CEB Minutes 04/26/2001 RApril 26, 2001
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
Naples, Florida, April 26, 2001
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board,
in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in
Building 'F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
VICE CHAIRMAN:
PETER LEHMANN
ROBERTA DUSEK
KATHRYN M. GODFREY-LINT
DARRIN M. PHILLIPS
GEORGE PONTE
ABSENT:
CLIFFORD FLEGAL
RHONA SAUNDERS
ALSO PRESENT:
JEAN RAWSON, Attorney for the
Board
MICHELLE ARNOLD, Code
Enforcement Director
MARIA CRUZ, Enforcement
Official
Page I
04/26/01 08:05 FAX 941 403 2345 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~_CLERK OF BRD ~001
~ODE ENFO___RCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER CO-- ~T~
Date: April 26, 2001 at 9:00 o'clock A.M,
Location: 3301 E. Tamiami Tr., Naples, Florida, Collier County Govern~en5 Center,
Administrative Bldg, 3rd Floor
NOTE: ANY PERSON W~40 DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECO~D
OF THE PROCEED%NGS pERTAINING THERETO, ~ THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE T}~T A
VERBATIM RECORD OF TME PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, ~ICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY A/TD
EVIDENCE UPON wMICM TME APPEAL IS TO BE BASED- NEITMER COLLIER COUNTY NOB THE CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD S~ALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR pRoVIDING TMIS RECORD.
2.
4.
5.
ROLL CALI~
APPROVAL OF AGE~_____~A
APpRoVAL F~IN]3. TE~ March 19, and 22, 2001
~UBLIC HEARING~S
B. BCC rs. Anna Maria and Philip a. Marrone
C. BCC vs. victor V. Ira
D. BCC vs. James Joseph Grant, Jr,
E. BCC vs- Robert A- Mitchell
F. BCC vs. Russell G. PlaUt
G. BCC vs- Alberti~a Cardona and Terry Arce
NEW BUSINESS
A. ~CC vs. Leonard Wisniewsk~
B- BCC ¥~. John and Rita Goodman
O_LD ~US~ES~
~EPORTS
F~l~ng o~ A~£~av~S of Coml~l~a~ce
A. BCC vs. Dean M. ~locker a~a Kenneth J. Blocker, Jr.
B. BCC ~s. Dean M. Blocker an~ Kenneth J- Blocker, Jr-
CED Nc.
CEB No. 2001-013
CEB No. 2001-015
CEB No. 2001~020
CEB No. 200!-Q21
CEB No- 2001~022
C~B No. 2001-023
C~D No.
CEB NO. 2000~049
CEB No. 1000-024
CEB No. 2001-003
CE~ NO. 2001-004
10.
COMMENTS
NEXT MEETING DAT~
~ay 21, 2001
ADJOURN
April 26, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Board of Collier County to
order. Please note any person who decides to appeal a decision
for this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining --
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 -- for providing the record. Roll call, please.
MS. CRUZ: Good morning. For the record, Maria Cruz.
Roberta Dusek.
MS. DUSEK: Here.
MS. CRUZ: Clifford Flegal.
(No response.)
MS. CRUZ: Kathryn Godfrey -Lint.
MS. GODFREY-LINT: Present.
MS. CRUZ: Peter Lehmann.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Present.
MS. CRUZ: Darrin Phillips.
MR. PHILLIPS: Here.
MS. CRUZ: George Ponte.
MR. PONTE: Here.
MS. CRUZ: Rhona Saunders.
MR. ARNOLD: Let the record show that Rhona Saunders
called and indicated she would not be here today.
MS. CRUZ: And also let the record show that Diane Taylor
has resigned.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Okay. As we have a -- a quorum,
and we have a few board members missing, Mr. Darrin Phillips
and -- and Miss Kathryn Godfrey-Lint will be voting members of
the board today.
Page 2
April 26, 2001
May we have an approval of the agendas. Are there any
changes or additions?
MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. There's an addition from staff under
Item -- Item 8, reports. I would like to add an item, Board of
County Commissioners versus Jose and Maria Rodriguez, the
filing of -- of an affidavit of compliance. If I may approach the
board, I have copies of said document.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Thank you.
Any other changes to the agenda?
MS. CRUZ: No, sir.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Okay. I'll -- I would entertain a
motion to approve the agenda.
MS. DUSEK: So moved.
MR. PONTE: I'll second it.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a second -- a motion
and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All those opposed?
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The agenda is approved.
Thank you very much.
Let's move on to the approval of the minutes. Are there any
changes, additions, or deletions to the minutes?
MR. PONTE: I'd like to make a correction on the minutes of
March t9, page 46. I didn't say, "1 think that we should make this
a chopping block." I said, "1 think the agenda should be chock a
block full." and that's the only change I'd like to make, Mr.
Chairman.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other changes? Okay. I
would entertain a motion to approve the minutes of March 19th.
MS. DUSEK: So moved.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And do I have a second?
Page 3
April 26, 2001
MR. PHILLIPS: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. We have a first -- a
motion and a second. All those in favor say -- signify by saying
aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
All those opposed?
Minutes approved.
Let's move on to the minutes of March 22nd. Are there any
changes or additions to those minutes?
MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the minutes
from March 22nd.
MR. PONTE: I'll second.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion and a
second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So approved. Thank you.
We'll now open our public hearings. Case No. 2001-13.
MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. Board of County Commissioners versus
Phillip A. And Anna Maria Marrone, Case No. 2001-013. Let the
record show that the respondents are present. I've provided the
respondent, the board, and the clerk of court a copy of the
composite exhibit which I'd like to present as evidence and mark
Composite Exhibit A, if there's no objection from the respondent.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Miss Marrone, are you
available? You have received a copy of the packet? MR. MARRONE: Yes, sir.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. And do you mind us
entering this as an exhibit?
MR. MARRONE: Phillip A Marrone. No.
Page 4
April 26, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' I want -- I would entertain a
motion to admit the packet marked as Composite Exhibit A --
Exhibit A into evidence.
MS. DUSEK: So move.
MR. PONTE: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion and a
second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you.
MS. DUSEK: Mr. Marrone, you can be seated for the
moment.
MR. MARRONE: Thank you. I'm a little bit nervous. I'm not
used to this.
MS. DUSEK: That's okay.
MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, the alleged violation before this
board under this Case No. 2001-0103, it's the one large type sign
approximately 10 by 40 by 30 feet wide in length with substantial
copy change from the original sign without first obtaining the
proper permits. This is a violation of Section 1.5.6, 2.1.15,
2.5.12.1, 2.5.12.4.9, 2.5.5.2.5.1, Section 2.5.5.2.1.2, and Section
2.5.8 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, the Collier County
Land Development Code.
The violation exists at 2096 Tamiami Trail East, Naples,
Florida, and is more particularly described as Col-Lee-Co Terrace,
Lots 41 through Lot 45, the less right-of-way portion. The owner
of record is Phillip and Anna Maria Marrone. Their address of
record is 3400 West Crown Pointe Boulevard, No. 201, Naples,
Florida.
The violation was first observed on October 30th, 2000. A
notice of violation was provided to the respondent on October
Page 5
April 26, 2001
30th, 2000, with a compliance date, December 1st, 2000. The
last reinspection was conducted yesterday, April 25th, resulting
in violation remaining.
I'd like to call at this time Investigator Gary Dantini, please.
MR. PONTE: Before we go any further, I have a point of
clarification I'd like answered by staff, and that is the definition --
because I'm confused on this -- the definition of a pole sign. The
violation says that we're talking about a pole-type sign, and so
what's the definition of a pole sign?
MS. ARNOLD: Investigator Dantini can address that.
MR. PONTE: Okay. Thanks.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Also, Michelle, if you can
explain to us,per the reference code, the county administrator
has the authority to direct the owner to remove the sign without
our action. Is there a reason why you chose this avenue?
MS. ARNOLD: All of the codes give the -- give the
administrator that provision. And if the property owners choose
not to, we have the ability to bring it before the board, and that's
what we're doing at this time.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' Okay. Thank you.
MR. DANTINI: For the record, my name is Gary Dantini, code
enforcement investigator. We have Chahram here from planning -
MS. CRUZ: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. We need the
investigator sworn in.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I apologize. Yes, thank you.
Please do.
(The oath was administered.)
MR. DANTINI.' I don't have the -- the exact definition right in
front of me as far as pole sign, but Chahram, I think, can probably
answer that question at this time.
MS. ARNOLD: Chahram Badamtchian is a -- a principal
Page 6
April 26, 2001
planner in the planning department and responsible for
administering the sign code.
(The oath was administered.}
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, board members. My
name is Chahram Badamtchian. I'm a planner with planning
services department. I've been working in this department since
1990, for the past 11 years.
The definition of a pole sign is basically the freestanding
sign which is directly attached to the ground, and it's not
attached to any building. It can -- it must be 15 or 10 -- depends
on when it was built -- feet from any right-of-way and property
lines. And the height varies according when it was built. In 1990
when I started, the height was 25 feet, and right now the height
is, dependent upon the width of the road, somewhere between 15
and 12 feet high. And any structure that's attached to a building
cannot be considered a pole or ground sign.
MR. PONTE: Thank you. I have a problem, then, before we
go any further. If that's the definition of a pole sign and the
violation is for a pole sign, is that really what we're talking about
in this violation?
MR. DANTINI: Yeah. If you can see in this picture right here
MS. ARNOLD: Well, let me -- let me address the board.
MR. DANTINI: Oh.
MS. ARNOLD: The violations that are cited, not -- do not all
pertain to a pole sign. The violations that were cited or the
specific sections of the Land Development Code that were cited
pertain to the use and requirement that you have to obtain a
permit and those types of things, so it's still relevant for -- MR. PONTE: For whatever sign.
MS. ARNOLD: -- you know, whether or not there's a
violation.
Page 7
April 26, 2001
MR. PONTE: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: The reference to it in the executive summary
is incorrect.
MR. PONTE: Okay.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' My understanding of this is is
the violation is in the substantial copy change -- MS. ARNOLD: Correct.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- of the sign as opposed to the
pole sign.
MS. ARNOLD: Correct.
MR. PONTE: Okay. Thank you.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And -- and a little bit more
clarification for myself also. We have a letter from Collier County
government dated January 17th, 1997. That's page 14 of the
evidence package. In that evidence -- or in that letter it states
all off-premises signs having an original cost value of a hundred
dollars or more may be maintained for the longer of the two
periods, for the following periods. And the second of the period
gives a permitted date or an effective date of the amendment
seven years from the date of the letter or the effective date of
the ordinance change.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay. This sign is on premise. It doesn't
pertain to this particular sign.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: It's on the roof of the structure or the
restaurant that -- that we're hearing before you today.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Thank you.
Investigator Dantini, please proceed.
MR. DANTINI.' I observed the -- the sign copy has been
changed. And I wanted to give reference to what it --
approximately what it looked like before. This was what the cop
-- this was what the copy was before the -- the change. And as
Page 8
April 26, 2001
you can see, there's a substantial difference between the two
copies of the sign. This is what triggered the investigation to
find out if there was a permit obtained when the copy change
was done, and I did not find one.
At the time that I inquired, I talked to Mr. Marrone, and we
had discussions about whether that was -- that required a permit
or not, and it did, because of the -- of the substantial differences
between the signs. He wanted a written notice of that, and we
set up a meeting to -- to -- so we could give him that -- that
notice. And as that meeting progressed, Mr. Marrone at that time
made a decision that the sign was going to remain and that he
wanted a cop -- a copy of the notice.
And at that time I tried to issue the notice of violation and
asked him to sign it, and at that time he refused to sign. And we
had to do drop service with him. Mr. Ed Morad, one of my
supervisors, witnessed that, that drop service. So he obtained
the notice of violation that way.
In further discussions with Mr. Marrone, he felt that the sign
was grandfathered in, and at that time I had to explain to him
that when he -- when the sign was permitted in 1992, there was a
permit issued because of hurricane damage from the -- what was
the -- Andrew, right -- hurricane went through. And at that time it
was -- a permit was obtained. That became a legal,
nonconforming sign. But the minute that he totally changed the
copy of the sign it became an illegal nonconforming sign, and the
grandfather clause was completely removed, and the sign has to
comply to today's recommended standards as far as height and
setbacks and type of sign.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any questions for Investigator
Dantini?
MR. PHILLIPS: Where are we going to find the definition of
what a substantial change is in the copy? I see, Michelle, in the
Page 9
April 26, 2001
ordinance there's reference to Section 2.5.5 for exceptions.
Where is that in our packet? I can't find it. MR. MARRONE: Page 13.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Those exceptions don't exist in
our evidence package, I don't think.
MS. ARNOLD: The exceptions to the sign code is 2.5.6, and
it lists various exceptions, but -- and I'm looking through it. I
don't believe it would indicate in there what -- you know,
distinguish between what is substantial and what would not be.
Just looking at the two signs, there is a substantial change
between the initial sign that was permitted in '92 and the sign
that exists today. There is substantial copy change.
The -- the code requires a permit for copy change to a sign.
A permit was not obtained for the -- the copy change that went
from Little Italy Restaurant with a flag on the -- the sign to Little
It -- Italy Restaurante with, you know, the dancing person and the
painting. So anytime there's copy change to a sign, that would
require a permit.
MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I think that begs the question, again,
what is substantial change. You've stated that, in your opinion,
it's a substantial change. But I think we need to define what a
substantial change is. The way I see it it looks like there's a
change really in the font. Maybe the font size is a little bit
smaller, but it's still the same copy, basically. So the argument
could be made that there's not a substantial change. I just think
we need to define what exactly substantial change is.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay. I'll have Chahram define that for you.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' I'm sorry. Before I can ask, the
code does not reference a substantial change, as I know it. It's
just referenced in the violation. The code itself says a change in
-- in copy, basically, any -- any change in sign copy. Is that my
understanding? Am I correct or am I incorrect in that?
Page 10
April 26, 2001
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. You are correct. Basically, our
Land Development Code has a list of things that they are allowed
to do in a nonconforming sign, which this one is. And they are
basically spelled out what you can do and what you cannot do.
And when it comes to what's substantial or what's insubstantial,
Collier County Land Development Code authorizes the planning
services director is designated to make this call. It's up to the
planning services director.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Well, we have no
reference -- and my colleague brings up a very good point. This
board in the evidence package has no reference as to what that
change would entail and what is permitted or not. We are -- have
to rely on your testimony, in essence.
MS. DUSEK: I think that what they're saying is it's a
subjective decision and it's a decision made by the Land
Development --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Basically Land Development Code, our
-. our department head or his designee, which in this case I am,
can make a call -- .
MS. DUSEK: Uh-huh.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' -- whether or not what they did is
substantial or not. And in this case it is substantial because our
code allows minor repairs, allows maintenance of the sign, and
does not allow a copy change. For a copy change it requires a
permit and which they could not obtain because the sign is not
conforming, and we cannot issue permit for nonconforming signs
for copy change.
The entire code was structured to allow to -- the removal of
signs, nonconforming signs, over time. And if we issue permit to
structurally alter or change the copy on older signs which are
nonconforming, they could stay forever. So the idea was, if you
have a sign, that's fine. If it was a legal sign, you keep it for as
Page11
April 26, 2001
long as it stays the way it is. But if you want to change the
name on it, change the copy on it, do anything with it, then you
have to comply with the new code.
MS. DUSEK: I have a -- I have one question. If they decided
-- they've made this change, and I can see the change. If they
decided to go back to what was originally there, then does this
violation go away?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN'.
caused the violation.
