Loading...
CEB Minutes 03/22/2001 RMarch 22, 2001 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA MARCH 22, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board in and for the County of Collier met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in a REGULAR SESSION in Building F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Clifford Flega! Robert Dusek Peter Lehmann Rhona Saunders George Ponte Kathryn Godfrey-Lint Diane Taylor Jean Rawson, Legal Counsel Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Maria Cruz, Code Enforcement Investigator Page 1 Date: Location: CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLI. IF.R cOUNTY, FbORIDA March 22, 9.001 at 9:00 o'clock A.M. 350~ E. Tamiami Tr.. NaDles, Florida, Collier County Government Center, A~inistrative Bldg, 3rd Floor NOTE: ANY PERSON W~O DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF T~IS BOARD WILL NEED ~ RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTA/NING T~R~TO, AND THeReFORE ~AY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADe, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE T~$TIMOb~Y AND ~VIDENCE UPON WHIC~ THE APPEA~ IS TO BE BASED. NEITMER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING TMIS RECORD- 2. 3- 4. 5. 11. T O R OV PR L ES February 22, 2001 A. BCC vs. Tim Flick B. BCC vs. Richard R. Townsend C. BCC vs. Steven Scott Lane D. BCC vs. Somsanith Thammavong and Tamchay Insixiengma¥ E. BCC vs. vic=or A. Hansen Quarterly Foreclosure Report COMMENTS E AT~ April 16, 2001 C~B NO, 2001-007 CEE No. 2001-010 CEB NO. 2001-011 CEB NO. 2001-014 CEE No. 2001-016 March 22, 2001 CHAIRMAN PONTE: We'll call the Code Enforcement Board to order. Please make note that any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May we have roll call? MS. CRUZ: For the record, Maria Cruz, code enforcement investigator. Roberta Dusek? MS. DUSEK: Here. MS. CRUZ: Clifford Flegal? MR. FLEGAL: Here. MS. CRUZ: Kathryn Godfrey? MS. GODFREY-LINT: Present. MS. CRUZ: Peter Lehmann? MR. LEHMANN: Here. MS. CRUZ: Let the record show Darrin Phillips advised there would be a scheduled conflict and he would be absent from this meeting. George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. CRUZ: Rhona Saunders? MS. SAUNDERS: Here, MS. CRUZ: Diane Taylor? MS. TAYLOR: Present. CHAIRMAN PONTE: Since we are one permanent member short, Ms. Lint as alternate will fill that vacancy today and vote on everything that is brought before the board. First order of business will be our annual meeting and election of officers. Each March we are required to elect a chairman and a vice chairman. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Chairman, before we again with the election of officers, I have a proposal to make, and I hope that the board will look at this seriously and objectively. I haven't talked to any one of you about this. Last year we made a change in our rules and regulations in Article 4, Section Page 2 March 22, 2001 2, that a chairman could serve for more than one term. I would like to make a proposal that this be changed to not more than two consecutive terms, and my reason for this, as I am sure all of you have been, I have been in a lot of organizations and on a lot of boards, and on not any of them does a chairman serve more than two terms. I am also hoping that Cliff will not take this personally. It wouldn't matter to me whether it was Diane, Kathryn, George, Rhona, Peter, or myself sitting in the position of the chairmanship. I think it's healthy that there be a change and a different approach. Now, some of you may not feel you're qualified. I think everyone on this board is qualified to serve as chairman. Some of you may not choose to take that responsibility, but I think the opportunity should be given to someone else. This is not to say that our present chairman hasn't done a spectacular job. And I again hope that this will not be -- this proposal will not be taken as a personal type of proposal, but I do think that it's healthy for the public and healthy for the board and give strength to the board to see a change every two years. And then if the chairman who was on the board as the chairman previously and is still on the board after another term has lapsed, then that person can run again. But I feel quite strongly about that, and I hope you will consider this. At the same time, I would like to make a nomination of a person on the board, if I am in order to do that. I don't know what the protocol is. MS. RAWSON: We will probably deal with one motion at that time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Have you made a motion to change our rules and regulations, is that what I'm hearing? MS. DUSEK: I'd like to make a motion that we change -- that the term be not more than two consecutive terms. MR. LEHMANN: Jean, we have our rules coming up for amendment anyway recently. Is that correct? MS. RAWSON: We do. And I was just looking through here to see if I've got them, but I think ! probably left them on my computer. You know, her motion's well taken. It's actually very timely because I will have a draft of new rules and regulations to Page 3 March 22, 200t present to you at the next meeting anyway. MR. LEHMANN: I am just looking at Article 4, Election of Officers. In Section 2 it says, "A candidate receiving a majority vote shall be declared elected and shall serve a term of one year, which term is not limited to one year, or until a successor shall take office." So that's kind of how, I guess, the rules are -- MS. DUSEK: That's how it's written today, yes. MR. LEHMANN: So at this point in time, I guess, any officer can serve indefinitely. MS. RAWSON: Correct. The way it's written. MR. PONTE: In any event, if we were to make that change, it wouldn't be effective this year because the meeting is to be in March. We would have to change that. It would have to be effective next year. MS. RAWSON: Well, it wouldn't be effective -- it could be effective today. We are ready to start the election of new officers today. MR. PONTE: Not to change the rules today. MS. RAWSON: That's probably true because you are going to elect the officers today, and if you vote to change the rule today before you have the election, you can vote to change the rules today. MR. PONTE: If we were going to have that opportunity, I would have liked to have known that, so we could review all the rules, as we did last year. MR. LEHMANN: Well, in fact, that's part of the rules themselves that the rules have to be presented at a prior meeting for us to review them. MS. RAWSON: That's true. MR. LEHMANN: I agree with my colleague. I think we can make the proposal at this meeting, but I don't know that we can make it effective this meeting. MS. RAWSON: That may be because I'm going to bring you -- if this one passes, I'll bring you that with the other changes that I'm going to recommend, probably at the next meeting. MS. SAUNDERS.' In theory, I agree with you, Bobble. I do feel a little uncomfortable doing it at this time, so I would be much more favorably inclined to vote it in and start it next year. But I do agree that it needs to rotate just for different styles and Page 4 March 22, 2001 approaches. MS. DUSEK: Well, even -- and I think that that's probably correct that it would have to be in effect for next year because we do need some warning when proposals are being changed. And certainly, I think that would be healthy. At the same time, and again, you have to remove personalities from -- and I really hope that you all are understanding that I am removing personalities, and Cliff, especially you. MR. FLEGAL: Not a problem. MS. DUSEK: Even though this may not be in effect, I would still like to see a new person with a new approach, and Cliff would still be on our board as strength to the board. With this new person, you have the resources of Michelle, you have the resources of Jean to guide you through it, and I just feel quite strongly that it's something we should do. And in saying that, well, we haven't voted on the next year's proposals, so -- MS. RAWSON: Well, if that's a motion and there's a second, then you're going to vote for it. It's probably timely because depending on what your outcome is, I can put this in the draft for the rules. Then I would give you all of the rules next month because it says in Section t, the rules and regulations may be revised provided notice of a proposed change is given to the board at a preceding regular meeting. So I'm going to give you all the changes next month, and if we have two meetings next month, then the second meeting you can vote of them after you've had a chance to read them all because I have got several proposed changes in there that have to do with motions, as I told you before, motions to abate, motions to set aside. MS. DUSEK: So what do we do today? Is this just a proposal, and then it's brought up at the next meeting, or -- MS. RAWSON: Well, I think basically -- here's what it says exactly: "These rules and regulations may be revised in a manner not inconsistent with state statutes and county ordinances during a regular meeting by the affirmative vote of at least four members of the board, provided notice of a proposed change is given to the board at a preceding regular meeting." So, I think technically you are probably giving your notice today. Page 5 March 22, 2001 MS. DUSEK: So all I have to do is give notice. We don't really have to vote on anything? MS. RAWSON: Correct. You can vote on that next month, along with all the other proposed changes that I'm going to give you, which you probably shouldn't vote on until the meeting after that because then I am only giving you my proposed changes next time. MS. DUSEK: So in two months we can vote on everything? MS. RAWSON: Correct. And it might not be two months. It might be next month at the second meeting. MS. DUSEK: Ali right. Then I'm proposing that suggestion. I'd also like to say that there are two people on this board right now who have served as vice chairman; one is George Ponte and the other is Peter Lehmann. I'm not sure when it was -- the south board -- MS. RAWSON: Actually, Rhona -- Rhona also served as vice chairman. MS. DUSEK: Well, that's what I was just going to say. I wasn't sure, I had heard some word that -- Rhona, were you as chairman or vice chairman? MS. SAUNDERS: I was vice chair. I served as an alternate chair for a while there. I don't remember, but I was never elected chair. MS. DUSEK: Well, I think one of those three people would make a fine chairperson. I think anybody who has served on the board at least one year has the experience to come forward and be chairman. And I wish I could nominate all three of you because I think you all three are absolutely fabulous people to be our chairman, and I haven't said a word, as I said, to any of you about my thoughts. MS RAWSON: Which is good because of the Sunshine Laws. MS. DUSEK: Right. I would be in trouble. But in order to get the process started with what I feel quite strongly about, I would like to make a nomination for one of these three people, and that nomination would be Peter Lehmann. So I said a lot this morning. Lot of silence on the board right now. