Loading...
CEB Minutes 03/19/2001 SMarch 19, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, March 19, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in a SPECIAL SESSION in Building 'F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Clifford Flegal Roberta Dusek Peter Lehmann Darrin Phillips George Ponte Diane Taylor NOT PRESENT: Rhona E. Saunders Michelle Arnold Maria Cruz Jean Rawson, Esquire Page 1 ~_~T__~Q_ARD OF cOLLIER COLTNTY, FLORIDA AGSND& DaCe: March 19, 20D1 at 9:00 o'clock A-M. LocatiOn: 3301 E. Tamiami Tr., NaDle~. Florida. Collier County Government Center. Administrative Bldg, 3rd Floor NOTE: ANY PERSON M0 DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NE~D A RECOP~D OF THE PROC£EDINGS pERTAINiNG THE~L~TO, AND TMER~PORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM R~CORD OF THE PROCEeDINgs IS MADe, WHIC~ RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND E~IDF/qCE UPON ~ICM TME AppF, AL IS TO BE BASED. N~ITHER COLLIER COU~ NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE REspONSIBLE FOR pROVIDiNG THIS RECORD- 6. 7. 8, 9. ~ N/A PUbLiC M~ARING~ A. BCC us. Andres and olga Hernandez B. BCC vs. philliD A. ~d ~na Maria ~rrone C. 8CC ~s. JoSe and Maria E. Rodrig~cz. March 22, 2001 CE~, NO. 2001-017 CEB No. 2001-01B CEB NO. 2001-019 · 0. ADJOLmN March t9, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'll call this special meeting of the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County to order, please. May we have a roll call? MS. CRUZ: Good morning. For the record, Maria Cruz, code enforcement official. Roberta Dusek. MS. DUSEK: Here. MS. CRUZ: Clifford Flegal. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Here. MS. CRUZ: Let the record show that Katherine Godfrey Lent advised that there was a conflict of schedule, that she was not going to be able to attend. And also Don Kincaid has resigned. Peter Lehmann. MR. LEHMANN: Here. MS. CRUZ: Darrin Phillips. MR. PHILLIPS: Here. MS. CRUZ: George Ponte. MR. PONTE: Here. MS. CRUZ: Rhona Saunders. Diana Taylor. MS. TAYLOR: Present. MS. CRUZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since we only have five full-time members present, Mr. Phillips, being an alternate, will participate this morning. Let's 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. I'll make note that after discussions with the county, it was determined that some special meetings would be required and under our rules and regulations, Article IV, Section II, special meetings can be called by the chair, that's why this meeting's being held today. I would ask the board, also under our rules, if we could make changes to the agenda, so that we can shorten it. There are some items that I don't think would be pertinent to a special, Page 2 March t9, 2001 that should be held to our regular meeting, and I will bring those out as we go for approval of the agenda. And I would ask the board at that time to make that approval. So changes, additions, deletions to the agenda? MS. ARNOLD: Can I just make a comment, that this meeting is not a special meeting? It's an additional meeting as the rules and regulations specify. We have the ability to have at least one meeting per month and these are additional meetings to hear items. I don't believe it's really classified as a special meeting. I don't know if you want to comment on that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The board is determined -- the chair has determined, not the board, that right now it'll be a special meeting until we can see, is there really a need for the special meeting, on the number of cases you're going to present. MS. ARNOLD: I'm not sure what the legal difference between a special meeting and an additional meeting is, and I don't really think it makes any difference. You've all gotten the schedule for all of the additional meetings that we're going to have the rest of the year~ and I think that the rules and regulations provide for that. In addition, we are in the process of revising the rules and regulations, and, hopefully, maybe by Thursday, I'll have something else to present to you, because we had a number of changes, as we've been talking about in the last several months. So for purposes of the discussion, whether it's an additional meeting, or whether it's a special meeting, I suppose is really not germane. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. I personally right now am not convinced that the additional meetings are needed. Back to the agenda. Approval, changes? From my standpoint, whether it be special or additional, these meetings were brought about by, there was supposed to be X caseload, improvements. I would think that it would be to our advantage to hear as many cases as possible to move it along. So I think that the meeting should be limited to public hearings of cases that are new business, old business and that type of thing should be done at our regular meeting, rather than this, whatever it is, additional slash special meeting. I would recommend that we delete some items off of the agenda, like new business, old business reports, and let's just Page 3 March 19, 2001 handle cases. That would be my recommendation to the board. MS. TAYLOR: Well, what if something comes up between those meetings that should be discussed, since we are having a meeting? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Whichever. I just -- I've thrown it out. So it's whatever the board's pleasure is. MS. DUSEK: I personally don't have a problem with regular format, I mean, if we had to sit here with 10 cases to read, then that might be a difference, but I think following the normal format, I don't see any problem with that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. If there are no changes or additions, any more questions? All those in favor of the approval of the agenda as submitted, say aye? Any opposed? There are no minutes to approve. We'll now open our public hearings. First case is CEB 2001-017. MS. CRUZ: This case is the Board of County Commissioners versus Andres and Olga Hernandez, case number CEB number 2001-107. The respondents have been provided with a evidence packet, the Board and the Clerk of the Court. I'd like to request that this packet be admitted into evidence, marked Composite Exhibit A. And let the record show that the respondent is not present. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion to accept the packet as submitted? MS. DUSEK: So moved. MS. TAYLOR: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion and a second to accept the packet from the county, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? Thank you. MS. CRUZ: This case is brought before this board for an alleged violation of a selective clearing over the entire two and a half acre parcel, debris including palmetto, numerous palmettos, cabbage palms, cypress and Brazilian pepper without the authorization of a Collier County building permit. This is a violation of ordinance number 91-102 of the land development code for section 2.9.3. The violation exists at the property described as Golden Gate Estates, unit 24 south, 180 feet of Page 4 March 19, 2001 tract 3. The owner of record is Andres and Olga Hernandez. Their address of record, 7794 West 34th Lane, number 1020, Hialeah, Florida. The violation was first observed on March 9th, 2000. A notice of violation was provided to the respondent on March 22nd, requesting compliance by May 1st, 2000. A final reinspection was conducted on Friday. Resulting violation remains. I'd like to call at this time Investigator Alexandra Sulecki, please. (The speakers were sworn.) MS. SULECKI: Good morning, Chairman Flegal, board members. This is pretty self-explanatory. You've heard the story. About a year ago I had observed this violation while I was looking for another complaint on the same street, and I've been in contact with the owners, who don't speak English, by the way, I've been working through their niece, Ms. Betancourt, and a consultant, Mr. Fernandez, and I've been back and forth with them trying to get a good mitigation plan. We'd finally gotten one, and for about a year, I've been told that they're going to plant over the weekend, and that has never occurred. I've been very specific and clear with them about what would resolve the violation. I attempted to work with them, because there was a financial consideration to planting something different that was suitable to the site. I'm not sure what else to say, it just hasn't happened. MS. TAYLOR: I have a question about that fill. What's the reason for all that fill, did they tell you? MS. SULECKI: Yes. They're planning on building on this site. A lot of people in the estates, in my experience, are unaware of some of our laws and they try to do things a little bit at a time. So they put the fill there a little bit at a time. It's just sitting in piles. It's really not causing a problem where it's sitting. And they're just waiting to build. Last year they told me they would have a house built by this year, and it hasn't happened. MR. PONTE: If they're planning to build, will they then have to remove what they are now being asked to plant? MS. SUI. ECKI: No. Because the mitigation has to stay for five years, I worked with them to devise a plan that would put Page 5 March 19, 2001 things in places where they would not have to be removed, outside the building envelope of the acre. MR. PONTE: So there is some kind of plan for a building -- MS. SULECKI: Not yet. MR. PONTE: -- but not on paper? MS. SULECKI.' No. We worked with putting the vegetation around the edges of the property. MR. PONTE: I see. MS. ARNOLD: Just for the board's clarification, the land development code allows in the event that you're going to be building on that site, the clearing of an acre with your building permit. And so the plan that Alex and the property owners have developed would be planting outside of that acre and below. MR. LEHMANN: Alex, you say you have an approved mitigation plan now? MS. SULECKI: Yes, I do. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. Is there any permit to build on the site yet? MS. SULECKI: That I'm not sure of. I have not checked recently. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. MR. PONTE: What would be your estimate, I mean, how big of a job is this? What would be your estimate in terms of cost to carry out this mitigation plan? MS. SULECKI: Well, I think what we've got in there is something like 10 trees or 10 shrubs and trees put together, so I wouldn't say it's a very expensive mitigation. MR. PONTE: Less than $500? MS. SULECKI: I'll look at the plan and I'll get an estimate out. Right off the top of my head, without looking at it again -- MR. PONTE: Well, I know it's sort of like how high is a rug, but approximately. MS. SULECKI: I would say maybe $500. MR. PONTE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There's specific trees and shrubs that he has to plant? MS. SULECKI: Yes. We tried to put back what was taken out, but I work with them to do sort of an equivalent of things that they were able to obtain over in Homestead. MR. LEHMANN: You're saying they're trying to obtain the Page 6 March 19, 2001 plantings in Homestead? MS. SULECKI: Right. That's where they live, over in Miami, and they told me they were going to get the plants from Homestead. MR. LEHMANN: But my understanding of the case is we have a clear-cut mitigation plan, and that plan has been available for how long? MS. SULECKI: I would say, approved, it's been available for maybe three months. The case was actually in CEB before I got this approved plan. They've been working with me since I initially put it set aside for CEB hearing, and about a month or so after that, I did work with the consultant to get an approved plan. MR. LEHMANN: So it seems like a pretty clear-cut case in the fact that we know what we're supposed to do, we just haven't done it, unless I'm missing something. MS. SULECKI: It seems that way to me. MS. DUSEK: And the only reason that they're giving is financial? MS. SULECKI: They don't -- they haven't actually given me that reason. In the beginning when we talked about the planting, that was a little bit of the reason, but the reason I usually get is that he was sick over the weekend or he just didn't get over here from Miami. So I haven't really gotten a good reason recently. MS. TAYLOR: These excuses could go on for many years. MS. SULECKI: They could. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions for the County? MR. PONTE: I have just one. In the -- for Michelle, in the recommendation, is that the -- is the date correct that you suggested there, June 30th, and if so, why so far out? MS. ARNOLD: The reason for that is because of the rainy season, we thought it would be -- because this property is not developed and there's no irrigation out there, we thought it would be more appropriate to have them implement it during the rainy season, rather than now when we're in a drought condition. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MS. TAYLOR: First thing they need to do is clean this up. Looks like there's stuff everywhere, right? MS. SULECKI: Yes. Right now you can't see it, though, because it's all grown over with vines. Page 7 March 19, 2001 MR. LEHMANN: I would move that we have a finding of fact that the violation does exist, and see if we can do the specifics on the legals in violation of 3.3 -- excuse me, 3.9.3 of ordinance 99-102, as amended, of the Collier County land development code. MS. DUSEK: If I might interrupt here, is that correct, 3.9.3, or have I read my ordinance incorrectly, because I have 3.9.6? MR. LEHMANN: 3.9.3 pertains to the removal of vegetation. MS. DUSEK: I've got it. MR. LEHMANN: Yeah. Bobbi, what you're referring to is actually the mitigation procedure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, yeah, that's part of the packet. MR. LEHMANN: The violation references the fact that it's unlawful to remove. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's page nine. Do you have a page nine? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, page 12 shows the actual section of the code that was in violation, of your packet. MS. DUSEK: Page 127 MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, of your packet. MS. ARNOLD: It's ordinance -- MS. DUSEK: All right. There it is. All right. Thank you. All right, Peter, sorry to interrupt you. MR. I. EHMANN: Well, my recommendation or my motion to the board is that we do have a finding of fact, and with the order of the board, I would recommend that we follow staff's recommendation, that we order the respondent to pay for all prosecution costs and to implement the approved mitigation plan and complete all plantings by June 30th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. First -- we need to do this in stages. First, we have to find that there is, in fact, a violation. Let's do that part first. Before we get to the order of the board. So first order of business, is there, in fact, a violation? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that there is a violation. MS. TAYLOR: I second that. MS. DUSEK: And that violation is the Board of County Commissioners versus Andres and Olga Hernandez, CEB case number 2001-017, and the violation is of Section 3.9.3 of ordinance number 91-102, as amended, the Collier County land development code ordinance. The description of the violation is Page 8 March t9, 2001 selective clearing over an entire two and a half acre parcel, debris including palmetto numerous, cabbage palm seven, cypress two, and Brazilian pepper without authorization of a Collier County permit. CHAIRMAN FI. EGAL: Okay. We have a motion that there~ in fact, is a violation. Is there a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any further questions? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? Order of the board. MR, LEHMANN: My motion for order is with respondent to pay all prosecution costs and to implement and complete all planting with the approved mitigation plan by June 30th, 2001 or a fine of $50 per day be imposed for each day of noncompliance thereafter. I'd like to follow staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion for the order of the board. Do I hear a second? MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Next case is 2001-018. MS. CRUZ: Yes, this is the Board of County Commissioners versus Phillip A. and Anna Maria Marrone, case number CEB 2001-018. Let the record show that Mrs. Marrone is present. Again, a packet was provided to the -- a packet was provided to the respondent, and I'd like to request that this packet be admitted into evidence, marked Composite Exhibit A, if there's no objection from the respondent. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You say Mrs. Marrone is present? MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FI. EGAL: I'm going to ask you one easy question. Did you, in fact, receive this package from the County of all this paperwork? Ms. Marrone, do you have any objection to the county submitting to us? MS. MARRONE: Not them submitting the packet, I know that Page 9 March 19, 2001 that has to come in front. ! just do have a couple of requests about it, and, you know, and I want to be able to state our case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, you're going to get a chance to do that. I just need your permission for them to give us this? MS. MARRONE: I was just provided a copy. You have my permission. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Do I hear a motion to accept the county's packet as evidence? aye. MR. LEHMANN: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: A second? MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' All those in favor, signify by saying MS. CRUZ: The violation brought before this board is removal of vegetation, five mahogany trees, without first obtaining a vegetation removal permit. This is a violation of Collier County land development code 91-102, section 3.9.3. The violation exists at 2096 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida. And more particularly described as Col-Lee-Co Terrace, Lots 41 through 45. The owner of record is Phillip A. and Anna Maria Marrone. Their address of record is 446 Rudder Road, Naples, Florida. The violation was first observed on May 12th, 1999. A notice of violation was provided to the respondent on May 14th, 1999 requesting compliance by June 18th, 1999. The last re-inspection was done Friday, resulting in violation remains. i'd like to request that the -- Alexandra Sulecki come up to the podium, please. MS. SULECKI: Good morning, again. Alexandra Sulecki with Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're on a different case, so we need to swear you in. (The speakers were sworn.) MS. SULECKI: For the record, Alexandra Sulecki from your Code Enforcement Department. I took this case over from another investigator, Kimberly Cohain. She had found that there were some trees removed from this property and she had sent them a notice of violation to replace the trees. I took over the case at the point where she had obtained the landscape plan from them to resolve the violation. The -- she had given them a Page 10 March 19, 2001 paper of native trees, she required the replacements be native, and she had given them this paper that included royal palms on the list. So they had picked royal palms. And were planning to install them. I wasn't sure if that was permitted under the landscape codes. So I had some concerns about that at that point where I picked up the case, and I discussed it with our landscape architect, and the engineer for the Marrones, Mr. Farmer, and told them that there was some concern about the royal palms. The next visit that I made to the property the royal palms were there. And they were small. They were not as big as they're required to be by code. They -- the Marrones did get a copy of the landscape standards with their notice of violation. Perhaps they didn't notice that that section is in there, but it does say that royal palms have to have 10 feet of clear trunk. So at that point we kind of went back and forth with the landscape architect, trying to figure out if this was going to be permitted to have royal palms, and while it was probably not technically permitted by a very strict reading, we did go the extra step and talked to the landscape architect with the Davis area triangle redevelopment to see if royal palms were a problem, would they fit into the character of that, and, indeed, they would. So we decided that we would -- we would go ahead and allow the royal palms, but they had to be the correct size. And since that time, let's see, there was an SIP submitted. And the SIP was going to take care of the landscape problem on its landscape plan, and it also was going to take care of another problem that we noted, which was the construction of a patio that came into the landscape buffer area and was not permitted. So we put the case on hold at that point to wait and see what happened with the SIP, and after a considerable period of time, I pulled the case back out to see what was happening and found out that the SIP was canceled and nothing had happened. And that's when I reactivated the case, and set it for CEB. I have spent several meetings with the Marrones to try to explain to them what is required. I've brought in some people from our right-of-way landscaping, a transportation division, to look at the property, and give some suggestions. One of them was Bob Peterson who used to be the extension agent here, very familiar with landscape issues. We, again, explained the problem and what needed to be done. Basically the trees need to be Page 11 March 19, 2001 replaced with larger trees. The problem is that that little patio is taking up the place where some of those trees need to go. If they can get the patio permitted and they can fit the trees around it, it will work, but here we are, it hasn't happened. I drove by this morning and it's still the same. MR. LEHMANN: Investigator, is it my understanding that a single palm is permissible or do palms have to be grouped in groupings of three? MS. SULECKI: They generally do, but royal palms are the exception. MR. LEHMANN: So royal palms can be used as a single plant? MS. SULECKI: That's correct. MR. PONTE: Just a -- when I'm looking at the pictures, were the palms placed near -- were the palms placed where the mahogany trees had been; that is, it looks like there were a row mahogany trees and now there's a row of royal palm trees. MS. SUI. ECKI: I didn't see the mahogany trees, because I wasn't involved in the case then~ and I -- they were cut down by the time pictures were taken. I don't -- I really don't recall. I would imagine they're in roughly the same place. MR. PONTE: Is there anything in the record that would indicate that the reason for the removal of the mahogany had anything to do with the widening of US 41, which was in progress at that time? MS. SULECKI: Oh, absolutely it did. Those trees were damaged and then taken out as a result of that construction. MR. PONTE: I see. Okay. So just one point of clarification, trees were damaged by the construction company, and so then the owners of the restaurant removed the trees, or did the construction company remove the trees? MS. SULECKI: I'm not sure about that. I'll have to let them answer that question. MR. LEHMANN: An important point that I'd like answered is that if a road -- if road construction is occurring on somebody's property and vegetation's damaged, who is responsible for replacing vegetation, is it the road company or is it the property owner? MS. SULECKI: Well~ the property owner is responsible to have the vegetation there. If someone damages your property, Page 12 March 19, 2001 you can take certain civil, legal steps to recover that, but it's their responsibility to maintain the landscape that's required by the code. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. MS. TAYLOR: You discussed the size of the trees with them before they planted those? Did you discuss that? MS. SULECKI: Well, that's why I made the point of saying I discussed with their engineer my concerns. At that point I didn't call them. I probably should have, but I called their engineer, because that's who I'd been dealing with. MS. ARNOLD: Just a point of clarification, at the -- when you received the case, were the trees already planted? MS. SULECKI: No. They were planted shortly after that. MR. PONTE: I think you mentioned, inspector, that they were given a piece of paper that listed possible trees that could be planted, and that the palms were there. On that piece of paper, was there any indication that -- or instruction that the palm trees had to have 10 feet of clear trunk? MS. SUI. ECKI: Not on that paper, but that was attached along with the notice of violation with the actual citation and then the standards, the vegetation standards were also attached, and that does clearly say they have to have 10 feet of clear trunk. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. LEHMANN: I'm a little confused on the code referenced in using -- to come up with a 10 foot height. If ! look under section, Collier County land development code, section 2.4.4.2. trees and palms, the top section here basically talks about shade trees, but when you get down into the next two paragraphs, especially the last paragraph, it says all new trees, including palms, shall be of a species having mature height of 15 feet or greater. So how are we coming up with 10 feet? I'm assuming that the trees that are on the lot are even less than 10. MS. SULECKI: That section is not in here, but it is a part of 2.4.4.2. Yeah, the last sentence there on the second paragraph, it says palms must have a minimum of 10 feet of clear trunk at planting. MR. LEHMANN: Where are you referring to, again? MS. SULECKI: The paragraph that starts with a grouping of Page 13 March 19, 2001 three palm trees will be the equivalent of one canopy, exceptions made for royal palm. The last sentence in that paragraph. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. So the second paragraph is telling us that we have to have a 10 foot clear distance, and the third paragraph is saying that the total height must be 15 feet or more? MS. SULECKI: Right. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. That makes sense. And, again, I'm referencing your letter, and it's on page 23 of our package, your letter of September 22nd -- 27th, excuse me. First paragraph, second sentence in a notice of violation order to correct dated 5/14/99 you are ordered to provide replacement trees according to section 2.4.4.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code. So I'm assuming as of September 22nd -- 27th of the year 2000, the respondent should'ye known what we're trying to accomplish there, right? MS. SULECKI: Well, I had talked to them about that right after the trees were planted. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. So the trees were already in place prior to this going out? MS. SULECKI: Oh, yes. MS. TAYLOR: I'm concerned about how close these trees are to the sidewalk, and to that wall. Those trunks get big and the roots come out, I mean, they don't go on like -- but they come out and that's going to go right into that cement. MS. SULECKI: It's a small area. Part of the problem is that there's -- there's not a lot of room there now, because that landscape buffer, I believe it's supposed to be 15 feet, is taken up by that patio. MR. PONTE: Well, that isn't really the case here, what you're suggesting is part of the problem, but not really for this case -- MS. SULECKI: That's correct. MR. PONTE: -- part of the problem would involve removal of the patio. MS. SULECKI: I believe so, or at least a part of it and permitting what is there. MR. PONTE: Was there a patio there before, that was when the mahoganies were there? MS. SULECKI: No, there wasn't. And the SIP plan doesn't Page 14 March 19, 2001 show it. One of the notations on the landscape plan by our landscape architect was drawing that little patio as it existed and requiring it to be permit -- or a variance to be obtained for it. MR. PHILLIPS: How about the wall, was the wall there previously? MS. SULECKI: Apparently not, according to those photos. The photo on your screen shows what the area looked like when the mahoganies were removed. MR. PONTE: I have a little discomfort here. If the trees were damaged by the construction company in putting -- in widening of the road, did they remove the trees, or did the owners remove the trees, and so -- MS. TAYLOR: Well, a construction company wouldn't come in and just saw down the tree and leave a stump. They wouldn't do that. They wouldn't. MR. PONTE: They would just leave the trees damaged? MS. TAYLOR: No. If they -- if they did this, they would have to complete the job. They would have to take the stumps out. They won't just go away and leave it like that. MR. PONTE: Well, of course, that project lasted two years. MS. TAYLOR: Yeah, but these stumps are fresh. Look at the tops of those stumps. MR. LEHMANN: Well, I think we're losing sight of really what the case is about. First off, if the contractor goes in and removes the trees and leaves them, that's his prerogative. The fact of the matter is the property owners are responsible for what happens on their property, and if someone comes and damages their property, they have a civil suit to try to recover those damages. MR. PONTE: Well, the description, Peter, of the violation is the removal of the trees without first obtaining a vegetation permit, removal permit. That's what the violation is. But if another party damaged the trees and if the other party did cut the trees down, but didn't remove the stumps -- MS. ARNOLD: What we would -- MR. PONTE: -- who really is responsible? MS. ARNOLD: What we would look at regardless of which party is responsible for removing the trees is the property, and whether or not the property is in compliance with the codes. The trees could have been removed by a contractor. It could'ye been Page 15 March 19, 2001 removed by the property owner, but the property owner is ultimately responsible for what occurs on that property. So we would issue whatever notices to the property owner, and if it were the case that the contractors for the road removed the trees, they would have to settle that with the contractors to recover damages. There was a similar situation that occurred during the road construction of US 41 at another location where there were damages to the building that occurred as a result of the construction, and that was handled between the property owners and the construction company, and, you know, our part of it was with the property owner, and they did whatever corrections at the time that we requested, that they made those corrections and settled the matter with the contractor after the fact. MR. LEHMANN: I think the board's deal on this has to be very limited based on what the code says. Section 3.9.3, which is the section that the respondent is alleged to have violated, says it shall be unlawful for any individual to remove -- basically, the contractor, it's unlawful for him to remove those without a permit. Unfortunately, the board only has the recourse to take action against the landowner. So, although we can certainly sympathize with the respondent in saying it was wrong for this contractor -- MS. ARNOLD: We don't know who did it, though. MR. LEHMANN: -- we have no control over that aspect. All we can say is does the situation exist, if it does exist, and if it does exist, what is it according to the landowner, but ! think we're getting a little ahead of ourselves, because we haven't even heard testimony from the respondent. MR. PONTE: That's true. But it might be appropriate at this point to just suggest that when we get to the finding of facts, based on this one point we have before us, and if we get to the finding, that we fine the proper property and fining procedures for the amount be reflective of that. This is not -- it doesn't mean to be the initial party, even though, technically the landowner is responsible. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I want to set your -- tentatively have overlooked, this whole process has taken two years so far. So, I mean, if you have a problem with a contractor, if you couldn't have gotten it solved in two years, I think you've got a problem. Page 16 March 19, 2001 MR. LEHMANN: Well, I think the board has to weigh all evidence presented before, in its decision making. So I think ali of those things will be taken into account before we decide this. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other question for the county? MS. SULECKI: Well, may I just state that there was intent by the Marrones to remove those trees, and I believe they removed them, although I'm not positively sure, but there was a vegetation removal permit applied for. It had not been issued when the trees were removed. MR. LEHMANN: Do you know who applied for that? Was it the owner or the contractor? MS. SULECKI: The owner. MR. LEHMANN: The owner, okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you know when that was, approximately? MS. SULECKI: Approximately two weeks before the violation, the notice of violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So back in mid '99 or something like that. Okay. Any other questions for the County? Thank you. Ma'am. MS. MARRONE: My name is Gevone Marrone and I'll be speaking for my parents. Ms. Sulecki has been just fabulous IN the past and you're right, it's been two years, but it's also been a process where we've got to sue the engineer. We had to sue DOT and Sprint to replace the trees. We just replaced them because they were an eyesore. They were ugly. DOT had already said, yes, we killed them, we'll pay for them. It was a process of getting the money off of them. When we talked to Kimberly, she gave me this piece of paper, with nothing attached, while we were here, sitting in her office on Horseshoe Drive. And this is ail she gave me. She said they need to be 10-foot trees. I bought 10-foot trees. Not 10 foot of clear wood showing, which I now understand is what the need is. But we are willing to put in 10 foot of wood showing. We're willing to adjust the patio buffer. The problem being the guy who bought -- Treehouse, I don't know if you're familiar. Anyway, he's telling me it's going to be three to four months before he can obtain category I, Florida royal palms with 10 foot of wood showing. They're rare, the cold weather, a list of things he told me. I'm going, okay, so what do I tell the County? Page 17 March t9, 2001 We have been trying very, very hard since the construction to make my building look better. We did have a permit for the patio. It was separate from the SIP that was put in -- there we're suing Coastal Engineering. Our monies towards them is in escrow waiting for the permits. The trees are a small part of a huge problem that we've been fighting since the construction. This is Little Italy, I'm not sure if you know of the property. We do try very hard. A lot of the bushes and shrubs that are out there, we planted ourselves. We're willing to change the trees. We just need some time. It's a matter of, now, I have five that I've secured -- I got them. The guys holding them for me. He's waiting on two of them to reach the palm frond count that they're supposed to have. I don't understand about plants, but it's a matter of time. It is still season for us. It is just the three of us working. It's a matter of somebody being there to watch, to make sure that the same problems don't happen again. With the patio being too big, there was a permit for that. What do I know from code, you know. I know how to make lasagna. So when I sit down there and I give my good money to an engineer and to a contractor, I expect them to do right by me. As far as changing the trees. Gladly, if you'll give me until June 30th, I'll promise they'll be in. But other than that, that's all I can say. And, oh, DOT did pay for the trees. They took full responsibility. We personally had them removed, but the DOT did pay for them. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MS. DUSEK: So have you settled your cases with the DOT and -- MS. MARRONE: The DOT and Sprint, yes. See, that's another thing. If I knew that I had to put $1,000 trees in, I'd have gone after the DOT for a little bit more money than I did. You know, I just went by what -- okay, here's an estimate for five royal palms. If I had known I had to have ten foot of -- if I was looking at $1,000 trees, because that's what they are, I'd have been like, okay, you know, we need to retalk this price. Did not know that. So it wasn't like it was us saying, we don't want to spend the money. That wasn't the case. We were just trying to be Page 18 March 19, 2001 reasonable. The DOT thing is fine. The SIP thing with the engineer~ I'm still waiting. I'm still waiting. That's all tied up with them and the court. Timothy Ferguson was our lawyer. It's been a nightmare. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But that's another case. The SIP isn't -- we're only interested in the trees right now. MS. MARRONE: Okay. Well, the trees, we're willing to change them. We're going to add to what we have, if that's okay, the five that we'll put within the inside buffer, because I have to have the room. I have two big huge planters that are over there, and I can space them out 30 feet, all five of them. MR. LEHMANN: All the board is really looking for is compliance with the code. So if you have an approved mitigation plan, we couldn't care less where you put them, as long as they're approved through the county and all that. MS. MARRONE: Okay. So that means 30 feet apart, 15 feet back, 10 foot of bark showing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' You work that out with the County. Any further questions? MS. DUSEK: One more question. When did you say you'll have these palms, by June you could have them in? MRS. MARRONE: I could have -- the way he's making it sound, is they're afraid to move too many of these bigger trees, with the drought and the cold snap, and he's -- something about shock, he's afraid that the trees will die once they're planted. He gave me a whole little -- the guy was fabulous. The Treehouse has nine distribution centers throughout Florida, and -- MS. DUSEK: My main question is, when do you think those trees will be planted? MS. MARRONE: I can have them in there by June. MS. DUSEK: For sure? MS. MARRONE: Absolutely. You tell me what day in June, and I'll have them in. Just not the fourth, because that's when I'm due. That's just a whole other issue, but -- MR. LEHMANN: Investigator Sulecki, is this a doable plan that the respondent is recommending? MS. SULECKI: Sounds good to me. MR. LEHMANN'. Okay. And do you concur with not moving the trees until June for any shock -- MS. SULECKI: I don't know anything about that. Page 19 March 19, 2001 MR. LEHMANN: Thank you. I'm sorry, please continue. MS. MARRONE: No, I'm done. I just -- if we could do that, we have no problem. We want to make our business look beautiful. East Naples is a long time coming. We think we kind of started a trend down there between us and the people at Naples Car Wash. If that's what I have to do, I'll gladly do it. I hate pleading ignorance, but that's what happened, you know, you depend on other people. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Okay. First we need a finding of fact that there is, in fact, a violation, will be our first order. If that is what the board decides. MS. DUSEK: Well, it appears unfortunately that at this moment there is a violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: In my opinion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Would you make a motion that there, in fact, is a violation? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that there is the violation that in the Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Phillip and Anna Maria Marrone, CEB case number 2001-018, and the violation of section 3.9.3 of ordinance 91-102 Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation, removal of vegetation, five mahogany trees, without first obtaining a vegetation removal permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that there, in fact, is a violation. Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. As for the order of the board, I would throw a recommendation to fellow board members and patriots that we did on a previous case, because of the drought and so on and so forth, give somebody until the end of June to comply. I think you should keep that in mind, if you're going to make a recommendation on this for an order. MS. ARNOLD: The difference between that and this one, that was on unimproved with no irrigation. And this one has a little bit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But they have information from their Page 20 March 19, 2001 place where they're buying the trees, based on the drought and shock and so on. So June 1st versus June 30th and you've waited two years to get this far, another 30 days isn't going to -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. I don't have a problem. I was just trying to clarify for the board, what -- why our recommendation is as it is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. The order of the board, please? MR. PONTE: I'd also like to suggest to the board that in the matter of finding here, even with the 30th of June as the deadline date, that given all of the effort that the owners of the restaurant have put forward and all of the other circumstances, that if, for whatever reason, the fellow supplying the palm trees decides that it still is not safe to -- for good business practice, to move those trees and plant them by the 30th of June, that the restaurant owner is not to be overly penalized, and that the fine should be something that is very reasonable, perhaps in the matter of $25 a day. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We need a motion to decide anything. MR. PONTE: Well, I think the motion, that -- well, we're at the point where we were talking about the fines -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The order of the board. MR, PONTE: Well~ based on the foregoing findings of fact and the conclusions of law, and pursuant to the authority granted by the chapter, we find that the respondent is ordered in direct violation of section 3.9.3 from the Collier County ordinance, 91-102 from the land development code, just to replace the five native canopy trees that were removed by -- with five royal palm trees, showing 10 feet of clear trunk, and that they're to meet the minimum landscape plant material standards. In addition, we're asked to order to complete the work by the 30th of June, and if the respondent doesn't comply with this order on or before that date, the respondent is ordered to pay a fine of $25 per day for each and every day the violation described continues past that date. MS. ARNOLD: Can I make a suggestion that we don't limit them to royal palms? That's their choice. The code allows them to plant something else, provided it's native. So if we don't limit it to royal palms, then we could avoid what your concern was with the landscaper, if they don't provide the royal palms by a certain date, I mean, they have an option if we, you know, just Page 21 March t9, 200t stick to what the code provides for. MR. PONTE: So just delete the reference to the royal palms. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Ponte, I'm going to recommend that we amend the order for the respondent to pay for all operational costs and prosecution costs. MR. PONTE: Yes. Agreed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second to the motion? MR. LEHMANN: I'll second that motion. MS. DUSEK: Excuse me, just before we do that, just so it's clear, it would be five native canopy trees or royal palms; is that correct? MR. PONTE: Well, no, because you have that entire list. I think it has to be stated in a broader fashion than that. There's a list of 25 possible trees there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think when you make motions, the board should not in a lot of cases be specific. You should order respondents to comply with the code, period. Whatever they want to do. If they want to plant (phonetic} wiggy trees, if that's in the code, they can do that. We really don't care. We want them to comply with the code, and that's what you should say. Not put in, I know the staff has recommended canopy trees and royal palms, but for us, when we make an order, you shouldn't be that specific, because if a problem exists and they don't comply with a certain date, you really can't fine them, because you've limited them to what they could plant and should something happen, a drought or a freeze or whatever, and all those type of specific trees get killed, then they physically can't follow the order of the board. So you should not be specific. You should be as broad as possible and let them and the county work out what's required. We just want them to do something to meet the code, period. I think that's the way you need to keep it. We're a lot safer, and it gives the respondent a lot more leeway. MS. ARNOLD: Just a point of clarification, the native canopy trees are what's considered on that list that they made reference to earlier. So those species that are on that list are considered canopy trees. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MR. LEHMANN: So, George, would you repeat your motion? Page 22 March 19, 2001 MR. PONTE: ! think I just did by trying to meet the reference to the royal palms. MR. LEHMANN: So your motion, basically, if I can summarize, is we're going to order the respondent to comply with the code by whatever means they choose, whatever trees they want to choose. Meet the minimum landscape plant substandards and ali of that. We'll give them until June 30th to complete this order. And should it not be completed by June 30th a fine of $25 will be incurred each day thereafter. And we'll also order them to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of the case. THE CHAIRMAN: So we have a motion. Do we hear a second? MS. TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? Ma'am, do you understand we're -- the board's going to order you to do? You have until the end of June to plant whatever MS. MARRONE: So long as it's off the list. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Okay. MS. MARRONE.' Terrific. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Case number 2001-019. MS. CRUZ: This case is Board of County Commissioners versus Jose and Maria E. Rodriguez, case number 2001-019. Let the record show that Mrs. Rodriquez is present. We've provided the respondent a packet and I'd like to request that this packet be admitted into evidence at this time, marked Composite Exhibit A, please? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mrs. Rodriquez, do you have any obiection to the county giving us that paperwork. MRS. RODRIGUEZ: No, I don't. I'd just like to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You'll get a chance to speak later. I just want to ask about the paperwork right now. MRS. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, I received the paperwork, and we are -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' I'd rather you get on record, so if you'll wait to say that, can they give us the paperwork, yes or no? MRS. RODRIGUEZ: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right. Thank you, ma'am. I'd Page 23 March 19, 2001 entertain a motion to accept the county's exhibit. MR. LEHMANN: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. CRUZ: The violation brought before this board is the vegetation removed from approximately two and a half acres of improved estates zoned property without first obtaining, and posting on site, a required Collier County vegetation removal permit. This is also a violation of section 3.9.3 of ordinance number 91-102 of the land development code. This violation exists at 3510 White Boulevard, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as Golden Gate Estates, unit 27, the east 180 feet of tract 62. Owner of record, Jose and Maria Rodriguez. The address of record is 3510 White Boulevard, Naples, Florida. The owners -- the violation was observed on August 8th, 2000. The notice of violation was provided to the owners on August 8th, 2000, requesting compliance by September 11th, 2000. There was a re-inspection conducted this morning, resulting violation remaining. I'd like to request that Investigator Susan Mason come up to the podium, please. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, ma'am. MS. MASON: For the record, my name is Susan Mason, Environmental Specialist for code enforcement. This case was initiated by me on a routine patrol in early August of 2000. I would also like to inform the board that a citizen complaint was received by our office in late August of 2000 regarding this clearing, as well. Upon my investigation, I observed two and a half acres of improved estates zoned property was cleared of vegetation and the debris was piled into the pit in the center of the rear of the property. Approximately -- or one and a half acres of this clearing is in excess of that allowed under the building permit on that site, which was permit number 1999-031923 for the single-family home. Mrs. Rodriguez does speak good English; however, in order to make sure that they understood all of the issues, various meetings I had with them, I did ask other Spanish-speaking staff members to assist. And in September, Page 24 March 19, 2001 the Rodriguezes did attempt to submit a mitigation plan for the property; however, this plan was deficient in virtually every respect. The LDC does outline rather clearly what's required, about the names of the plants, the numbers of the plants, the location and how they're to be placed on the property. And on their plan there were no names of plants, no quantities listed, the locations given were vague, and their name and the location of the property was also missing, those kind of things were not on the plan. So I told them the plan was unacceptable and that they needed to work on it. They said they'd work on it that weekend and submit something the following week. I never did receive another plan from them. I did make contact with the Rodriguezes at least once a month. No plan -- no progress was made. I never, as I stated, previously did receive another plan. The debris remains on-site. It's not been packed down into their pits or, you know, any excess removed to make it acceptable in that way. And also on numerous occasions when I did have conversations with them, they did tell me that they couldn't make any promises about anything. I tried to be as helpful as possible by submitting copies of previous mitigations plans that had been submitted either by consulting firms or by individuals. On occasion we either work with consulting firms or individuals who will draw up their own plans. I give them copies of those to be used as guides. Also, gave numerous lists of native plant nurseries in the area. And also a list of consultants to help them with the violation. The Rodriguezes did state they were limited on funds, but often on site visits, I would see that they had new native, excuse me, new non-native landscaping installed, and when I asked them about it, they stated that they couldn't find the native plants, and also during numerous conversations, most of the conversations, I either supplied them with the name of an additional nursery and types of plants that were available. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: How many plants are we talking about? Is there trees or just plants? MS. MASON: It would be trees and shrubs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Are we talking 10, 20, 50, 1007 MS. MASON: Closer to the upper limit. There are probably 100, since it was a full acre and a half, it was completely vegetated property. It would be an expense to do the mitigation. Page 25 March 19, 2001 I did tell the Rodriguezes that we needed to get the plan ahead of time and I would be more -- I was more than willing to be flexible with -- we had agreed on four trees or plants per month, as long as I could go out and see steady progress being made, that that wouldn't be a problem, but I needed to get a plan that could be approved, and then steady progress for completion of the vegetation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What was the purpose of removing the plants? MS. MASON: I did not -- not any clear meeting, I was told that it was their property, and they could do what they want with it, and that I didn't have the right to tell them what they could do with their property. They were -o I'm not sure if they're even working on the little accessory structure, but that was placed pretty close to the house, but you can clear extra for an accessory structure, but that wasn't placed right immediately behind their house. MR. LEHMANN.' You said we -- excuse me. You said that the County has already authorized one of the two and a half acres to be cleared for the building. Permit has been issued, and is there a building? MS. MASON: Yes. They're living in the structure. I'm not sure when it was CO'd, but they were -- they were living in it already. It was already occupied when this additional acre and a half was cleared. MR. LEHMANN: All right. Now, you have another accessory structure. Is any land permitted to be cleared for that, and if so, how much? MS. MASON: Not automatically. They have to -- anyone who wants to build a guest house or any kind of additional structure does have to receive an additional vegetation permit with clearance. MR. LEHMANN: Has that been received? MS. MASON: No, they have not -- they have not applied. I did give them the option if they could give me a reason that was allowable, such as some people out there will get horses or have a large garden or plant a lot of fruit trees, things like that, they could obtain an after the fact vegetation removal permit, but they stated that -- they really couldn't give me a reason that I would be allowed to issue that permit, and they also stated that Page 26 March 19, 2001 they didn't have the funds. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. So we really only have an acre and a half that we're looking at on two and a half acres. MS. MASON: Correct. MR. PONTE: Just explain to me what -- you just mentioned something that was rather interesting, after the fact vegetation removal permit? MS. MASON: Uh-huh. MR. PONTE: What are the requirements for that? MS. MASON: The requirements for that are primarily that the vegetation removal would have been permitted if it was asked for ahead of time, if they had come in and applied to remove it and the reasons that are given are the accessory structure clear around that acre or recreation acre, if you want to put in tennis courts or alike, if they want to have a garden for produce for people on that property, or horses or other livestock. MS. ARNOLD: And usually with the -- MR. PONTE: As long as there is a plan -- MS. ARNOLD: Or it has to be a use that would be authorized in that zoning district and usually with the after the fact permits, there's an added cost, if the permit's $25, then that after the fact permit may be $50, just as an example. MS. MASON: It's four times as much as the normal fee. MR. PONTE: Which is a very small amount of money given what the Rodriguezes are facing, I guess, to do all that replanting. MS. MASON: Well, it probably -- well, depending on how much work they did on their own, I mean, it could work out to be about the same, I know the -- MR. PONTE: Well, you said 100 plants and bushes? MS. MASON: That's, I mean, that's a roundabout figure. I'd have to see what they picked, what the size of the plants were going to be, and that's part of the reason -- MR. PONTE: That's a very interesting point. We just heard a case where the size of the plant was specified. Can these just be plantings or must they be mature plants? MS. MASON: Most of them need to be mature, at least of minimum size of 14 feet for the trees and then the shrubs are obviously smaller, but they do have minimum sizes, and they need to be from a good quality nursery. Page 27 March 19, 2001 MR. PONTE: So your guess would be a fairly expensive proposition. MS. MASON: It can be, yes. The difference would be that that would be something that they could spread out the cost over a long period of time, versus an after the fact permit, which would be a larger sum of money at one time. And they also did not give me an allowed reason for me to be able to issue them a permit. They have to give me a reason and agree that the property will be used for the -- if they do not use the property for that stated reason, the permit does become invalid, and remedy would be mitigation at that point. MR. LEHMANN: Investigator Mason, how long -- how long has the respondent had since you made the offer of four plants a month? MS. MASON: We had reached that agreement in October of 2000. MR. LEHMANN: So shortly after the case presented itself to begin with? MS. MASON: I could understand people not having that kind of money. I'm not rich myself. So I could definitely relate to somebody requesting time. And I was more than willing to grant it as long as I could see some cooperation. MS. TAYLOR: I'm very concerned about all this debris piled back here. This is a major fire hazard; is that not right? MS. MASON: I suppose it could be. There's -- due to the fact that they did the clearing, the fire department would have easy access to it, and it is located in the center of a cleared area of the property, but the codes do require that those pits -- that they do often bury the debris in the back of the property in the larger lots, to be only, I believe it's two feet above the natural grade, and this is much taller than probably it is. It's probably 8 or 10 feet. MS. TAYLOR: I didn't know that people could dig pits and bury anymore. MS. MASON: They still can. It just has to meet setbacks to neighboring properties and be a certain height limit and depth. MS. TAYLOR: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Any further questions for the county? Thank you. Mrs. Rodriguez. MRS. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning, everybody. My name is Page 28 March 19, 2001 Maria Rodriguez, and my husband, you know, is in Miami. He has a problem, you know, in immigration and he had to be over here at eight o'clock in the morning. And I decide to come in by myself. I want to let you know that we are willing to replace, you know, the tree -- we, you know, going up, but it's not 100. And we are unable to replace 100 either. My husband and I, we are retired. And we were living, you know, from a small pension, and from the social security. I have, you know, a duplex, I try to sell it, you know. And I wanted, you know, to sell it, you know, replace the plant. But, you know, at this time, you know, there are no business yet. I talk to the real estate this morning, and he said he's quiet, you know, and probably the next month is going to be business. I really don't know. I'm not sure, you know. But he say he try to do his best. And I really want to sell it, because I want to replace, I want to put in, you know, a fence. And I want to do a lot of things, but you can't do anything without money. And I hope you understand this. And another thing, the weather is terrible right now. You can't plant plants because the plants are dying because they are not watered. I don't have water in my house. And, you know, it's really terrible, because sometime you want to do things, but you can't. It's not, you know, that we refuse to replace the plants. And another thing, Ms. Susan said she wanted, you know, not cheap plants, nursery plants. The plant we put in, you know, they are not native. There's a lot of palms, because we was too close and there was a lot of snake over there, and we were living over there, you know, and I say, you know, we better clear out -- I didn't know, you know, then we had to take a permit to clear up. To be honest with you, I didn't know. And the man who was coming to clear, you know, it's a friend of ours, and he tried to help us to clean it out, you know, but suddenly when I went, you know, to do something, you know, Mrs. Mason was coming inside the property. And she's putting a lot of pictures, you know, and a lot of things. I think, you know, and I really believe we pay a lot of money for the taxes, you know, we bought this property in 1991. We were living in California. And for nine years, I was paying, you know, taxes, without taking anything up. I don't touch, you know, the lot. Page 29 March 19~ 2001 I moved from California in 1994 and then, you know, I was living in apartment, because I couldn't live in my own place. I was paying, you know, rent. I bought, you know, the small duplex, and I was living in a duplex, and building, you know, when we're able to build the house, you know, for people, you know, like us, it's not easy, you know, to build a house, because it's not easy to get the money. Now we're trying to do a lot of things on our property where we're living right now. We are living already one year and it's not that we don't refuse to replace the plants. We want to, you know, fix, you know, the place. Want to put in fence. We want to put in a small house, but there are no money. You can't do anything without money. And the weather is really terrible right now. You can't plant plants. And I know Ms. Mason gave me, you know, already one year, and she was pushing and pushing me, I say I can't go to steal money for doing the things I want to do. I really would like to do it, but I don't have the money. What can I do, nothing. And I'm waiting, you know, to sell this property. And I thought I sell the property, you know. We tried to get the plants, but not 100 plants. I can't afford 100 plants over there. She say, you know, you know, it has to be seven feet, and, you know, the plants are really expensive. I went to Homestead to look for this plant. She gave me a lot of places to go, you know. She gave me a place called Green Tree. I talked to the owner over there. He say at this time you can't find the special plant, you've got to wait. What can I do. But we're willing to replace the plants, and I would like to appreciate you can give me a little more time, you know. And then, you know, consider that I can't plant 100 plants, no. For me it's impossible. I tell you the truth. But I would like to put at least half of the plants. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions for Mrs. Rodriguez? MS. DUSEK.' Mrs. Rodriguez, are you willing to do a few plantings as has been suggested over a period of time? MRS. RODRIGUEZ: We are willing to replace the plants, but not all 100, you know, because I don't have enough money to do that. MS. DUSEK.' Well, the County had suggested that you do it in increments of four plants every few months. Page 30 March 19, 2001 MRS. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, but I don't have any money. You know, my husband was operated on. He was in the hospital, and only this year, you know, I paid $2,206 of the property taxes. I have to pay insurance. Then I have to pay, you know, medical bills. We are retirement people. We are not working right now. I have arthritis in my body, you know, and I don't work. Right now, you know, I just -- you know, my son help me, you know, in so many things, but we just living for a small pension, and the social security check, that's the only thing we got. MR. PONTE: Mrs. Rodriguez, what we're trying to do -- MRS. RODRIGUEZ: I would like to do a lot of beautiful things in my house, you know, but I can't do it. MR. PONTE: Mrs. Rodriguez, what we're trying to suggest to help you with, is to not think of it as a project with 100 plants, but rather to think about putting in a few each month, so that the cost is mitigated over some time -- MRS. RODRIGUEZ: I try to do that, you know, but I can't right now. MR. PONTE: -- and if the property is for sale; is that right? MRS. RODRIGUEZ.' Yeah. I still got a few, you know, but right now, you know, the weather is really bad. I tell you the truth. You can't plant now, you know. In November we went to the Homestead, you know, and I buy, you know -- we have a friend -- a Cuban friend over there, you know, he's given me some plants, and I pay for half, you know, ficus. All of the ficus are dying. You go to my house, you will see. I'm not lying to you. I'm trying to plant, you know, some avocado plants. They are dying, too. Because my husband tried to plant by himself, you know, but -- it's a mess over there. I tell you the truth. And I'm not lying. You know very well it's not raining. MR. PONTE: You have said that you are willing to replace -- MRS. RODRIGUEZ: Oh, yeah. I'm willing. I don't refuse, you know, but not 100, because I can't put, you know, 100 plants over there, because I don't kill 100. MR. PONTE: Well, we're not asking you to replace them all at once. MRS. RODRIGUEZ: How many do you want me to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're not going to tell you how many to replace. You're going to have to meet the code, ma'am. So it's whatever the County decides. We can't decide how many Page 31 March 19, 2001 plants you have to plant. That's not our decision. It's whatever it takes to comply with the code, and that's something for you and the County to work out, not us. Okay. So what we really want to know from you is are you willing -- MRS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- to put plants back, the number is unimportant right now. But are you willing to comply with the code? MRS. RODRIGUEZ: I do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's really all we want to know. MRS. RODRIGUEZ: I never refuse, you know, not to replace the plants. But we clear it out, you know, it's (sic) all asking, what's the purpose? The purpose is to clear it out, you know, the lot, because it was a lot of snake and I wanted to plant like three plants like avocados, you know, or orange, or whatever, but even that one, I was wasn't able to do it. I don't put any plants at all, because I can't afford it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MRS. RODRIGUEZ: Sometime you want to do things, but it's not possible. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Thank you, ma'am. MRS. RODRIGUEZ'- I really would like to do a lot of things on my lot, but you just can't do anything without money. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions? Okay. Thank you. MRS. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. But I'm willing to do it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's fine. MRS. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. That's the only thing I can promise to you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. Thank you. MRS. RODRIGUEZ: Even I pay a lot of taxes, I'm willing to fix up my place. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MR. PONTE: ! just have one question for the county staff. With all of the reasons that you can get an after the fact permit, is one of those reasons, could it be due to, you know, reducing a varmint or snake population, or -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. I can tell you that up front. MR. PONTE: Just thought I'd ask. Page 32 March 19, 2001 MS. MASON: The limits on the amount of property you're allowed to clear are partially in place to preserve native habitat for the animals and things, snakes and birds and things like that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, you can't just get rid of them. MR. PONTE: I'm from Manhattan. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We need a finding of fact. You can sit down, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that there is a violation for the Board of County Commissioners versus Jose and Maria Rodriguez, CEB case number 2001-019. Violation is of section 3.9.3 of ordinance number 91-102, as amended, the Collier County land development ordinance. The description of the violation, vegetation removed from approximately two and a half acres of improved estates zoned property without first obtaining and posting on site the required Collier County vegetation removal permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion that there, in fact, is a violation. Do we have a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second. Any further discussion or questions? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? Order of the board. MS. DUSEK: Before we do an order of the board, I have a question for Ms. Rawson. I know that we shouldn't get too specific in our order, but should we not have some sort of detail in there in case this case should ever reoccur again, or if there was ever an appeal or something that we could reference, rather than just saying to come into compliance? MS. RAWSON: Well, ! think that she needs to submit a mitigation plan, that's approved by the county. I think you can give her so many days to do that mitigation plan, because the mitigation plan then, of course, will have to come into compliance, and if not, it would be like the first case we had today, we'll be back here again. But at this point in time, I think it's the mitigation plan they're seeking. MS. DUSEK: Well, I'm just asking a general question, not necessarily for this specific one, but when we do give the order, if we ever had to hear this case again, or if it ever came back to us in the future, and then if it just says in the order to comply -- Page 33 March 19, 2001 MS. RAWSON: Well, we have to be more specific than just to comply. But to comply in this case, at least initially we need a mitigation plan to be approved. Then when, if the mitigation plan is not fulfilled, then ! suspect they'll bring it back to us again. MR. LEHMANN: Jean, let me ask you a follow-up question. On this do we have the right to ask the respondent not only to comply with the code by having the mitigation plan approved and completing it, but do we also have the right to want to see certain steps and the extent of the progress being made; in other words, within a period of time, X number is done, and if that is completed, then nothing happens, and then the next step is another percentage of work is done so that -- is there some way that we can actually monitor the respondent instead of waiting six months down the road to find out whether she complied or not? MS. RAWSON: Well, you could give her so many days to do a mitigation plan, and so many days thereafter, that it's going to be approved and then the mitigation plan should be followed. You can put some interim steps in there, if you want. But since I don't know what the mitigation plan is exactly going to say, it's difficult. MS. ARNOLD: That's the difficulty with a case like this, where if you want to be more specific with -- proceeding with progress, because we don't have a plan that's telling us what type of plants, how many plants, or the timing and those types of things, which will be addressed as a part of the mitigation plan, it's difficult to add additional requirements, in terms of meeting a deadline, without having that plan, that will be a little bit more specific. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. Your typical mitigation plan from the county does not involve any time lines, does it not? MS. ARNOLD: Well, in this case we could specify time requirements, and we could put in the plan, we had a case similar to this at the prior hearing, where we said, submit the mitigation plan by a specific date, and meet all of the deadlines of that plan, because within that plan, we were going to say, do so many plantings, and specify when they had to be done, and if any of those time frames in the mitigation plan are not met, then fines could be imposed. So we're kind of addressing the proceeding in good faith Page 34 March 19, 2001 within the plan. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That scenario won't work here, because the County hasn't been able to tell us how many plants and/or trees are specifically required. MR. LEHMANN: But they could tell us. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Today, for us to make an order, they'd have to tell us, otherwise, we're going to have to come back and do the order of the board later. I asked, and she's not sure, the county isn't sure what's required. So, therefore, they can't tell US. So unless you want to continue this to another date, that is feasible right now. I think the plan is definitely feasible, how they comply with the plan, whether it's two plants, 10 plants, 50 plants, 100 plants, we don't know. So I think it would be a little outlandish for the board to say, submit the plan and then comply with the plan within X, since we don't know what that is, already hearing from the respondent that there's some kind of financial constraints, I think that's a little harsh. MR. LEHMANN: Well, my intended course on this issue was hopefully the respondent and the county can get together and develop a mitigation plan. And I don't care what that mitigation plan is, or how long that mitigation plan takes. But the intent was to have a time line in the mitigation plan. And then as part of the order of the board, we would order that this mitigation plan be arrived at at a certain date, however long the board chooses to do that, and that certain progress must be kept on each month in this mitigation plan. If that progress in the mitigation plan is not developed by that date, as a mutual agreement, or if the progress is not being maintained, according to the schedule that was agreed to, then a fine would kick in. And that would be kind of a broad resolution. You are correct, we don't have a mitigation plan. That has to be developed, and I think in the development, you can also develop not only how many trees and plants that are required, but also what kind of time line would be required to put this together that is satisfactory to complying with the code. That was kind of where I was trying to head this. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson, setting up a fine to kick in if somebody isn't complying with a plan that's not even Page 35 March t9, 2001 submitted yet, and if you don't follow the plan, that sounds real vague to me. MS. RAWSON: Well, I think we need to set the plan up, mitigation plan and that the mitigation plan needs to be approved, but you can suggest to the county that the mitigation plan have very specific time lines in it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But, I mean, I don't see the board -- MS. RAWSON: No. Then they'll have to bring it back to you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- putting a fine on the plan, I mean, I can understand a fine if you don't submit a plan by a certain date, beyond that I don't see a fine. MS. RAWSON: No, I agree. That's all you can do today, but you can suggest to the County that they put time lines in the mitigation plan, so that then when the plan's not followed, they're going to bring the case back to you faster. MR. LEHMANN: It was a good concept, but somewhere along the line it crashed and burned. MS. ARNOLD: I think we -- I think we did just what Mr. Lehmann is explaining last month, where we put a time line for the submittal of the plan, and the compliance with that plan, if either -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's different. MS. ARNOLD: -- if either is not met, then the fines would kick in. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's totally different than what Peter just got through saying. He wanted the fines to kick in if they're not complying with whatever the plan is that you-all agree. MS. ARNOLD: Which is what -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, what we said last meeting was the plan must be completed, being instituted by a date. That wasn't what he just suggested. MR. LEHMANN: The difference between the two was in the last meeting we had a plan, we order the respondent to develop the plan and then complete that plan within a certain amount of time. What I was proposing is that we do something very similar. We tell the respondent to complete a plan by a certain period of time, and then to complete it by a certain period of time, and to make sure that we can stage how the progress is going each month until that plan's completion date. So, in other words, we've kind of taken the next generation onto it and saying that Page 36 March 19, 2001 each month, I'm going to plant four trees or whatever the plan calls for. And if I don't plant those four trees that month, then the penalties kick in. So it is a different scenario we're talking about. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think that's the wrong approach for the board. I think you should do two things, give them a time to submit a plan and penalize them if they don't. If you want to give them a time to complete the plan, based on the volume I've heard estimated, I don't think this is something, again, based on the financial constraints~ it's going to happen probably within a year. So those would really be the only two dates you should pick, the plan by X date, and then complete what's in the plan by X date or a fine. The stuff in the middle, if you don't plant two trees in June, you get fined $25, if you don't plant three trees in July, you get -- that's way beyond what I think we should be doing. MS. DUSEK: I just think we should just stick with the mitigation plan. MR. PONTE: I agree. That's where we should stop and leave it to the respondent and staff to work out the details. MR. LEHMANN: Like I said, it was an excellent concept. It just crashed and burned. MS. DUSEK: It sounded good, Peter. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So, as far as the order of the board, could I hear a suggested motion. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we order the respondent to pay all prosecution charges and to submit a mitigation plan and obtain approval within 30 days. I assume that's reasonable, and implement as approved or a fine of $50 per day be imposed for every day of non.compliance. MR. PONTE: Is this -- let me just ask staff, is that -- is that 30 day period a reasonable timer a comfortable time, in which to develop an agreed mitigation plan? MS. ARNOLD: The 30 day period is taken from the land development code. That's a time frame that is established in the land development code and we feel that, that based on that, that it would be reasonable, and Susan has been working with the respondent to try to get them -- prior to the hearing, to submit that plan. MR. PONTE: I was just thinking in terms of there have been Page 37 March 19, 2001 several other people involved, several other parties, so to get them together, the interpreters and what have you, it wasn't a straightforward negotiation. I just wondered if 30 days was enough time. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, we're feeling that it is sufficient, but it's, you know~ whatever the pleasure of the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So your motion is to submit a mitigation plan within 30 days. What happens if they don't? MS. DUSEK: If not, a fine of $50 per day be imposed for every day -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Until this submittal and approval of a plan, or just a submittal of the plan? MS. DUSEK: A submittal. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Good. MR. LEHMANN: So we have 30 days to submit, not to obtain approval? MS. DUSEK: Yeah. MR. PONTE: Maybe we should have to say that the approved plan go -- I mean, then can put together almost anything and say, okay, I put together a mitigation plan. MS. DUSEK: Actually, my original motion was and obtain approval. So it was submit a mitigation plan and obtain approval within 30 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The County needs to tell us if they submit a plan, you can submit a plan on the 29th day, and if you folks don't get it approved on the 30th day, she's going to have to pay a fine? MS. ARNOLD: As I said -- well, technically~ yeah, that could happen. But we have a time frame also in the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean the order's going to come out so technically is -- if she submits a plan on the 29th day or even on the 30th day, if you don't approve it immediately, she then has to pay a fine, and I -- I don't know, I think that's a little hardship, because we're -- we can't control you. We can't control what she does. MS. ARNOLD: Right. We can't control the respondent either, and if you give them the time frame in advance, we do have a time frame that we have to meet for review and approval as well, and all of this is specified in the land development code. So that's where our recommendation's coming from, within 30 days Page 38 March 19, 2001 is when we feel that a submittal should occur and approval should occur. MR. LEHMANN.' Michelle, you have historical records as far as how long it takes a typical plan of this nature to go through the County and be approved, first time around. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, we're doing the actual reviewal -- review and approval of the plan, and we've typically done a couple days, in fact the one that was submitted for the property that you heard today, Alex received it one day and she reviewed it the next day and made a determination. MR. LEHMANN: So your typical turnaround is a couple of days, and will probably lessen as time goes on? MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. LEHMANN: All right. So basically the 30 days appears to be satisfactory. It really lies on the respondent just to make sure that she gets it in within the time line, so that the County has sufficient time to approve it. My next question is we're going for an approval within 30 days and then a fine kicks in if we do not. What about the implementation of that mitigation plan? MS. DUSEK: That's not in my motion. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. So your motion is only to -- MS. DUSEK: Only to obtain and approve. MR. LEHMANN: -- only to obtain and approve a mitigation plan. MS. DUSEK: And then I feel that if they're not following the procedure of the mitigation plan that the staff will bring it back to us. MR. I. EHMANN: Well, you've created a new case. MS. DUSEK: I think it's very difficult to be more specific than that. MR. LEHMANN: Well, I think it's very easy for the order of the board to say, submit and get an approval within 30 days and then comply with whatever time lines the mitigation plan has. And if you don't finish up on whatever time they agree to, then your fines kick in. And now the case is solved and finished. And it's a, you know, we've been very clear on it. We're not telling you what to do. We're not telling you how long to do it. We're just telling you to get a plan within 30 days, which according to the testimony is more than sufficient, and, secondly, we're Page 39 March 19, 2001 saying just do it in whatever time you and the County agree to do it, and if you don't do that, it then -- MR. PONTE: But that opens up a case, too, where it could be several months from now. Let's suppose -- let's suppose that they had agreed to plant four plants a month. Well, that could go on and on and on for months and months and months and months, and your fine wouldn't kick in, and nothing would happen until you pass the 36th month. MR. LEHMANN: That's the idea of the crash and burn idea. MS. ARNOLD: It's similar -- it's similar to the building permit process when we ask somebody to obtain building permitting and then follow it through to CO, we don't specify the time frames because the building permit process specifies that time frame. And it's up to the respondent to be responsible to obtain or request the appropriate inspections to proceed through until they get the certification of occupancy or completion. So what he's saying is, you know, base your deadline on whatever the mitigation plan says. MR. LEHMANN: This is the whole purpose of the crash and burn idea, and I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but we as a board, I think, have decided we don't have the ability to monitor what's happening on a monthly basis. But I think we should monitor whether the proiect gets implemented or not, whether it takes a month, six months, a year, we don't know, because the mitigation plan is not in place. If you have hundreds of trees, and the respondent is looking to plant four or less trees a month, this could take a very long time. What I think the board is concerned about is are we complying with the code. The only way for us to know that is to see whether or not the mitigation plan is followed. MS. DUSEK: I think that the staff will, if she's not following the mitigation plan, the staff is going to tell her that she's in violation and bring it back. MR. LEHMANN: Then the order carries no recourse. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think you -- I understand what Peter's saying, but I think we're getting really far afield, because you can do this with any case. You can do this with electrical wiring or whatever, and we don't tell them when they have to fix the electrical wiring. We just say, order it to be done by X day, and here we need them to submit a plan, and whatever the County Page 40 March 19, 2001 wants to work out, if the County's happy with two plants a month for the next 10 years, I really don't care. And if the people don't do what the plan says, as I remember, you know, your code enforcement thing, they had a plan, and they violated it, now you can issue another case, and you can fine them, isn't it $500 a day or something, when you issue your little -- MS. ARNOLD: No. We'd have to bring it back to the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. You can fine people without coming to this board, as I remember, how you're set up. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, the citation process? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL. So you have that process to do, too, if you wanted to, if they don't follow a plan, correct? MR. LEHMANN: Well, I think the board -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So there's another mechanism other than getting all this detail. I think this is really too much detail. MR. LEHMANN: ! think the board is losing sight, and the first case we heard just today, the order of the board was to implement -- or was to put together a plan and implement, and our penalties and fines kicked in if either one of those two things did not occur. I'm saying this case is no different than the case we heard just a few hours ago. We're doing the same thing. We're ordering them to come up with a mitigation plan and to implement and the fines will kick in if either one of those two did not occur. So I don't understand what we're talking about as far as difference. MS. DUSEK: Well, I think you have to look at each case individually and the first case was not quite as extensive as this one. It didn't require as much, and we're thinking that there's going to be a long time frame with this. I think it's difficult to impose it, to say, implement. MR. LEHMANN: I understand what you're saying, but I still see no difference simply because the mitigation plan will take into account whether it's a small project or a large project. I think sufficient time will be allowed for a larger versus a smaller project. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's do it this way and maybe we can solve the problem, because the discussion doesn't seem to be Page 4t March 19, 2001 garnering a whole lot of support on either side, I guess. Let's make an order of the board and throw it on the table. See if it gets seconded, and if it carries. If not, then let's throw the other motion on the -- let's do it until we -- otherwise we can sit here and talk for the next two hours. Let's get an order on the table, first. MR. LEHMANN: I think we already have one. MS. DUSEK: We do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We've got 30 days for the plan and then $50 -- an approved plan, and then $50 if you don't have a, quote-unquote, approved plan, period. MS. DUSEK: Period. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So we have a motion. Do we have a second to that? MR. PONTE: I will second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Dare I ask, is there any further discussion? I hope not. Is there any further discussion on that motion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. How many ayes do we have? There's one, two, three, we have four. Those opposed. MR. LEHMANN: Nay. MS. TAYLOR: Nay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Four to two. Motion carries. Mrs. Rodriguez, do you understand what the board is going to order you to do? You have 30 days to get with the County and come up with a plan to bring your property into compliance. Okay. If you don't submit that plan to them in 30 days, we're going to fine you $50 a day until you do. MRS. RODRIGUEZ: But I thought that's why I came here, to ask you for the time. I already explained to you that -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. This is not to put the plants in the ground. This is just to put on a piece of paper what you're going to do. You need to work that out with the County. Okay. That's what we're asking you to do. MRS. RODRIGUEZ: In 30 days I have to buy the plants? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. You don't buy anything. You write on a piece of paper and tell the County what you're going to do to your property. MRS. RODRIGUEZ: But what kind of plant can I put in? Page 42 March 19, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, they can give you a list of the kind of plants you have to put in. MRS. RODRIGUEZ: They already gave me the list. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Then you have the list. You just pick them. But you put on a piece of paper what you're going to do and submit it to them, and they'll tell you whether that's acceptable or not. If it's not, you're going to have to revise it. Okay. And then when you're going to do all of this, that has to be part of that plan. MRS. RODRIGUEZ: Well, I try to do it as soon as I got the money, you know. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Forget the money at this five seconds. Stick to the piece of paper. That's what you need first. MRS, RODRIGUEZ: Uh-huh, to the piece of paper. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. You and Susan work out this piece of paper that you need. That's very important. You need to do that within 30 days. MRS. RODRIGUEZ: All right. And that's all? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's ail we're ordering you to do. MRS. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. I agree with you. I go to do that and I want to see Mrs. Mason, and see what kind of plants. MS. DUSEK: Mrs. Rodriguez, do it as quickly as possible, because it has to be approved within this 30 days. MRS. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That ends the public hearings, and that's it. Any new business? Any old business? Any reports, comments? MS. ARNOLD: Just for the board's information, we do have packets for the next meeting to provide to you today. So rather than turning in your folders, we'll just -- you can just keep the whole thing and replace the pages. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The schedule that was put out for these meetings, I personally have some reservations with it, because we have some of the meetings that are very, very close together, like this one, one on Monday and one on Thursday. I have reservations that there's not going to be sufficient time to review all of this and do everything, but -- Ms. Rawson, I'm curious, and it's raining pretty hard. Maybe it'll do this all day. Page 43 March 19~ 2001 We need the water. Just a point of information, I guess, on these meetings. The ordinance states that we can have additional meetings if required, and the county is to ask the chairman to hold such a meeting, and our rules and regulations that were written up and approved, there is only two types of meetings, a regular meeting held on Thursday and then a special meeting. It doesn't say a regular meeting and any other meetings. It just says regular meeting, period. MS. ARNOLD: That is correct, but it says -- it says regular meetings, which are held the fourth Thursday of each month, or at a time determined by the board. And I faxed everybody a schedule, two options and the maiority of the board faxed back that their second meeting would be the fourth Monday, and that was the schedule that we were recommending to be implemented. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Well, maybe I'm picky, but -- or at a time determined, the meeting is the fourth Thursday at nine a.m., period. MS. RAWSON: Well, that's one of the many changes that we're going to be proposing in our rules and regulations. It's going to say something like the regular meetings of the Code Enforcement Board shall be held at least once monthly on the fourth Thursday or at a -- and/or at a time -- other times determined by the board, because of the overload, you know, and it looks like, at least for 2001, our regular meetings might be twice monthly. But we have a lot of changes in the proposed rules and regulations, mostly dealing with motions to abate fines and motions for rehearings. That's just one small one. And, hopefully, I'll have all that ready for you to give you a draft Thursday. Okay. MS. DUSEK: Am I to understand that we are definitely going to have two meetings a month for the rest of this year? MS. RAWSON: I just looked at the schedule that was faxed, and it looks like there are two meetings through December. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Evidently, that's what the Code Enforcement Department wants. MS. TAYLOR: We talked about this last month and everybody agreed, no problem. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I haven't seen a list of all these cases yet. I hear there's a lot of cases, but today there's three, I mean, Page 44 March 19, 2001 to me to put these three with Thursday, and we can handle them. I'm under impressed that we need a second meeting yet. MS. TAYLOR: We agreed on it. MS. ARNOLD: If the board doesn't want to have two meetings a month -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We agreed we would have -- not that they would be automatic. MS. ARNOLD: No. They're not automatic. You're absolutely right. As we need it. We had a schedule. We looked at all of the cases that were pending before the Code Enforcement Board, the schedule went through December into 2002, and I discussed it with the chairman, whether or not it would be possible to have additional meetings to hear these cases, so that we're not having something sit for so many months. It was discussed by this board. You-all agreed to check the schedule of this meeting room to determine what the availabilities were to determine, you know, when we can have those meetings. Two options were provided, via fax, after you-all concluded at you're prior meeting that it would be okay to have additional meetings to hear this backlog. Since that meeting -- well, actually prior to that meeting, we have implemented something where we were sending out prehearing notices to kind of coax people to get into compliance, so that we wouldn't have this backlog, and them ignoring our notices until prior to the actual hearing of this -- of their case before this board. We have had several cases that are now in compliance. So that there is -- there is a possibility that we won't have to have two meetings every Monday, but just so that our office is aware of when those dates are. There's a lot of people that we have to coordinate with for these meetings. The board room is put on notice when we need to reserve the space. The office of information and -- public information is aware, so that they can make arrangements to have their staff televise these things. We wanted to get a schedule for the year, so that in the event we are going to have two meetings a month, everybody's on notice as to when those are going to occur. And my doing it via fax, was just as a simple way to try to get these things moving and get it all organized. Now, if the board decides that you don't want to have two meetings a month, that's your pleasure. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, I must say that when you sent that Page 45 March 19, 2001 fax over, I thought it was to choose one of the -- like a Monday or a Wednesday, or whatever the other day was. MS. ARNOLD: It was a Monday or a Wednesday. MS. DUSEK: And I didn't know that it meant absolutely that we would have those days. I understand it really doesn't mean that, but if we do have to have two meetings, then it would be on those days; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody else have any other comments? MR. PONTE: Well, only just one. I think it's -- if we're going to have a second meeting, and that's fine, then I think that it ought to be a chopping block. I think we ought to try and work the day, first, before we go to a second meeting day. The fact of the matter is, just from a personal stand point, you prepare the day. You don't know how long the session is going to last. It could be 11 o'clock or one o'clock, but you have blocked out a good portion of the day, so that if we could have a meeting that perhaps goes longer than we normally are going now to 11:30 or quarter to 12, and accomplish what -- in one day, what we accomplish in two meetings. I would prefer to block out a day and know that it was full and it was going to clear the docket. MS. DUSEK: So what you're saying is you would rather have a full day than two half days? MR. PONTE: Well, yes, because if you have two cases, you come in for a meeting, but you're out by 11 o'clock, mean while you've programmed your day. MS. DUSEK: Yes, I understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, as volunteers, everybody has other things to do and to, you know, you're now setting aside a second day, but, for what? And I thought it was going to be, you know, we do have a back log of cases, and I was expecting a lot of them~ but so far ! haven't seen that. MS. ARNOLD: The reason why this one isn't full is because of the short time frame that we did have between deciding on a second meeting and preparing for that meeting. We can establish a goal to have six hearings, you know, six cases per hearing. MR. PONTE: How many cases do we have scheduled for Thursday? Page 46 March 19, 2001 MS. ARNOLD: We have six. MR. PONTE: Which is not a lot. We've done that before. MS. TAYLOR: Six can last until six o'clock at night. It depends on what it is. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. We had six originally. One of them has complied since, you know, receiving their notice. So we have five scheduled for Thursday. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, my thought was when we got the schedule that it was -- I tried to spread it out to give us more time between meetings, and we weren't given that option, which I never understood why, but. MS. TAYLOR: Do we have election next Thursday? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other comments? We meet March 22nd, which is Thursday, same place, nine o'clock. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. LEHMANN: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' See you Thursday. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:40 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY DAWN S. MCCONNELL, NOTARY Page 47 March 19, 2001 PUBLIC Page 48