MS. DUSEK: Okay.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN:
MS. DUSEK: Okay.
I don't think so. They have already
You cannot go back.
MR. PHILLIPS: Would they have needed a permit to
essentially touch up the old sign? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No.
MR. PHILLIPS: Just to repaint it, not to change any of the
font or anything else.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. Our code allows painting,
repainting, and cleaning of signs without a permit and als -- and
changes which are determined to be less than substantial. And,
as I say, that's planning service director's call what's substantial
and what's not.
And we allow them to repair -- we allow them to have rust --
you know, to scrape it, to clean it. We want the signs to be in
good shape. We don't want rusty, old-looking signs. However,
we don't want them to change the entire copy or change
structures piece by piece so they can keep nonconforming signs
forever.
MS. ARNOLD: Can I just ask Chahram a question? So the
copy -- the change in copy, regardless of it -- if it's from one font
to another would require a permit?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes.
Page 12
April 26, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So in this particular instance,
what we're looking at is not only a change in the type itself but
also in the graphics?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' All right.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: What we determine to be substantial in
the past, let's say they had this Little Italy Restaurant and they
decided to just change the "restaurant" to "restaurante," change
the E to I and add an E at the end of restaurant, we would
probably allowed that. That's less than substantial. But having a
billboard with a painting on it -- granted, it looks much nicer than
the one they had before; however, it's -- what they did is illegal --
was illegal.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other questions from the
board?
MR. PHILLIPS: Michelle, getting back to the exceptions
again, our packet says 2.5.5. You say 2.5.6 ?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, it's all the exceptions for nonconforming
signs. 2.5.5 is all the provisions under the sign code.
MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it says, change in the sign copy, in
parentheses, see Section 2.5.5. MS. ARNOLD: Right.
MR. PHILLIPS: I don't have 2.5.5 in my packet. I'm just
wondering how that reads.
MS. ARNOLD: 2.5.5 of the sign code lists all the permitted
signs. And then there are different subsections of -- of that
permitted sign lists that makes reference to development
standards, real estate signs, model signs, residential directional
signs, and so on. And what I was just clarifying is that I think
what Chahram has noted to you-all is within this 2.5.5 it makes
reference to the copy. It's not just one paragraph; it's a whole
section of the Land Development Code. And we can provide you
Page 13
April 26, 2001
that whole -- I can have -- if you want to look at this, you can look
at it right now and take a break.
MR. PHILLIPS: Yeah. I would like to glance at it, please.
MR. PONTE: While Mr. Phillip's reviewing that, let me also
address my pole sign discomfort. I'm looking at the photograph
on page 22. There is a pole supporting one part of the sign. The
rest of the sign is supported by the building. A major part of the
sign is supported by the building. So I'm a little uncomfortable
with the description of the violation if it's for a pole sign. It
doesn't appear to be a pole sign. It's supported on one side by a
pole, but the majority of the sign is supported by the building.
MR. DANTINI: I'm sorry. I didn't get other pictures of the
other three structures, poles that are holding the sign up. But
there's two other poles that are holding that sign up separately
from the building. It is not sitting on top of the building.
MS. DUSEK: So if -- if there is just one pole for a sign, is that
considered a pole sign? I mean, is there a definition that says,
well, it's not a pole sign if it's just one side, or you have to have
three poles, four poles?
MR. DANTINI: Well, under this -- this particular sign, it
requires three poles to hold the sign up.
MS. DUSEK: And so that defines it as a pole sign?
MR. DANTINI: Yes.
MS. DUSEK: Okay.
MR. PONTE: Even though it's attached to the building?
MR. DANTINI: Well, it's not attached. It looks like it's
attached to the building. These are walkways right here
(indicating} that -- for maintaining the sign, but there isn't
anyplace that it's -- here's another picture -- that it's attached to
the building itself. Structurally it's not attached to the building
for support.
MS. DUSEK: It's just built over the building?
Page 14
April 26, 200t
at?
MR. DANTINI: Right. It's just built over the building.
MS. DUSEK: Okay.
MR. PONTE: Gary, do you have that page 22 that I'm looking
MR. DANTINI: Right here. Yes.
MR. PONTE: Well, it looks like clamps on the side of the
building supporting the walkway on which the --
MR. DANTINI: But that's not a part of the structure as far as
holding the sign up. It's for the walkways themselves.
As you can see, underneath the walkways there's a steel
frame --
MR. PONTE: Yes.
MR. DANTINI: -- that goes across there. And it's just the
walkways that they're -- it's help supporting.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Actually, it appears as if this is
a two-sided sign; is that correct?
MR. DANTINI: Yes. It's a V-shaped sign.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN'- So we have one leg of the V
being supported by the building and the other two legs supported
on poles?
MR. DANTINI: That's correct. There's maybe a better
picture I took yesterday of it that will maybe help out.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN'. Mr. Phillips, are -- are you
satisfied with the exemptions in the ordinance?
MR. PHILLIPS: From what I saw, Mr. Chairman, I don't think
it addresses the situation that we're dealing with in terms of a
change in the copy. I mean, to me, that's the issue that we're
dealing with, and that exceptions doesn't really address the
problem.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other questions? Okay.
Mr. and Mrs. Marrone, would you like to speak?
MS. MARRONE: Can we both come up?
Page 15
April 26, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes. I just ask that you both
be sworn in. I don't know if you both have been sworn before.
MR. MARRONE: What's the use now after what just went
on?
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: If you could tell the court
reporter your names and spell it for her, and please be sworn in.
MS. MARRONE: I'm Giovanna Marrone, G-i-o-v-a-n-n-a M-a-r-r-
o-n-e.
MR. MARRONE: And I'm Phillip A, Marrone, M-a-r-r-o-n-e.
(The oath was administered.)
MS. MARRONE: Okay. Just for starters, thank you,
Chahram, for thinking my painting is better than the old sign.
If you look at that picture that Mr. Dantini put up, those
poles are attached to the building. When you get up to the
building, they're sitting in the cement right up next to the cinder
block wall. So it's partial. It's partially a pole sign, and it's
partially attached to the building.
The picture that Mr. Dantini also showed of the old copy is
from 1994 when Andrew hit, 1993. That's why there's a big
chunk missing. We did get permitting for that. We changed it.
When it came time in nineteen ninety --
MR. MARRONE: -- eight.
MS. MARRONE: -- eight to repaint this sign -- because I
painted it myself. I had a guy go up there, scrape off all the old
junk. We scaled it out. I had a couple friends of mine from Miami
come over. And we had made a party of it, believe it or not, but it
was a good time.
What happened was I called Mr. Chahram because I knew
Debbie Preston and Amy Taylor from planning, and I said, "Okay.
We're changing the sign." this is the middle of the construction
was going on. "we need to do something. We need to make the
place look better." we weren't going to do our construction, our
Page 16
April 26, 2001
remodel, until after construction was finished because there was
no point. The -- the sand and everything that was whipping
around was ripping the paint off of a steel sign. Just imagine
what it would have done to the side of my stucco building.
So I called up planning, and they put me in touch with Mr.
Chahram. And I said, "Am I allowed to paint my sign?" I didn't
say, "Can I change my copy?" I didn't know that there was a
definite distinction between painting a sign and changing copy,
and -- and what I was told was "So long as you do not structurally
alter your sign" -- meaning height, weight, width, location -- "you
can paint your sign." so we went ahead and painted the sign.
That was back in '98.
We didn't get notice of violation until two years later after
the construction was over. 2000, I think, is the first time,
October of 2000. That was two years after I had done it because
I had done it in September of '98, and my dad has some stuff he
wants to --
MR. MARRONE: Mr. Chahram is here to verify the fact that
he did receive a call from my daughter and that we did not just
go ahead and do anything with the sign. We were under a lot of
pressure due to the construction. We were at the planning
department meetings; all of them we attended. That's who we
knew. That's who we talked to.
We approached the planning department a couple of year --
let me see -- ninety -- no, '98 -- no, '99. '99 we -- we remodeled
our establishment, and, again, we approached the planning
department. We had a meeting with them. And that's the first
time I heard that the sign had been altered by Miss Arnold and
Mr. Dantini. I don't know if Mr. Dantini was on signage yet at that
time because Mr. McNary (phonetic) was, but he attended a
meeting.
In October of 2000, I set up an appointment with Mr. Dantini
Page 17
April 26, 2001
to find out if I could get a permit because the paint is peeling off
the -- the sign, if -- what I could do to get a permit to paint it.
Instead, at that meeting, which lasted about 20 minutes, I was
handed this piece of paper (indicating) telling me to take the sign
down. I did not appreciate it. I still don't. It was a gestapo
tactic. I want an apology from that gentleman.
MS. MARRONE: It's not even so much that he said, "Okay.
You're in violation. The sign has to come down. This is that.
That's that." he said, "You need to take the sign down now
today." .
MR. MARRONE: And he had a witness and -- .
MS. MARRONE: And he wrote it out in his own handwriting.
"Take sign down now." it's -- it's a big sign to take down now.
MR. MARRONE: Sign it now, in 15, 20 minutes, sign it, with a
witness. I was shocked. Why?
I go by the rules. I go by the law. I told, at that time, Miss
Arnold and Mr. Dantini that I would take the sign down when the
law says I have to take it down which is in 2003. The sign was
Little Italy before; it's Little Italy Restaurant afterwards.
MS. DUSEK.' If I'm not mistaken, I believe that you have until
two -- 2003 to make a change in the sign or remove if you didn't
make any changes to the sign.
MS. MARRONE'- And we understand that as of today, the
packet that we were handed, the wording is not the easiest of
language to read, the problem being, when we made the phone
calls about changing the copy, if I knew that that would change
when I had to take down my sign of changing the paint colors
and putting my logo up there and everything else, I'd have never
done it. But I called people that I thought would know. And
whether it was a miscommunication or whatever the case may
be, I was told it was okay to paint my sign, and I went ahead and
I painted my sign.
Page 18
April 26, 2001
I talked to planning. Maybe I should have -- I should have
called directly code enforcement. I don't know. But we did talk
to planning. It wasn't like it was something, "Hey, let's go paint
the sign," and we didn't call anybody. I did call somebody.
MR. MARRONE: We talked to Chahram. My daughter talked
to Chahram. And he's here now, and he can witness that, that he
did receive the phone call, and the permission was asked.
MS. ARNOLD: Can I make a point of clarification for the
board? The board of county commission put the clause in there
for the year 2003 just last December when it was -- when was it?
Last -- last January 2000 for the, you know, nonconforming signs
or signs that were made nonconforming with the changed sign
code. And this sign was modified prior to the board coming up
with that 2003 deadline. So, I mean, it -- it was -- we're not
dealing with the same things that were being considered under
the 2003 deadline that was adopted by the board in January of
2000.
The board's amendment to the Land Development Code
applied to signs that were legally permitted and then made
nonconforming with the changes that occurred in 2000. This
sign did not obtain a permit for the changes that occurred, and
the changes that occurred were done prior to January of 2000.
MS. DUSEK: If they hadn't made any changes, would they
have been allowed to forever keep the sign the way it was?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
MS. DUSEK: Was there any time frame on when they would
have to conform?
MS. ARNOLD: The language in the Land Development Code
that the board adopted in January 2000 indicated if you changed
your sign prior to that 2003 deadline, you would have to come
into con -- conformance. If your business changed or the
ownership changed, also your sign would have to come into
Page 19
April 26, 2001
conformance with the -- the new sign code. But if you did
nothing to the sign, you would have that grace period until the
year 2003 to come into compliance with the sign -- the new sign
code.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I think we're losing a little
sight of what the violation is about. MS. ARNOLD: Right.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The violation is not about the
fact that we have a pole sign.
MS. ARNOLD: It's not about a pole sign.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The violation is about the fact
that we have changed the copy on the sign. MS. ARNOLD: Right.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The new codes that went into
effect recently do, in fact, speak about the type of pole signs that
are allowed. But, again, that's totally irrelevant to this case.
This case is simply about whether or not the respondent changed
the copy on the sign without having permit and approvals.
And that's -- I think we're getting a little off ground, so to
speak, on that. And -- and it is -- it is a fact. You know, the sign -
- the codes, as we see them presented to us, do state that a
permit is required to change the copy, and we do have a change
of copy, so to speak.
I'm sorry. Any other comments, please?
MR. MARRONE: We -- like I says earlier, we did ask Mr.
Chahram if we needed a permit, and we were told we did not.
I don't believe we made a big change. It was Little Italy
Restaurant before. It's Little Italy Restaurant now. During the
construction period with no lights in the street, we felt that we
needed to improve the image of the sign, and exactly what we
did. We did not change the name on it. We did not serve -- we're
not serving any other purpose than what it was, and we did ask
Page 20
April 26, 2001
permission from planning.
I don't know all the rules about codes and if I need a permit
for it or not. I asked -- we asked, and we were told -- we were
told what -- is what we went by.
MR. PHILLIPS: Sir, how long have you been in business at
that location?
MR. MARRONE: Since July 1st of 1988 -- no -- yeah, 1988.
MR. PHILLIPS: And was the original sign part of building
when you first moved in there?
MR. MARRONE: Yes. My belief is the sign has been there
since 1965.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. --
MR. MARRONE: According to this memo from the
commissioners in -- from January '97 it says that seven years
later this sign has to come down. I have no problems with that.
I'm willing to take the sign down when the time comes.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' Michelle, we had discussed
this letter before, and this letter, in your opinion, referenced off-
premises sign, and this sign does not qualify as an off-premise
sign?
MS. ARNOLD: No, it's not. It's on the premises of the
business that exists.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: What is the definition of an off-
premise sign? A billboard that may be sitting on someone else's
property?
MS. ARNOLD: -- property.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay.
MS. MARRONE: So now that doesn't pertain to us?
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: That's my understanding of it,
yes.
MS. MARRONE-' I don't get that.
MR. MARRONE: I don't understand that part maybe because
Page 21
April 26, 2001
I spent some time with Patrick White, the attorney, yesterday
and trying to figure out where exactly -- under which code,
whether it's on premises, off premises, pole sign, attached to the
building or not. We spent a couple of hours together, and we
couldn't come up with an exact solution to that. I don't know
where to put it and to what classification.
But I -- it's a billboard sign, and it says here that all billboard
signs that are nonconforming -- I believe it's a nonconforming
sign, and I assumed that it falls under that category, whether it's
on premises or off premises.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, sir, it doesn't say all
billboard signs. It specifically says all off. premises signs.
MR. MARRONE: You know, I don't know where to put it. I'll
be honest with you.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Any other comments
you might have for the board?
MR. MARRONE: Other than that I am willing to take the sign
down when -- when it says over here, my belief. By that time
hopefully I believe the cost will be between twenty to thirty
thousand dollars to take it down and put up another one
according to code, because we had construction for three years
and, hey, I need to be rebuilt a little bit financially. I'm not
fighting anybody.
I want to keep my property looking well, and basically that's
it. I'm not looking to break any laws. I don't believe that we
broke the law in this either.
MS. DUSEK: It sounds as though there was a lack of
communication and -- but as a result of that you are in violation,
and we will address this this morning, and it will be up to you,
then, to adhere.
MR. PONTE: I think we -- the board has to take some notes
of the fact that there was the obvious miscommunication in the
Page 22
April 26, 2001
question of -- of "Can I paint my board?" and the affirmative,
"Yes, you can paint your board" as opposed to restyling of the
board. This restaurant is one that we all pass regularly, and
every effort has been made by the owners to make it a very
attractive family-owned restaurant.