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a nomination of Mr. Lehmann for chairman. Page 6 March 22, 2001 MS. SAUNDERS: I will second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any more nominations? MR. PONTE: Yes. I nominate Cliff Flegal. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Is there a second? MS. GODFREY-LINT: I will second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other nominations? Hearing none, we will have a vote. All those in favor of Mr. Lehmann for chairman signify by saying "aye." I guess we need a show of hands because I'm hearing -- Three, okay. Nomination for Mr. Flegal for chairman. All those signify by saying "aye." Hands, please? Four to three. Mr. Flegal is elected chair for one more term. Nominations for vice chair? MS. DUSEK: Then I'll nominate Peter Lehmann for vice chair. MR. PONTE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other nominations for vice chair?. MS. GODFREY-LINT: I nominate Bobble. MS. DUSEK: I'll decline that. Not that I wouldn't want to, put I think that Peter is fine to be in that position. At some other point I will accept a nomination. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other nominations? All those in favor of Mr. Lehmann as vice chairman signify by saying "aye." Any opposed? Mr. Lehmann is vice chair. Election of new officers is complete. Approval of our agenda; changes, additions? MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold. We have two changes. Item B and C under Public Hearings are going to be removed because both of those items were -- both those cases were abated prior to this meeting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That was B and C? MS. ARNOLD: B and C. That would be Board of County Commissioners vs. Richard Townsend and Board of County Commissioners vs. Steven Lane. And also, I'd like to ask that we move item D, which is now to C, so it would go Flick, Hansen, and Thammavong. And the reason why we're asking for that change is, the primary investigator for that case has a deposition at 9:30, and we're hoping that he will be back from that deposition. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So you want E moved up to B, and D moved up to C? Page 7 March 22, 2001 MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other changes? I'll entertain a motion to approve our agenda as changed. MS. TAYLOR: So moved. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Motion has been seconded. All those in favor signify by saying "aye." Approval of our minutes from February 22. I would note that there should be a change made in the minutes to reflect that the members of the board were given a title of commissioner. We are not commissioners. The minutes need to reflect -- be changed to reflect that we are not commissioners. Any other changes to the minutes as submitted? If not, I would entertain a motion to approve. MR. PONTE: So moved. MS. TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' A motion and a second to approve the minutes as changed. All those in favor signify by saying "aye." Opposed? We'll now open our public hearings. First case, CEB Case 2001-007. MS. CRUZ: Let the record show that the respondent, Tim Flick, is present. We have provided the respondent, along with the board and the Clerk of Court, a copy of the evidentiary packet. I would like to request that this packet be admitted into evidence, if there's no objection from the respondent. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is Mr. Flick present? MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Mr. Flick, did you receive this package from the county? MR. FLICK: Yes, sir, but I haven't read it. It went to my father's house a few days ago. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Would you have any objection of the county giving it to us so we can read it and submit it as evidence? MR. FLICK: That would be fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir, thank you. I would entertain a motion to submit -- to accept the county's submission. MR. LEHMANN: So move. Page 8 March 22, 2001 MS. SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: A motion and a second to accept the county packet as evidence. All those in favor signify by saying "aye." MS. CRUZ: This violation being brought before the board is an unpermitted accessory structure on unimproved property being occupied without required permits. This is a violation of Ordinance Number 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 1.5.6 and Section 2.1.15. The violation exists at the Golden Gate Estates, unit 37, tract 128. Owner of record is Tim Flick. The address of record is 2401 County Barn Road, Naples, Florida. The violation was first observed on April 13, 2000. A notice of violation was provided to the respondent on April 13, 2000 as personal service and requiring compliance by April 27th, year 2000. The last reinspection was conducted this morning, March 22, year 2001, resulting in violation remaining. I would like to call at this time investigator Jason Toreky. (Speakers sworn.) MR. TOREKY: Basically, I'd just like the summary stated. We did an investigation, and there's a structure on his property. It's unpermitted, the property is unapproved. Throughout the time getting to this time, Mr. Flick wanted to build a house and add the structure on as an accessory structure. He started that process with a permitting service. I've contacted the permitting service several times. There's a couple items they were missing, and pretty much that's where it's ended up until today. We still don't have a permit, and the structure is still there. He is able to get -- to obtain a temporary permit for the structure, if need be, through an excavation permit that he has on the property now. And that's pretty much where it stands. MR. PONTE: Is the structure -- is Mr. Flick living in the structure? MR. TOREKY: He was staying there on and off, like on weekends and stuff like that. He hasn't been there since the actual notice has been issued. He has not stayed there. MR. PONTE: So he has a permanent residence elsewhere? Page 9 March 22, 200t MR. TOREKY: Yes. MS. TAYLOR: There's electricity to this? MR. TOREKY: No, there's a generator there. That's how the complaint actually was originated. Somebody called in a generator noise coming from the unpermitted structure. MS. TAYLOR: Then there's not plumbing or anything else, is there? MR. TOREKY: Not that I'm aware of. MS. GODFREY-LINT: I note there's a satellite dish there. MS. SAUNDERS: But you did say that he could get a permit, temporary permit? MR. TOREKY: You can obtain a temporary permit. He went into the office yesterday and was provided the information that he would need to obtain that temporary permit. This is something that just came about recently with that option. MS. SAUNDERS: Oh. That's a new option? MR. TOREKY: That's a new option. That just came up at the beginning of the week. MR. PONTE: How did that come about? I'm curious about that. What generated that new option? MR TOREKY: The excavation permits -- he has a lake that's being excavated on the property, and we have spoken to a few officials within the county if we could permit these as a temporary structure in con]unction with the lake excavation permit for storage of equipment and items like that. During this time, as long as that permit is good, which is sometime in September, during that time, Mr. Flick -- that would give him adequate time enough to obtain a building permit for a house and add this on as an accessory structure. MR. PONTE: Michelle, does that mean that the staff recommendation is changed? Because the only recommendation here is for removal. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. The original recommendation was for the removal because at the time that the execute summary was prepared, we felt that there wasn't an ability to obtain a permit for that structure. We've since learned that there is a possibility for him to obtain a temporary use permit in conjunction with his excavation work. Page 10 March 22, 2001 That would be if authorized and stipulated to be removed after the excavation activity occurs, provided -- unless he gets a building permit for a primary structure. Then he can, of course, leave it there as an accessory structure to that primary structure. MR. LEHMANN: Regardless, he could not inhabit that structure? MS. ARNOLD: Excuse me? MR. LEHMANN: Regardless, he could not use that structure as a habitable space? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. No. It's intended as storage or as an accessory to another primary use. MR. LEHMANN: How long will that process take to actually get this permitted through them? MS. ARNOLD: To obtain the temporary use permit? I believe he was given information this week with respect to what would be required to submit, as far as plans and engineered drawings. The typical type of structure that is authorized with an excavation site is normally a trailer. Somebody moves in a trailer, and it's a temporary structure. This one's a little bit different. It's actually fixed to the ground. It's a permanent structure. Because it's a permanent structure, some additional engineering drawings will be required with the submittal. Now, that will lengthen the time frame for them to obtain the temporary use permit. MR. LEHMANN: First off, I am assuming that this is a doable thing. Is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: Uh-hum. MR. LEHMANN: Secondly, define that time frame. What are we looking at, 10 days, 30 days, 60? MS. ARNOLD: Well, because of the engineering requirements, the time frame is not within the county's purview. It's him obtaining somebody to draw plans up and then submit it. I don't know what that time frame would be. Once he submits it to the county, it's a 30-day review period. MR. TOREKY: I think if he submits it within the next 30 days, that's adequate time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any additional questions for the county? Thank you, sir. Mr. Flick? Page 11 March 22, 2001 MR. FLICK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Would you like to come up an tell us your side of this tale, please? The microphone, sir. MR. FLICK: Well, basically, it's just been explained pretty much by Jason. I've had the property for 14 years now, and the structure's pretty much -- I painted it up a little bit, fixed it up. But right now I need it more than ever for storage for the excavation, and rainy season's coming up. It does pretty good for dry storage. Off and on, I stayed there for weekends because I was growing trees and things like that. Just to get away from town. But since I got, basically, kicked out of there, I got another residence. I'm not -- I don't stay there on the weekend. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What are you doing as far as trying to get these structures permitted? MR. FLICK: I will do what they tell me to do, I guess. I plan on building a house there, but since I came up with the lake, I put some money into that instead of the house because I was trying to pull my money in together from what I'm getting off the lake. And I've been into it for six months now, so I've got another six months on my permit. So hopefully by then I will pull my money together and get the house going. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The option of getting a temporary permit for the structure, is that something you're going to pursue or -- MR. FLICK: Yes, sir. I was kind of up in the air about it all but, yes, I do want to do it. I want to go ahead and get permits for it. I do plan on putting a house there, and I have been in Collier County since 1962 and that was always my dream as a kid was to have a house here. It's getting tougher and tougher, but I'm going to do it. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Flick, do you have drawings for the structure that -- MR. FLICK: Yes, I did. Yesterday it took about two hours. I didn't do it professionally. I'm an architectural draftsman, so I can draw up what you need to have,.but I did a little drawing of the basic sound structure of it. MS. ARNOLD: So you have the drawings that are needed to be submitted for the temporary use permit? Page 12 March 22, 2001 MR. FLICK: I probably need to elaborate on them a little more, put them on regular vellum, but I do have -- I mean, a picture is worth a thousand words. Jason has got the outside picture, I have got the mechanical pictures of it. It's sound. It's been through a lot of hurricanes or near hurricanes and tropical storms, and I had a generator out there when nobody else had electricity. I guess that's not against the law, to run a generator when there's a hurricane going on. But I don't know the difference. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Mr. Flick? Thank you, sir. MR. FLICK: You're welcome. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Lehmann, just to elaborate back on your question, it appears that he has some of those drawings that would be required for the permit, so it would be a shorter time frame to obtain them externally and submit. MR. LEHMANN: And just for the board's benefit and me thinking through the timeline, if the county is looking at 30 days to process this permit, his engineering plans for trusses and so will probably take two to three weeks. So if the board is looking at a 60-day deadline, I think that would be more realistic. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: First for the board is to have a finding of fact that there in fact is a violation. MS. DUSEK: I move that there is a violation in the case of the Board of County Commissioners vs. Tim Flick, CEB Number 2001-007. The violation is of sections 1.5.6 and 2.1.15 of Ordinance No. 91-t02, as amended, Collier County Land Development Code Ordinance. And the description of the violation is an unpermitted accessory structure on unimproved property being occupied. MR. LEHMANN: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that there is in fact a violation. Any further discussion? MS. ARNOLD: Can I just point out that the occupancy part of -- it has been testified that the structure's not occupied as originally it was when we first initiated the case, so it would be just the existing -- the existing violation is just the existence of the structure without permits. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That doesn't change the two sections. Page 13 March 22, 2001 Correct? MS. ARNOLD: No, it doesn't. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The violation is against the two sections of the ordinance. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying "aye." Any opposed? Order of the board. I think as Mr. Lehmann stated that the board should consider probably a 60-day period rather than a 30. I think that's more realistic. MS. DUSEK: And the 60-day period is for a permit for temporary use. Is that correct? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: To obtain whatever permit is required, I would say, and/or remove the structure. Give him the option, don't just order him to obtain a permit, iust in case. You know, strange things happen. He may decide it would be easier to get rid of it. But I think we ought to give him the option to either obtain the required permits, whichever they may be, and/or remove the structure within 60 days, I think would be probably a good motion. MS. DUSEK: That sounded good, Cliff. I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I see. Walked me into that one, didn't you? I think that would be reasonable, so I would make that motion that respondent obtain required permits and/or remove the structure within a 60-day period. If in fact that doesn't happen, I might as well just continue the motion. I would be willing to go along with the recommendation of staff that a fine of $50 a day be imposed for each and every day the violation remains. Additionally, I would recommend we order the respondent to pay the costs of prosecuting the case before the board. MS. TAYLOR: I second it. MS. DUSEK: I second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further discussion? MS. SAUNDERS: Yes. Just one thing. I think there's a possibility that this case might be back before us after the temporary permit expires, and if he hasn't obtained a permanent permit, I want to make sure that we've got it so that this can be a -- is considered a repeating violation or a recurring violation. Page 14 March 22, 2001 In other words, that he needs to keep permits on this structure. So, before the temporary runs out, you need to obtain the permanent. Otherwise, we're right back where we are. MR. FLICK: Right. I have full intention on getting a permit for a house. CHAIRMAN FI. EGAL: Ms. Rawson, if we order the respondent to obtain the required permits and/or remove the structure -- MS. RAWSON: That should cover it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't think we get into~ if you get a permit, you then have to get a permanent -- I think that's a little beyond, isn't it? Just obtain the required permits, period, and if he fails to do that, or he gets them and they run out, then the county would have to cite him again, I would think, because he now doesn't have any permits. Would that be -- MS. RAWSON: Obtain required permits or remove structure within 60 days should cover it. MR. LEHMANN: Does that allow the county to cite this respondent as a reoccurring violation? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. PONTE: Mr. Chairman, I just -- repeat for me? I think I missed the findings part. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It was recommended what the staff said, $50 a day. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying "aye." Any opposed? Mr. Flick, do you understand? MR. FLICK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right. Next case, CEB 2001-016. MS. CRUZ: This is the Board of County Commissioners vs. Victor A. Hansen, 2001-016. Let the record show that the respondent is not present. However, there was a packet that was sent to the respondent with a notice of this hearing, and that packet was received. I have a receipt signed by the respondent on March 14th, 2001. I'd like to request that this packet be admitted into evidence, marked Composite Exhibit A, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.: Since respondent is not present, I would entertain a motion to accept the packet as evidence. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, one real quick question. You say you have a certified mail receipt of notice of hearing on March 14th? Page 15 March 22, 2001 MS. CRUZ: That's correct. MR. LEHMANN: Is that not insufficient time for notification of the hearing? MS. CRUZ: The notice was sent on March 8th, 2001, but the respondent apparently picked up the mail on March 14th, 2001. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. And, Jean, maybe you can help me on this. Our rules and regulations, Article 7, Section 3, state, "The secretary shall provide the notice in a manner which will enable an alleged violator to receive a minimum of 10 days notice prior to the hearing at which the alleged violator's case will be presented to the board." And the definition of providing that notice is the date he receives it or the date we sent it? MS. ARNOLD: The date we sent it has always been the date that we have applied to that rule. MR. LEHMANN: I'm sorry? MS. ARNOLD: The date that it's sent is the date that we always applied to the rule because we have no control over when people pick up their mail. MS. RAWSON: That's true. Tell me what section that is. MR. LEHMANN: I have got it as Article 7. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' That's the rules and regulations. What's the statute, the ordinance, say? MS. RAWSON: Ten days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Our rules don't take precedence over the ordinance. MR. L. EHMANN: No. The statutes don't refer to it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Was it posted? MS. CRUZ: No, sir, not this one. MR. LEHMANN: My concern with this particular case is, did we provide sufficient notice? The statute or ordinance, governing ordinance, don't really speak of the timelines and so on and so forth. The only thing that speaks of it is our own rules and regulations, unfortunately. I just wanted to make sure before we proceed with the case that we actually have given proper notice, and we don't have any grounds for appeals on technicalities and things like that. MS. RAWSON.' This is our rule. The 10-day rule is what you voted on, and it does -- it's not in the statute or the ordinance. Maybe I need to work on the writing on this one, too, as long as Page 16 March 22, 2001 I'm into revising the rules. MR. PONTE: But it's common practice, is it not, throughout business and law, that you recognize the postmark as the date? MS. RAWSON: That's correct. It's the mailbox rule. MR. PONTE: And I think that's the rule that applies. MS. RAWSON: Because as Michelle properly pointed out, we don't have any control over when they pick up the mail. MS. ARNOLD: And what we have typically gone by is if we haven't received a return signature receipt, then we'll post the property 10 days just prior to assure they have received their packet, and in this particular case, obviously, they have received the packet, and we had spoken to somebody as late as yesterday regarding the case. MR. LEHMANN.' Well, I apologize for delaying the hearing, but I just wanted to make sure that we were proceeding according to all the guidelines, we didn't have any loopholes sitting out there. MS. RAWSON.' No. I appreciate that, Peter. And I am going to fix the language in that section. MS. CRUZ: You want me to go on? The violation brought before this board is the existence of a wooden privacy fence installed in the rear yard exceeding the six-foot maximum height allowed for a residentially zoned area without a valid permit. This is a violation of Ordinance No. 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 2.7.6, Paragraph I and 5, and Section 2.6.11.2.2. The address where the violation exists is 813 103rd Avenue North, Naples, Florida, and is more particularly described as Naples Park, Unit 1, Block 8, Lot 28. The owner of record is Victor A. Hansen. His address of record is 813 103rd Avenue North, Naples, Florida. The violation was observed on March 10th, 2000. There was a notice of violation provided to the respondent via certified mail, which notice was received. This notice was dated October 6, 2000, with a compliance date of October 23rd, 2000. The last reinspection was conducted yesterday, March 21st, 2001, resulting violation remaining at this time. At this time I have investigator Shawn Luedtke to testify for this case. (Speaker sworn in.) MR. LUEDTKE: For the record, Shawn Luedtke, Collier County Page 17 March 22, 2001 Code Enforcement Investigator. We received this complaint on March 10 of 2000. It's about a fence that was over the six-foot maximum height requirement in a residentially zoned area located at 813 103rd Avenue North. We had an investigator, Dennis Mazzone, with our department respond out there and observed a wooden privacy fence, six-foot in height~ and towards the end of the -- or the back of the property, he has had an additional fence installed inside this fence, extending up to 10 foot. We went ahead, and Investigator Mazzone did speak with the gentleman, Mr. Hansen, on site~ gave him a verbal, told him that he would need to obtain the proper permits for the fence because the six-foot privacy fence was not permitted, and that he would have to reduce the 10-foot section or just completely remove that, bring the total fence in to six foot. On March 20th, I personally checked the site and observed that the violation remained. No permits had been obtained at that time. I posted my card on-site for Mr. Hansen to return my call. I never got a response on that. On March 29th, we had a third investigator, Investigator Teresa Beck, respond to the site. Did make contact with Mr. Hansen. Gave him a verbal, told him exactly what needed to be done and the permit process, and how he had to obtain one. On April 7, a permit was obtained by Mr. Hansen for the fence, to bring the total fence into compliance and to reduce the fence to six-foot maximum height. Due to the permit being open and active for six months, we went ahead and just did random checks throughout a period of time to check the status to see if he was bringing that fence into compliance and had the proper inspections done. The permit expired on October 3rd of 2000~ and we did not receive -- let's see, on that particular permit, the permit was not inspected, and the fence was still in violation, at which time we issued a notice of violation requesting compliance by October 23rd. By October 23rd, he was still in violation. We went ahead and set it for Code Enforcement Board. ! have since been in contact with Mr. Hansen's attorney, a Mr. Steve Grover, who is working with the county to try to obtain what's called a "height administrative variance" for a height waiver request. He Page 18 March 22, 2001 submitted it as late as yesterday. County's looking at five to ten days to review this particular request and determine whether they are going to approve the height of the 10-foot in the back section of the fence, but the last contact we had was as of yesterday, and the fence was still in violation. MR. LEHMANN: Ms. Rawson, one quick question. If the board hears the case and finds a violation, and then the county, in turn, approves the variance, what effect does that have? MS. RAWSON: Well, you'd have to come back and set aside your order, so you might think about that in making your recommendations. You may give him some time to obtain a variance or, if not, he has to come into compliance by other means~ like removing the structure. MR. LEHMANN'. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does the county have evidence -- have you found any evidence in the file that the respondent is, in fact, requesting a variance? MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, sir. He did actually submit with the county the form, the request, and the application, yesterday. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yesterday? MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, sir. MS. TAYLOR: Does he give a reason that he wants all this~ especially this 10-foot section? MR. LUEDTKE: Privacy, ma'am. He says that due to the neighbor next door to the west, the property to the west is a little higher, and they can see over the standard six-foot fence because his property is a little lower. So he wants that additional two foot to give him kind of a little privacy there. He doesn't want his neighbors looking over into his property on this back corner. MS. GODFREY-LINT: That's why I moved to the Estates. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL-' Any additional questions for the county? Thank you, sir. Since we have no respondent, the board needs to find that there in fact is a violation or if there is not. MS. DUSEK.' Well, it appears as though there clearly is a violation, and so I guess I'll make the motion that there is a violation in the case of Board of County Commissioners vs. Victor Page 19 March 22, 2001 Hansen, CEB Case No. 2001-016. The violation is of sections 2.7.6, parenthesis I and 5, and 2.6.11.2.2 of Ordinance No. 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code. Description of the violation: Existence of a wooden privacy fence installed in the rear yard, exceeding the six-foot maximum height allowed for a residentially zoned area, without a valid permit. MS. SAUNDERS: I will second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second there is in fact a violation. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying "aye." All those opposed? Order of the board. MR. PONTE: Staff recommendation, I would think. MR. LEHMANN: Staff's recommendation is to obtain the permits within 15 days. I think that would preclude their ability to request a variance. MS. ARNOLD: The variance that he would need is an administrative variance, and he has already submitted it. Staff has said in short of two weeks it would be approved, and the permit application in process review for a fence permit is an express permit, and they can obtain it in one day. MR. LEHMANN: Let me see if I understand the timelines on this thing. The administrative review takes how long internally within the county? MS. ARNOLD: They've indicated two weeks maximum. MR. LEHMANN-' Internally within the county? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. And some documents are needed to submit with that? MS. ARNOLD: They've already submitted it yesterday. It's already been submitted. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. So we've already got the review submitted. We should have an answer, yes or no, within two weeks? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: The permit for the fence is an express permit, and obviously, removing it is removing it. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. LEHMANN: So Mr. Ponte, your comment was 15 days, Page 20 March 22, 2001 then? MR. PONTE: Yes. MS. DUSEK: I'm always a little hesitant to go with such a tight constraint, even though Michelle has indicated that it would actually be within a three-week period. I'm always a "just in case" type of person to allow him a few more days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Of-- MR. LEHMANN: Well, this case has been going on for over a year already. It's not as if the county hasn't provided time for the respondent to come into compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Maybe we should consider it to be fair/reasonable, since the county has been involved in the case for a year, rather than 15 days. If we give the respondent 30 days to obtain a variance and/or permit and/or remove the violation, I don't think that would be inconsiderate, the additional 15 days. At this point, I don't think it's going to hurt anybody, now that we're this far down the pike. Just to make sure there's no slip-ups, having not seen the paperwork, I don't know if it's complete. The county obviously doesn't know at this point. MS. ARNOLD: They do know. I just indicated it. They submitted it, and it was accepted yesterday. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So it was accepted yesterday, so the variance could be issued today? MS. ARNOLD: They indicated to us two weeks maximum. If they wanted to sit down and not look at anything else, they could possibly do it today, but there's a time frame in there that they have established for review and approval, and they indicated to us two weeks. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, if it's been accepted, what does that mean? MS. ARNOLD: For completeness. Anything that is submitted, it's reviewed to determine whether or not all the i's are dotted, all the t's are crossed. It's been reviewed and submitted, and all that is needed has been verified, and now it just takes the county's planning department some time to review it and determine whether or not the information justifies an approval of the variance. MR. LEHMANN: Two things in this process bother me. One, we've been sitting here for a year and the respondent has been Page 2t March 22, 200t not cooperative at all with the county. The second part that kind of bothers me on the 15-day time period is, I like the short time period because I'm tired of dealing with the case, so to speak. I mean, we've been dealing with it for a year, but the second part of it is, if I go the route of the variance, and it takes me two weeks to accomplish that variance, and then I find out I can't do that, now I'm stuck. I can't remove the fence, I can't do anything at all within the time period you have given me. So part of me is saying, hey, we've been telling you for over a year it's wrong. You need to do all this. So I can understand both sides of that coin. MS. DUSEK: I lean toward the period that says they made the decision yesterday to apply for this, so that's a gamble, and if they are gambling wrong and do not -- and do not get the variance, then $25 a day until they get it done sounds just fine to me, So I would stay with the staff's recommendation of 15 days. MS. GODFREY-LINT: I agree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let's have a motion then, please. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. I'll move that the respondent pay all prosecution costs and obtain permits within 15 days or remove the violation or a fine of $25 a day be imposed for each and every day the violation remains. MS. TAYLOR: I second that. MR. LEHMANN: Ms. Rawson, should we make that motion to say "to obtain permits" or just to come into compliance, giving him all the options available. MS. DUSEK: I don't think that time frame gives him time for all options. MS. RAWSON: Well, he's got -- as I understand Michelle's testimony, he would be able to get his variance within two weeks. So if he got his variance, would then he also need a permit? MS, ARNOLD: Yes. MS. RAWSON: He would, and would that take longer? MS. ARNOLD: Not the express permit. He can get it in a couple of hours. MS. RAWSON: Because it's the expedited permit. Well, I guess if your question is, should you also put in there "variance," Page 22 March 22, 2001 you don't really need to because he's going to get the permit right after he gets the variance, or he can remove it. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. So the motion basically stands as it was originally issued. MS. DUSEK: Just one more point. Let's -- I'm playing the devil's advocate. If he doesn't get his variance, and he doesn't get his express permit, then his option is to remove it within this 15-day period, to do all of that. This means that he has to act like every hour, you know, once -- in two weeks he has -- let's say they say no to him as far as the variance. He can't get his permit, so he has one day in which to remove the fence. MS. TAYLOR: You know, he should have thought of all these things while this was going on for a year. They have explained this over and over and over. MS. DUSEK: I understand that, and I'm in agreement with all of you as far as that goes, but once I see somebody now taking full steps ahead, then I'm inclined to give them some leniency. If he hadn't done anything to this point, I wouldn't be inclined to give him any leniency. MS. TAYLOR: You know why? Because he's been brought before the board, that's why. He wouldn't have done anything had he not been brought before the board. MS. DUSEK: That's probably very true. MS. LEHMANN: I feel strongly with my colleague this has gone on long enough. I wonder whether this -- whether the attorney action is more or less a last minute effort because it was brought before the board. They finally decided to take this thing seriously. This has gone on for a year. They've already had a permit issued. They let the permit expire with no action on it. I'm sorry. I have a hard time feeling sympathy for this particular respondent because I think the respondent hasn't bothered to even try to comply. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further discussion? The motion is 15 days, $25 plus all prosecution costs. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying "aye." Any opposed? Next case, 200t-014. Page 23 March 22, 2001 MS. CRUZ: Next case is Board of County Commissioners vs. Somsanith Thammavong and Tamchay -- I'm going to try -- Insixiengmay. Let the record show that the respondents are not present. There was a package sent to the respondents via certified mail. We have not received receipt, but the notices were posted at the subject property and at the courthouse. Since the respondents are not here, I would like to request that this package be admitted into evidence, please, marked Composite Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since respondent is absent, I would entertain a motion to accept the county's exhibit. MS. DUSEK: So moved. MS. TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Motion and a second to accept the county's exhibit. All those in favor signify by saying "aye." Any opposed? MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. The violation being brought before this board is the improvement to property without first obtaining the required building permits. This is to include a mobile home with multiple wood additions and 10 shed-type structures and accumulation of litter consisting of wood, refrigerators, plastic, and cement blocks. These are violations of Ordinance No. 91-102, Sections 2.7.6, Paragraph I and 5, and Ordinance 99-5t, the Collier County Weeds and Litter Ordinance, Section 7. The owner of record, as stated previously as the respondent, the violation exists at the property described as section 21, township 50, range 28, the east half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter -- I'll read the folio number to describe the property in detail: 0482167804. The violation was first observed on November 4th, 1999. A notice of violation was provided to the respondent on December 8th, 1999. Compliance was required by January 10th, year 2000. I believe the reinspection, final reinspection, was conducted yesterday, and I can have the investigator testify to that, resulting in the violation remaining at this time. MS. TAYLOR: The term "improvement," I would think, would Page 24 March 22, 2001 be used very lightly in looking at these pictures. MS. ARNOLD: I would like to call investigator David Scribner, please. (Speaker sworn.) MR. SCRIBNER: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I inherited this case back in December of last year and did the follow up in the final work on this case and have not had any contact with Mr. Thammavong in this instance, although I've left messages as recent as this morning. I called his house at quarter of eight to see if he would be attending this hearing. Again, I talked with his son, who I had previously left messages with relating to his father. This is an adult son, and have yet to hear back from him. I had one message left on my machine. He does not have an answering, so I have been unable to get in touch with him. I just want to clarify one thing. I didn't make a recheck yesterday. I actually went to the property on Tuesday. This is a remote section of the county. This is 70th Avenue Southeast, what's known as the South Blocks area. It's very difficult to get in there. Since the photos that were in your packet were taken more than a year ago, I actually went there and took a video. It was the only way I could truly represent what is out there. There's probably more structures on the property than we even know about. There's a fence, and it has been posted "No Trespassing." All the video was taken from the roadway. Hopefully that video will start here shortly, so you can see what this property looks like. MS. TAYLOR: Are there animal pens on here? MR. SCRIBNER: I wouldn't be surprised, in the back part of the property. I don't believe this property is being lived in. It looks more like a camp-type structure. You will be able to see it from the video. This is 70th Avenue Southeast. That's the subject property. You can see there's a wire fence around the outside of it that's looking towards the west. I believe this is a five-acre parcel, so anything that's built in the middle of that parcel -- you go around the edges, you really can't see what's in the middle. This is the entryway, and I can assure you, Steven Spielberg has no problem with his job. I see a Ford van parked there. I Page 25 March 22, 2001 attempted to zoom in and see if I could actually see it. The plate was expired, but it was so windy, and I wasn't able to zoom in close enough. Looks like it hasn't been operated in some time. MS. SAUNDERS: And there are no permits for anything on this property? MR. SCRIBNER: I went to the property appraiser's office yesterday to verify that this -- this property doesn't even have a property card, believe it or not. The only thing that it has is the tax bill, which shows only land, no improvements. MS. SAUNDERS: Well, you have done a great job of trying to get it. I'm not sure I would have gone near it. MR. SCRIBNER: You can actually see from the road what appears to be a wooden structure, but in the middle of this, you can see right there in the video, there's actually a mobile home built around by all these structures. MS. SAUNDERS: It does look like a camp. MS. TAYLOR: He's been busy, I'll say that for him. MR. SCRIBNER: Not with the phone calls, though. MS. TAYLOR: Well, with a hammer and nails. MR. SCRIBNER: This property was also posted. The notice of this hearing is posted on the property. I believe it was on the 10th, and as you can see on the video, I was there on the 20th. The posting is missing, so you can draw your own conclusions to that. I've also left my card posted on the fence, and that's the one way I got a return call. A month later after I posted my card, I finally got a call back, but I have yet to make personal contact with them. You can see the mobile home stuck in the middle of the structure. It's hard to really see the debris in the yard because of the vegetation. It's really grown up in that area. MS. SAUNDERS: Why didn't you put music to it? MR. SCRIBNER: Actually, when I was taking this film, the Happy Bear's birthday sign popped up, so I redid some of it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Did you attempt to gain entry to the property with the assistance of the sheriff's office or anything like that? MR. SCRIBNER: I did not. When it's posted "No trespassing," we honor their request. We don't attempt to go on it. I don't think the sheriff's department would have gone on Page 26 March 22, 2001 unless there was some life or someone's life is in danger on a posted piece of property. There's actually some structures in there from this view, but I wasn't able to get a clear shot of exactly what it is, it's so covered by vegetation. I believe those may have been some animal pens at one point. MR. PONTE: When you talked to Mr. Thammavong's son, do you get the impression that he's an adult? That is, the son is an adult? MR, SCRIBNER: Yes. I asked him this morning if he had relayed the message that I had left previously. He said, "Yes. I have left that for my father." I asked him if he was coming to the meeting today. He said, "1 don't know. He's already gone." As you can see in this view, there are some of the plastic buckets that were talked about in the violation, as well as how the structure is just set up on some pylons and cement block. MR. PONTE: There is electricity there? MR. SCRIBNER: I don't think there is electricity. MR. PONTE: I thought I saw a light bulb, perhaps not. MR. SCRIBNER: There may be a light bulb, but's it's probably run by a generator. You see, it's just an open roof. MS. GODFREY-LINT: Did they start to build a house there? Is that what this is? MR. SCRIBNER: I think it started with the mobile home on the lot, and things just evolved from that. MR. PONTE: What would be your professional feeling or guess as to what all these 10 sheds or more are used for? Are they closed sheds or open pens? MR. SCRIBNER: I have never been on the property, so I can only tell you what I've seen from the road -- from the video that you're seeing. I've never had the opportunity to actually be in there. MR. PONTE: How did you find out that there were t07 Specific number. MR. SCRIBNER: The previous investigator had access to the property, and the notice of violation specified the 10th, but since that time, it's been closed off. MR. PONTE: When you reviewed the record of the previous investigation, when the sheriff went into the property, was there Page 27 March 22, 2001 anything in the notes that suggested what is going on in those sheds? Was it used for animals, or was it used for migrant workers? MR. SCRIBNER: I didn't notice anything in the notes that there was in any sign of life, actually, at the property. There's no note that there were animals there or people. MS. GODFREY-LINT: There is some tire tracks? MR. SCRIBNER: There is tire tracks through the area. This is after the rain, but there were no recent tire tracks into that property since the rain. That's why I think it's probably used as a camp, and the owner actually has an address and phone number in Fort Myers. MR. PONTE: Did you reach his son in Fort Myers? MR. SCRIBNER: Yes. MR. LEHMANN.' This case was originally forwarded for prosecution and then dropped -- or discarded or closed, I should say. Can you explain how that transaction occurred and how it affects the status of the case right now? MR. SCRIBNER: I'm not familiar with what happened in the past, but at some point, this case was closed and decided to be reopened and started a new look at the situation. I don't know. I don't understand what happened in the past. MR LEHMANN: My concern is, do we have an active ongoing case since '99, or is this a new case since 2000? MR. SCRIBNER: No. This is a 1999 case. MR. LEHMANN: Michelle, it still is active? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. This is a case you are hearing right, now. So he's picked it up after a prior investigator. What happened was, this case was originated by someone that is no longer in the department, and subsequent investigators looked into the violation, issued the notice of violation, and then, since shifting of responsibilities has occurred in the department, David Scribner picked up the case. So it's a continuing process. MR. LEHMANN: So it's basically just an oversight where we didn't close the case at a point in time? MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. LEHMANN: So the respondent has been aware that the case existed since November of '99. Is that correct? MR. SCRIBNER: That's when the original posting -- this first notice of violation was December 9 of '99. Page 28 March 22, 2001 MS. ARNOLD: And there was a subsequent posting in January of 2000, as well. MS. DUSEK: So this case is considered a recurring case? CHAIRMAN FI. EGAL.' No. It was not brought before this board. MS. DUSEK.' I noticed on one of the sheets, I forget which one it is, they have it designated as recurring. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. It was never brought before this board. MR. PONTE: Was it maybe the north board? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' It was never brought before any board. I think what happened is, for some reason internally, it got misfiled, closed, or whatever, then got found and reopened. Is that correct, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Uh-hum. MS. DUSEK: So the notice of ordinance violation, in order to correct down at the bottom, "Violation Status," it says "recurring." That's why I was questioning that. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. The investigator noted that on the notice of violation to the property owner, but, as the chairman indicated, it's actually continuing. It was never corrected. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The first notice was December 8 of '99, then another notice somewhere in January 6, which was about a month later, another notice was posted, and then it dropped into the void and reappeared in December of 2000. There's about a year where there was no action or interfacing with the respondent. Is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: That's what it appears to be. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: And you say that you are still having difficulty communicating with the respondent? MR. SCRIBNER: I'm not having any difficulty. He's having the difficulty. MR. PONTE: There's no communication at all, is the fact of the matter. MR. SCRIBNER: Well, I'm communicating with his son. He's not responding to any of this. He's not communicating with me. MR. PONTE: I apologize. I didn't mean to say that. MS. SCRIBNER: That's okay. Page 29 March 22, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You haven't been able to get a phone number? MR. SCRIBNER: Oh, yes. I have a phone number for him. After posting my card on his property and saying, please call me, that's how I left it. A month later, I received a phone call from the respondent, and he left his phone number. I immediately called him back. No answer. I just kept calling and calling until I got somebody to answer the phone. Talked to his adult son. Said he needed to contact me immediately, it was very important. It was about his property in Naples and a code enforcement case, and I have yet to hear from him. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And they live in? MR. SCRIBNER: Fort Myers. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Fort Myers. MS. DUSEK: I am completely convinced that there's a violation, and I don't have to hear any more. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions for the county? Thank you, sir. MR. SCRIBNER: Thank you. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that there is a violation. I am not going to be able to pronounce their names, but Board of County Commissioners vs. Thammavong and Tamchay -- you'll have to forgive me for that pronunciation -- CEB Case Number 2001-014, the violation of Section 2.7.6, paragraph I and 5, of Ordinance No. 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code, and Section 7, of Ordinance 99-51, the Collier County Weeds and Litter Ordinance. The description of the violation: Improvement to property without obtaining all required building permits, which includes mobile home with multiple wood additions, 10 shed-type structures; and also accumulation of litter, consisting of wood, refrigerators, plastic, and cement blocks. MS. SAUNDERS: I would second that motion. CHAIRMAN FI. EGAL: We have a motion and a second that there is, in fact, a violation. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying "aye." Any opposed? MR. PONTE: Before we go on to the possible following the recommendation of staff regarding fining, it's my feeling that the Page 30 March 22, 2001 fine should be increased over what the staff has recommended and the time frame shortened. MS. TAYLOR: I agree. MR. PONTE: This respondent -- we've got to get his attention, and we're not getting it this way, so I think we'll have to hit him stiffer with the penalty than the one recommended. MS. TAYLOR: I agree. MS. SAUNDERS: I agree. MR. LEHMANN: Well, I agree with the increase in the fine, but I think that if we shorten the time limit as one of the options of him removing it, I don't think they can remove this volume in 30 days. MS. TAYLOR: You want to bet he never removes it? MR. LEHMANN.' No, not at all. I certainly wouldn't extend it past 30 days, but if you're looking at maybe two weeks, I don't know that he could remove this volume in two weeks. MR. PONTE: So three weeks. It's an impossible task to do in 30 days, as it is an impossible task to accomplish in 15 days or 13. I think what we're trying to do is get some contact with him, and he's just totally ignoring this board and the code enforcement operation totally, just in violation. MS. DUSEK: George, I agree with you on the increase in the fine, but I am inclined to go along with Peter as far as the time frame, only because we have to be fair and reasonable when we give our order, even though we know this person has not responded whatsoever. I feel that we can't just say, well, we're going to do this just to punish you. We have to do it and be reasonable. MR. PONTE: Well, maybe we can phrase it into two separate things because given the extensiveness of the complex, and that's what it is with arched entranceways, buildings, mobile homes. It's a complex. We have no idea how many sheds are there now. We think 10, possibly more. Unless you just went in and bulldozed it, it would take time to dismantle it and get rid of it. So then what do you say, 60 days? MS. DUSEK: Well, I think saying within the 30 days is -- I still don't think he can accomplish it in 30 days. MR. PONTE: I don't either. Page 31 March 22, 2001 MS. DUSEK: But I think to shorten that time frame is not the approach the board should take. That's like -- I don't know if the word "punishing" is right, but it's just not a responsible thing. MS. TAYLOR: I agree with George. It's an attention getter, and that's what he needs. MS. DUSEK: Well, I think the fine will reflect that, and that short period of time of 30 days is going to be impossible for him to remove the stuff. MS. TAYLOR: Well, then, we need to up that fine. MS, DUSEK: Oh, absolutely. I'm in total agreement with that. MR. LEHMANN: And that's what George had recommended. My position on this thing is, this case has gone on since 1999. Obviously, he has no interest in complying with the county on this thing. We need to make it short and sweet and say, here's what's going to happen. I think it's fair to give him 30 days, he's got plenty of time for options. This has been sitting here for two years. But once that 31st day hits, then a serious fine to get his attention needs to be in place, and that's my feeling about it. I think that $50 is ridiculous, and I commend staff with constantly trying to work with the respondents, but this respondent obviously doesn't want to work with staff. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One thing I think you need to keep in mind, please. We looked at other cases, and because the time was 11 months, 13 months, whatever, the staff tried diligently to get people to comply, and they totally refused. I understand this needs some drastic action, but in this case, there was a one-year period where staff didn't even have conversations or any contact with this person. So in essence, their contact is really limited to about a four- or five-month period. Can he get permits in 30 days if he had to for this property? Even if he came in today, could he get it done in 30 days? MS. TAYLOR: Permits for what? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: His structures or whatever. MS. TAYLOR: They aren't permittable. MS. ARNOLD: He's got multiple structures, and you would have to define for the planning department how those structures are going to be used, and we had indicated that it's about five acres, and the zoning on it is state, so he would be permitted to Page 32 March 22~ 2001 have technically two primary structures with accessory structures under the zoning district provision, and the possibility is there~ if he submitted it today, that it could be reviewed by the county and action been taken by the county within 30 days. MS. DUSEK.' Does he have to have a site improvement plan with that? MS. ARNOLD: No. MR. LEHMANN: I think in reality, the structures, from what I've seen -- it's very similar to the gentleman just trying to build a camp out there. He would have to do, I would think, some major renovations to the structure to make them permittable, but that's not to say that this board should say that we preclude him from that option. I think we need to keep our -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's why I was curious about the 30 days. If we limit him to try and obtain permits and/or do whatever, is something that's impossible. That's my only question. MS. DUSEK.' You're thinking that we need to give a longer time? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would hate to tell somebody they have to do something in 30 days, and then even if they actually start doing it, it's just something that can't be done due to the system. But I am interested in what the board wants to do. MR. PONTE: Can we carefully craft the finding so that it's in two parts? So that he would have to apply for a permit within X days and/or if not, remove the structures? Different time frame with a separate fine or an increased fine. MS. ARNOLD: Let me just add some information. The investigator just advised me that this is in the southern Estates area, and it's the area that the state is attempting to purchase and restore back to its natural state. The county isn't precluding issuance of permits in that area, but there's the possibility that the state is attempting to get ahold of these property owners, as well, to obtain that property. And the likelihood is there that, you know, he probably wouldn't get permits or try to obtain permits for it because he's going to turn it over to the state. MR. LEHMANN: Again, we are making an -- what you are asking us to do is consider a subjective issue. Page 33 March 22, 2001 MS. ARNOLD: It is subjective. ! just wanted to advise you that it is in a buyout area, so to speak, and to worry about whether or not permits are going to be obtained, it's probably out of our control. So, you know, you probably should be concentrating on whether or not there's a violation and to rectify the problem within a certain time frame. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But the certain time frame is, we should be reasonable, that if he could obtain permits, which is what we're interested in, is 30 days enough time? MS. ARNOLD: And I have indicated, yes, if he submitted it today, he could get permits from the county. MS. TAYLOR: I am for the 30 days, no longer. No longer, and a big fine. MS. SAUNDERS: I agree. Quite frankly, I would like the county to get a lien on the property as rapidly as we could and make something happen, if there is going to be a sale. I don't see anything changing in this, and though I tend to try and give the benefit of the doubt as much as possible to the property owner, in this case, I'm not inclined to be very lenient at all. Does a fine of $200 a day seem appropriate? MR. PONTE: It does, but at the same time, we're saying that we seem to have a limit of $250 and that's -- we use that when there's safety involved, and there isn't any real safety features here. MS. SAUNDERS: Well, George, I see some safety violations. They're not -- they're implied in here, in that if this is being used as a camp and it's in an area where there's a drought, and people are camping out there, living out there in wooden structures that are not permitted, I see a fire problem. MR. PONTE: I don't think there's any proof that it's used as a camp. There's no activity. It's overgrown. Maybe it was used as a camp at one time long ago, there is that archway entranceway, but I don't think it's a camp now. MS. TAYLOR: Yes, but let me tell you, people go out, way out in there, way out in there, for drugs or whatever, and there's always activity way out in there. You wouldn't think so, but there is. Someone's always looking for a place just like this. Truly. Page 34 March 22, 2001 MR. LEHMANN.' I think a fine of $200 a day will very quickly exceed the value of the land, and we get into an upside down lien. MR. PONTE: It's five acres. What would that -- MR. LEHMANN: Out there, an acre could run 3 or $4,000, may be $10,000. MS. TAYLOR: I just bought two and three-quarters, cost me $29,000, unimproved. MR. PONTE: Which might be the attention getting device. If the state's going to take it over and he knows the sale is assured, he certainly will not want to lose the profits from the sale. MR. LEHMANN: Myself, I was looking at a fine of $100 as opposed to $200. MS. DUSEK: And I was thinking of $150. MR. PONTE: And I was thinking of $100. Glad we have consensus. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think we have consensus on 30 days. Now let's -- can we get a consensus -- why doesn't somebody make a motion about the 30 days and put a number to it, and let's see how that flies. MR. PONTE: Bobble, you're good at that. Say 150 and 30 days. MS. DUSEK: Well, I recommend that the CEB find the respondent in violation, order respondent to pay all prosecution costs, and I guess we're going to put the "obtain permits." Did we decide to do that? Obtain permits or remove structures and litter within 30 days, which would be April 21, 2001, or county staff to remove litter, assess all costs to respondent, and a fine of $125 be imposed for each and every day violation structures remain. As I make this, I -- are we -- did we want to have the staff go out there and do anything? I'm not so sure that should be in there. MR. PONTE: I agree with you. MS. DUSEK: All right. I'm removing that from -- MR. LEHMANN: Why would you not want staff to go out there? MR. PONTE: I think it's an overly costly operation that doesn't make any difference one way or the other. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They are only going to take the litter Page 35 March 22, 2001 down. They aren't going to take the buildings down, so picking up some buckets and -- MR. PONTE: Refrigerators. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think that's an undue expense, personally. MS. DUSEK: I do, too. I remove that from my motion. MS. TAYLOR: I don't think the fine is high enough. $125 is not high enough. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we have -- the motion is 30 days and $125. Is there a second? Let's do it this way, first of all. MR. PONTE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL-' We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? MS. SAUNDERS: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Maybe we could just go down the row and see what each person thinks the fine is, instead of voting on the motion and then coming back and forth. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we have a motion and a second on the table, so we have to do something. MR. LEHMANN: So we have to vote on this rule. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying "aye." Since I'm doing this by ear, let's have a show of hands, please. One, two, three, four, five. Motion carries. All those opposed? One, two. Motion carries five to two, 30 days and $125, plus costs. That closes the public hearings. There's nothing under new business. There's nothing under old business. Reports? Oh, I'm sorry. MR. PONTE: I just -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have something under old business? MR. PONTE: Just a point of clarification. Jean was talking about the possibility of two meetings in the month of April. The meeting that's on the agenda, our next meeting, is April 26. MS. ARNOLD: The room is not available in April other than that date. MR. PONTE: Okay. So we've just got one. MS. RAWSON: My error. I don't have my calendar in front of me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Just one meeting next month. Page 36 March 22, 2001 MS. SAUNDERS: Could I get the dates for the meetings in May? Do you have that handy? MS. ARNOLD: I can call you. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. I didn't keep notice of all the things going on. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Reports. We have one report, a foreclosure report. MS. CHADWELL: Good morning. My name is Ellen Chadwell. This is the update from last month, and I understand that you received that, and you have had an opportunity to review that. We currently have about 19 cases in our office pending. You can see from the top sheet, which is kind of like a statistical total of the cases, we have resolved two more cases since last month. We've got six cases currently in foreclosure, and the others -- there are a handful of cases that we will more than likely send to the collection agency for collection. Michelle and I have talked about that. You received a copy of the memo of last month regarding our ability to use a collection agency service for purposes of collecting those cases that don't warrant foreclosure proceedings, and at this point, I'm comfortable with the fact that we can go that route. We do need to prepare a resolution and present that to the Board of County Commissioners and have them adopt a resolution authorizing us to send the cases to a collection agency and allowing them 30 percent of those fine amounts to go as payment to the agency. Hopefully, we will have that in some form that can be presented to the board next month. I won't make any guarantees or promises in that regard, but that's kind of our goal. We presented -- I did a memo on the satisfaction of code enforcement claims last month, as well. it was presented to you by Michelle, and that's simply an opinion, that the satisfactions of lien need to be executed by the Board of County Commissioners. That's clearly set out in the statute, and when these cases do resolve themselves, we have to -- in a timely fashion, execute and record satisfaction of liens. At this point, if there's any questions you all might have about the progress on any of these matters, I will be happy to try to Page 37 March 22, 2001 answer those. You have probably -- if you have been reading the paper at all this month, you know we have been busy with Mr. Parks and are making some progress in that regard. So at that point, I guess I will just open up for any questions you all have. MS. GODFREY-LINT: On Mr. Parks, are you trying to contact the nephew, or is the nephew in the military or -- MS. CHADWELL: We have determined that he is not. He has been discharged from the military. I did have a conversation with his father. That was all information that came from the deposition, and we have sent off another request to the U.S. Navy so that they can confirm officially that he's not in the service any longer, and we are hopeful or optimistic that we will get some personal service on him, where he's currently living. Beyond that, I don't really want to comment. MS. GODFREY-LINT: On the Parks matter, once you find the nephew, will you attempt to really expedite this case because of the problems he's causing for the neighbors? MS. CHADWELL: Yes. There won't be anything to keep us from going to a judgment at that point, assuming they -- defenses are raised or what have you, but that's been the big major stumbling block, so I'm hopeful we can certainly expedite it at that point. MS. GODFREY-LINT: He lives a few miles from me, and he's really a character and a half. MS. CHADWELL: In addition, I guess Ms. Rawson has discussed with you some of the changes we're working on for the rules, in particular, motions to reduce. I understood that this board was interested in advice from counsel as to how they can better enforce these violations and take action, so that was one of the directions we took from this board and one of the actions we've been working on the last couple of months. MS. DUSEK: I want to thank you for this report. I think it's very thorough. It's very easy to understand, and I truly do appreciate it. MS. GODFREY-LINT: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, it's a good report. I have a question. Maybe I'll ask Ms. Rawson, since -- when the -- after Page 38 March 22, 2001 we issue an order and it's -- we say to do something, and what the -- I guess the county is stating on a couple of these is, abandon any action. What does that do to the order? I mean, how do you -- does not the order just keep running? How do you abandon it? MS. RAWSON: You abandon it because you are not following a foreclosure, and you're not because the amount of fine is not worth turning it over to collection. That means the county office, as I understand it, is abandoning their action to collect, which they have the right to do. It doesn't mean that the order is still not out there and that the lien is not still on the property. You know, someday, if they sell it, we still might collect~ but as I understand from Ms. Chadwell, that means that the county attorney is abandoning the efforts to collect because it's not worth it. MS. CHADWELL: That's correct. I would like to take this opportunity and say that I think, and I think that Michelle will agree with me~ that although it seems a little repetitious at times, we continue to send notices out to the property owners. I think that some of those letters really have had an effect, that in con]unction with the obvious intent of this board to enforce its orders, and I think that's fairly evident in the community at this point, that you all are aggressively pursuing foreclosure where appropriate and taking these matters seriously. So I think that we're seeing some real positive -- I know that I haven't had any more cases come to my office, so I take that as a positive. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One question. I think it's Stevenson. Is that -- you say, is still waiting directions regarding foreclosure. Is that something you need from this board, or is that something the county's doing? MS. CHADWELL: That's something that I'm waiting for from Michelle. We need to have some discussions about that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Good report~ thank you. MS. CHADWELL: It might be a little long, but I just keep adding on to it. So that kind of gives you a chronological history. If there aren't any more questions, thank you very much. I would like to add one thing. I'm supposed to do quarterly Page 39 March 22, 2001 reports, and there's been some confusion, since I started kind of off the calendar quarter. So I'd like to schedule those reports in January, April, July, and October, the typical calendar quarters. So I'll be appearing again next month. It will be brief, I'm sure. MR. PONTE: Makes sense to me. MS. CHADWELL: So we are on that cycle now. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Comments? Next meeting is April 26, 2001, 9 o'clock, in this room. MS. GODFREY-LINT: You think it will be all day? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have no way of knowing until we see how many cases might be brought before us, and as with today~ we had five cases and two got abated, so -- MS. GODFREY-LINT: The reason I asked is, we've gone to two meetings a month, and I was just wondering if perhaps we should. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The two meetings a month -- I think it would be in the board's best interest that on the two meetings a month that Michelle might get with the chair and say, we have X cases, rather than just bring the board here for one or two cases or three and then have another meeting where we have three cases. It's kind of a scheduling problem for people in their personal lives, I'm sure. MS. DUSEK: I personally don't mind staying here one day, all day, to accomplish what we need to accomplish. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would entertain a motion to adjourn. MS. SAUNDERS: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Second? MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor? Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: ! would just ask that you all keep your folders. We're going to just send you a packet. MS. TAYLOR: You want me to keep all this stuff? MS. ARNOLD: You just keep them. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adiourned by order of the Chair at 10:45 a.m. Page 40 March 22, 2001 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIFFORD FLEGAL, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY TONI SHEARER Page 41