to say something about the vegetation she brought up there. Anyway, I forgot what I was going to say. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. Thank you. MR. BLOCKER: Do you want to talk? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Blocker, come forward. (Mr. Blocker, Sr. was sworn by the court reporter.} MR. BLOCKER, SR.: Kenny Blocker, Sr. First of all, that water management, that's a cow slew section there. Have you ever heard of cow slew? Anybody know that? Page 53 February 22, 2001 That's a different division. Cow slew. Dallas Townsend out of La Belle, he's the head man of that. And that's a crossing right there. See, it's a cow slew, water management situation. Now, number one, the reason they excused us for that, they wanted to get and run is what they wanted to do, water management. What happened is that's created all the water pumps and all from all of them groves for several miles around is all pumping that-a-way. It's all pumping -- in other words, they don't none of them have reservoirs. Just way back, years ago, didn't put in any reservoirs. So, they're pumping in their water. That's what -- right now we've got water laying in there now because they pumped -- they had them freezes, you know, and so they filled up all their ditches because of the freezes and then now they pumped it all out the next day after the freeze. So, what that does, it comes underneath them covers and it gets straight in on that land, where if it was a bank or something, that's what Dallas said, what you ought to do, Kenny, is throw your bank up and detour the water because they -- they took their water now and went up through north and went across -- I can't think -- but anyway the water is managed now if that was protected. That's what we want to do, stop that water coming in on us, you know. I mean, they're pumping water in on that property. That's the reason it's existing. The man that had that property for 40 years fought them and fought them and fought them, you know, so that's when we brought it to their attention, all the aerial maps and all, and they looked on there, and Greg -- what's his name? MR. BLOCKER: Craig Smith. MR. BLOCKER, SR.: Craig. Craig, he looked down and he said, good gracious, I see a water pump, you know, where they pull water out, headed that-a-way. Look at it. You can see them all through the field. MR. BLOCKER: Illegal pumps. MR. BLOCKER, SR.: Illegal pumps. So, now I ain't in here trying to get nobody in trouble. That's what I told them. We ain't trying to get nobody in trouble. We're Page 54 February 22, 2001 just trying to get our water -- I mean, our three acres, four acres, whatever it might be, that it ain't drowned out when they pump their water. So, it's a bigger issue than what really everybody says. And by me living there 41 years, I know the area and a lot more of them in that area knows the area, too. So, this shouldn't even be nothing, just really -- I mean, of course, everything is something to it, but this by water management seeing it, they was pumping their water illegal on our property. I mean, there ain't nobody got the right to do that, shoot water down on your property. That's a really neglected area for years. The whole community come up and shake your hand because we did clean up that mess. It was a mess there. Coming in on the 82, 29, they've seen that save a lot of wrecks because you couldn't even see 29. I mean, we've done the community a favor by cleaning it up. I feel proud. If you're going to look at it -- I mean, there's really a need for that area. And ask anybody out there that looks in that area. I mean, that's a great thing that we done. We should be getting credits. Now, we ain't hurting nothing, not hurting nothing at all. All you done is cleaned up the dope. I remember the time when the police would run some young boys that run in there with dope, and while he was in there -- what all kind of dope? Probably them -- really, that was an area that needed to have been cleaned up. The state don't even keep it cleaned up out there. You ever see the side of the side of the road? Those ditches going underneath there, there's no -- it's been neglected for many, many years and nobody wants to take responsibility to go out and fix it. So, I wish you all would really get in behind the state or whoever and let's clean up that area. I mean, it needs to be cleaned. It's on that far side of Collier County. Nobody goes there. They wouldn't have come unless they was called. Matter of fact, the water management told us, said, we're excusing this but now you all -- you know, you'll have to deal with the county because we did call them, you know. And I said, well, I can take care of that because I know Page 55 February 22, 2001 enough of them over there. I think I can go and get it overrode (sic} because it's really no big issue, you know. I mean, if you ride in there and look at that, very good looking deal on what we've done compared to what it did look like. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. MR. BLOCKER, SR.: And most of those pepper trees do. I mean, I know pepper trees. I know what needs to be cleaned and I'm the daddy and I took care -- I helped take care of it. I own a lot of property out there. I'm probably one of the biggest -- well, the biggest -- I ain't bragging, but I'm just saying -- of course, sometime I'm hated, but I am the biggest commercial holder out there. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Mr. Blocker, did you realize you needed to get permits? MR. BLOCKER, SR.: No. What I needed, number one, is that situation, you didn't -- shouldn't have had to have no permits at all because of what was in there. Vegetation, there was no greenery in there. Lilies and all that kind of stuff, nothing of that. What was there might be still there, still there. We didn't even take that out. But, like I said, if you would call whoever or check with whatever, water management, they told us to check with Dallas Townsend. See, they -- Dallas Townsend, I called him. He said, Kenny, throw you up a dike there. Of course, we're always thinking, you know, just throw up a dike and that would just detour the water. Their water come in on it and that's what really should have been done and still need to be done. And I'm probably going to do it to keep -- unless they make all them groves take care of the water problem. It's a problem that needed to have been taken care of many, many years. It ain't like Naples here or whatever. You know, I mean, we've got a -- we're country out there, real country, and on that side, you get more country, right up next to the Hendry County line, within a mile from there. So, it's something that needed to have been taken care of many years. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Mr. Blocker. MR. BLOCKER, SR.: Getting tired of me here. Page 56 February 22, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. Any information is helpful. MR. BLOCKER, SR.: It's just upsetting to me, you know. I mean, something like this. I mean, I pay a lot of taxes in the county and although it don't give me no right to do nothing illegal, but we didn't do nothing illegal, bottom line. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Miss Sulecki, could you tell me again, just to clarify, what is required to obtain a permit? And we're talking about both cases. MS. SULECKI: Please repeat your question. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: What specifically is required for the respondents to do to obtain the permit, the after-the-fact permit? MS. SULECKI: If he wishes to get an after-the-fact permit for the clearing, he needs to have a use that is something that we would permit it up front and then prior to getting the application from us, to obtain approval the South Florida Water Management and Army Corps of Engineers. That could be done through a letter of exemption or a permit. In the case of the excavation, he needs to submit an excavation permit to Collier County. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: What are we looking at as far as time frames to accomplish that task? MS. SULECKI: If the Army Corps does not have an issue, nor does South Florida Water Management, with the use of that property for agricultural purposes, the county has already indicated that we would issue an after-the-fact permit which can be done in several days. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: If Southwest Florida or the Army Corps have a problem with that, what are the conditions then? MS. SULECKI: Then we would not issue an after-the-fact permit. If we could not issue an after-the-fact permit, we would require mitigation. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: What are we looking at time frame though for the whole process? MS. SULECKI: For which process? COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Assuming we had to go to mitigation. MS. SULECKI: If we had to go with mitigation, we would be asking them to submit and have reviewed and approved a mitigation plan within 45 days, and then we would be offering Page 57 February 22, 2001 them three months to complete that. Because it's a larger project, the standard time in the code -- in the Land Development Code is 15 days to complete after approval of the plan. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: So, that's what you're basing the staff's recommendations on basically?. MS. SULECKI: That's correct. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: The vegetation that was removed, what was -- was it just general vegetation? I'm just not quite clear on removing vegetation, what you mean by that. I mean, is it -- are you being specific about certain types of trees, bushes? MS. SULECKI: Yes. I was specific in my report that day that I noted that it was willow, primarily willow removed from the wetland area. There was some Brazilian pepper in there, too. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: So, that's the issue are those types of plants. It's not just the complete excavation of them. MS. SULECKI: No. Actually, it's any vegetation that's removed requires a permit, even exotic vegetation on undeveloped parcels because our staff wants to come in and make sure there are not other issues like wetlands present that would require additional agency overview. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions? Keeping in mind we have to keep these two cases separate, let's first deal with 003, which is the clearing of, according to Mr. Blocker, approximately three or three-and-a-quarter acres without permit. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, I think unfortunately it's clear that we actually do have a violation of -- of the code simply because a permit was required and none was -- none was granted. And I understand that the problems that the respondent may be having in trying to accomplish that. Myself, I'm not clear yet on the order part, but I think there's a finding of fact that I would make a motion that we do have a finding that a violation does exist in this case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me stop a minute and ask Miss Rawson a question. I know we have always issued orders that have a finding of fact and an order of the board, which says do such and such. If the board cannot make a determination on, quote-unquote, its Page 58 February 22, 2001 order of the board, can that be done at a later date, just you have your finding of fact? MS. RAWSON: Oh, I guess the answer to the question is, yes, it's not the preferable method because you need to make findings of fact and base your order on the findings of fact after you've heard the evidence presented. And, so, I'm not sure what would be accomplished by delaying the rest of your order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: I mean, you might forget some of the facts that you heard in evidence today -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: -- is the danger of taking anything under advisement. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What I'm trying to do is clear up all the options that we each may have running through our head that, yes, there sounds like there may be some special circumstances. There seems like a lot of people involved and this one told that one and this one -- and in trying to understand all that and weed it all out so that we can at least be clear in our minds that we need to finalize some type of something for them to do and whatever that may be. Okay. MS. ARNOLD: I think the permit process clarifies all of that. I mean, those questions are answered through the permit process. The property owner comes in and tells the county or whatever agency what their intent is on the property to use the property for. That agency tells them what type of permit they would be required to have, and at that time of the permit process, it's clarified what needs to be done. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand all that, but based on what we've heard and from testimony, I'd say up until this point, it seems -- it appears, whatever the right word is, that's kind of been a cloudy issue. I'm not sure the respondents were given, quote-unquote, specific directions to do this. It was kind of vague to them and it appears that no other help was given other than a letter was sent saying, we're going to do this, and I don't know that they understood the intent of that letter. They were still operating under some other premise and that's the problem. Page 59 February 22, 2001 So, I'm trying to be fair. I understand we're -- you know, what the permitting process is, but at the same time I think this board needs to understand that getting here was not a straight road. It was kind of a dotted line and we need to understand that -- COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I agree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -. we can give them some direction now, which would be permanent, but getting here was kind of convoluted. That's what it appears to be to me based on everything that's been said. MS. ARNOLD: I'm sorry that the board feels that way. I mean, the staff took their time to meet with the property owners and explain to them what they needed to do. It's -- it was left up to the property owner to determine how they wanted to use the property. And they were given since August till today to determine how they wanted to use the property. It -- it appears to me that they've testified they've determined that. They haven't obtained the permits yet. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand what you're saying, but at the same time they were being told by another agency that -- MS. ARNOLD: That is not here to testify. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- they didn't have to do this, they didn't have to do that. And they're confused with, I think, all these agencies telling them one thing and then -- it just appears a little confusing. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But we're hearing just one side of that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand, but that's .- that's all we can base our opinion on is the one side we've heard unfortunately. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm going with the letter that was sent certified, returned and they got it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. I mean, I've mulled that in, so I'm just saying it's -- it's not as clear cut and dry as it appears. So, I think -- you know, first of all, we need to have a finding of fact that is there in fact a violation. And I believe Mr. Lehmann -- MS. ARNOLD: Can I just -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- did think that it was. MS. ARNOLD: -- note .- can I note for the board that on Page 9 Page 60 February 22, 2001 of your packet is a Notice of Violation from the investigator that clearly indicates what they were .- what was expected of them in terms of a mitigation plan for the clearing? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: And -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And you also had a meeting in August that told them you were going to put everything in abeyance, so I understand that. MS. ARNOLD: And we've discussed it after that with them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's correct. And I don't think it was clear to them. That's the problem. Okay. Do we in fact have a violation? COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: I think, if nothing else, we should take it one step at a time anyway because it is a little bit complicated. I move that we have a finding of fact that a violation in this case does exist. Jean, you can always put all the particulars into it. I move that we do find a finding of fact that a violation exists. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And we're dealing right now just with Case 2001-003 -- COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- which is the clearing. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second that there is in fact a violation on Case 2001-003. Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Order of the board. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Do we have an opposed vote? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have enough ayes to carry but were there any opposed, since I didn't ask that question? (No response.} CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none, order of the board. Keeping in mind that to get this, quote-unquote, I guess, after-the-fact permit, the respondent will need to contact some other agencies to get letters or whatever document is required to submit to the county and we have no basis to know what that time period may be. Keep that in your mind. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Well, let me make this comment. Page 61 February 22, 2001 Having moved originally to find a violation that exists, my concern with that is as our chairman said. There may be a little bit of communication problems in this. My concern is that at this point in time what is a fair and equitable time period for the respondent now that he understands without a doubt that a violation exists, that a permit is required? What is an appropriate time period, bearing in mind that he has to have other agency approvals to obtain an after-the-fact permit or develop a mitigation plan? What's appropriate for a time frame? I don't know whether 45 days is too long or too short. I'm sorry. Miss Sulecki, you had indicated earlier that just on this particular case, 2001-003, the 45-day period and staff's recommendation is that the respondent be ordered to submit and obtain an approved mitigation plan within 45 days and within three months of that approval to complete that. Is that -- you had indicated sometimes it's a 15-day period is typical and 45 days is more than lenient? MS. SULECKI: Yes. The code specifies 15 days for completing the mitigation after approval of the plan. In this case because it's a large area, we extended that to three months. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And-. MS. ARNOLD: With respect to the mitigation plan, I believe the code also indicates a 30-day period to submit an approval and we've extended that to 45 days. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: All right. But my question again in those time periods, does the respondent have to interact with any other agency to accomplish this? MS. SULECKI: Not the mitigation, no. Only the after-the-fact permit. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: So, if he -- if the respondent obtains an after-the-fact permit, he doesn't need to go to the mitigation path. He may obtain a permit that allows him to do what he did. MS. SULECKI: I believe the after-the-fact permit issue was offered at the time of the August 10th meeting, and since we had not received any kind of notification of application to other agencies, we proceeded with mitigation as the recommended -- COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: All right. Page 62 February 22, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So, you're saying the county wouldn't even let him apply for a permit? MS. SULECKI: I'm not saying that, no. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Well, you say it was on the table and now it isn't, so -- MS. SULECKI: Well, the description is it's -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- I mean -- MS. ARNOLD: Well, the recommendation is -- THE COURT REPORTER: Just a minute. One at a time. MS. SULECKI: Sorry. MS. ARNOLD: I just want to clarify what -- what the investigator was saying is staff's recommendation is a mitigation plan based on our experience with the case, and that's -- that's what Miss Sulecki is indicating. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Okay. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: In the description of the violation, it says without obtaining Collier County permits. But instead in the recommendation, you're not suggesting or recommending that he try to get his permits. You're just going right into m!tigation. think that somehow there should be an opportunity ,f he can ..I MS. ARNOLD: That's -- that's up to the board. We're just indicating what our recommendation is. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: My -- my feel, my personal feel, for this particular case is we have a respondent that's trying to do the right thing. We have the county that is saying we have laws and ordinances that need to be upheld and you have not followed them. And the board has agreed with the county. And in fact a violation did occur. What's important, I think, to the board is that we achieve compliance. Whether the respondent obtain an after-the-fact permit or whether we have mitigation, I don't care what it is as long as we achieve the compliance. So, I for one, as I say, if we as a board decide to go the mitigation route and follow staff's recommendation, going after-the-fact permit, I don't care and I don't think the board should weigh heavily in one direction or the other. I think the option should be available to the respondent. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I agree. And I think any order should be of a nature to give them that option to either obtain the required Page 63 February 22, 2001 permits or an approved mitigation plan and that that be done in some period of time, give them a period of time to do either. And I don't know how long it takes to get the permits or the mitigation, but maybe you can do them both within some time period like three or four months. They can always come back and say, gee, we're trying for the permits but it's going to take longer, can we have more time, and the board is allowed to give them more time. We can change our order. But I think you should give them the option to do either/or in some time limit and let them make the decision. It's their property and their money and they have to decide which would be easiest for them. Would that be logical, Miss Rawson, for us to -- MS. RAWSON: I think so. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' -- put it in an either/or and in some period? MS. RAWSON: Some reasonable time limit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: A reasonable -- okay. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: My concern as far as time period goes, staff is recommending 45 days for mitigation. With the other agencies, is that sufficient time to go the after the fact -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, they also say obtain the plan and then within three months complete the mitigation, so -- COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: But this is only for the mitigation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. And not knowing how these other agencies are going to react to the permit, that's our unknown, we've gone down this road so far for ten months and they're trying -- or obviously I think they've been working with a lot of people, maybe not sufficient information back and forth or understanding of information. I wouldn't see it objectionable personally to giving them some time period and I think that time period to do either/or, I would recommend, should be like a 90-day period. And if that's not enough, let them come back and ask for more time. COMMISSIONER DUSEK.' I'd like to see a longer period. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Well, let me clarify a statement regarding whether or not the respondent knows that permits are required. I -- I believe in the evidence just simply by receiving the Page 64 February 22, 2001 certified mail on September 19th that at that point in time in the respondent's mind he should have understood that the permit is required. He should have been working on it at that point in time. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: At the same time, we're here at this stage and we have to be realistic about it. But there's no doubt in my mind that on September 19th, the respondent should have known that, hey, the county is serious, a permit is required. And I should act -- I should start working in that direction. I don't know if 45 days is suffic!ent for .an after-the-fact. I don't know if 90 days or 180 days ,s suffic,ent, but I think the board can set whatever time period it wants and the respondent can always come back to us at a later date and say, listen, we have these obstacles, can we get an extension? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's pretty much what I said. So, can we -- all we need to do is pick a time limit here. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let me make a motion. I move that the respondent be given 45 days to obtain an after-the-fact permit or to submit and obtain an approved mitigation plan and then be given three months from the approval of the mitigation plan to complete the mitigation. I guess that would be -- the first part of my motion. The second part would be open for discussion. I think $150 a day is extremely high. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I do, too. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I just don't buy this. To me it sounds like what they didn't do is get a county permit. Okay. After the fact, you get it. So, I'm going to -- then I'll throw out for this. Or a fine of $25 per day be imposed for each and every day after noncompliance plus all nonoperational costs. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second. The only item I would recommend is your motion be in two phases; Item I being the -- getting the permits and the plan and the fine, Item 2 being the operational costs incurred in prosecuting the case. That would be two separate items. Is that -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Fine. That's acceptable. Page 65 February 22, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They should be separated. Miss Rawson, do you -- MS. RAWSON: Yes, I do. the -- Okay. I don't like linking them together. When does the fine ensue? Within CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: At the end of the 45-day period is the way I understood the motion. MS. RAWSON: Okay. And then if the mitigation plan, assuming that's the way they go, is not complete within three months -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, they couldn't do the -- they couldn't do the three months unless they get the plan. So, my understanding of the motion was that the fine would start at the end of the 45 days because the other period doesn't exist unless they get the plan. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The fine would start at the end of the 45 days if they have not obtained either an after-the-fact permit or an approved mitigation plan. If they have obtained one or the other, if they have obtained an approved mitigation plan, the fine would start three months after they were to implement -. when the implementation were -- when the plan was supposed to be completed. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: I think the fine is a little light and I'm afraid of these one dollar fines. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just ask the board if they could, on the portion that applies to obtaining the after-the-fact permit, indicate if obtainable just so that we cover the basis if they can't get it, we're not directing them to get something they can't get. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Absolute-- I would concur with that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: May I say something? Mr. Blocker has lived here for 41 years and has told us that he owns beaucoup property. Now, surely he knows .- he should know what the rules and regulations of Collier County are. Just keep that in mind. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Rawson, are we straight on -- MR. BLOCKER, SR.: Well, keep this in mind. I'm the one -- don't own it. My boys own it, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Rawson, are we -- are we understood now where this fine -- because I'm not. I'm still Page 66 February 22, 200t confused as to what we're doing. MS. RAWSON: Well, I'm going to try to repeat what I heard. Obtain the after-the-fact permit if obtainable or obtain approved mitigation plan within 45 days, and if neither of those occurs, the fine ensues, whatever you decide it might be, and if the mitigation plan is the route they go, they have three months to complete the mitigation or then the fine would ensue. Is that what you said? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's what I said. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So, the fine really doesn't kick in. If they don't get an approved mitigation plan, the fine kicks in? MS. RAWSON: Yes. I think that's what she said. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. If they do get the approved mitigation plan, the fine is extended another three months. MS. RAWSON: I believe that was her motion. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now, we have a time period and the motion included a $25 a day -- we had a motion and a second and we -- any further discussion? COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I just have one question. I second the motion, but, Michelle, do you have any idea if the 45-day time period is possible when it involves other agencies? I mean, is that realistic? MS. ARNOLD: Well, I mean, I don't -- I can't indicate what their time frames are going to be, but Mr. Blocker did testify today that if it were an exemption letter, he could get it in two days. So, I mean, he's indicated that he's been working with the water management district as part of his testimony, so I wouldn't imagine 45 days would be unreasonable if they're aware of the situation. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Well, I know for water management, the Corps of Engineers is also involved and so I don't know how they operate. MS. ARNOLD: I can't answer that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, understanding that he can come back and ask for an extension, so -- MR. BLOCKER: Corps of Engineers don't know anything about this. You all called them, but we had never spoke to them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We're not taking any more Page 67 February 22, 2001 testimony, sir, so I appreciate your comment but -- okay. We have a motion and a second. The further discussion that I would add is, as my colleague said, that the $25 a day is, I think, a little light. I throw that out but -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I agree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other discussion since we have a motion and a second? We'll take a vote on it. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. One -- I think that was three, I believe. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Four. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Was it four? COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Four of us. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All opposed, no. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: No. COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS: Nay. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm opposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Four to three. Motion carries. That's on Case 003. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Now, Mr. Blockers (sic), both of you MS. ARNOLD: You have to do a motion for the other case as well. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we have the other case to do right now, so -- COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I just wanted to make one comment, which would be for both, and that is if you're not able to accomplish what we've asked you to accomplish in that time frame, you can come back and ask for an extension. MR. BLOCKER, SR.: We need to come back to a meeting like this? COMMISSIONER DUSEK: You need to contact the county. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. Contact the-- MR. BLOCKER, SR.: I'll -. you know, as far as the two-day deal, I can get it from water management in two days. I can't get everything. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We understand that, sir. We're just telling you that you have the right, if something happens before Page 68 February 22, 2001 the 45 days is up, to tell the county you want to come before us and ask for an extension and we'll grant it. Okay?. Not a problem. All you need to do is tell the county. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Don't say we will automatically grant it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, if-- if the Corps of Engineers says they won't give a permit, we've got to give them time. We can't be unreasonable. Okay. Case 004. We need to find a finding of fact and this is the one where we made the lake bigger than it should be without a permit. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Again, Mr. Chairman, I would just make a motion that we do have a finding of fact that a violation in this case does exist. And, again, Jean, if you could get the specifics. Basically, board of county commissioners versus CEB, Case Number 2001-004, Mr. Dean M. Blocker and Mr. Kenny Junior Blocker -- Kenneth J. Blocker, Jr., a violation of Section 3.5.3 of Ordinance 91-102 as amended, Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation as observed, excavating machinery on site and an excavation of dimension is 227 feet along the south side, 302 feet along the north side to the south, and 210 feet along the north side, being a lake in excess of one acre in total size. Jean, if you can just fill in the rest of the specifics on that? Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that there in fact is a violation. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Excuse me. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. I have one question for Miss Arnold. As far as the permit for the lake, are the other agencies involved in that? MS. ARNOLD: They are not. Page 69 February 22, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They are not. Okay. Should be straightforward. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Michelle, again, you have a recommendation that a permit is actually obtained within 30 days. Is that a realistic time period for any reviews or rejections? MS. ARNOLD: We believe so. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any motions from the board as to the order of the board? COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I'd like to make a motion that the respondent submit permit application within one week and full compliance with permit requirements be obtained within 45 days, permit approval, or $25 per day be imposed for each and every day of noncompliance, plus all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: My only comment would be the operational costs be a separate item, not tied to -- COMMISSIONER DUSEK: All right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- doing the permits. Then Item I being obtaining the permits within the 45 days or a fine of $25 per day, Item 2 being that the respondent pay the operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case, period. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So that they're not tied together. Any other discussion on the motion which has been seconded? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Just one. Mr. Blocker, do you understand? Okay. As far as the lake part of it, you need to get a permit on it right away. Okay? MR. BLOCKER: I would. I've got to contact the engineer to get slopes and all that done. I guess that's -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. If you'll -- if you'll work with the county. We've given you 45 days to do all that, so again if it's not enough time, come back and tell us why it's not enough time and Page 70 February 22, 2001 we'll try to help you. MR. BLOCKER: A week is -- COMMISSIONER DUSEK: The week was for the application. MR. BLOCKER: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's just the application. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Get the application in within one week. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The permits, 45 days. MR. BLOCKER: All right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The next case is 2001-005. MR. BLOCKER, SR.: Through with us? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir, Mr. Blocker, we're done. Thank you. MR. BLOCKER: Thank you very much. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Ghairman, if we can wait a second. The representative for this case should be outside and I would like to swear them in at the same time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's take five minutes while we get everybody organized, give everybody a chance to stand up. (A recess was had.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll call the board back to order, please. And we're dealing with Case 2001-005. MS. CRUZ: Let the record show that a representative, Pastor Daniels, is present, a representative for the respondent, the Florida Conference of Free Methodist Church and initials WAVE conference of the Free Methodist Church of North Naples -- North America, Case Number CEB 2001-005. Before I ask that the packet be admitted into evidence, and if there's any objection from the respondent representative, I'd like to add an additional memo to this packet. It's a memo from Gary Harrison outlining he is the structural building inspector and it's outlining the most current conditions of the subject property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. CRUZ: I'd like to request that the packet provided to the respondent, to the board and to the Clerk of Board be admitted into evidence, marked Composite Exhibit A at this time, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You say there's someone here from the -- MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. Pastor Daniels. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Pastor Daniels .- PASTOR ORIS: Yes, sir. Page 71 February 22, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- do you have any objection to the county submitting this package to us? PASTOR ORIS: No, I do not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. PASTOR ORIS: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would entertain a motion that we accept Exhibit A from the county? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So moved. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. CRUZ: The alleged violation being brought before this board on Case Number 2001-005 is the existence of an unsafe structure for habitation in its present condition. This violation exists at 421 Carver Street, Immokalee, Florida, and it's a violation of Ordinance 76-70, the dangerous or hazardous building ordinance, Section 2.8, Paragraph C in Section 3. The owner of record of this property is the Florida Conference of the Free Methodist Church, address of record, 6745 38th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida. The violation was first observed on February 10th, 2000 and Notice of Violation was issued to the respondent on March 13th, 2000 requesting compliance of-- by April 15, 2000. A current inspection was conducted yesterday, February 21st, revealing the violation remains. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I have a question, Miss Arnold. Why has this case been presented to the board. MS. ARNOLD: Because the department believes that there is a violation, and -- and if you're making reference to the fact that we can act without the board's direction, we have been in constant communication with the respondents and I believe because of that point, it would be appropriate to bring this item before the board to try to get a resolution in a timely manner. In addition, the ordinance requires some assessment on the part of the department if they choose to take actions into their own hands. I think because the respondents were indicating to us that they were planning on obtaining a mortgage to do the work, I didn't think it was appropriate for us to take on the expense of determining the appraised value of the property and coming up with an assessment to determine the percentages Page 72 February 22, 2001 that are indicated in the ordinance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Under the ordinance you cited them, that's not an option, as I read the ordinance. MS. ARNOLD: It is an option that I have at my discretion that CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not under this ordinance. This ordinance states when you certify this structure and you send this letter, then the county manager or, I assume, his designation, it doesn't give that option either, notifies them, and then after they're notified of this, and it says the county will remedy the condition at the cost of the owner, it says shall. It doesn't give the county any other option to say, well, we really don't want to do it because it might cost too much. That's not what this specific ordinance says. That's what bothers me. This ordinance doesn't give the county any out. It says when you notify a person of this condition, and they don't do anything about it, then the county will either remedy the condition or tear the structure down, period. That's why I'm saying why is it here for us to decide? The county -- it's their ordinance. Why aren't they doing it? MS. ARNOLD: If the rest of the board feels the same way, you can decide not to hear this case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I'm trying to understand why it's here because in reading the ordinance, and I've spoken to Miss Rawson about it, and she and I are of the same vein -- MS. RAWSON: Two word on Section 3 is certainly shall. If you look at Section 4, and I realize that they weren't cited for that, it says if the owner fails to repair the hazardous condition within 30 days of the service of the notice, and clearly he was noticed, that a hazardous condition exists or within .- or within 15 days of the final determination by the board, that's you, that a hazardous condition exists, then in ordering the repair or demolition of the dangerous building, here are the guidelines that the county needs to follow. So, I'm not trying to put words in Miss Arnold's mouth, but I think what I heard her say is that they thought the respondent was going to do it and maybe .- I mean, you can ask her-- maybe she is looking for some guidance in whether or not it should be repaired or demolished. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. As I understand in reading this, Page 73 February 22, 2001 the word hearing before the board, the board is the county commissioners, which is under the definitions, not the Code Enforcement Board. MS. RAWSON: Well, that's true. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So, if there's going to a hearing, it will be before the county commissioners, not the board. MS. RAWSON: And the hearing would have been initiated by the respondent. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So, I'm still trying to figure out how it got here. It seems like everything is between the respondent and the county; i.e., the board of county commissioners. That's what I don't understand. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I explained why I brought the item before the board. If the board disagrees with me, as I indicated before, you have the option of not hearing the case. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I for one think it makes sense for us to hear the case. We in the past have taken what we've considered to be a life threatening or dangerous situation and instructed the staff to act within twenty -- or the owner to act within 24 hours to secure the premises. And, you know, based on what I'm seeing, I think maybe we can act really fast. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that, but in those other cases, this was not the ordinance used for the violation. It was the building code ordinance. They cited using this specific ordinance this time, which the ordinance itself gives a very specific remedy, which is the county shall either prepare the structure or tear it down. The other ones that have come before us were against the building code. I went back and looked them up. So, that's why I'm concerned. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Concerned about -- about what, the ramifications of the board acting on this or what? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess from my standpoint, if I was on the other side of the table -- it's an open hearing, so I'll just say it. You've cited someone for not -- for having an unsafe building under a specific ordinance. In that ordinance its only option is they either fix it or the county will fix it. Now, you're coming and asking somebody else because the Page 74 February 22, 2001 county didn't do what they're supposed to do. The county just chose not to do anything. I would argue that why are you going to cite me and fine me when the county failed to do what they're required to do. You're picking on the public and yet the county failed to honor the ordinance. The ordinance is real specific if you read it. I read it a lot of times before I called Miss Rawson. COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS: It's a jurisdictional question. I think whether or not this board has jurisdiction. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. I mean .- COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Do we? COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: I don't think it's a jurisdictional question at all because the Florida statute gives us the jurisdiction to hear the case. But I agree with my colleague, our chairman, that this may not be a case that's -- that's worthy of the board's attention because the county has had -- had an opportunity to do something and he's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, you could go so far as to say you've cited this gentleman for an unsafe building. The county should be citing for failure to follow the ordinance. The ordinance say they'll either tear the building down or fix it, period. MR. LEHMANN: The county has the right to use this board as a vehicle to accomplish its task. It also has a right not to. We have the jurisdiction to hear the case, like I say. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Miss Rawson, what do you say? MS. RAWSON: Well, I say it's the pleasure of the board. You do have jurisdiction to hear the case, but Mr. Flegal correctly points out that the statute or the ordinance cited uses the word "shall". And in your packet, there was a Notice of Dangerous Building sent on February 16th, 2000, so 30 days is past. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. And the county chose not to do anything. I mean, they failed to follow their own ordinance. That's what bothers me. I think the county should just go do what they're supposed to do; fix the building or tear it down unless the respondent comes to the county and says, yes, I'm going to do it even though time has passed. Page 75 February 22, 2001 COMMISSIONER LEHMANN.' Miss Rawson, has a final determination by the BCC been made yet? MS. RAWSON: I don't believe that there's been a hearing before the BCC, because I don't believe the respondent requested relief after the notice was sent. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Is staff looking for this board to make that final determination on behalf of the BCC? MS. ARNOLD: I'm sorry. I didn't hear what the question was. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: In Section 4 of the cited ordinance, it states, if the owner fails to repair the hazardous condition within 30 days of service of the notice, and to go on, or within 15 days of the final determination of the board, the hazardous condition exists, then the county manager shall and according to the repair or the demolition of the dangerous buildings be guided by the following standards. My question is obviously we've passed the 30-day deadline for service. Are you, staff, asking this board to now act and provide a final determination for the BCC in lieu of -- MS. ARNOLD: No. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN.' -- a BCC hearing? MS. ARNOLD: No, I'm not asking you to act on behalf of the BCC. I think Mr. Flegal indicated that that -- or maybe it was Miss Rawson indicated that really makes -- that notice or that action of the board is making reference to at the request of the respondent. That's not at the request of staff. It's my opinion that I have the discretion to determine whether or not I take a matter of violation before this board or not. And the -- the ordinance gives us the ability to go ahead and take action on it. I use my best judgment, and because these respondents indicated that they were -- they had every intentions of -- and it was a matter of obtaining a mortgage and -- and we felt that they were working towards it. Rather than utilizing my authority under this ordinance to go ahead and correct a problem and then assess additional costs to the respondent, I sought -- I thought that it would be more appropriate to bring it to this board. I -- you know, I'm using my judgment in terms of how I can obtain compliance the quickest and by bringing things to this board, we've gotten the ball rowing a lot quicker than in other cases where we just kind of work with them and wait and -- and Page 76 February 22, 2001 that was my intent, that you all would hear this case, determine whether or not a violation exists and ask the -- the respondent to proceed in a timely manner. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I would concur and I would -- personally would like to hear the case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. All those in favor of hearing the case, signify by saying aye. Those opposed, no. No. Okay. Anybody from the county now that we've -- MS. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. I'd like to call John Marsh at this time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody else? Pastor Daniels, would you raise your hand? We'll swear everybody in at one time, sir. (The witnesses were sworn by the court reporter.} CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. MARSH: For the record, my name is John Marsh. I'm an investigator with Collier County Code Enforcement. I first got involved in this case on May 26th when I took it over from Investigator Sal Soldano who initiated the case back in February 10th of 2000. The whole matter of the case here boils down to the fact that these buildings are still there and we've been working with the church to try -- and they've been trying to get a loan to take care of the property. So, rather than go in and tell them to tear it down or have it torn down or something to the effect, it states in the paper we just got today that they are saveable. So, instead of initiating the cost to them of demolishing the buildings, have to build all brand new structures, we were trying to work with them in order to save what they can save out of it. And I was talking with the pastor over the last few months and also today. Supposedly their loan is almost coming through. They're able to take care of this situation. That's why it's taken so long and that's why we're here today. If he wasn't going to be able to get a loan, then possibly go through with tearing the buildings down or something to that nature, but that's where we are. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sir, is it possible to secure the premises to an extent where it would be safe where you wouldn't have indigence or transients? MR. MARSH: They could be secured from -- until they do make Page 77 February 22, 2001 their repairs, yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: In what manner? MR. MARSH: Oh, the windows and doors could be covered up and secured. That's what the problem is now. There's no -- no windows or any doors on any of the buildings to stop people from going in and out. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You could even fence it, couldn't you? Put a fence around it and keep it -- MR. MARSH: Yes, a fence could be put around the property. That probably would be cheaper. I have talked to the pastor about getting his parishioners out and possibly a work crew in that manner so that they could take care of the buildings and save the buildings. Part of their problem -- I'm not trying to be their defense or anything, but part of their problem is they've had -- their conferences have had problems. They've changed pastors and so on, but they are working toward their loan. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And this is an existing church that meets in Immokalee at another location? MR. MARSH: It's all within the same city block or town block. The church is at one corner, up -- I believe it's -- I can't remember their name. It's up at Booker. And this is at the other end of the block, which would be Carver and Booker. These other -- these properties were behind them. They acquired the property so that they would have more buildings for more functions for their community and their parish or their church. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Fine. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I would like to see them fence this so that no one can get in there and then keep working on that loan and keep the division notified at all times as to where you stand and let them tell you how long .- do you have any idea about the loan? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He's not testifying yet. Let's not ask him questions yet. Keep that in abeyance until we get -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I think that's important. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, let's wait until he gets here. Let's deal with the county's information first. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Do you know how far their loan is? Page 78 February 22, 2001 MR. MARSH: By talking with the pastor this morning, I was told that within, I think, two or three weeks they should get the final word on the loan. Somewhere along the line evidently, like other paperwork and such, it seemed to have been held up by a certain individual and that obstacle has been passed now and the loan is on its way. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The letter that was issued in -- let's see -- I guess February of 2000, when that letter was issued, I assume in the file, and this is what you gave us this morning, there's notes in the file to delineate this back a year ago since this letter -- this memo was just written today or yesterday? MR. MARSH: This was a recent inspection that was just made yesterday or the day before. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. MARSH: We asked the inspector to go back out and reevaluate the buildings. It's just an updated -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: This report is based on inspection made MR. MARSH: Yesterday. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -. yesterday? MR. MARSH: Yes, sir. MS. ARNOLD: On February 20th as indicated in the memo. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. MARSH: At this point we wanted to make sure that the buildings were still saveable. That's why we had them go out and reinspect. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. You didn't -- you didn't originate this; right? MR. MARSH: No, sir. This was originated in February of 2000 and I took over on May 26th of 2000. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other questions for the county at this time? I have one for Miss Arnold. Since we had this inspection done on the 20th of this year, what's in the records from February of last year? MS. ARNOLD: In terms of what exactly? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The -- an itemized inspection of the property. MS. ARNOLD: There is no itemized inspection of the property dating back to February 2000. Page 79 February 22, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: The only thing that was issued was the Notice of Dangerous Building. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And there are some photos of that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for the county? Thank you, sir. Pastor, you're up. If you'd like to come up, sir? PASTOR ORIS: Yes, sir. I think it's about good afternoon and my name is Pastor Daniel Oris from Immokalee Church. We've been trying so hard to have that loan. And I've been assigned as a pastor to Immokalee Church for two years now. But the previous pastor that was there before me, he was the one who encourage to go ahead and purchase those apartments for the church. But somewhere down the line, there was a communications problem between the seller and the pastor. He was defraud by that person. In the front of the property, there are about two or three houses. And he thought he bought those houses. And we end up getting what we have now. It's been a disaster for the church. So, the superintendent came over and speak to the member of the church to encourage us, do not give up. Somehow they will help us to get a loan. But they sent me an application and I fill it out and I sent it back to the conference. And I have to tell you what we're trying to do in Immokalee -- I don't know if those of you have a chance to go around Immokalee. Immokalee is a -- is a country where it's need help. We're not only there to help people to be saved spiritually, but we're there to help them physically. And which means to provide them food and that's where we are at now. But those apartments that we bought is that we're forced to repair them and get them ready that people who can rent them out cheaper for people -- for people to live. We've been trying and trying pretty hard and hard and hard. Nothing has been happening. And, finally, this is a letter I got yesterday from the person -- his name is Mark Olson from Free Methodist Foundation. He's working right now hardly on that Page 80 February 22, 2001 enforce. And the good news, after all we had been through, and finally, like John just mentioned, in two or three weeks we will be able to get a final decision from the foundation. What I'm hoping is to have the loan. Now, I have many people in the church. I would say I have Immokalee ready to donate their time, voluntarily, to have those building fixed so we have -- we have applied for -- for $100,000 loan to repair those apartments. Then bad shape. We know the conditions and we didn't want to go through this, but somehow we end this and we just hang in there. And I would ask you, ladies and gentlemen, and to bear with us in this situation and I'm hoping very soon the problem will be solved. And if it's -- if -- if -- to make you happy we'll do -- I will do everything in my power to fence the apartments, and right now what we can do, and like I can have a meeting next week with the members of the church to explain to them what the requirements are and we can do something even before we get the loan. We don't know how long that will take to get a permit to fence those apartments to keep people out, because we know Immokalee. It's a bad situation with drugs and people can use those empty apartments to do whatever they want to do. But we don't want that happen. We're there to try to make a change for the people in the community. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions for the pastor?. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes. Sir, you said you're trying to turn this into affordable housing basically. PASTOR ORIS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Have you been working with the county's Division of Affordable Housing, Greg Mihalic? PASTOR ORIS: No, I have not. The -- the organization that we are in, they have a group of men and they call -- I forget what they call it again, but this mens are people who will donate their time. They are contractors, constructors guy. They came over and they donate their time and they already -- we had a contractor that has came from St. Pete and mix them around and see the property. And there will be make a decision to come soon, we got the loan, to come help us out. Page 81 February 22, 2001 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You indicated that in two to three weeks you would have a decision on the loan. PASTOR ORIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Not have the loan, which takes time after that. Does the church have any resources to put at this point towards securing the property?. PASTOR ORIS: Well, to be honest with you and with this question, it's an awful situation. The church doesn't have money because the people in Immokalee who are member of our church, they're working in packing house. How much do they make a year? It's 3,000, $6000 a year. So, which mean we don't have a lot of money coming into the church. But at the same time, we've been making monthly payment of $1,150 to the foundation every month and for a property that we cannot do nothing yet. So, now it's -- it's the responsibility of the foundation to help us right now to get a loan to repair those apartments and get them ready and rent them out. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: How many members are there in your church? PASTOR ORIS: In my church. Well, every Sunday we have new faces in the church, but approximately we have about 250 members in our church. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for the pastor? Thank you, sir. PASTOR ORIS: My pleasure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You can sit down. I guess before we -- I ask for you to make a determination and a finding of fact, I'll make a comment based on what we have just heard. The reason I'm against this being before this board is a couple of things and they've obviously become evident. The church has been cited for failure to comply with this ordinance. One of the requirements of the ordinance is when you notify them, which there is a letter of February 16th, 2000, that it's unsafe, one of the requirements to send that letter is that there's an itemized report. Miss Arnold has said there's no itemized report in the files, never was, until yesterday. There's supposed to be one in the Page 82 February 22, 2001 files before you send a letter. So, the county sent a letter without meeting the requirements of the ordinance. That bothers me. The other thing is that if you follow the ordinance, which is what, you know, the county is supposed to do, they're supposed to make these determinations. They've chosen for whatever reason, because the church is supposedly working on it, not to do anything. Obviously, the church is making some headway. I still think the county should be trying to work this out without being here. They don't want to follow their own ordinances, but they're asking this board to issue orders to somebody to make them follow an ordinance. I find that to be an extremely unfair practice. I'm sorry. If you're going to come here and ask us to make a decision, you should be following all your own rules. In this case, I don't see that happening. Now, I ask the pleasure of the board if they have a finding of fact, if there is in fact a violation? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: My opinion is that there's a clear violation. I think that perhaps code enforcement can do something to help alleviate it. So, I would go two ways. First, my recommendation would be to find the finding of fact and then I'd come back and say that we give them 48 hours to secure the premises or direct the county to do that within 24 hours following that, because I'm very familiar with the situation in Immokalee and the housing situation. I would then probably give the church a maximum of 60 days to either get their remodeling permit and begin actions or tear down the property and if the case -- if that cannot be done, then I would again instruct the county to do that. We're not going to clean up in my opinion the situation in Immokalee until we take some hard and fast action. I would refer the church to the office of Affordable Housing. Greg Mihalic is a very knowledgeable, experienced person. He probably could have gotten you funding a year ago. But you say you have -- the church says they have volunteers. They have 250 members. I realize how much the farm workers work in the packing houses and their times and the rest. It's a great Sunday project, if nothing else, to get the thing secured. Page 83 February 22, 2001 I'm very intolerant of any time or effort end. You are probably right, Mr. Chairman, that we shouldn't be hearing it, but I'm here and I'm hearing it and I'm delighted to be able to take some action on it, so let me make a motion, that respondent -- COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And then we can have further discussion. But that the respondent secure the building within 48 hours or the county be instructed to do so within 24 hours following that 48-hour period. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: May I just interrupt you? We haven't found a violation. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, that -- okay. Oh, I'm sorry. You're right. I move that we find a violation of fact. You can add the rest of the things and you're absolutely right. I apologize. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Jean -- Miss Rawson -- MS. RAWSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- do I need to give you all the bells and whistles on that because I never know them? MS. RAWSON: You -- well, I can probably do it but, you know, just in your own words, if you're going to make a motion about a finding of fact for a violation, just cite what -- what the violation is. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. In county board Case 2001-005, board of county commissioners versus Florida conference of the Free Methodist Church and WAVE Conference of the Free Methodists of North American regarding violation to Ordinance Number 76-70 of the Collier County dangerous or hazardous building ordinance, I find -- I move that a finding of fact be established in this case? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that there is in fact a violation. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second. Any further discussion? I would just again state we're finding somebody guilty of a violation where the county is just as guilty All those in favor that there is in fact a violation, signify by Page 84 February 22, 2001 saying aye. Opposed, no. No. Now, the order of the board. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I would move that the respondent be ordered to secure the buildings within 48 hours and maintain them secured until construction commences under proper permits -- wait a minute. Let me go back. I'm sorry. I move that the respondent be ordered to secure the building within 48 hours and maintain it secured. If this is not done, that the county -- code enforcement staff be ordered within 24 hours following that period be ordered to secure the properties. That's the first thing. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: May I make the comment on the first? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: It's relatively difficult nowadays to secure a residence within 48 hours. Even if the -- if the church were to hire a fencing company to install a temporary fencing that you normally use on construction sites, I can't get something done in 48 hours for construction, so I think that's a little bit -- I think that's the impossible task that you're asking. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I would agree. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: What is a reasonable -- COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Staff had recommended seven days. Bear in mind that's five working days. That's pretty tight. And I -- I understand that you're trying to secure this to prevent possible injury to the general public safety and welfare and all that good stuff. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: They can walk in and get a permit for a fence the same day, can't they? MS. ARNOLD: But this is not obtaining a permit. It's securing the building. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Well, I'm talking about in order to erect a fence around it, they're going to have to pull a permit, aren't they? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: But that's an express permit. They just walk in with their -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: They also have -- COMMISSIONER GODFREY: .- survey and -- Page 85 February 22, 2001 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: They also have the ability to just board up the windows and doors, which isn't as good, but they have that ability as well. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm not trying to be unreasonable so if seven days is what's necessary, let's amend that -- that motion to read within seven days and the county to take such action in -- as an expedient -- in an expedient manner to do the securing of the building if it has not been accomplished within seven days, so I'm not putting a deadline on the county say the -- if they don't do it in seven days, you guys get in there and please do it. The second part of the motion, I guess, would be to obtain whatever remodeling -- to obtain whatever permits are required for either remodeling or demolition within 30 days and keep those permits valid through a -- through the CO or a fine of $250 per day be imposed for each and every day of noncompliance. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: I apologize but I have to object to both conditions. COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER unrealistic. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Yeah. LEHMANN: Permits within 30 days is totally DUSEK: Right. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: If you have a building that is supposedly structurally unsound and you've asking to have the congregation hire an engineer-- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: .- to prepare all the engineering for them, I -- I can't support that motion. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: No, no. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: On the other hand they've had a year. I understand they're still going for loans. The loan may not come back for two, three, four weeks. Do you want them to just keep it secured until they're prepared to do something? That's okay. I mean, I'm asking. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Well, I'm not making the motion. I just answered. I cannot support those particular terms of -- of the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We all keep -- for whatever reason, the members of this board keep glossing over the county has had the Page 86 February 22, 2001 authority since they found the problem a year ago to solve it. The county has chosen not to solve the problem. They brought it to us and asking us to tell the county what to do. I find that a little strange. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, if I -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They've had the power in the ordinance. It's very, very specific, and now they've come to us and said, you guys tell us what to do. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Well, if I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, Jean, they have the choice of bringing it to us or going out there and taking care of it? I mean, I know that they have the authority to go out there and take care of it without coming to us, but do they have a choice of bringing it us rather than doing that? MS. RAWSON: Well, that requires an interpretation of the statute, and the statute as cited in Section 3 basically says they send a letter, the respondent has 30 days to repair it. If the respondent doesn't repair it, the county shall repair it. Notwithstanding that, this board made a determination that you were going to hear the case, and so now you are hearing the case, and so now it's up to you to make the findings of facts and conclusions of order -- COMMISSIONER DUSEK: So, now-- MS. RAWSON: .- in the order. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: -- we're past that issue of whether -- MS. RAWSON: We are. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: -- we should have done it or shouldn't have. So, now we've cited a violation and we have to make a determination on what to do. MS. RAWSON: But you still have the right in drafting your order, if they don't repair or whatever, to have the county move in. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I understand that. MS. RAWSON: You still have that option. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Right. My concern -- I mean, I realize that sometime -- there's been a lot of time involved here and it should have been taken care of before now. I -- even the seven days I have a problem with getting it secured. I don't know if they can. I don't know it would be done or if they're going to have to get somebody out Page 87 February 22, 2001 there to do it or if the congregation can do it. If somebody mentioned Sunday is the time to do it and the pastor get his congregation together -- I mean, I'm -- I'm trying to be reasonable now. I realize we have to follow the codes, but we also have the leeway to adjust those a little bit, work from a guideline. And the $250 per day I do not think is fair at all. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: No. COMMISSIONER DUSEK-- So, I need some guidance, I guess, maybe from Michelle to help me determine whether the seven days is a reasonable time. You have put that in here, and as far as fencing goes, I don't see how they can do the fencing part. Now, maybe the boarding up they could do. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. We didn't specify, you know, how they would secure the building. We -- we felt that the seven-day period would be reasonable to secure the building somehow. As far as the 30 days to obtain a remodeling permit, when we were discussing this case amongst ourselves, we were under the impression that they had a contractor evaluate the building as part of their process to obtain the loan and thought that -- that the plans for obtaining that remodeling permit were underway. I just talked to the pastor and he had indicated that they weren't underway. So, the 30-day period probably is a little bit tight in terms of obtaining a remodeling permit. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: So, what would be a reasonable time frame? 45 days, 60 days? MS. ARNOLD: I think 45 to 60 days probably would be a little bit more reasonable and with -- with all of these, as you instructed the prior respondents, if the time frames aren't reasonable, then you -- and they can show that they were working towards obtaining it and show where the delays occurred in the process, the board has an ability to modify their -- or grant an extension or to modify fines if they start accruing. MS. RAWSON: And if I might give you a little guidance on the fines, you know, you need to keep this in mind on all the cases, Chapter 162.09, in determining the amount of the fine, you shall consider the following: The gravity of the violation, any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, any previous violations committed by the violator. Page 88 February 22, 2001 Those are the things that you need to keep in mind every time when you decide how much fine you want to impose. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Well, my thinking is if we're going to give a certain time frame to complete this and if it's not completed, that the county goes out immediately and takes care of it, that -- and then charge the respondent whatever that cost is. So, the $250 a day doesn't even seem to apply because the county is going to -- COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: If you choose that where you're ordering the county to take care of it and to start basically -- I mean, why do we hear here the case in the first place? COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Well, we're past -- COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Regardless, we decided that. I -- I have some -- some problems with -- with hearing the case also and simply because that I understand that the county has the ability to use this board as a vehicle to accomplish the task. They've decided to do that. We've agreed to be used that way by hearing the case. I think we need to consider that in -- in the order for the respondent. Sixty days to get a permit, obtain a permit, the way he's going, I think is -- it's too tight. I don't know what the backlog is now with the county as far as obtaining a permit for just a residential construction that doesn't need any special engineering. I -- I would suspects that 60 days would be too tight. I think that -- I agree. I think you're slapping the wrist of the respondent because the county doesn't want to do it, and I think that's wrong. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Well, we've -- we've determined that there is a violation and now we have to -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Determine that. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Yes. Offer a remedy. So, in your business, you can help guide us also, Mr. Lehmann least four to six months to get all his permits with everything that's wrong with this property. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Well -- COMMISSIONER DUSEK: -- for time frames and -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think it's going to take him probably at Page 89 February 22, 2001 COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Well, that -- that assumes alSo that he has a loan and has -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: -- a JC that's willing to do the work because he can't do this without a JC. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That would at least give him time to do something and come back to us. I mean, getting a fence around it, I don't have a problem with, but -- COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- I think he needs a long period of time to not only get his loan, because he's not going to be able to hire these people to start the permits until he gets money. MS. ARNOLD: My understanding is that they have a group of contractors that they work with as a part of their foundation or the congregation at different locations, so they wouldn't have to go the normal route that a general citizen would to obtain a general contractor. They have people that they work with to get some of the work done, but getting the permits applied for and the drawing submitted that are required, you know, I think, Mr. Lehmann, you would know. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Well, I agree with -- with Cliff. I don't have a problem in securing the buildings within a reasonable period of time, but at the same time you have a respondent that's trying to work with you. We need to keep that in mind. Excuse me, sir. Do you -- as Miss Arnold said, Do you have general contractors -- THE COURT REPORTER: Would you go to the microphone, please? COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Do you have contractors within your congregation that are able to pull the permit? PASTOR ORIS: We have been working with what they call Craftmen for Christ. They are those who have been retired and come and help out whenever it's needed. And when they come, they go ahead and get the permit. MR. LEHMANN: Are they licensed contractors -- PASTOR ORIS: Yes, contract -- yes. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: .- in Collier County so that they can pull a permit? Page 90 February 22, 2001 PASTOR ORIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER DUSEK-- And would they be able to secure the building immediately? PASTOR ORIS: No. I haven't been in contact with them yet because we have nothing in our hand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you, sir. PASTOR ORIS: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Perhaps what we should do is simply order them to secure the property. We have no right to insist that they have do anything else as long as the property, I guess, is secured. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think that you probably said the thing that's most important, I believe, for this board. We've heard the case. Because of the safety factor, I think the maximum extent this board should go is to order the respondent to secure the property, period, and we're done with it, and let the county enforce their own ordinance. Let's just get the property secured and let the county do what they're supposed to do under their ordinance; either fix the property or tear it down, and if they choose to work with the church for however long, that's their decision. I think what we should do is just secure the property and be done with it. We don't need to tell the county to tell the respondent to fix the problem or order the county to fix the problem. They had the power to fix the problem. For whatever reason, they've chosen not to do that. I think we should just secure the property and let the county get back to where they're supposed to be, enforce their own ordinances. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: I concur with my colleague. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Miss Rawson, if we do that, does that put it back in the hands of the county? They can still go forward and -- MS. RAWSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Okay. MS. RAWSON: Certainly they can under that ordinance. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, miracles happen and let's just do this and then let's just wait. I just have a great feeling that Page 91 February 22, 2001 everything is going to turn out very well. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So, what would the order of the board be? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: To secure the property, period. MS. ARNOLD: Within? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Within -- COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: 14 days. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. 14 days. That sounds good. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And if they fail to do that -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's the division's problem and code division's problem -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- from there on. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess what I'm looking for is if he fails to secure the property, do you want to impose a penalty if he doesn't do that? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. No. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: I would recommend that if we -- if the property is not secured by the respondent, we order the county to secure the property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: Period. No fines involved in that way. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have a very hard time with not putting a fine. I know -- given what's going on in Immokalee and it will never get it straightened out or cleared up unless we put some teeth behind what we're doing. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Who's going to pay the fine? COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Well, the church -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But if we order the county to put the fence up, then it's -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: They put a lien on the property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I mean, they could do all that under that their ordinance. I'm still a little gun shy about us doing all this, so that's why I say let's just order them to put the fence up or secure, however means, and if they don't, the county has to do it. I -- I don't see putting a number on it at that point personally. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I agree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's just -- one or the other, has to get it Page 92 February 22, 200t secured, period. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Let's just get it secured. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: From that point on, it's the county's problem. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, let's get it secured, period. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: if the motion is to secure the -- order the respondent to secure the buildings within 14 days, and if that is not completed, then to order the county to effect those COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: -- those actions, then I would second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Now, I want to understand that if the county goes out and does this, then they charge the respondent. Is that automatic, Miss Rawson, or do we have to -- MS. RAWSON: That's what the ordinance says. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The ordinance tells the county they can charge back. Okay. Is that the extent of the motion? We have a second on it? COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Opposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. One. MS. ARNOLD: Can I have -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Reverend, do you understand what we've said? We're giving you 14 days to secure the property by whatever means; the fence boarded up, whatever it takes. If you don't do that in 14 days, we're ordering the county to come out and do it. Okay? And we're not talking about fixing the buildings. This is just to secure the property. Okay? Do you understand that? PASTOR ORIS: Can I say something? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. I want to make sure you understand what we've just done. MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask a question about the prosecution Page 93 February 22, 2001 costs because that's something that wasn't mentioned by the board? MS. RAWSON: The prosecution costs, if you -- the county were to secure it, are obtainable under that Section 3 of that ordinance. They didn't put that in their motion as I understand it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. We didn't. MS. RAWSON: But it's in the -- it's in that ordinance, that you can charge it back to the respondent. MS. ARNOLD: I'm talking about the costs for prosecuting the case. MS. RAWSON: Oh, this far. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We didn't put that in our motion. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. I just wanted to clarify it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. PASTOR ORIS: Yes. I understand the plan, but what I have a little problem with is the 14 days because right now I have called Tropical Fence because I have an unfinished project for this existing church to be done. And it's been over a week and three days now.~ They haven't get back to me. Now, 14 days to get all my members together, find a way to get the funds, maybe asking for money to get the fence company to come over-- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Can you just -- PASTOR ORIS: -- to do that for us. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Can you just get boards? Can you just get some boards and put over the doors and the windows for right now? That would be a whole lot cheaper than -- than the fence. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What we're concerned with, since it came to us, is we know time has passed and the properties look like it looks, but now that we've known about it, we want that situation solved. We don't want people to be able to go in there. So, that's why we put this time limit. If you want to use, with your phone calls to fence companies or whomever, or, you know, if you choose to put -- I don't know if putting plywood over all the openings would be cheaper. Maybe you can go cut a deal with somebody to get plywood and just nail them over the openings, windows and doors and that would help. Page 94 February 22, 2001 That's still not going to keep people from walking up the stairs and falling through stairs and that. I understand that. But we're looking at the safety standpoint. PASTOR ORIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And we think 14 days with some pressure, whether it's you and some of your other people -- there's a lot of fence companies in the phone book. And I don't know if you work with specific ones, but I'd call as many as I can get and get some prices and get them out there and tell them that,you know, you've been ordered by the county to do this immediately. See if that won't generate some help on your side as far as the time limit goes. PASTOR ORIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay? Just tell them straight out that you've been ordered to get this done and you will get a piece of paper that's an order. PASTOR ORIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay? We're worried about the safety and that's why we've said that. PASTOR ORIS: I do, too. I do, too. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: You may even find out that some of these fence companies that provide temporary fences may be willing to provide that service to you at a lower cast or even defray it. PASTOR ORIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: PASTOR ORIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LEHMANN: PASTOR ORIS: Thank you. (Brief recess.) But you want to ask them. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Last case, 2001-006. MS. CRUZ: Respondent on Case Number 2000 dash -- 2001-006 is not present. I'd like to request that the packet that was provided to the respondent from the board be admitted into evidence, marked Composite Exhibit A, please. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Do I hear a motion to accept the exhibit, since the respondent is not present? MS. DUSEK: I so move. Page 95 February 22, 2001 Second. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: We have a motion and a second to accept the county's packet. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.} MS. CRUZ: The alleged violation before this board is the removal of vegetation consisting of slash pine, cypress, laurel oak, button bush, saw palmetto, sabal palm, willow, wax myrtle, pop ash, and fern without obtaining the required Collier County building permit. This is a violation of the Land Development Code, Section 3.9.3 and Section 2.7.6, paragraph 5. The owner of record is Calixto and Brenda Lazo. The address of record is Five Olive Drive, Number 9, Hialeah. Florida. The violation exists at 1020 DeSoto Boulevard, Naples, Florida, and is more particularly described as Golden Gate Estates, Unit 84, north 105 feet of tract 67. The violation was first observed on April 11, year 2000, and notice of violation was provided to the respondent on May 6 requesting compliance by May 24, year 2000. The last inspection was conducted February 21, revealing the violation remains at this time. I'd like to call Susan Mason at this time. (The speaker was sworn by the court reporter.) MS. MASON: For the record, my name is Susan Mason; I'm an environmental specialist with code enforcement, and this case was the result of a citizen complaint. I first observed the clearing violation at 1020 DeSoto Boulevard, which is an unimproved estate zone property in April of 2000. Most of the entire parcel was cleared excluding some of the largest trees, and the debris did remain on site. I posted a stop-work order and informed the property owners of the violation via certified mail. Over the past ten months, numerous telephone conversations and attempt at contacts with the Lazos have been made. I've talked with them initially through their loan officer, who did help with some translation. They do speak Spanish, but I -- the -- Mrs. Lazo does speak good English, and I also spoke with her directly, and no progress has been made. Initially the loan officer told me that they had no plans on building on the Page 96 February 22, 2001 property at that time, and I informed them that their only way to resolve the problem would be then to submit a mitigation plan and replant what had been removed. Later, in August of 2000, I did receive a letter from them that stated that they planned on building and they were making arrangements with contractors to decide on a model and have it built on the site. I discussed with them also about the debris removal that still needed to be removed. They were concerned about expenses and what options they had with removing all the debris, 'cause it is a sizeable amount, as you can see from the photos in the packet. And we discussed hauling it off-site, getting a burn permit. They said they were going to try to get a burn permit, which has to be done through the county fire department and also through the state. They stated that they weren't getting any response from the local fire department. When I talked to representatives from the Golden Gate fire station, who would be the permitting authority, they said they were -- that the Lazos had made contact with they, but they were unable to issue a permit because the Lazos would not agree to comply with the conditions of that permit. And there has been no, no building permits obtained; no contact has been obtained -- or excuse me. They had contacted initially in June a consultant to help them with a mitigation plan. Only one contact was made with him, and he never heard from the Lazos again. I did speak to Mrs. Lazo in December and told her that we were going to be going before the Code Enforcement Board 'cause no progress had been made. She told me she would let her husband know. I called again last month and received no -- left a message and received no return contact from them. When I was out at the property yesterday, the violation did remain, including all the debris. MS. TAYLOR: Again, how big is this -- how much area is this? MS. MASON: It's 1.6 acres, and even if they did obtain a building permit, that would only allow for a clearing of up to one acre. Page 97 February 22, 200t I did ask them why they cleared their property, and they were unable to give me any reason why they cleared all of it, so I -- at this point I would have to say we would not be able to issue an after-the-fact vegetation removal permit. MS. GODFREY: Does it look like they used logging? I see some old cypress that I see they've cut logs. MS. MASON: Yeah. No-- MS. GODFREY: It looks like they went in there and just cleared the land and took -- used that as a logging? MS. MASON: I would have to say not, because I, I do have some -- I didn't take any as close up, but I took some photographs yesterday, and you can see that -- the debris piles. There's some here, here. MS. GODFREY: Yeah. MS. MASON: It appears that everything that was initially cleared remains on the site. I don't believe they took it out for any kind of profit or anything like that. MS. GODFREY: Now is this -- was this a wetlands? 'Cause I see some -- MS. MASON: There -- in the .- MS. GODFREY: -- remains of some cypress there. MS. MASON: -- the rear, the rear portion, you can see -- I've got a picture from yesterday. That was the section that would be a wetlands here. You can see this even in the dry season, it's growing back with some green vegetation; but a lot of the species listed, the laurel oak, the button bush, willow, pop ash, and the ferns would all be wetlands species, and the soil maps did indicate a wetlands. The county ordinance though doesn't give any priority to wetlands over uplands, although all species are protected equally. MS. TAYLOR: This is major devastation. MS. GODFREY: They just went in and cleared it and just -- MS. MASON: Uh-huh. MS. GODFREY: And now we have -- what about the fires? What kind of problem do we have with the fires? MS. MASON: Well, I would imagine -- it's been dry now for ten months. It's all been cut down, and it's -. it would burn quite easily, I would imagine. I know they wouldn't be able to get a burn permit this time of year. Page 98 February 22, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Any further questions for Ms. Mason? Thank you. Since the respondent isn't here, will the board consider a finding of fact that there in fact is a violation? MS. DUSEK: I'll make a motion. The Board of County Commissioners of Collier County versus Calixto and Brenda Lazo in the case of CEB Number 2001-006, are in violation, violation of Section 3.9.3 and 2.7.65 of Ordinance Number 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code Ordinance. The description of the violation: removal of vegetation consisting of slash pine, cypress, laurel oak, button bush, saw palmetto, sabal palm, willow, wax myrtle, pop ash, and fern, without obtaining the required Collier County permits and posting on-site. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: We have a motion that there in fact is a violation. MS. GODFREY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: We have a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: The order of the board concerning the violation. MS. DUSEK: I've noticed that the county has recommended obtaining a building permit, but Ms. Mason, I believe, said that they would not be able to obtain a building permit because it's on more than an acre of property? MS. MASON: No. I'm sorry. They wouldn't be able to get an after-the-fact vegetation removal permit for the additional .6 acres. MS. DUSEK: I, I didn't mean building -- well, actually -- okay. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Burn permit. MS. DUSEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Noticing the county's recommendation, I think we should be careful that we don't order them to obtain a building permit, "cause it -- with everybody, they could change their minds and not decide to build a house. MS. DUSEK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: So I don't think the board should put in their order that they have to obtain a building permit. Page 99 February 22, 2001 I think at this point we should stay limited to doing something with what they've cleared, and obviously at this time of year a burn permit isn't going to be obtainable. The order might say something like, they should obtain that burn and/or removal of this vegetation, and the, I guess, county permits, and then as far as the mitigation plan, ask them to maybe do that. And if in the meantime they decide to build, they've cleared it all. They're going to have to replant some of it -- is that right, Ms. Mason -- anyway? MS. MASON: The, the option is given for a building permit, because with the building permit, they can clear an acre, so that was the option. With, with no option for a building permit, they would have to mitigate the entire acre and, what -- 1.6 acres. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Yeah, but if we order them to get a building permit and they don't want to build, I mean -- MS. MASON: It's just giving an option. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Well, but our order -- you know, I want to be real careful that we don't put somebody behind something they can't do. MS. TAYLOR: Can we, can we just fine them for going in there and devastation like this? Can we just fine them for this? MS. MASON: There's not really any way to fine them. Specifically the remedies were either to use it for something and make it a permittable clearing or to attempt to restore the property. MS. TAYLOR: Is there a burying permit? MS. MASON: There would be fines with the building permit. It would be an after-the-fact building permit if they pulled that now or an after -- after the fact, if they could give me a reason why they cleared more than the acre, but that would -- I can only issue a vegetational removal permit, an after-the-fact vegetational removal permit, if they had a permitted use on the site, a primary structure there first. Vegetation removal permits can't be issued without that, so I wouldn't be able to just fine them and leave it sit the way it is. It would -- if they could get an after-the-fact permit, there would be a fine imposed with that, but I -- there's no way in the ordinances to just fine them and leave it the way it is. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: And in the -- in Golden Gate, isn't it that if you're going to build your house, you can go on the back of Page 100 February 22, 2001 your property and dig a hole and put the stuff in it, but you can't cover it up? Is that how I remember the estates? MS. MASON: You can if you choose. It's not required to cover it up, but that one acre of clearing needs to include the home site, wells, septic, the whole driveway, everything. Anything more than that requires a permit. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Okay. MS. GODFREY: We can order them to remove it; can't we, remove it-- CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Yeah-- MS. GODFREY: -- remove it and then a fine -- CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: -- haul it off. MS. GODFREY: -- be ordered to remove it, and the fine is $250 a day if they do not? MS. DUSEK: I can't hear you completely, Kathryn. MS. GODFREY: That they have 15 days to remove the debris, and if they fail to do so, a fine of $250 a day will kick in. It's stiff, but we've got fire problems out there and there's a lot of individuals going out there and clearing off lots with vegetation that are not exotics; and maybe if word got around that you start doing that, you're going to pay for it. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: These people live somewhere else; don't they, Ms. Arnold? MS. ARNOLD: I'm assuming they do. They don't live in -- the, the address of record is Hialeah, not Collier County. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Okay. The only reason I say that, I notice that it seems you have a hard time getting ahold of these people; is that true? MS. MASON: I have, although the one gentleman was a contact for a long time, and he was, he was very helpful. They left the country briefly, but they did return my call and sent the letter after -- I believe it was after that. And I left messages. It's always been the same recording on the answering machine. And I have talked with them personally, but they, they have not returned my calls when they said they would. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Okay. What I'm, what I'm looking to is, if we give them some kind of short time period, it's obvious that they're very hard to get ahold of. I don't know that they'd comply. Page 101 February 22, 2001 MS. MASON: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Knowing that in advance, just a fine of $250 a days because we haven't been able to get ahold of them, I think, is -- we either need to give them some more time or we need to direct somebody else to handle the problem. I would think that would be in the realm of fairness. For whatever reason they don't return your calls, whether they just don't walk to talk to you or -- which, is sometimes probably the case, they know they've done something wrong, and they don't want to talk to you. MS. DUSEK: Do we have to be so specific? Can we just -- CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Well, I'm just saying, when you give them time limits and then say the fine kicks in, we kind of know in advance that they're probably not going to respond, just to amass the money, maybe we ought to direct something else to happen; i.e., have the county solve the problem and, you know, put a lien on the property for the money. I mean, I'm looking for another option other than just amassing $250 a day. MS. DUSEK: No. I agree with you there. I just meant on asking them to remove or mitigate, can we just say, come into compliance? I mean, is that too general? Or in such a time frame and then, if not, a fine will be imposed? MR. LEHMANN.' I think if your intention is to tell them what to do, you have to be general. Come into compliance by whatever means. But what our Chair is suggesting is that we give them a certain period of time, and then after that period of time, we just go clear it, remove the debris, and charge it back to the respondents. MS. DUSEK: Rather than a fine, have the county go out and do this? Is this what you were saying? CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Well, as -- when we do that kind of thing, Ms. Rawson, if my memory serves me right, the fines -- we still can fine them, right? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Yeah, we can still have the fine; we're just ordering, you know, somebody else to solve the problem. We've done that before. MS. TAYLOR: Michelle, because this is such a major, major, major fire hazard, is there not a way that you can go in, give Page 102 February 22, 2001 them X amount of days' notice that they either notify you that they're doing something immediately or the county is doing it and charging it to them, because there is a major fire hazard. MS. ARNOLD: You can instruct us to remove the debris after a certain amount time. You want to give them time to do that themselves. But the case is more than just removing the debris; it's, to come into compliance, they'd have to submit -. you know, for filling out the building permit argument, then they would have to submit a mitigation plan and show us how they're going to revegetate the lot. That's not something that the county wants to contract to do. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Oh, no. I'm not suggesting that for a minute. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: I'm just talking about, let's get the debris off of there first, something along the line of X period of time to remove the debris; and if that doesn't happen, a fine of X kicks in and we order the county to remove the debris, and then another period of time or during that period of time to submit a mitigation plan and get it approved; and if that doesn't happen, then they get fined for that. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Maybe fine them a small amount for the -- or split, split it, so much for the removal and so much for the mitigation, 'cause that would give them the option of either the mitigation plan, hopefully, and, and/or building permit. I'm, I'm just trying to think of ways to get around it but at least get the debris out of there. MS. TAYLOR: Well, I'm not for giving them very much time, I'm telling you that. It didn't take a half a day to go in there with a front end loader and do this destruction. It didn't even take a half a day. And now they need to get on the ball and either get something lined up, within days, I'm talking about, not weeks -- days. MS. GODFREY: We just had a fire out near DeSoto a couple days ago. I don't know how many acres it was, so -- And I live near there. MR. LEHMANN: This may be a real -- Page 103 February 22, 2001 MR. LEHMANN: This may be a real strange question, but is there any input from the fire marshall, the fire districts in those areas, as far as how to handle this type of debris? Is it better to actually remove it, or do they feel it's better to leave it? But what does the fire officials think about this? 'Cause it's really a fire issue that we're talking about. MS. TAYLOR: A ma]or fire issue. MS. MASON: I never specifically addressed anything. The last time I talked with them was during the rainy season when they were issuing burn permits, and they said they would issue it with a lot of stipulations on size of the fire and how much could be burned at any one time and buffer zones and the like. And the Lazos wouldn't comply, but once the dry season kicked in, I didn't have any more contact with them. MR. LEHMANN: I, I think we're trying to micromend just a little bit too much. I think we ought to just say, listen, within a certain period of time, either you remove it or the county will take whatever actions it deems necessary through all the professionals that are working with the county to take care of the fire hazard problem. MS. MASON: Uh-huh, right. MR. LEHMANN: And then as far as the mitigation task, we can handle that as a separate issue in the order. But I think you have two issues: One is, a fire hazard exists right now, and two is the fact that the land was cleared without a permit. The fire issue, I'd just handle it that way, and the land clearing, handle it however the board deems. MS. DUSEK.' That sounds good. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Why don't you make a motion? MS. DUSEK: Put it into a motion? CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Everybody seems to be going along your lines, so why don't you just do it? MR. LEHMANN: You're trying to get back at me; aren't you! The only thing that I have question about is, in my mind, is the time period for the clearing. MS. DUSEK: Seven days? MR. LEHMANN.' Seven days is fine. I think seven days is a little bit short, bearing in mind we have people that aren't even going to be here and may not even know about it within the Page 104 February 22, 2001 seven-day period of time, but that may be their problem, you know. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: I mean, since they're not here, Ms. Rawson, and -- I mean, we have to -- if somebody calls them and tells them, they're actually going to have to receive the order, which -- MS. RAWSON: -- might be seven days. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Yeah, so I think we're -- we need to give them a little more time and have to at least -- MS. DUSEK: Two weeks? CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: -. get them proper notification. MR. LEHMANN.' Well, the concern I have with this time frame is that we have a, a potential fire hazard existing now, and if, if we allow the respondent time to be notified through due process, we may have waited too long, so it's -- CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: But if we don't give them time to get proper notification, we're in trouble. MR. LEHMANN.' We avoid due process, right. That's my concern. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: So you have to put that at the top of the list, proper notification first. Whether we like it or not, we have to do that. MS. RAWSON: They live in the other -- another county, so by the time we get it to them by -- first we have to prepare the order and get it signed, and then they're going to get it U.S. Mail; so, you know, we're going to eat up a good portion of their seven days. MR. LEHMANN: In fact, we may eat up ten days before they actually get it. MS. DUSEK: Let's assume that they get it in seven days, and we give them seven days to clear it. Are we being unreasonable? MS. RAWSON: Well, they have to clear it on the day they get the letter. MS. DUSEK: No. I meant seven more days. I meant a total of 14 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So you're really going to give them -- you're going to give them 14 days. MS. DUSEK: That's what I meant. MS. RAWSON: That's not unreasonable. We have to get the Page105 February 22, 2001 orders to them within ten days .. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So that's more reasonable. MS. DUSEK: That's what I meant. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: How's that time, period of time? MS. TAYLOR: Well, as quick as possible, that's what we need to do, as quick as possible. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: I think 14's a nice number, 'cause the orders will probably -- knowing how Ms. Rawson does them in the -- has done them in the past, this order will probably go out -- MS. TAYLOR: Today? MS. RAWSON: Monday. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: -. Monday. MS. RAWSON: Monday, Tuesday. That's usually the way it's been around here. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Normally when we have our meetings, it's the following Monday that her office calls and asks me to sign them, so they're probably mailed that evening. MS. TAYLOR: Well, let me tell you, if you lived out in that area and you saw these pictures, you'd go ballistic, truly. Most of us live in condos and we don't have many trees around US, Let me tell you, it's not funny. This is serious; isn't it? MS. GODFREY: Yeah, it's very .- CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: I don't think we're making light of it, but we have -- MS. GODFREY: It's scary, it really is. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: -. we have to do the -- MS. GODFREY: Right thing, yeah. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: -- proper notification; otherwise, it will all come back on us, and that's not what we want. MR. LEHMANN: Well, I make a motion that the order of the board be to direct the respondent to remove the material within 14 days. If that is not completed, then we direct the county to initiate removal of that material and all fees and charges that -- associated with that be charged back to the respondent. And then they have 45 days to obtain an approved mitigation plan for whatever mitigation efforts need to be done to restore compliance with the code sections referenced in the violation. MS. DUSEK: Or a fine of -- Page 106 February 22, 2001 MS. ARNOLD: Can we, can we request that a time frame for completion of the mitigation be inserted in there, as well? CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: I thought he said 45 days. MS. ARNOLD: No. That's approval and submittal of the mitigation plan. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: And you want, you want a time limit after it's approved? MS. ARNOLD: No. We could .- CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Is that what you're looking for?. MS. ARNOLD: We could probably stipulate that in the, the mitigation plan. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: I mean, I think when they submit the plan, if the plan says we're going to do this in six months, you say it's not approved, I mean, they're going to have to pick a time that you approve. Why do we need to tell them? MS. MASON: Okay. So as, as part of the plan, if I stipulate .- if we agree on six months or whatever time period if it's finished CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: That's your decision. MS. MASON: -- if they're not in compliance then? MS. ARNOLD: We have to come back, new case, yes. MR. LEHMANN: I think what the board is trying to say is that we don't have the ability to get a good handle on this time frame of what's going to be required to mitigate, because we don't even know what the plan looks like yet, so what we're asking you to do is to leave that under your direction. We'll ask them to give you an application within 45 days, and then they have to comply with our -- with the time frame that you're setting for the mitigation of that particular plan they submit. Jean, is that an acceptable method? MS. RAWSON: It is. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. As far as the fine in here, I would go along with staff's recommendation of $75 per day. That would kick in after 45 days if the application has not been submitted, and additionally it would kick in after the time limit to mitigate has not been completed. So if I have not submitted an application for mitigation to you within 45 days -- I take that back. The 45 days is the time to obtain an approved mitigation plan, so if I have not obtained Page 107 February 22, 2001 approval within 45 days, then the $75 a day kicks in. Once I've obtained approval, if I have not completed my mitigation work within whatever time frame staff has prepared or is in the approved plan, then I have a $75-a-day fine attached to that until I obtain compliance with that mitigation plan. In addition to that, the second part, we need to always add the operational costs incurred in prosecuting the case. MS. DUSEK: I second that. MS. SAUNDERS: Did you want to put a fine on if they do not clear the land within 14 days? CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Well, the county's going to do it and charge them. MS. DUSEK: The find would be the costs. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: It will be the costs of whatever the county charges to clear the land. So we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favors signify by saying aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: That closes our public hearings. New business. Request for reduction in fines. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we have -- this is Board of County Commissioners versus I.E.C. Rentals, Inc. and Ivy Jean Nebus, Case Number 2000-35, and Mr. Cadenhead is here to speak on behalf of the property owners requesting the reduction of fines. MS. RAWSON: Can I ask staff a question before we begin? Is the property now in compliance? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it is. We did an affidavit of compliance at the last meeting. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: And it came into compliance when? Since I don't remember, can you tell me? MS. ARNOLD: We have the 25th of January, is when it came into compliance. We did an inspection that morning and found that the additional violation was removed. This case was a litter and storage case, and the majority of the litter was removed from the property before the board's orders. There was an outstanding issue as far as the storage of a structure, which was obtained -- would need an obtained -- to obtain a building permit to remove it from the site and place it on another site. That was not obtained within the dates of the Page 108 February 22, 2001 board's order. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Okay. So our original -- our order imposing fine only went through January 19, so there's some additional .- there's an additional, what, five days that -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, that, that accrues -- CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: .- automatically. We don't do another-- CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Right. I just wanted to make sure that in addition to what our order said that there's some additional time, and I -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: -- worked that out to be five days -- MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: -- at $250 a day? Okay. You say Mr. Cadenhead's here? MR. LEHMANN: Yes, he is. (The speaker was sworn by the court reporter.) CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Yes, sir? MR. CADENHEAD: For the record, I'm Robert Cadenhead, brother of Ivy Jean Negus. We represent I.E.C. Rentals on this. We, we ended up with a -- we complied -- we moved every bit of the debris there was. Had a meeting with the county on December 26 which was the day of compliance. The county came to the site, inspected the site, and the only thing left was one building structure that we had a permit to move in there to start with. In this building permit, we was waiting from the county for a permit we submitted on, on 12/99, a preinspection permit. The county did the preinspection. On October 26 we got a compliance -- that we were in compliance with this building as being in compliance as far as being able to move it. At that time, there was another permit applied for to move the building, and on January -- excuse me -- December 29, '99, we, we finally received the permit to remove the building, and due to the holidays and the other stuff, it wasn't picked up until around the 4th of January. Our situation is that we tried our best to comply with the county's request for all the litter and all the other material that was there, and in all essence, we were 98 percent complete with the clean-up effort of the whole piece of the industrial property Page 109 February 22, 2001 except for this one building. We contacted the county on, on December 26, the day of the, of the compliance time, had them come out, look at the situation, explain the situation of the, of the permitting process. And if we knew that it was going to -- that, that the, that the county was going to kick in the $250 after that, it would have been -- probably behooved me to, to tore out a building rather than, than to set there; but the people already had the money in, as far as the impact fees and the other stuff, and we were in a waiting situation. What we basically need is -- was the -- with, with our intent of what we did for the county to remove the stuff in the period of time they asked us to do it, and that's was -- that's our intent, to clean up the whole piece of property. That piece of property has been there in my family since 1970, and the stuff that's been collected on there has been collected over the years, so it's taken a little bit of time to get it off; and it all is going to be cleared up, because the property's way -- the value is way more than what we're using it for. But in, in doing what the county asked us to clean it up, we did that without arguing, without coming to the board, making a case at the time that it was here. We started, we cleaned it, and we got all the way down to, to a structure that was permitted by the county to put -- be put on the piece of property because we had to get a permit to -- when we brought it in there for renovations to take it there. Then we was waiting on another permit in order to remove it from the property, because you just can't just pick it up and move it to a new site without the new site permit being ready. And like I say, we started for the premove inspection on 12/99. The -- what, what they call the -- it's called in compliance. It's whenever they're -- all the new wiring is put in, it's when the new plumbing, everything else structurally has to be done to these old houses, is brought up to compliance. That was, that was issued 12/26, and the, and the permit at that point was, was activated as far as moving it to the new site, and the new site permit did not get issued until 12/29. And like I say, with the holidays, it was like January 4 before the permit got picked up, and we moved the building out of their somewhere like January 19. Page t10 February 22, 2001 So, I mean, it was just -- it was -- everything takes, takes a certain amount of time of organizing, and, I mean, if we had to clean up nothing on the site, I can say that your $250 a day might be justified, but we, we put all our effort to clean it. Every bit of debris, everything was off the site except for this one, one building, okay, which was in compliance with the county and which was -- we received a permit from the county to, to move the building there. So I'm asking today that -- because I think the fine is, is totally excessive, totally out of -- it's -- with, with our part of trying to comply and with our part of doing it, with our part of meeting with the county the day of the -- the date that our deadline was December 26, and there was -- the county was closed on whatever day it was, but December 26, I think, that Dennis Mazzone came out, we looked at the property, everything by that, and I explained to him where we were at with the permitting. And so what we're doing is basically asking for the mercy of the -- of you people to get us down, and I mean, if we can't get it down, I guess, I guess we got to figure out some other way to talk about it. But I think, I think that you-all have the power to, to reduce it, reduce this, because just simply for the one fact -- and you don't have to listen to -- there's nothing else on there, but the one fact that 98 percent of everything was complied with up to this one point. So if the board has any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Questions from any member of the board? Thank you, sir. MS. ARNOLD: If the board's interested, we do have the investigator here that was doing the inspections of the site. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Okay. MR. MAZZONE: For the record, my name is Dennis Mazzone. I'm an investigator for Collier County code enforcement, and I can only concur with what Mr. Cadenhead has just said to you, that indeed he was in compliance with our -- the order of the board. The only item remaining on the property was that of a wood Page 111 February 22, 2001 frame structure which was in the process of, of getting permits issued so that it could have been removed legally. Through no fault of the Cadenhead family, that process was slowed up, and eventually they did get the permit and remove the structure. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: By December 26, which was our deadline, everything was gone but that one structure? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Okay. MR. MAZZONE: It took great effort, and they removed everything from that property. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: That's fine. MS. TAYLOR: How long had this been going on? How long had this been going on, this process? MR. MAZZONE: It is not so much the process at question here, if I may say -- the process did take a while -- it's the completion of the act that Mr. Cadenhead performed your order to correct within that time frame, in fact, well within the time frame, and he did an excellent job of it. We have no, no quarrel with that time frame. MS. TAYLOR: Well, when was the first date of notice of violation? That's what I'm asking. What was the first date? MR. MAZZONE: To my memory -- MS. ARNOLD: We'll look at the file. The first inspection was August 31, 1999. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: I think what the board needs to keep in mind is, we issued an order on a certain date and gave the respondent so much time to comply. What happened prior to that is really unimportant. It has no bearing. We're only interested in once the order was issued, what did he do and when did he do it? And it sounds like he did everything but one item which he was waiting permits on which is beyond his purvey to move. It's -- you know, the permits get issued when they get issued. There's no way you can do anything about that, so I think they, they did what the order said; and what we need to consider is, based on what's been told us by him and the county and that they in fact did what we ordered them to do, is the board willing to do anything with the fine that has amassed in moving that last item, which was evidently out of his control? Page 112 February 22, 2001 That's the determination we need to make. MS. SAUNDERS: I do feel that we should waive the fine. Neutral on the operational costs, I think perhaps the county should try and collect those, because that was a cost of doing -- of getting this done, but I do think he made all good faith effort to do it. The permitting system, we know, sometimes gets bogged down, so I would certainly propose waiving all fines except for the operational costs. MS. TAYLOR: I'm against that. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: We have a motion to waive the fine, which, the way I've calculated out with the additional days, comes to about $7,000, fines only. MR. LEHMANN: Are we waiving the fines as of the date -- CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Well-- MR. LEHMANN: -- he requests? CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: -- we're waiving all the fines that have been imposed, 'cause they started on December 27 through January 25; and when you do all that, it comes up to $7,000. MR. LEHMANN: I understand that, but all we have in front of us is an order imposing fines for a -- CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: But the other fines are automatic. You don't have to issue an order for each and every day a fine's in existence. It's just once you get your initial order in, the other fines are automatically continued to accrue. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: So we have a motion to waive the, the fines only. Is there a second? MS. DUSEK: I second. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favOr signify by saying aye. (Several ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Since I didn't hear a lot of them, all those opposed, say no. MS. TAYLOR. Yes. UNIDENTIFIED: No. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: There's two. Okay. The ayes, if you don't mind, please raise your hand, just to make sure it carries. Okay. Five to two. Page 113 February 22, 2001 Fines are waived, sir, but the costs of prosecuting the -- costs of prosecuting the case are not. MR. CADENHEAD: Oh, I, I agreed to do -- CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Okay? MR. CADENHEAD: .. to do that one already, sir. That fine. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: An item -- okay. No other new business. No old business. MS. RAWSON: I have one-- CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: -- that I think is old business, ongoing business. I just want to give you an update on the case of Kyzer and Southern Exposure. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: As you may recall, after you issued your order, the respondent, the petitioners, had filed an appeal. The appeal was -- actually, it wasn't heard; it was briefed, and I believe the judge just read the briefs. He issued an order on November the 21st, which basically granted their petition for certiorari and made certain conclusions of facts and, and ordered basically that your fines should not have exceeded 250 a day. It is the feeling of the county attorney and myself, as well, that the judge misunderstood that the 250 a day was per violation; and he, in his order, said, well, we fined him 250 and we didn't have the right to do that. So now the county and the Code Enforcement Board have decided that we will appeal this decision, and we have done so and filed our notice of appeal which I signed on the 20th day of February. So we'll keep you informed as to the updated status as it goes along. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Good. She also gave us a little package of some stuff on liens and such. I suggest we all read it, and so if we have any questions, maybe at the next meeting, we can ask them. Michelle, at one time you and I talked about lots of cases possibly coming up. Do you want to discuss that now, or do you Page 114 February 22, 2001 want to wait? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. I was going to wait till -- CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Do you want to try and get a -- MS. ARNOLD: Well, we can get an estimate of how many people would be available to doubling up on the meetings per month. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Yeah, Michelle and I, we had a conversation, and she says there's evidently some -- a great number of cases coming forth, and realizing the time limit that we go through right now on six or seven cases and we get here to 1:30, that the best course of action might be, for a short period of time, is have two meetings a month so that we can process this big load rather than try to get the commissioners to get back into a situation of either another board and/or sitting here till five or six or seven o'clock at night. So, I don't have a problem with two meetings if everybody else is -- you know, I don't say this is going to be forever, but until maybe we get this little backlog that's coming forth. MS. SAUNDERS.' Michelle, is this the Immokalee crackdown? That isn't coming in yet? Okay. Just wanted to be prepared. do, CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: What, what's the board think? MS. SAUNDERS.' Yeah, we need time for what we need to MR. LEHMANN.' I don't have a problem with it either. MS. ARNOLD: And what does our attorney thjnk? CHAIRMAN FLAGEL.' Ms. Rawson, how are you -- MS. RAWSON: Well, I've pulled out my Palm Pilot. I'm, I'm obviously happy to be here with you folks; I just need to know what days we're looking at. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Michelle, I know you'd have to work it out. MS. ARNOLD: You can make arrangements with the board, meeting room and all of that. MS. RAWSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Are we thinking of maybe -- right now we do it the fourth Thursday. Would we do it like the second and fourth Thursday? MS. ARNOLD: Possibly. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: Is that what you're thinking? To give Page 115 February 22, 200t everybody enough breakaway from it. Okay. Let's all keep that in the back of our mind and -- that that may come forth. MS. ARNOLD: It may have to be another day other than Thursday, just so you understand. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: That's okay. We'll work that out. The next meeting is March 22, nine o'clock, here. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. MS. TAYLOR: I make that motion. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: We have a motion and a -- MS. SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN FLAGEL: -- second. All those in favor? (Unanimous vote of ayes.) Thank you very much for your participation. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:25 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY ROSE M. WITT, RPR AND SANDRA B. BROWN, RPR Page 116