We -- we just have to -- we're supposed to, really, take notice
of not only the law but of the -- of the situation. It's a bit of a
conundrum here for us to do both. I don't know what we're going
to do, but certainly I see both sides to this, and I don't think it's
just a black or a white situation.
MR. PHILLIPS: I agree with George. I think in addition to
looking at the law, we've got to look at the spirit of the law and
what the law was drawn up to -- to do here.
George, I think you made a very good point that these
property owners have made a concerted effort here to clean the
property up, and it looks great. I still have a problem with the
change in copy on it. And I think you made a good point, sir, in
indicating that, essentially, it's -- the argument can be made it's
still the same copy, Little Is -- Little Italy Restaurant --
MS. MARRONE: The copy is -- the wording is the same.
MR. PHILLIPS: -- Little Italy Restaurante, it's the same thing.
So, in my opinion, I don't think that these respondents in this
situation is -- is one that the -- that code enforcement should be
targeting.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, I -- I agree with my
colleague in the fact that -- efforts of the respondent. But I
disagree on the fact that we do have the same copy. We have
different graphics that were applied to it and different typeset.
So as far as copy goes, I think we do have a deviation. MS. DUSEK: I think so too.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: But you are correct. I think the
respondents have done quite a lot to make the property look nice
Page 23
April 26, 2001
the way that we're trying to achieve.
Could I ask you real quick again -- is he still here? I'm sorry.
Chahram, is he still here ? MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Could I ask you real
quick again, what's a tenable solution to -- to this particular
problem? Is it easy enough just to repaint the sign to the old
signage?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Unfortunately, our code doesn't allow
that.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Your code does not allow --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That could be another copy change
that even though it's going to look like the one before, but it's
another copy change that they have to do.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All right. What is involved in
the respondent actually going before the county again and
applying for and receiving an approved copy change on the sign?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That we cannot issue a permit for a
copy change. Our code prohibits us from doing so, and I really
don't see that we have any authority to issue any permit to allow
him to do anything with the sign, to tell you the truth.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So you're saying at this present
time he couldn't change that sign in any way that the county
would accept?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. That's what I'm trying to say.
MS. ARNOLD: The idea behind the code is to bring
nonconforming signs closer to conformance. If we would allow
him to modify the sign yet again to something that is
nonconforming, we're not bringing that sign any closer to
conformance.
I -- I -- you know, I understand your comments about the
appearance and -- and the fact that these property owners have
Page 24
April 26, 2001
brought this property into something more attractive for our
community, and I applaud them for that. But we have to keep in
mind that they're all -- other people within our community that
are doing the same thing, and they're doing it within the code.
The -- the sign that is existing now is not in conformance
with our -- with the sign code, and we wouldn't be able to provide
them a permit without getting some sort of an exception to the
code from the board. I mean, if they want to try to apply for a
variance or an exception to the code, that's something that they
can do as a part of coming into compliance. But the way it
stands now, there -- the planning department or the planning
director wouldn't have the authority to permit outright the
change to this particular sign because the size of it, the height of
it. There's nothing in it that really is in conformance with the
county's sign code today.
MR. PONTE: But you could approve modifying it. In other
words --
MS. ARNOLD: You would have to get an exception or a
variance and probably go through that process. And that is a
public-hearing process.
MR. PONTE: Uh-huh.
MS. ARNOLD: It goes to the Board of County
Commissioners, and they determine whether or not there is some
exception that -- that they would authorize an exception to the
code the way it exists.
MS. DUSEK-' I think that we have to take all emotion out of
this. And, unfortunately, for you people -- you"ye done a great
deal with your property, and we all recognize that, and we all
appreciate it. We have to follow what the code says. And even
though we might like to modify it somewhat when we're hearing
cases, we can't. We have been given the code. You've been
cited for a violation. It clearly, in my mind, says that you are in
Page 25
April 26, 2001
violation, and that's the way we have to act.
Now, you've heard Michelle say that if you wanted to take it
a step further you can with the Board of County Commissioners.
But this board can only look at the violation and decide whether
you have a violation. Even though we think you're wonderful
people and you've done a wonderful job with your property, we
have to eliminate that from our decision.
MS. RAWSON: If I can -- if I can say one thing to the board.
As you know, this is a relatively new amendment to the signage
code, one that was well publicized, one -- hear -- hearings were
well attended. People had various and sundry positions on the
matter. And people -- some people agree with the sign
ordinance; some people do not agree with the sign ordinance. I
agree with Mr. Phillips, we're going to have to have some better
definitions in there. But, you know -- as he and I both know as
lawyers, a lot of definitions formulate through cases.
This is our first hearing on this sign code that -- the sign
ordinance that I can recall. I'm going to guess it is going to be
the first of many. And so I'm just going to caution you to
remember that we have to follow the ordinances as they are
currently in effect and know that this is probably only the first of
many, many cases that we're going to have over the next several
years. And just remember that you set precedents. While they're
not legal precedents, you know, the -- they are precedents within
our community anyway.
MR. PONTE: I think, too, that each case is going to be
considered separately, of course, and there may be several of
them. But we mustn't lose sight of the fact that there was some
misunderstanding here. The question went to the county, "Can I
repaint the sign?" the county said yes. That leaves us in a -- in a
tough position.
So perhaps we have to think outside the box and find the --
Page 26
April 26, 2001
that the Marrones are, indeed, in violation and fine them a
minimal amount of money and give them a maximum amount of
time to change the sign. Perhaps we could say, you're fined a
dollar, and you have three years to get rid of the sign.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well --
MS. DUSEK: I --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I think the dollar fine and three-
year time period is -- is unacceptable. I mean, we've been there
before.
And -- and I also think that what Miss Rawson says is very
true. I think this is the tip of the iceberg as far as the sign
ordinances go. This board is here primarily to enforce the codes.
We are not here to change or provide waivers to those codes or
variances. A variance would obviously have to go before the
Board of County Commissioners, not ourselves.
MR. PONTE: No. I understand that. This is not a variance.
This is the letter of the law. We find the owners in violation. And
each case is going to be different. You fine them and give them
a period of time to remove the sign, which he's willing to do. It's
a twenty or thirty thousand dollar cost to remove and replace the
sign. I think we have to take notice of that.
MS. ARNOLD: And I would have to state an objection to
anything that would give them a time period beyond what the
code presently gives everybody else in this community with a
nonconforming sign to come into -- MR. PONTE: Is what?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: February 1st, year 2003.
MS. DUSEK: Well, I think we probably first have to cite the
violation and then discuss what we're going to do, if that's all
right.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes. Just one second. Mr.
Marrone,
Page 27
April 26, 2001
MR. MARRONE: I'd like to make an offer, if possible, that I'd
be willing to go by the codes, okay, and take the sign down and
by next -- let me see, not this coming September but the
following September give me an opportunity to come up with the
finances to replace and take the sign down. I don't -- I'm not
trying to, you know, not go by the rules here. I want to go by the
rules. I want to go by the laws.
But I also had construction for three years. And to be
perfectly honest, I don't think that code or the county or anybody
else when I was down came and says anything to me either, any
kind of -- because machinery and everything was parked in front
of my place for months, nobody working on them. I ask -- I'm
asking for a break now maybe. Okay. But I'm willing to take the
sign down. We did ask permission to paint the sign. We says we
could, maintain it, whatever you want to call it. I don't think we
have a violation.
MS. DUSEK: I think we have -- I'd like to caution the board in
whatever decision we come up with and remember, as Miss
Rawson has said, this is going to be the first of many. And it may
be how the person presents his case that may sway your opinion
on what the penalty should be. But I think you have to keep in
mind that what we do will set precedent for the future. And even
though we have a lot of empathy this morning for these people,
we have to follow the code.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, I think we've heard the
testimony of both sides. I would entertain a -- a motion to
determine a finding of fact from the board, if possible. Mr.
Marrone, you can sit down, if you would, please. MR. MARRONE: Thank you.
MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that there is a violation in the
case of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County
versus Phillip and Anna Maria Marrone, CEB Case No. 2001-013.
Page 28
April 26, 2001
The violation is of Sections 1.5.6, 2.1.15, 2.5.12.1, 2.5.12.4.9,
2.5.5.2.5.1, 2.5.5.2.1.2, and 2.5.8 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as
amended, the Collier County Land Development Code ordinance.
The description of the violation: One large type sign
approximately 10 feet by 40 feet by 30 feet with substantial copy
change from original sign without first obtaining proper permits.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, I recommend we alter
that as far as remove the word "substantial." . MS. DUSEK: That's fine.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: It's a violation of copy change.
MS. DUSEK: Okay.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion. Do I hear a
second?
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I'll second the motion.
Any further discussions?
MS. DUSEK: I -- may I say something? I, again, caution the
board that we are here to look at violations. We are given a
code. If someone breaks the code, we have to address it.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN-' Well, in a very large sense, my
colleague is very right. We often hear cases where we wish to
get emotionally involved into the case and side emotionally with
the respondents. Our purpose here is to review cases to
determine whether a violation has occurred, period, of the code.
It's not our -- it's not our position to be able to interpret that
code.
MR. PONTE: I think you're right. And I think that it's clear
that a -- a clear situation where a violation does exist. Therefore,
I'll second the motion.
MS. DUSEK: Mr. Lehmann did second it.
MR. PONTE: You did second it. All right.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: But you can third the motion.
Page 29
April 26, 2001
MR. PONTE:
violation.
MS. DUSEK:
MR. PONTE:
again.
I'll -- I'll third the motion. We got a -- there is a
Okay.
What we do with it after that is something else
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
should take it one step at a time.
Any other discussion on the motion?
signify by saying aye.
(Several responses.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
MR. PHILLIPS: No.
The
That's -- that's why I think we
No. All those in favor
All those opposed?
MS. GODFREY-LINT: No.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. We have a vote of 3 to 2.
motion passes. We do have a finding of fact.
Order of the board?
MR. PONTE: Now that we have the violation in place, we
must take notice of all of the other facts when it comes to the
findng process. And I -- I don't think that a whole lot more has to
be said. In your own mind, I've suggested one dollar and he be
ordered to remove the sign in three years' time. Mr. Marrone has
suggested he could do it even sooner than that so that -- I don't
know why we wouldn't go along with that. We've found him
guilty -- not guilty but found him in violation. And that solves that
part of the little puzzle. And if we order him to remove the sign
or change the sign or bring the sign into compliance by
September of the year 2002, then I think that's fairly realistic.
MS. DUSEK: I have a problem with that length of time and
also the dollar. I -- I notice that the board has recommended --
staff, excuse me, has recommended $75 a day. I would say $25
a day. I don't think they're going to ever pay it because I think
that these people are conscientious people and are going to
Page 30
April 26, 2001
come within the code. But a year and a half, I have a problem
with that length of time.
MR. PONTE: Okay. I would go along with that. We know
that we've had problems with dollar-a-day cases before, so let's
say 50 or $25 a day because I don't think it's ever going to come
to that either. But the length of time is something else for us to --
to consider, and I think we should have -- give Mr. Marrone as
much time as he feels that he needs that's realistic. And he said
that he's willing to cooperate and that he's asking for a year and
a half to change that sign that is in violation because of a
misunderstanding and that it has existed on that building since
1966. I think we ought to be lenient.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Miss Arnold, if the -- if the sign
right now were deemed in violation of the current codes, when
would that sign have to be replaced?
MS. ARNOLD: We would give a property owner sufficient
time to correct it. And this -- in this particular case, we've been
in contact with the Marrones since the year 2000, so they've had
a year of knowing that the sign -- existing sign was in violation.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, six months or so, since
October? October 30th was the first date. MS. ARNOLD: Right.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' Is that correct?
MS. ARNOLD: Sure.
MS. DUSEK.' Did we cite -- cite -- say earlier that in the Code
2.5.8 that you have the right to remove -- have the sign removed
in 30 days, the staff?
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. The -- well, we wouldn't physically. We
would order the property owners to remove the sign.
MS. DUSEK: But there's some leniency with that 30 days.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah.
MS. DUSEK: That's not automatic.
Page 31
April 26, 2001
MS. ARNOLD: Right. The Land Development Code provides
guidelines in some cases for time to correct. And, you know, the
-- that's the particular -- I -- I don't believe it says :30 days, does
it? It does? Okay. Thirty days. It does say 30 days.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I think the board needs to
understand that this -- in essence, in the order of the board we
are setting precedents, and it's very important for the general
public and the respondent to understand that whatever order the
board sends or-- or-- or issues is held on a case-by-case basis;
it's not the precedent-setting event.
My concern is, obviously, the communication problem. But
we do have a sign ordinance that not only is changing -- and
there's great pressure in that area, but the fact that we did have
a sign ordinance that was in place at the time. I, again, am open
to any recommendations, but I certainly feel like the long period
and the Iow fine is inappropriate.
MS. DUSEK: I -- I agree. I would like to suggest a six-month
period. The staff has recommended 30 days. This would be
going well and beyond that case of 30 days. And $25 a day.
MR. PHILLIPS: I think we've got also to take into
consideration the particular property, the nature of the business
here. Obviously finances are an issue, which you have already
mentioned. I think it would be more appropriate to let this
business go through one more season. If finances are an issue,
we'll say a year from now. That way you get to hit next season
so, you know, April of 2002 as opposed to September. But six
months from now I don't think is giving -- giving the business
reasonable time to -- to generate the revenue necessary to -- to
remove this sign.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, how do we respond to
businesses that are complying with the code and suffering the
financial burdens of having to do that?
Page 32
April 26, 2001
MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know how many other businesses
have a $30,000 sign sitting on top of their building·
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: There probably are quite a few
MS. DUSEK: Quite a few.
MR. PONTE: Well, we're going to take each of these cases
individually, so I don't think that we can -- we should be thinking
in terms of what is decided here or what the fine is here is going
to affect all of the cases that come before us with a similar
violation·
MS. DUSEK: Well, I agree with you, George, but I also think
that it's like setting case law. If we say that this person has a
year and then someone else comes before us with a very similar
sign violation and we say to them, "Well, you have to do it in 60
days" and they're going to come back, perhaps, and say, "Why
me and why not the person before?" so I think you have to think
of the future as well as this case today·
So are we going to take the stand that it will always be a
year?
MR. PONTE: No. We're going to take them all on an
individual basis·
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, we still need a -- an order
of the board that's -- needs to be approved by the board one way
or another.
MS. DUSEK: Miss Rawson, I have a question for you.
MS. RAWSON: Yes.
MS. DUSEK: If we make a decision -- whatever our decision
is today and a case does come back in the future from someone
else, which we most likely will have, that may be similar and we
give a different time frame for similar circumstances, is that
justified, or could the next case that comes and we aren't as
lenient, could they, then, come back and sue the board for -- I
Page 33
April 26, 2001
mean, I may be asking a loaded question, but --
MS. RAWSON: I like loaded questions. I agree with George
that we have to look at all of these cases on an individual basis.
And you also, under the state statute, have the right to make
your fines based on past violations, the willingness of the
participants to fix the violations, and so forth. There's a -- there's
a number of -- of elements in there that you need to consider.
And -- and these respondents, of course, are going to be
cooperative with the county, and I really believe that they'll do
whatever you order them to do.
Now, in answer -- to answer your question about a
precedent, this is a local code enforcement board. Your orders
which are signed and recorded are public records. Unless
someone appeals, you don't really have a precedent-setting case
because there's no written appeal yet. I'm always concerned
about the record, and I'm always concerned about a future
appeal that might go back and pull out all of the past cases and
say that you were discriminatory in some way. But, you know,
that's because I'm thinking like a lawyer all the time.
This isn't going to set a legal precedent that's going to
affect the next case unless it's appealed and becomes a
precedent-setting case. That's not to say that some attorney
who doesn't find this case and come before the board and say,
'~Nell, why did you do this this time and you're not doing this this
time," that you will not be called to answer that, but will you get
sued for that? No, no.
MS. DUSEK: Okay. Then I -- I seem to be doing a lot of
talking today. But I think a good compromise with all the
feelings that we have on the board would be a year, as Mr.
Phillips had suggested, and a $25 fine. And that compromises
with the year and a half from George and the six months that I
say -- had suggested.
Page 34
April 26, 2001
MR. PONTE:
MS. DUSEK'-
plus costs.
MR. PONTE: Well, we're getting closer. The -- a year might
not quite do it because it would mean the sign would have to
come down during season next year so that if we said something
in the order of June or July of next year, that is, after season,
then I think it would more parallel Darrin's suggestion and
sensibilities to the business aspects of the situation.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, regardless, we need a
motion.
I -- I particularly like a shorter period of time because, again,
we are trying to be fair to all of the other business owners that
have to comply with the code. I understand the respondents are
working very hard to -- to beautify the property. But, again, we're
here to uphold the code. I'd like to hear a motion one way or the
other.
MS. DUSEK-' I'll make a motion that the CEB board order the
respondent to remove the existing sign and replace with a sign
that meets the current sign code by May 31st, the year 2001, or a
fine of $25 a day be imposed -- MR. PHILLIPS: 2002.
Restate that.
2002. Sorry. -- as long as the violation exists,
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And the fine again was?
MS. DUSEK: The fine was $25 for each day the violation
exists plus costs.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Do I hear a second?
MS. GODFREY-LINT: I'll second it.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any discussion?
MR. PONTE: Since there's nothing magical about the end
date of May 31st, why can't we just go the extra step and make it
the end of June?
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: My concern on the motion is --
Page 35
April 26, 2001
is not the end date. My concern is the fine amount.
MS. DUSEK.' What would --
MR. PONTE: I think -- I think the fine amount, really, could
be anything because I think the Marrones are going to come into
compliance --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Comply anyway.
MR. PONTE: -- and whatever you want to set it for, any sort
of reference place for future cases, make it a hundred dollars. It
won't make any difference because it's never going to happen.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Are you amenable to alter your
motion --
MS. DUSEK.' Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- or do you leave it to stand?
MS. DUSEK.' If someone -- if there is a suggestion you want
to make the fine higher, you want to keep it at $75.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: That was my opinion --
MS. DUSEK: All right.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' -- leave it at 75.
MS. DUSEK: That's fine, $75. And, George, with his
persistence, do you want to make it to the end of June -- MR. PONTE: The end of June.
MS. DUSEK: -- and does that make everybody happy? All
right. I amend the motion.
MS. RAWSON: Let me ask a question before you finish your
motions. As you recall, a couple of meetings ago, this board
directed us to -- and me to change the orders so that we assess
costs and that the costs assessed are going to be collected by
the county whether they come into compliance within that period
of time or not; whereas before, remember, we only got costs
after they were out of compliance and were fined.
But now you can assess costs -- I believe it was the
agreement of this board -- you can assess costs before they
Page 36
April 26, 2001
come into compliance up until the time they come into
compliance. So you need to make that very clear in your motion
today so I know how to write my order.
MS. DUSEK: I -- all right. The amended part of the motion
will be June 30th, the year 2000. The fine will be $75 -- MR. PONTE: Year 2002.
MS. DUSEK: Thank you for help. The fine will be $75. It will
be plus costs, all of which are incurred before they come into
compliance. And if they don't come into compliance, the costs
there also.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other discussions?
We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' All those opposed?
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' The motion passes. Thank you.
MS. DUSEK: Do you understand? The cost is if you don't
come into compliance by the year 2002, June 30th, then you will
be assessed $75 a day every day until you come into compliance.
MS. RAWSON: Well, actually, that's the fine. I think her
question is, what are the prosecution costs? MS. DUSEK: Oh, okay.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The prosecution costs are the
costs that are involved in actually prosecuting a case from the
county's point of view.
MS. MARRONE: Okay. So do we pay up till -- for what we've
already incurred up till now? MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: That's right.
MS. MARRONE.' And then if we don't come into compliance,
whatever other fines --
Page 37
April 26, 2001
MS. ARNOLD: Fines.
MS. MARRONE: -- and prosecution come in after that ?
MS. ARNOLD: Correct.
MS. MARRONE: So, as it is right now, we owe -- we owe
money for the --
MS. ARNOLD: Correct.
MS. MARRONE: -- violation up till this point?
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
MS. MARRONE: Okay.
MR. MARRONE: What kind of money are we talking?
MS. ARNOLD: What -- what I can do is I can give you a call
later on today to let you know what that cost is. We don't have
those -- the figure. It would be the -- from the time that the case
was initiated in October.
MR. MARRONE: Seventy-five dollars a day?
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: No. No.
MS. ARNOLD: No. Not even anywhere close.
MS. MARRONE: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: But I'll give--
MS. MARRONE: Just -- we'll be at the restaurant later on
today.
MR. PONTE: Michelle -- I know -- Miss Marrone, just to give
you a little piece of mind here, is it possible for you to just give a
-- he doesn't -- he doesn't know if he's going to be faced with a --
MS. ARNOLD: I'd rather give him a call a little bit later--
MR. PONTE: -- $10,000 bill or a $500 bill.
MS. ARNOLD: I'd rather give him a call later. I don't want to
speak out of turn and then the costs be totally different from
what I state today. I mean, we're going to call him today. It's
not going to change the costs -- . MR. PONTE: No.
MS. ARNOLD: -- at all.
Page 38
April 26, 2001
MR. MARRONE'- Please keep in mind, Michelle, that although
we are in violation, we did ask permission. There was a
misunderstanding. Okay? MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
MR. MARRONE: Thank you very much.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you.
Next case, Case No. 2001-015.
MS. ARNOLD: Can we give the court reporter a break?
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. Yes.
Let's take a five-minute recess, if we would, please.
(A short break was held.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
Enforcement Board back to order.
Okay. Let's call the Code
Marie, Case 2001-015.
MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir, be glad to. Board of County
Commissioners versus Victor V. Ira, Case No. 2001-015. Let the
record show that Mr. Ira is present. I'd like to request the packet
that was provided to the respondent be admitted into evidence
marked Composite Exhibit A, if there's no objection from the
respondent.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Ira, do you have any
objection to the packet being entered? If you can come forward,
please ...
MR. IRA: I didn't hear you, sir.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I'm sorry. Do you have any
objection to the evidence packet being entered into -- or the
packet being evidence -- entered into evidence?
MR. IRA: Well, I'm trying to be a citizen of Florida.
MS. DUSEK: He needs to be sworn in.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Sir, all that we're asking right
now is that -- you have received the package from the county ?
MR. IRA: No, sir.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: You have not received the
Page 39
April 26, 2001
package?
MR. IRA: No. All I got is a letter, and it was pasted on my --
on my gate -- electric gate out front.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' Michelle, do we have --
MS. ARNOLD: She's going to show him the packet.
MR. IRA: This is all I got (indicating), and it was pasted on
my electric gate in the front.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay.
MR. IRA: No. No, sir.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: You have no objection to the
package being entered into evidence? MR. IRA: No, sir.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Ira, if
you would like, you can have a seat, please. MR. IRA: Okay.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would entertain a motion to
exhibit the package -- or enter the package as evidence as
Composite Exhibit A.
MS. DUSEK: So moved.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion by Roberta Dusek. Do
we have a second?
MR. PHILLIPS: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Phillips has seconded it.
We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All those opposed?
It has no opposed. The minutes -- or excuse me, the
package is admitted.
Please proceed, Maria.
MS. CRUZ: The alleged violation before the board is the
violation of Section 2.6.7.1.1 and Section 6 of Ordinance No. 91-
Page 40
April 26, 2001
102 -- I'm sorry. Let me rephrase that. Section 2.6.7.1.1 of
Ordinance No. 91-102 and Section 6 of Ordinance 99-51.
The violation is described as litter consisting of tires, wood,
sinks, plumbing supplies, lawn mowers, concrete blocks, golf
carts, and also numerous unlicensed vehicles on the property.
This violation exists at 581 14th Street Southeast, Naples,
Florida. And that's more particularly described as Golden Gate
Estates, Unit 48, the south 180 feet of Tract 84. The owner of
record is Victor V. Ira who resides at 581 14th Street Southeast,
Naples, Florida.
The violation was first observed on September 5th, 2000. A
notice of violation was provided to the respondent on September
9th, 2000, requesting compliance by September 12th, year 2000.
We have -- it's been informed to us that the violation remains as
of April 25th, 2001.
I'd like to call Investigator Jim Seabasty at this time, please.
(The oath was administered.)
MR. SEABASTY: For the record, James Seabasty, Collier
County Code Enforcement investigator. On September 5th of
2000, I was detailed to Mr. Ira's property to investigate a
complaint of litter and unlicensed vehicles. I found many
vehicles and quite a bit of litter. There was no one home at the
time. I made my records. I took my photographs. I posted a
copy of the NOV on Mr. Vic -- on Mr. Ira's house.
Subsequently a few days later I received a call from Mr. Ira.
He requested a meeting. I went out, discussed the violation,
asked why he was collecting some of the things that he was,
which were the concrete blocks; plumbing supplies, such as
sinks; pipes, things of that nature. And his response was that he
had intended to build a guest house that he wanted to rent out
because he needed some money. I explained to him that that
was not allowed in the estates, to build a guest house and rent it
Page 41
April 26, 2001
for money.
The conversation went on for a while, and there seemed to
be some difficulty in Mr. Ira understanding our codes.
Subsequently, I came back with Inspector-- Investigator
Hendrixson, my supervisor. And, again, we went through the
situation that existed, such as the unlicensed vehicles, the litter
that was still there. And, again, we asked that he clean up. And
he said that he would comply.
Subsequently, I came to work inside, and Mr. Scribner, who
is here today also, he followed up the investigation. We were out
on the property yesterday. We ascertained that the violation
remains. Some of the litter does not show because Mr. Ira has
taken some wooden pallets and stacked them on end so it covers
the litter. And some of the other litter has been moved forward,
and he's made a makeshift fence that's kind of protecting it so
you can't see it. Now, we also made a short video of what was
on that property yesterday. And at the time we -- again, we
spoke to Mr. Ira. And, of course, he knew that he had to come to
court today.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN'- Okay. You said you have the --
a video?
MR. SEABASTY: Uh-huh. Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Is that something you would
like to enter?
MR. SEABASTY: Yes. If Mr. Scribner could come forward,
he took the video, and he can talk us through it.
MR. SCRIBNER: David Scribner.
(The oath was administered.)
MR. SCRIBNER: Yes. As Mr. Seabasty stated earlier, this is
a video that was taken yesterday of the property. There's one of
the vehicles that's not properly tagged, the Winnebago motor
home. There's a flatbed truck parked next to it. That doesn't
Page 42
April 26, 2001
have a tag. There's a trailer there.
This is showing up from the distance, and there will be a
close-up view of this, some of the pallets that are stacked up
hiding some of the debris that's out there. Actually, Mr. Ira
referred to that as a fence. Golf carts.
Swinging back around, you'll see the backside of the
property. There's a trailer there in the corner that has no tag on
it also. And that's -- that's the extent of the video.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you.
MR. PONTE: Thank you.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any further testimony, Mr.
Scribner?
MR. SCRIBNER: I have -- I have no further testimony, other
than that we did talk with Mr. Ira, and he feels that he's being
harassed by code enforcement by our continuing to go out there.
I did have a couple of conversations with him in the process of
going out to the home. Let's see, I saw him on January 30th and
then again on March 2nd trying to get him to comply and haven't
been successful.
MS. DUSEK: I know that there are times when people will
collect things on their property to use as parts from one piece to
another. Is there -- is there any violation in someone keeping, so
to speak, junk on their property for a limited amount of time, or
are you just not allowed to do it, period?
MR. SCRIBNER: Well, you have to have some value to it.
One person's trash is another's treasure. But you can't use it to
store items. If it's not meant to be outside, it shouldn't be there.
I guess in this case I would just ask you, if you lived next to this
property, would you enjoy that view?
MS. ARNOLD: There -- there's no time limit, per se. But if --
if someone chooses to retain used items or whatever, it's
encouraged that they put it in an enclosed area. And the same
Page 43
April 26, 2001
would apply to someone with a -- a vehicle that their -- that is not
licensed. It would have to be enclosed. It cannot be -- as long as
it's outside, it has to have a current tag and it has to be operable.
MR. PONTE: Mr. Scribner, how many vehicles, trailers,
anything with wheels on it, would you guess there are on the
property? Is there a -- would I say a dozen?
MR. SCRIBNER: No, I don't think there's that many. And a
couple vehicles do have tags on them, not all vehicles on the
property. I can think -- there's at least three that have current
tags. Outside of that, there is probably four or five vehicles that
don't have tags.
There's that mobile home. There's that truck that was next
to it. There's a travel trailer that's tucked in by the house, and
there are a couple of trailers -- and there's some items in the
back of the property, which we did not access. There was a
locked gate, and we didn't go back there. I did speak to him
about a trailer that I had seen back there several months ago,
and he told me he dismantled it.
MR. PONTE: Is there someone living in the mobile home?
MR. SCRIBNER: No, not to my knowledge. I mean, it's just
parked there. And if he had a tag on it and it was operable, that's
certainly allowed.
MR. PONTE: Uh-huh.
MR. PHILLIPS: How about the golf carts? What's the
problem with the golf cart?
MR. SCRIBNER: I don't think it's an operable golf cart. It's
just sitting out there rusting.
MR. PHILLIPS: How about the shed with the security light?
What's the violation on that particular item?
MR. SCRIBNER: I don't -- that's not addressed in this. This
is strictly a case involving litter and vehicles.
MS. ARNOLD: The shed is photographed, I believe, to show
Page 44
April 26, 2001
the litter that exists around it.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Did you ask Mr. Ira to
demonstrate the operation of any of the vehicles, to demonstrate
that they were in operable condition?
MR. IRA: No. Actually, he told me they weren't operable.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: He said that they were not?
MR. SCRIBNER: Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Any further questions
for Mr. Scribner?
Any questions for Mr. Seabasty? Any further testimony from
the county?
Mr. Ira, if you could present your side of the case.
MR. IRA: The first thing --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Ira, could we have you
sworn in first?
MR. IRA: Okay.
(The oath was administered.)
MR. IRA: The first thing, that trailer that last -- at the end of
the video, that's got a license on it, and it don't belong to me. A
neighbor up the street, he owns it, and he had a lawn mower on
there. He sold his house, and he left it at my place. And that --
the trailer that's right behind the house.
And the motor home, I -- I can't get it started. In the first
place, I'm military retired, 21 years -- 35 years ago. I can't afford
to buy license and insurance for the vehicles that I got in my
back property. I mean, they're -- the trailer, the truck, and the
motor home, it's the only three that I got that are not licensed.
And if I would put them in storage, like somebody said, put them
in a storage, well, I'd still have to get insurance and license to
drive them on the highway. So that would defeat the purpose.
And all these here write-ups that I had that -- that day,
supplies, pickup truck, lawn mowers, concrete blocks, golf cart,
Page 45
April 26, 2001
well -- and then they got tires, wood, sinks, and plumbing. Well, I
got rid of the car, a Buick pickup. I had a trailer in the backyard
that belongs to another friend of mine. I took it back to him. He
left it there because he didn't have room.
Three lawn -- or four lawn mowers I put out on the street.
Somebody took them, hauled them away. And just last week or --
no, this week, Monday, I put another lawn mower out and an
edger. It was a good edger. I was using it. So, like I say, I got
rid of it.
I used some of the concrete blocks. The ones I got are
brand new I bought off of a job, got them stacked neatly on the
pallet. And I can't see why I can't keep those. And, like I said, I
can't -- I can't afford it. I'm on a military retirement. Thirty-five
years ago I got -- my first check was $169. It's grown up since
then, but still I got to pay income tax on my retirement.
Then in October when they wrote me up, I wound up with
bleeding ulcers or -- with my stomach. I'm on Coudamin (sic),
and I got a pacemaker. Wound up in the hospital in Fort Myers
and send the bills in to the V.A. The meantime, Medicare paid for
some of it, but not all of it. V.A. Won't -- won't pay for it now. I'm
fighting that case because it wasn't service connected, they say.
So if I'm in violation, I can't have nothing. It's like communism to
me.
I went overseas five times to fight for this country, and this -
- this is what I'm getting. And if I can't have some lumber that I
need -- the two buildings I got, I built them from used lumber and
different stuff. I built the house in 1990. I got just the shell. Jim
Walters put up a shell. And I used 11 credit cards to build that
house. That's the way I got where I'm at.
And, like I say, I went through a bad divorce in '75, and I had
to start all over again. And now I'm -- I'm doing pretty good, and
then I got all this here crap. Thank you, sir.
Page 46
April 26, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you, Mr. Ira.
MS. DUSEK: I have some questions for you. Sir? Here I am.
MR. IRA: Oh.
MS.
MR.
MS.
on your property, why do you have them on your property?
were they brought there to begin with?
MR. IRA: Well, the concrete blocks --
MS. DUSEK: Well, let's not be concerned as much with that -
DUSEK: Right here.
IRA: I can't hear good.
DUSEK: Okay. With a lot of these items that you have
Why
MR. IRA: -- the lumber, you always need some somewheres.
And I don't have the money to go buy new stuff, so the used stuff
is just as good.
MS. DUSEK: With the trailer that's on your property, that's
your neighbor's?
MR. IRA: Well, that trailer, that's -- he's -- he left it there
with the lawn mower on it. The lawn mower's in the shop now.
He moved -- he moved down on Rattlesnake Hammock, bought a
double-wide trailer, but it's got a license on it, and it's his -- his
name.
All I got that I don't have tagged is a Iow boy that's in the
front and the -- and the three items that I got that's not licensed
is for sale. And I -- he didn't mention that. It's on the video, the
motor home and the -- and the truck and the trailer.
MS. DUSEK: Those are all for sale?
MR. IRA: Yes, ma'am.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Ira, one second.
Miss Arnold, all of the vehicles that are on the property,
could they be stored in an enclosed building on the property?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, they can.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN-' And comply with the code?
Page 47
April 26, 2001
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So Mr. Ira would not have to
remove those vehicles. He would just have to place them in an
enclosed building.
MS. ARNOLD: Correct.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The problem now is, do you
have an enclosed building ?
MR. IRA: I didn't hear you, sir.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Do you have an enclosed
building such as a shed or anything? MR. IRA: No, sir.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other questions for Mr. Ira?
MR. PHILLIPS: Sir, how about the golf carts? Are those
operational?
MR. IRA: I got two of them. I'm taking one golf cart up to
the -- North Naples -- I mean, North Fort Myers. It's made by
Harley-Davidson. It's an antique, and that's the one you can see
out in the backyard. It's a three-wheeler. And, in fact, next week
maybe I'll take it up there, and they're going to check it out for
me.
MS. DUSEK: Mr. Ira, do you think that you could get most of
these items that you're not going to be selling or not going to be
moving in an enclosed space?
MR. IRA: Well, there again, it takes money to put up a
building. It takes a permit, like they told me. I got to have a
permit, and that takes six months to a year so ...
MS. DUSEK: Let me ask another question. Would you be
able to have somebody come and remove them for you, remove a
lot of these items? Do you use any of these items?
MR. IRA: Well, actually, I don't have much left. I gave away
all the -- the -- four riding mowers and the one push mower and --
and all I got is my blocks, the lumber, and some plumbing. And
Page 48
April 26, 2001
I've got that -- I put those pallets there where you can't see them.
You can't see none of this stuff. Of course, they told me that I -- I
need to get a permit to put that fence up.
MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask Mr. Ira a question? Mr. Ira, what are
you going to do with the items behind the pallets?
MR. IRA: Well, I want to put a sink up in the -- by one of my
sheds by the pumphouse in case I, you know, clean fish,
somebody comes -- I don't fish. But if somebody who wants to
clean fish. And I'll -- I'll get rid of the other two -- there's three
sinks. I want to save one. But there -- there ain't that much stuff
there.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Michelle, can I ask you a real
quick question? Is there a -- a way that Mr. Ira could retain his
possessions and still store them on the property in compliance
with the code? Do we have any provisions for storage of
materials or anything --
MS. ARNOLD: Outside of what I explained before --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' Outside of an enclosed
building. In other words, could he have a pallet of blocks sitting
in a location?
MS. ARNOLD: The -- the amount of infor -- the amount of
items that we're talking about --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Uh-huh.
MS. ARNOLD: -- is substantial. I mean, you couldn't get a
good picture of them because they were mostly behind the pallet
fence that he's erected. If you look at the code, technically
that's not a permissible thing. It has to be in an enclosed area
because some of these items shouldn't be exposed to the
elements. And they're, you know, rotting away or -- or they're
rusting and those types of things.
So many of the items should be -- you know, if he could put
some of them in the shed and those types of things, it would be
Page 49
April 26, 2001
more to code than the way they're displayed currently.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, my question is, ignore the
fact that we are going to install an enclosed building. Obviously,
Mr. Ira doesn't have that option available to him. Is there a
manner that he could conduct housekeeping on his property to
achieve compliance with the code?
MS. ARNOLD: No.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay.
of removing --
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
yOU ·
So it literally is a matter
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- these items? Okay. Thank
MR. IRA: Well, sir--
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes.
MR. IRA: -- I had a trailer that my friend gave me.
I got it--
inside it wasn't livable. I was going to use that for storage, and I
was going to put some of that stuff in there. But the gentleman,
the people told me I had to have a license on it. And even though
you don't put it on the highway or anything, that I'd be in fault.
So I tore it down. They told me to just get rid of it, and I did.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And he was correct in -- in his
statement to you.
MR. IRA: I tore the thing down and, in fact, I got cut up by
the aluminum cutting it down.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Ira, do you have any other
testimony you'd like to give?
MR. IRA: Like I say, in my travels I've been in different
states. Some of the states that I was in they had -- in other
words, in case you didn't have -- I mean, you didn't drive the
vehicle, you got storage.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Uh-huh.
MR. IRA: Maybe a dollar. Illinois was one of them, state of
Page 50
April 26, 2001
Washington. In other words, I had a car, and I went overseas,
and it cost me one dollar to store it. And it was open storage,
Now,
but it just cost a dollar. I didn't have to buy license plates.
do they have anything like that here?
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Not to my knowledge, no.
I'm sorry, they don't.
No.
MR. IRA: In the state of Iowa, if you took one wheel, jacked
it up on the wheel, that was considered nonoperative, and you
didn't have to buy a license.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, unfortunately, that -- that
doesn't apply in this particular case.
MR. IRA: Right. Well, on these three vehicles I got, they're
for sale. I'm trying to sell them because I could use the money to
pay off some of my credit cards.
MS. ARNOLD: Can I -- can I ask --
MR. IRA: Another thing I had -- I had a tractor with a loader
and everything that's wrote up on here, commercial. Well, I sold
it last November or December. I paid off some of my credit
cards.
MS. DUSEK: Mr. Ira, did you have to pay any money to have
some of these vehicles brought on your property? Did you buy
them? Did you have to pay somebody to bring them on the
property?
MR. IRA: I drove the truck and the trailer from Missouri in
eighteen -- in eighty-nine. I brought my tractor and my equipment
down when I was building the house. MS. DUSEK: Okay.
MR. IRA: And the motor home I bought in '95 that I made a
big mistake, got a lemon. But you got to -- that's besides the
point.
MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Ira -- Mr. Ira, if I can see about getting
Waste Management, for example, to place a dumpster on your
Page 51
April 26, 2001
property to remove some of the -- the items, would you be
acceptable to something like that?
MR. IRA: Well, is it going to cost money?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, I'm going to see whether we can get it
at no cost to you.
MR. IRA: Well, I'd be -- it would be all right if -- like I say, if
it don't cost anything. But I've been putting stuff out on the
street, and I always -- usually Monday where they pick it up
Tuesday. I don't put it out there over the weekend. But those
lawn mowers, as soon as I put it out Monday, Monday night
they're gone. Somebody -- somebody's picking them up.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So you have somebody helping
you one way or the other.
MR. IRA: There's neighbors that -- well, there's another
thing. I don't know why they picked on me. I'm not -- I'm not
turning nobody in, but I can see -- oh, people -- I mean, friends of
mine that --joking about it said, "1 got more junk than you'll --
you'll ever have, and I don't get caught." that's the truth.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: No, I understand. All right, Mr.
Ira.
Thank you very much.
MR. IRA: Thank you.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
Any other questions for Mr. Ira?
No.
Okay. I would entertain a motion to determine a finding of
fact.
MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that there is a violation with
the Board of County Commissioners for Collier County versus
Victor Ira, CEB Case No. 2001-015. The violation is of Sections
2.6.7.1.1 and Section 6 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, and
91-51, the Collier County Land Development Code and Collier
County Litter and Weed Ordinance.
The description of the violation, litter consisting of, but not
Page 52
April 26, 2001
limited to, tires, wood, sinks, plumbing supplies, lawn mowers,
concrete blocks, golf carts; also numerous unlicensed vehicles
on the property.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion. Do I hear a
second?
MR. PONTE: I'll second it.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' Okay. Mr. -- seconds the
motion -- Mr. Ponte has seconded the motion. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All those opposed?
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: None opposed. Motion passes.
The order of the board, please?
MS. DUSEK: With this order of the board, we don't have to
be specific as Michelle has mentioned, that she might get a
dumpster out there. We can just say "come into compliance"? Is
that all we need to do?
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes.
MS. DUSEK: Now, I see that the staff has rec --
recommended 14 days. I'm inclined to give on the order of 60
days. It sounds like Mr. Ira will be willing to work with the
county, and it seems like there's quite a bit out there. I don't
know how quickly they can get a dumpster out there and how
quickly he can get somebody to help him lift a lot of those items.~
So I'll make a motion, and we'll see where it goes.
I recommend that the CEB order the respondent to remove
all litter and obtain valid tags for all unlicensed -- I'm going to
change that -- that the CEB order the respondent to come into
compliance within 60 days or a fine of $25 a day per violation be
in effect, plus costs.
MR. PONTE: I have a question. Is the -- per violation,
Page 53
April 26, 2001
regarding each of the vehicles as an individual violation, or is
this all going to be one violation?
MS. ARNOLD: It would be two violations: one to the litter
and one to the unlicensed vehicle.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Do we need to vote separately
on each?
MS. RAWSON: You can make it one motion for both of them.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you.
MS. DUSEK: So we should be more specific with that part of
it?
MS. RAWSON'- I think so, because they've alleged, actually,
two violations. One is the litter, and the other is the unlicensed
vehicles.
MS. DUSEK: Okay. If that word -- wordage can be
incorporated into the motion, the unlicensed vehicle and the
litter. So that would be two violations.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN'- Jean, do we need to state that
specifically for the record here, or can you handle that?
MS. RAWSON: Well, you did just now state it specifically for
the record, so I can handle it from here.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All right. As I understand it, we
have a motion from Miss Dusek for the CEB to order the
respondent to achieve compliance with the referenced code
sections within 60 days or a fine of 25 days -- dollars per day per
violation. I would also recommend that we would amend that to
include any costs involved by the county. MS. DUSEK: I did.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: You did? I wasn't listening. I
apologize.
MR. PONTE: Is there any way that we can either -- maybe
this isn't the right section for it, maybe it's after the fact, but
make sure that it gets on the record that we're asking the county
Page 54
April 26, 2001
to try and get Waste Management to cooperate and provide a
dumpster at -- is it cost or --
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. I'll -- I'll work with Waste Management
to see what I can do.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I wouldn't want to put that in
the order per se but --
MR. PONTE: You're right.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- obviously the
recommendation of the board is to have staff work with them.
MR. PONTE: Okay.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a -- a motion by Miss
Dusek. Do I hear a second to the motion? MS. GODFREY-LINT: I'll second it.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN'- Okay. We have a second by
Miss -- from Kathleen. I'm sorry. I apologize.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion passes. All right.
MS. DUSEK: Mr. Ira, do you understand? I'm sorry.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: No. Go ahead.
MS. DUSEK: Do you understand what we've done? We -- we
have found you in violation. We are asking that in 60 days that
you come into compliance. The staff is going to work with you to
try to help you to do this. If you don't come into compliance
within 60 days, then there will be a $25 per day, per violation to
you. And you have two violations so that, in essence, will be $50
a day if you don't come into compliance within 60 days.
MR. IRA: I got a question. If I don't sell the three vehicles
within nine -- or 60 days or whatever, I'll be fined $50 a day?
MS. DUSEK: If they're --
Page 55
April 26, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Twenty-five dollars a day.
MS. DUSEK: Well, that part would be $25.
MR. IRA: Like I say, I've had these, the truck and trailer
now, ten years. You can't just sell it overnight or even in maybe
30 days. Sixty days -- and, besides, I'm leaving -- I'm leaving the
middle of May. I'll be gone till about the 1st of August. And -- so
nobody's going to be on my property. It's going to be padlocked,
double padlocked. So I guess when I got back -- when I get back
you're going to put me in jail because I can't afford fines. And I
mean it.
MS. DUSEK: You won't be put in jail --
MR. IRA: Well--
MS. DUSEK: -- but you must come into compliance, and I
don't know what --
MR. IRA: Well, I'll try -- I'll try as much as I can. But I
planned this here two years now that I'm leaving the middle of
May, and I'm 77 years old, and I got a chance to travel, and I'm
going to go.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Ira, if you have anybody
else that can -- Mr. Ira, if you have anybody else that could assist
you in -- in handling this thing, that would probably help you.
MR. IRA: Well, in the next couple of weeks, I can do it. If
they put the dumpster out there, I'll -- I'll throw everything away,
all but the concrete blocks and the lumber. I'm not throwing that
away.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, if you want to retain any --
MR. IRA: I got them stacked on pallets. And there's stuff
that you never know whether you need. And, like I said, I -- the
two buildings I put up was all used stuff.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Uh-huh.
MR. IRA: I pulled nails. I got them off the jobs. And that
building is just as good as if I'd buy new lumber.
Page 56
April 26, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All that we're asking, all the
board is asking, is that you achieve compliance with the code.
We're not dictating to you how to do that. If you wish to keep the
concrete blocks and store them in a manner that complies with
the code, that's fine. The same thing with the lumber. All that
we're asking is that by whatever means that you choose that you
do achieve compliance within 60 days.
MR. IRA: Another thing, I had a hearse --well, I needed a
pickup so -- no. I bought that motor home. And rather than buy a
license for the motor home, it was three hundred -- impact fee, I
just transferred the plates from the hearse onto the motor home.
Well, then the motor home I had for sale -- I mean, the
hearse. I used that to bring my stuff from Missouri over to here,
dishes and picture frames and stuff, where it didn't get broke.
Well, they wrote me up on it, so I went and -- the license is $18.
So I figured, well, that ain't bad. So I went to get a license in
December. They charged me for two years, in other words, I was
a year behind, and insurance. I could be paying some of the
credit cards off.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN'- Mr. Ira, the only thing that
we're asking -- again, we don't -- we don't need to know all the
details. But we're just saying that within 60 days you need to
achieve compliance somehow, by whatever mean -- means that
you choose. And I would highly recommend that you discuss it
with staff. They can help you in many different ways, not only to
explain some of the things you can do and can't do, but also to
try to help you with the -- or with Waste Management and other --
other means to achieve that goal.
MR. IRA: Well, I only got, say, three weeks -- three weeks'
time so --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: But they'll work -- they'll work
with you. Okay?
Page 57
April 26, 2001
MR. IRA: If they bring it over and spot it, I can throw -- I got
friends that help me.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All right, sir. Thank you very
much for your time.
MR. IRA: All right, sir. Is that it?
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes, sir. Thank you very much.
Okay. If we can move on to the next case, Case No. 2001-
020, BCC versus James Joseph Grant, Jr.
MS. CRUZ: Let the record show that Mr. James Joseph
Grant is present.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay.
MS. CRUZ: Again, I'd like to request that a composite
exhibit that was provided to the respondent be admitted into
evidence marked Composite Exhibit A, if there's no objection
from the respondent.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
packet?
MR. GRANT: Yes, sir.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
it?
Mr. Grant, have you seen the
Do you have any objection to
MR. GRANT: No, sir.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would entertain a motion to
exhibit -- to enter this as evidence as Composite Exhibit A.
MS. DUSEK: I so move.
MR. PONTE: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion by Miss
Dusek, second by Mr. Ponte. All in favor say aye.
All opposed, nay.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
MS. CRUZ:
The motion passes.
Thank you. The alleged violation before this
Page 58
April 26, 2001
board is violation of Sections 2.7.6, paragraph I and 5 and 6;
Section 2.7 -- excuse me, Section 2.6.7.1.1 of Ordinance No. 91-
102, the Collier County Land Development Code; Section 6.6 and
7 and 8 of Ordinance No. 99-51, which is the county -- Collier
County Litter and Weed Ordinance; and Section 5, paragraph 16-
B, of Ordinance No. 89-06, the Collier County Minimum Housing
Ordinance.
The violations are described as two unpermitted aluminum
storage shed-type structures; untagged vehicles; and litter
consisting, but not limited to, plastic, lumber, truck and car
parts, furniture, boat parts, lawn mowers, concrete blocks
around the yard.
The violation exists at 5409 Trammel Street, Naples, Florida.
This property is more particularly described as Naples Manor
Lakes, Block 15, Lot 3. The owner of record is James Joseph
Grant, Jr. The address of record for the owner is 5409 Trammel
Street, Naples, Florida.
The violation was first observed on June 7th, the year 2000.
A notice of violation was provided to the respondent on June 9th,
2000, requesting compliance by June 24th, year 2000. The
property was reinspected on April 25th revealing that -- the
reinspection revealed violation remains.
I'd like to call Investigator Jason Toreky at this time, please.
MS. ARNOLD: Does the court reporter want to swear in all
people testifying at once? If Mr. Grant can stand and raise his
right hand as well.
(The oath was administered.)
MR. TOREKY: My name is Jason Toreky for the record. I'm
an investigator with Collier County Code Enforcement.
On June 8th, 2000, we received an anonymous complaint in
reference to litter, the two structures that were there, two sheds,
and sev -- several unlicensed vehicles on the property. During
Page 59
April 26, 2001
that time -- when I did the site visit, there was litter on the
property, lawn mower parts, things like that, just kind of strown
(sic) all over the property, a couple unlicensed vehicles and the
sheds.
On the first visit we met with a friend of Mr. Grant's there.
We explained to him, you know, the violations that were there.
We handed him a -- physically handed him a copy of the notice,
the notice of violation. He said that he would give it to Mr. Grant.
I've been back by there a couple times after that, met with
Mr. Grant, explained to him what things needed to be removed,
that the sheds needed to be permitted, things like that. Vehicles
needed to be operable and tagged. He said there was no
problem.
He worked on a lot of it. He cleaned most of the litter up.
At the end of August, I went out for a visit. Most of the litter was
removed. The vehicles were removed. There was one van there
that was unlicensed that was still there, had an expired tag. And
his sheds still had no permits.
At the time it was -- it was pretty much -- he could have
removed the -- the one vehicle that was there, he stated he
would remove it. And it was just a permitting issue. The permits
were never obtained, and that's when we started to bring this
towards the board.
During the time of bringing this to the board, more litter has
came back to the property. A second case was created. I went
back out, did another site visit, and I issued him another notice
describing the new litter that's there, that's present. So this is
actually two cases in one.
And pretty much since then I've made several -- several
visits at the property. Mr. Grant has had some physical problems
as far as doing the work himself to -- to finish, you know,
cleaning the lot and things like that. And that's where we're at
Page 60
April 26, 2001
today.
The -- the two structures that are there to permit them --
he's in a flood-zone area. For him to get a permit for them, it's a
very long process. And I just figured I'd let you know that, and
that's -- that's where we're at.
I have some photos from this morning, if you'd like to see
them, of what's there now. I took several photos this morning.
And for some reason -- and of all mornings for my camera not to
be working, great, it was this morning.
He has removed a lot of the litter, and he put it on his trailer,
as you see in this photo here. I have copies of the old photos.
This is a photo of the rear yard right now. He's put some stuff
onto that one trailer right there (indicating), and that's one of the
sheds right there that's -- that's unpermitted.
And here's the other two sheds right here. I mean, the -- the
other shed to that one. There's two sheds in total. And that's
pretty much it, where we're at.
MS. DUSEK: When you say it would take a long time to get
permits for the sheds because it's in a flood zone --
MR. TORKEY: It's not necessarily a long time. There's a lot
involved in getting a permit for this, for Mr. Grant to -- to do. He
would have to get a surveyor in there to survey the property,
have to go through the spot survey process, and he has to get
the el -- he has to raise the sheds up to elevation. That's -- that's
what I meant by that.
He could -- I mean, it would be just like a normal permit -- it
wouldn't be like a normal shed permit. He would have to submit
it almost as -- as it being almost like a structure. He needs to
show the elevations and everything being that it's a flood zone.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Which would require the same
time and expenses as a normal permit, such as plans and
surveys and --
Page 61
April 26, 2001
MR. TOREKY: Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- so on and so forth.
MS. DUSEK: So what -- what is that time frame, a 60-day
time frame? I'm not sure.
MR. TOREKY: If he -- if he submitted -- it takes
approximately a week to approve something like that.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. The review time for staff is not the
length of time -- I think what Jason's trying to explain to the
board is that he would have -- because he's in a flood zone, he
wouldn't be able to leave the sheds where they are. He would
have to elevate them a little bit higher than their current
elevation. And the submittal requirements with the permit would
require a little bit more than a normal shed would outside of the
flood zone, as -- more than just a spot survey. They have to
provide the survey and the elevations, something provide --
showing the elevations of the shed.
MR. TOREKY: He would have to raise it up. He would have
to draw -- he would have to draw drawings of how it's raised, how
it's fastened -- how it's fastened, how the structure is set there.
He has to have an engineer drawing of the sheds themselves.
MS. DUSEK: So what does that process you -- normally
take? I mean, this is not a large building, I understand that,
these two sheds. But still he has to go through the same
process.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it's the same process. I guess Mr. Grant
could probably answer that. I don't know what he's done so far
with respect to the -- obtaining his survey and whatever drawings
that would be required for his permit.
MR. TORKEY: I -- I would imagine in three to four weeks you
could probably do something like that because that -- you know,
you get your survey. He could raise them up and -- and submit
his -- submit for a permit, and then it takes about a week to
Page 62
April 26, 2001
review that.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
board?
Thank you, sir.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
Any other questions from the
Mr. Grant?
MR. GRANT: I agree with him, 90 percent of everything,
except for the time frame it will take me to do this stuff. Right
now I am dealing with dermatitis due to the fact of grease. I've
been a mechanic all my life, except for my short period in the
service. It depends on how long it takes the medicine to have to
get -- heal my hands to get that stuff moved. I am on social
security disability, and I'm on limited income except for what my
wife makes, and she's working two jobs.
So it would depend on how long it would take us to get the
money to get the survey and all that done as to how long -- how
quick I could get it done. I can get my brother and another friend
of mine to help me move the sheds, and I have sufficient blocks
around there to block it up, I think. If not, I can acquire them
from friends or whoever. So my main problem would be finances
of getting the survey and that. That would be my main -- and I
have this (indicating).
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' I think that the biggest hassle
right now for you may be in obtaining a permit for the sheds.
MR. GRANT: Right. Not to cut you off, but in the service I
was a cartographic draftsman, a map maker. I was trained to
make maps in detail. But due to an accident in eighty -- '87, I
have lost a lot of disa -- my ability to do a lot of things. I spent
two weeks in the hospital, five days in a coma, four days my
brain hemorrhaging. I cannot draft as good as I used to. So that
part I'd have -- they say I -- it has to be to-scale drafting. I can't
afford to pay a drafter to come out there and draft it. You know, I
can go -- have a surveyor -- I was also trained in auto CAD. I
Page 63
April 26, 2001
don't have any computer to do auto CAD, or I could do it myself.
That's another financial problem there. I can draw it. I can't put
it to scale. But as far as that, it's -- I'm limited. VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' Okay.
MR. GRANT: I don't know what I can do there.
MS. DUSEK: How about some of the other litter on the
property? Do you have a problem in getting rid of that?
MR. GRANT: No. It will be gone this weekend, all the -- all
but one or two mowers, which I'm keeping my own self. I have a
friend that works for the Equipment Bookie, which is a rental
place here in town. He's going to help me -- well, I'm taking them
over to his house this weekend. Once I get a trailer emptied this
afternoon, I'll be loading the mowers and that up on it and taking
them over to his house.
The one trailer with the camper top on it which I use for sort
of a tool storage, I'll be getting rid of it, I guess. I'll -- as far as
the trailer, the -- the construction trailers, if I can financially get
them permitted -- I don't know what I can do except try to get rid
of them.
MR. PONTE: Mr. Grant, we -- we have been told there are
two cases here. And what we've seen from the photographic
evidence is that you realize that you were in a litter violation
because you've cleaned it all up once before, and now it's all
relittered. How did that happen, and what were you -- what was
the reason behind that to -- to put all the effort in to clear it up
and then to -- within a short period of time have another
violation?
MR. GRANT: That's hard for me to answer. I -- I'll be 43 this
year. I have been a mechanic 90 percent of my life of my ability.
Almost two years ago I was put on social security disability. I do
not like asking nobody a favor. I've always been able to do it
myself. Up until now I've refused to ask somebody to help me do
Page 64
April 26, 2001
stuff, because I've never had to ask until this past week. That's
the only way I can answer that because I don't like asking
nobody a favor to help me do something.
I have mechanics in my life. I have those mowers and that
there because I work on them. I fiddle with them still. Until this
here happened, I still fiddled with them. I have been fighting this
here -- this contact dermatitis for almost two months. Nobody
could tell me what it was until an emergency room doctor took
samples of my knee and fungus and all that and told me what it
was. Now the V.A., I'm waiting for an appointment up there,
ultraviolet x-rays of -- or ultraviolet -- some test or whatever for it.
Until then I've always messed with stuff all my life.
I own my own torch and welder. Even after the accident, I
even still use my torch and welder for fishing, because I refuse to
lay down and die for anybody. That's the only thing I can say.
MS. DUSEK: Mr. Grant, you realize if
the litter this time --
MR. GRANT:
MS. DUSEK:
MR. GRANT:
-- once you get rid of
It won't be back.
Okay.
This here says I can't have it back.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: What my colleague is basically
referring to is that if this board finds that you have a violation
regarding litter and the litter comes back again and you are cited
again by the county and appear before the board again, you
appear as a reoccurring violation which carries much stiffer
penalties.
MR. GRANT: I absolutely understand.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: That's why she's looking at
that.
MR. GRANT: Now, some of the wood that is laying around
there, I talked to Mr. Jason (sic}, which he made a suggestion
today. I will be cutting it up and stacking it neatly in a pile. I
Page 65
April 26, 2001
have a wood-burning stove in my house, and it is the main source
of heat in my house for winter. I have two girls, and they're in
school. I have that -- I collect that wood for that main reason. I
have -- sure, I have a central air conditioner in one of the sheds.
I don't have $2,000 to have it installed, though. So that's why it's
still sitting in the shed.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Any other comments
you have?
MR. GRANT: I fully understand what you said, though, yes,
sir.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Any other questions
from the board for Mr. Grant? None. Thank you very much, sir.
Any discussions?
MR. PONTE: Well, just my own understanding. We have
what's -- what's called a rolling violation in that we have one
violation that was cleared, and now we have a second violation
that's been rolled into it. Is that a repeat violation, or is it
something I haven't seen before?
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, it's not a repeat violation
unless the board has actually heard the case and found a
violation is, in fact--
MR. PONTE: Okay. It's a rolling violation.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: But my question -- you know, in
a sense -- you bring up a very good point. We had two violations
that the county has issued. We are only hearing one of them; is
that correct? Is that a yes or no?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, you're -- you're hearing the existing
violation --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Right.
MS. ARNOLD: -- and you -- you heard information that we
had a prior litter case and it was resolved, and we -- the one
that's before you is still ongoing.
Page 66
April 26, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. So that -- that clears it
up. Basically the previous violation that you're referring to was
taken care of by the respondent and basically dropped. Okay.
MS. DUSEK: Michelle, I have a question. On the violation
section, Section 2.7.6, and you've cited paragraph 1, 5, and 6.
And I was wondering why 2 wasn't cited also, the application for
building permit. Wouldn't he have to have that for his sheds?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes. He needs a permit for his sheds. Two
point seven point --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, 2 is referencing the
conditions within the permit itself.
MS. DUSEK: So is that something that should be in there?
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: No. I -- I don't feel it should be.
Am I looking at that incorrect, Michelle?
MS. ARNOLD: I'm -- I'm reading it. It's just stating that the --
that a determination would -- of whether or not a permit would be
required can be made by the development review director.
Actually, it should have been included as well. A building -- it's
indicating that a building permit would be required for the
erection or modification or moving of a structure. VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Huh. Okay.
MS. DUSEK: Do we include that today, or we just include
what they -- MS. ARNOLD:
MS. RAWSON:
You cannot include it.
You can't include it because it wasn't cited.
MS. DUSEK: Okay. I make a motion that there is a violation,
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County versus James
Joseph Grant, Jr, in the CEB Case No. 2001-02 -- 020. The
violation is of Sections 2.7.6, paragraph 1, 5, and 6; Sections
2.6.7.1.1 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, the Collier County
Land Development Code Ordinance; and Sections 6, 7, and 8 of
Ordinance 91-51, the Collier County Litter and Weed Ordinance;
Page 67
April 26, 2001
and Section 5, paragraph 16-B, of Ordinance No. 89-06, the
Collier County Minimum Housing Ordinance.
The description of the violation: No. 1, two unpermitted
aluminum storage shed-type structures; No. 2, untagged
vehicles; No. 3, litter consisting of, but not limited to, plastic,
lumber, truck and car parts, furniture, boat parts, lawn motors --
mowers, concrete blocks about the yard.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN-'
MR. PONTE: I will second.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
Dusek and a second by Mr. Ponte.
saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN'-
passes.
MS. ARNOLD:
section was cited.
Section 2.
Do I hear a second?
We have a motion by Miss
All those in favor signify by
Opposed?
The ayes have it. The motion
The order of business -- or excuse me. The order --
I -- I stand corrected. That was -- the correct
Section I is what needed to be cited, not
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The order of the board, please.
MR. PONTE: I'm not sure about the structures. The
recommendation is that they -- they be removed or permitted. It
almost seems that you can't get it done in the 30 days that's
been recommended here.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Uh-huh.
MR. PONTE: So if -- we have to extend the period of time if
Mr. Grant is going to go for a permit. His only other option, of
course, is to remove them. Mr. Grant, let me ask -- that's a good
question. What do you really want to do with those sheds? Do
you want to keep them?
MR. GRANT: I'd like to because I can't afford a storage
Page 68
April 26, 2001
shed. I store a lot of -- my wife has two business -- works two
jobs. One of her jobs is a paper route. And beings she has a
paper route she has to keep all paperwork for her -- she's a
subcontractor for Naples Daily News. She has to keep all that
paperwork for six years. There's that -- boxes that high
(indicating) in half -- one of those sheds. She gets four or five
pages a day.
Well, what am I -- are we going to have to pay a storage shed
or storage locker a hundred and some dollars a month, you
know? That's what's in -- that's half of it in one shed. The other
one was supposed to be a playhouse for my daughters. Well,
they don't use it too much, so we just store our Christmas stuff in
it for now and just odds and ends.
I'd like to see if I can get those two sheds put behind my
house, beings it's a double lot. One lot is a vacant lot
supposedly. They're not deeded together. And to get them
deeded together is an expensive process in itself. So I'd like to
see if I can get -- put them behind my house and permit them --
get permits -- you know, deed -- put them behind the house and
remove one existing storage shed back there, tennis shed. I'm
going to remove it anyhow.
The only unlicensed vehicle I have is that one utility -- trailer
with the camper top on it. The other one's gone.
MR. PONTE: Maria, what you could do --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I'm sorry.
MR. PONTE: -- is move the shed, right, to a nonflood area?
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes. But that would no longer
be on his property or probably the property next door to --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I'm sorry. Maria, in the
absence of Michelle, do we have any idea how long this would
take to actually go through the permitting process?
MS. CRUZ: No. But I would say approximately two weeks,
Page 69
April 26, 2001
providing that respondent provide all of the pertinent information
and documents, the permit would be issued.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And then you have whatever
lead time it is for the respondent to get the engineering or
surveys or whatever it is, documentation that he needs.
MS. CRUZ: No, that would be part of the documents that he
would have to provide before the permit is issued.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: That -- that's what I'm saying.
But what I'm saying is, if you start the clock today, for the
respondent to gather all of the documents that are required for
permit submittal for the application, that will take a period of
time. And then the county will take approximately two weeks
from that date --
MS. CRUZ: Approximately.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- to actually process it and say
back yes or no.
MS. CRUZ: Correct.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. So the 30 days that are
in the -- the staff's recommendation, I feel, is too short to
accomplish that and --
MS. DUSEK: I do too.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: --with due respect, George.
MS. DUSEK: Does -- I have in mind 60 days to -- for you to
get your permitting and get your litter cleaned up, 60 days to do
that.
MR. GRANT: And if I can -- I come up with the finances for a
surveyor, yes, for the -- the --
MS. DUSEK: The engineer?
MR. GRANT: No. Survey for the property.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Uh-huh.
MR. GRANT: If I can come up with the finances for that, yes,
that would be no problem. But that's -- like I said, that's a hard
Page 70
April 26, 2001
thing to say whether I can or not.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Right.
MR. GRANT: I can't say I can; I can't say I can't.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, if-- if the board
remembers the prior case, in a sense it's very similar to this. We
have debris, and we have vehicles at that point in time. But this
is storage sheds. Our order was 60 days and a $25 fine. I -- I
would agree, certainly, with a 60-day time period. I think the
respondent would require that if he wants to go through the
permitting process to actually get a permit approved.
MS. DUSEK: It sounds like he's got himself organized to
start removing the litter. And I would like to recommend that
this -- the similar fee and time frame for this person as we did the
earlier one.
MR. PONTE: Here's the thought. Suppose we separate
them, because I think as a board we all know that it's very
difficult to get a -- these engineering things done. And it's
difficult to get an engineer excited about a relatively small job,
so that if we separate the litter from the -- issue from the shed
issue, it will perhaps put two different time tables on it, because
I think we can realistically anticipate the sheds being a problem.
The litter should go away fast. The sheds would be longer. MS. DUSEK: So what is your suggestion?
MR. PONTE: Well, let's leave it as is, but make that for the
litter or make the litter 30 days and the fine's been suggested.
And perhaps 90 days on the -- on the sheds to give him time to
get -- if he's going to keep them, to give him time to get an
engineer or whoever does these drawings because that -- my
experience on this board is that that is often the problem.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. And I'd just -- let me -- for the board's
information, we do have the ability to reduce fines or modify
fines if the respondent shows an effort to proceed --
Page 71
April 26, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Right.
MS. ARNOLD: -- towards compliance. The longer we extend
the time period, you know, we have the risk of not working or
proceeding in good faith toward compliance.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' And Michelle does bring up a
very good point.
MR. PONTE: Sure. We can do it and say that litter in 30
days and the sheds in 60?
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' Well, if that is a motion. We --
we still are waiting for a motion. MR. PONTE: Miss Motion.
MS. DUSEK.' All right. I make a motion that CEB order the
respondent to remove all litter within 30 days and obtain permits
for the two structures within 60 days or a fine of $25 a day per
violation plus costs.
MS. ARNOLD: Do we need to add that if he doesn't obtain
the permits then he would have to remove the structures?
MS. DUSEK: Yes. I amend it to if he doesn't obtain the
permits that he would have to remove the structures within that
60 days. Or now let's see, if he doesn't get the permits within 60
days, then we'd have to give him some time to remove it, or just
get all of this accomplished within 60 days? MS. ARNOLD: Right.
MS. DUSEK: All right. So it's -- do you want me to read it
again?
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Please.
MS. DUSEK: That the CEB order the respondent to remove
all litter within 30 days and obtain permits for the two structures
or remove same within 60 days or a fine of $25 per day per
violation be enacted, plus costs.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' Do we have a second?
MR. PHILLIPS: Second.
Page 72
April 26, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any discussions? Do we have
any discussion? No discussions?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Opposed?
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion carries.
MS. DUSEK: Do you understand the motion?
MR. GRANT: Yes, ma'am. I have 30 days to get rid of all the
litter and 60 days to get permits for the shed. Now, how long do I
have to get the sheds moved to the location and -- MS. DUSEK: You must accomplish--
MR. GRANT: Everything done in 60 days?
MS. DUSEK: That's right.
MR. GRANT: Okay.
MS. DUSEK: Either/or.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Grant, the order states that
you must obtain the permit within 60 days. How long it takes you
to get a final building permit approval is all generated by the
permitting process. We're saying within 60 days you need to
actually receive a permit -- .
MR. GRANT: Have a permit.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- or if that's not obtainable or
you choose not to do it, you need to remove the structures from
your site and achieve compliance with the code in any other
manner. If you choose not to do that, a fine of $25 a day is
assessed. Okay?
MR. GRANT: Yes, sir.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
MR. GRANT: Thank you.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
next case then.
Okay. Thank you very much.
If we could proceed with the
Page 73
April 26, 2001
MS. CRUZ: The next case is Board of County Commissioners
versus Robert A. Mitchell, Case No. 2001-021. Let the record
show that Mr. Mitchell is present. Again, I'd like to request that
the packet provided to Mr. Mitchell be admitted into evidence, if
there is no objection.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Mitchell, do you have any
objection to the --
MS. ARNOLD: I haven't seen it.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: You haven't seen it yet? Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: No objections.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN'- No objections? Thank you. Let
the record so state. Maria, would you proceed.
MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. This is the -- the alleged violation --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I'm sorry. Let me interrupt you
for just one second.
Would you like to swear in both the respondent and the --
and the --
(The oath was administered.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. And one minor
interruption. If we could vote on the evidence package. All
those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All those opposed?
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So passes.
I'm sorry, Maria. Please continue.
MS. CRUZ: That's okay. The alleged violation brought
before this board is in violation of Section 1.5.6; Section 2.7.6,
paragraph I and 5; and Section 2.6.7.1.1 of Ordinance No. 91-102,
the Land Devel -- Collier County Land Development Code.
The description of the violation are storage of a white
inoperable van in the driveway, the installation of a plumbed in-
Page 74
April 26, 2001
ground spa, conversion of the garage into a living area, addition
to the side of the residence, and the construction of a fence
without first obtaining all required Collier County building
permits.
The violations exit at 3465 Dorado Way, Naples, Florida.
This is more particularly described as Poinciana Village, Unit 1,
Block 8, Block 17. Owner of record is Robert A. Mitchell. He
resides at 3465 Dorado Way, Naples, Florida.
The violations were first observed on February 14, 2000. A
notice of violations -- notices of violations were provided to the
respondent on April 21st, 2000; June 28th, 2000; March 15th,
2001; and March 23, 2001. All these were -- had different
compliance dates. The last compliance date was March 23,
2001. The violation remains as of April 25th, 2001. At this time we have Investigator Seabasty.
MR. SEABASTY: For the record, James Seabasty, Collier
County code investigator.
As a result of an anonymous complaint February 2000,
former investigator Theresa Beck was detailed to Dorado Way to
investigate a complaint of unlicensed vehicle or alterations or
modifications to the premises without permits. The vehicle since
has been gone. That is not an issue.
However, the garage was converted into a living area.
There was a fence erected on the property. There was a spa that
was placed in ground -- and when I say "in ground," buried in
ground. It was dug down. It was put in ground, and there was
pavers put around it. And there was an addition put on to the
house. All of this was done without a permit.
Investigator Beck went down and checked the property card
to ascertain that no permits were acquired -- excuse me --
obtained prior to this. Many notices were attempted during this
time all the way up till January 22nd of 2001 when Supervisor
Page 75
April 26, 2001
Bolgar became involved. Through a fax he was able to make
contact with Mr. Mitchell, and then there was a dialogue set up.
On March 27th of this year, Investigator Bolgar and myself
made a site visit. We had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Mitchell,
who invited us into his house to show us the modifications he
had made, and we talked about the things that he had done. At
this time he was also personally handed the notice of violation
for the permits and for the fence.
I asked Mr. Mitchell how come he did not accept his
certified mail, and he explained that it was very difficult for him
to go to the post office, so most of the time he just did not pick
up his certified mail.
In regards to the permits -- he may make alterations and
modifications to his property, but no permit was ever issued. At
that time we were talking, he said he was inclined to see what
he was going to do about it, but also that he had been talking to
an attorney, and at this point he feels that he did not go beyond a
$750 threshold that requires him to get a permit.
MS. DUSEK: He could get an after-the-fact permit?
MR. SEABASTY: Yes, ma'am. He may apply for an after the
fact, but before he does, it must be engineered. Such as when he
took out the garage door and he replaced it with block and
windows, the windows must be up to code as of this date, plus
the wall must be up to code for wind shear. And also energy
considerations as how it's insulated on the inside. He may do
that. He also may -- the addition on the house, he can apply for a
permit, but whether it's applicable or not, I don't know because
of setbacks, but he may apply for a permit.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other questions?
MS. GODFREY-LINT: Inspector, was there any electrical
work done?
MR. SEABASTY: Inside the house, ma'am?
Page 76
April 26, 2001
MS. GODFREY-LINT: The new construction when he put the
spa in, was there electrical work done, or when he did --
converted the garage, electrical work where he would need a
contractor to --
MR. MITCHELL: I am an electrical contractor.
MR. SEABASTY: Ma'am, inside your packet you'll see some
photos, and one of the photos shows the filters and everything
for the spa so, of course, there is electrical there. And on the
inside of the house I did not inspect if he did put in any new
receptacles in where the garage was closed in. VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Mitchell.
MR. MITCHELL: Yeah. I've owned the house 11 years. Now,
the thing is you have the 750 per project. Not one of these
projects were over $750.
When he saw the fence. He come up. I said, "1 just built
this." This next evaluation, will you come in. That fence was
there at the first time they come and saw this. They say, "Well,
it's a new fence." I just replaced the sides of the fence. I did not
replace the back. And when the neighbors are jumping on the
fences and they broke the fences, it's time to replace. I'd be
either told to fix the fence by the county or, you know, replace it.
And I just put up the same fence that we had in the back, just a
match-up. I did not spend $400 for all the material on that, which
then would not require me to have a permit.
As far as the garage door, it is not block. It is a board frame
in that because what happened -- on a Sunday the garage door
fell completely off the track and was gone. Well, to meet your
codes for a garage door costs too -- more money than it is to
close up because of your hurricane standards. And that's why it
was closed. Now, I closed it up because it broke on a Sunday.
Now, I did it in one day. Again, I only had about $450 in all parts
on that.
Page 77
April 26, 2001
So all the different violations we're talking about per project
wasn't. This was not an addition on the house that I have there.
It was a shed. I had it bolted to the house because of hurricane
standards. Okay.
Now, it was noted in here saying about my pavers. Now,
pavers is landscaping. It's like anything else. I don't see them
having the guy going out mowing your lawn who spends more
than $750 a year. When you have that person do it, does he have
a permit sitting in his -- at your house? I didn't spend 750 again.
It's an argument that I am having with them. This is why: It was
under the 750, it is a shed, and it is bolted. I did not spend that
amount.
As far as the spa, the spa was mine that I had, and I put it
underground because it was an old spa that I had up above
ground, and when it rotted around, I sunk it in ground. This is
what I had for years. All this stuff has been going on, like I say,
an 11-year project. They're marking it up as if I did all of this
stuff in a week or something.
No. I've been here 11 years in that house. I mean, when I
originally bought the house, I bought a permit to put a roof on it
because I had to reroof the house. And that was -- that the other
stuff I've been doing. I mean, you look at it -- even if it was 750 a
year like I think it was a few years back if you look at 750 a year,
this is $7,000 worth of work. I did not spend that kind of money
on this thing, but you want me to -- you want a person to keep
their house, their properties up, and at the same time you want
to fine us -- fine us and say no one made the regulations.
Well, this argument I had with him about why I didn't do it,
he called me last Thursday, I think it was, or Friday saying, "You
better go down and get a permit for that fence," he says "to
make the county commissioners happy." I talked to my attorney.
He says, "Right. You go up there and you're admitting guilt if you
Page 78
April 26, 2001
go and get that. Now, if you're going to fight this, you should
fight it." I mean, I feel my constitutional rights have been
violated, 'cause you guys are trespassing on my property. He
was there three days without me here -- being told by the
neighbors -- measuring and walking throughout my property.
Now, according to the constitution, you have to have a search
warrant.
These guys are walking in and out -- like you said, yesterday
he shows up again, and I was standing over the cameras. The
one guy stands, and he's got his inspector badge. He looks like a
deputy. They're walking in here on my property. How many
times -- going with more stuff, going through, going through.
Anything you got is a right to your privacy, and it is marked in
there that they can't -- they should not be able to go walking
through -- because of a name.
I have a right to face my accuser. I don't know who Mr.
Anonymous is. This is getting ridiculous on this anonymous call,
because it could even be the inspector if it was anonymous that
did it. Who knows who he is? Now, we have a right by the
constitution. The Sixth Amendment says that we have a right to
face our accuser. I want to see my accuser here. He's the one
that accused me, and he did it. I says, if we want to do it, let's
see that accuser. You know, if the county says they're the
accuser, well, then they're Mr. Anonymous. And now you're
violating the next rights of trespass, seizure, search and seizure,
and the rest of it. You're violating -- I see right now, and I looked
it up, the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment are being violated.
And I don't know. I think you guys all had to say that you were
going to abide by the constitution of the United States when you-
all got elected or placed in this position. Okay. I took them out
if you don't have it. I have the copies of them, and this makes
me mad. I don't think -- I've got a right to be angry --
Page 79
April 26, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, Mr. Mitchell, let me kind
of address that fact first. The Code Enforcement Board is -- is
not held to the standard, strict policies of typical boards. Or I
shouldn't say -- typical judicial entities. Our abilities to conduct
ourselves are much less stringent. We have more freedoms to do
things. The code inspectors themselves have certain rights to
enter properties and so on and so forth that are given to them by
the ordinances and by the codes. We as a board also have
certain freedoms that the ordinances that grant us that we don't
have to fall into strict procedures, per se, because we're quasi-
judicial, not actually a judicial board. So much of what you're
talking about, even though I understand it and sympathize for
what you're saying, really is not applicable in this particular
case, because of the surroundings and the environment we're
working in here.
MR. MITCHELL: So, in other words, you're not a branch of
the government in any form?
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, I'm not saying that we're
not a branch of the government. Obviously, the board represents
the Board of County Commissioners in the actions for code
enforcement hearings. Now, our ability to represent them or act
is very, very limited. We are here simply to hear cases and to
achieve a finding of fact in those cases and make a
determination solely based on what the codes and ordinances
allow us to do. We cannot interrupt those codes. We cannot
provide variances to those codes. We cannot do many of the
things I think you're kind of alluding to, in essence. So within the
purview of those restraints, if you could proceed, I would
appreciate it.
MR. MITCHELL: Okay. Now, a question I have, is just like I
said, again, on landscaping as an example. This is getting out of
hand. I see it's out of hand. I've been here 14 years, and every
Page 80
April 26, 2001
year I see it getting further and further away from -- we don't own
our properties anymore. I mean, everyone that's been here is
starting to come out -- the county's saying you can't do this, you
can't have this, you can't have this. You got to put in a building.
You got to do this. You know, I've been listening to it all day
long. I mean, I've been hearing it -- because I watch the
commission. I watch this on Thursday on --
MR. PHILLIPS: That's not what you're being told, sir. You
haven't been told that you can't do any of this. You're being told
that you need to obtain a permit before you do it.
MR. MITCHELL: I mean -- right. I did not have anything that
went past that $750. I did not have a stru -- you know, as far as
that part of it. None of this was passed at 750 per project, and
this was what my argument is to the county, code enforcement.
First of all, I -- if they're going to come up and say, Mr.
Anonymous, like I say, and they go out there and that gives them
rights because of anonymous to walk around -- like I say, I don't
think it's right they can walk all the way in and keep coming
back --
MR. PONTE: Excuse me. Mr. Mitchell, you did say that
you're a licensed contractor.
MR. MITCHELL: I'm a licensed electrical contractor.
MR. PONTE: So you're -- you do keep records. You're
accustomed to keeping records. Do you have any record of the
amount that you spent for material for these various projects that
you've done over the years?
MR. MITCHELL: Right. I do. I have the record -- I can tell
you as an example, I have 13 sections of fence that I paid $20.96
apiece for. Okay. So when you add that together, now you
bought the posts, and that's what -- you know, so we keep those
records. I can get that -- what my usage was, what I have in
material and the whole bit. I do keep records of the different
Page 81
April 26, 2001
MR.
MR.
time?
things.
MR. PONTE: So what you're saying is that these are all do-it-
yourself projects --
MR. MITCHELL: Right.
MR. PONTE: -- that you --
MITCHELL: I do all my own work.
PONTE: And that you accomplished this over how much
MR. MITCHELL: A period of 11 years. I mean, this stuff has
been, like, three, four, five years, six years. And the spa was
maybe six years ago. The fence -- I did the repairs on that two
years ago, two and a half. The front door -- or the front closing,
that was about the same time that the call was in. That was a
year and a half, something in that order, over a year, almost two
years on that. Because when a garage door falls down and they
come up and tell me I have to make the hurricane -- well, you
know, a hurricane door is going to cost you over a thousand
dollars.
MR. PONTE: One other question. Just for -- was there any
reason you did not go to obtain a permit? MR. MITCHELL: Right. I did go --
MR. PONTE: You must do it every day for other clients;
right?
MR. MITCHELL: Well, no, not--very seldom; because the
way this law is -- the county is -- on your code, they don't mark
me as an electrical licensed contractor. They license me as a
licensed electrical subcontractor. So I don't know my license
says licensed contractor, but the county and everybody else
calls me a subcontractor. They won't allow me -- if they do a
house, the contractor gets the permits. I just have to sign the
form and affidavit. They do all the permitting. So like I do with
pools --
Page 82
April 26, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Correct. But in signing that
form, you're signing it as a licensed contractor.
MR. MITCHELL: Right. But I'm not allowed to -- but they,
the pool contractor or the general contractor, goes down to the
county and gets all the permits and that. VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Right.
MR. MITCHELL: Now, I did go down, and I talked to them at
the very beginning when he says, '~/Vell, I want you to get a
permit for part of this." I went down to the county and, "Well,
now I need these line-item drawings. I need this. I need that."
And I got to realizing -- this is why I wanted to fight it. I said,
"Now, wait a minute now. Now I got to get a spot survey, and I
got to do this, and I got to do that." Well, all of a sudden to
replace a fence, as an example, the next thing you know it's
going to go -- their drawings and all this stuff, it starts costing
thousands of dollars.
Now, all it's going to do -- and I feel as a homeowner if you
want to keep your properties maintained in Collier County, I don't
feel that we should have to hire a contractor. I am a contractor.
I shouldn't have to hire a contractor for everything I do. I don't
think anybody else should. And as far as getting the permitting,
if you have a 750 per-project threshold, I have not violated not
getting a permit.
MS. ARNOLD: Can I add something? The 750, it's not 750
per project, and as a licensed electrical contractor you should
know that any electrical work requires a permit.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Michelle, do you have a copy of
the actual ordinance that references the $750 exclusion? MS. ARNOLD: No.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I don't know that it's in our
book here.
MR. ARNOLD: No, I don't have the book here.
Page 83
April 26, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: That's in the building code that he's making
reference to, and we don't have the building code. In the building
code, it does note that electrical work would require a permit. I
mean, if you're -- if you're changing out the cover plate for your
outlet, of course you're not going to be required to get a permit.
But if you're going into the wall and doing electrical work or if
you're doing electrical work that's required for a spa, you would
get -- you would be required to get a permit.
MS. DUSEK: So, Michelle, you're saying that -- these
projects, he said, has -- they've taken over several years to
complete. And so from the onset to today, if all those projects
together cost over $750, he'd have to have permits for each one?
MS. ARNOLD: To install a shed -- what he's referring to is a
shed -- you are required by the county to obtain a permit.
MS. DUSEK: No matter what the amount?
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
MS. DUSEK: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: To erect a fence, you're required by the
county to get a permit, and you're not required to provide
engineered drawings for a fence permit. It's an express permit.
It's something you can obtain in one day. To enclose what was
originally permitted as a garage and into living area, which is
what he's being -- which is what has been identified as a
violation, you're required to get a permit, because now you're
putting a structure that was approved as a garage, a storage
area, into living area. And there's other codes that need to be
verified to make sure that now that living structure in terms of
the fire codes -- and you've had cases where that very thing has
happened -- the county requires to get a permit to make sure that
it's a safe structure for occupancy.
MS. DUSEK: So the $750 cost really doesn't come into play.
Page 84
April 26, 2001
MS. ARNOLD: No.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, it may come into play in
certain areas of what he's doing, but Michelle is very correct in
by enclosing a garage and using it has habitable space instead of
storage space, now you've altered the occupancy. And it doesn't
matter whether it costs a dollar or ten thousand dollars; the
permit's still required. The same thing is with any electrical
work. The electrical work requires a permit, period. And you
being an electrical contractor, you should know that.
MR. MITCHELL: As an electrical contractor, I'll tell you that
we have a limit, even as a contractor, that you do not need to
have to pull a permit on every job. There's a limit on that also. I
think it's a $500 limit on electrical, I believe it is, that you do not
need to be permitted on this. That's also because of the service.
Otherwise, every time anybody went on a service call, we'd
have to pull a permit. And that's why they have that limit also of
$500, so it is just -- it is not just for any work done. Otherwise it
would be -- everybody would be -- we'd never have -- nobody
would get any work done standing at the county trying to get
permits for electrical because -- there's a limit on there also that
they have. I think the city's 650. I think yours is 500.
MS. ARNOLD: He's absolutely right. A service call -- we
wouldn't want everybody to pull a permit for every service call,
but the service call would be for something that's already
permitted. And as -- as I would hope that it was permitted, and
it's something that the county's already gone through and
inspected and said that this is up to code. And so when you're
going to fix something for somebody, the county does not require
you to -- to get a permit. But when you're installing something
and electrical is included, you would be required to get a permit.
MR. MITCHELL: The garage -- about the garage door. When
I bought this house, I had a divider. He used it as an office out
Page 85
April 26, 2001
there when I bought my house out there 11 years ago. The only
thing he didn't do is take the garage door out. So he had partial
storage, office. That's one of the reasons I liked the house when
I bought it.
I mean, I've gone through a lot of stuff with this during my
lifetime. I mean, like I say, got divorced on a Monday, bought the
house on a Tuesday, and closed the next Monday, because I
didn't -- and so, you know, I had to go out and pay a little extra
for it, and I didn't mind. But I so -- even at that time, I got a
roofing permit because it needed a roof, and I did that kind of
stuff. And I bought the house with that wall in, divided, used as
an office.
And so now that I bought it 11 years ago, what's happening
is they're saying to me all of a sudden, well, I was -- well, then,
every house being sold should be inspected at that point before
anybody can rebuy it if this is what you're -- if this is what's going
to come up. Because now how do I prove it? What am I
supposed to show you? I could bring you pictures of ten years
ago of the house showing you that was a garage they just had
the garage door on. I mean, this is the problem you get, is when
you buy a house and it is there.
You know, the only reason -- like I say, the hot tub. I mean,
the hot tub was an above-ground hot tub that I sank in, I mean,
things like this. I mean, it was still being used. If you can look
at drawings, you can see they're old pumps; they're old
everything. It was just that instead of -- I just moved it over.
And, yes, I buried the pipes because it was all set out there, and
it was above ground, and I didn't like it. So that's what I did,
moved it over. You know, this is some of the questions that --
you know, a person really gets to wonder about his -- if you want
to keep our properties up, why -- you know, what are we
supposed to do?
Page 86
April 26, 2001
In other words, you're saying the 750. The argument I was
having with him is he said it was going to be the 750 retail. Well,
you can't paint your house, your own house, for -- if you want to
go retail. You go out and buy a hundred dollars worth of paint to
paint your house, and you got the right to do that. But if they
start making it retail, it means nobody will be allowed to paint.
I happen to like to grow roses. If you want to look at that,
okay, I buy a $5 rose, but to have somebody put it in would cost
me $75. Next thing you know we're getting out -- it's getting out
of hand. It's really getting out of hand because they could nail
me if I bought ten roses saying "You got to have a permit
because that's the retail price. This is what the contractor would
charge you." Are they telling us -- is it getting to a point where
we have to -- we are not to touch our homes anymore, we have to
hire a contractor?
As a contractor I don't care for it that much because what
I'm going to get all the time is call -- people calling me up for free
estimates to find out if they're under that 750 limit, if they're
under this, or whatever. It's going to be -- you're forcing the
homeowner not to be able to maintain his own home or to do
little things. You know, I mean, it doesn't make any difference.
If the garage door falls down, a faulty garage door, like I showed
you the back garage door. It was all rusted and rotted. I pulled
it out. I bought the door for $150, and I put it in. If I had a
contractor do it, it would have been thousand, fifteen hundred
dollars to do it.
MS. GODFREY-LINT: Sir, you changed the garage over to a
living space; that's what the problem is.
MR. MITCHELL: It was a living space at the time I bought
my house. At the time I bought it, they had used it as a living
space.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, Mr. Mitchell, one of the
Page 87
April 26, 2001
problems that homeowners and home buyers do not understand
is that when you buy a home, as far as the county is concerned
and as far as this board, unfortunately, is concerned, we can only
take action against the property owner. If a previous owner had
installed something that violates the code and you purchased the
house with that still in effect, unfortunately you have bought the
liability.
MR. MITCHELL: Right.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So regardless of whether you
installed it or a third-level-down purchaser had installed it,
unfortunately you are still being held responsible for it because
you are the property owner. So that's irrelevant to the issue, so
to speak.
Jean, help me through this thing a little bit, if you would.
MS. RAWSON: Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have -- we have a
conversion of a garage. Well, let's go back a little bit on the
description of the violation. We have a storage of a white
inoperable van. Is that taken care of?
MR. MITCHELL: It was operable. My man's still driving it.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I just want to be clear. I
appreciate it.
We obviously have the installation of a plumbing and in-
ground spa, and in that situation it has been moved from an
above-ground spa to a below-ground spa, period. Is that correct?
I see a lot of puzzled looks out there.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, that is correct.
MS. RAWSON: That's no longer an alleged violation?
MS. ARNOLD: It is -- it is a violation.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: It is still an alleged violation,
correct.
MS. ARNOLD: The only thing that's no longer a violation is
Page 88
April 26, 2001
the vehicle. It's been removed.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. We have a garage,
obviously, a conversion. We have the addition of a -- addition to
the side of the residence. What are we speaking about there,
Michelle?
MS. ARNOLD: That's the shed that he had indicated is
attached to the residence.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. And then we have the
construction of the fence. So basically as far as the violation
we're looking at, we're looking at four different issues. Since the
violation states all four issues, do we have the ability to break it
apart?
MS. RAWSON: Yes. You basically have four violations there,
alleged violations.
MS. DUSEK: When you say break it apart, do you mean in
what our recommendation would be or in --
MS. RAWSON: In terms of the number of days to come into
compliance, as you did in the last case.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' Well, also in the terms of
finding of fact also; is that correct? MS. RAWSON: Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: In other words, if--
MS. RAWSON: Sure.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- a finding of fact on one, we
could discount that one and place the others? MS. RAWSON: Right. Absolutely.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Mr. Mitchell, any other
testimony you'd like to give?
MR. MITCHELL: My biggest problem -- one of my biggest
complaints, again, is I feel like it's getting to the point of out of
hand with this code enforcement. You guys are so busy doing it -
- as an example, I've had a light out -- a streetlight out in my
Page 89
April 26, 2001
neighborhood for a year and a half right in front of my place.
They're so busy going out doing code enforcement, you're not
looking at what -- part of the work the county is supposed to do.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: That's a different department.
MR. MITCHELL: But I'm still saying -- it's a different
department. Everybody is a different department. But, I mean,
it's getting to the point that anonymous calls, though, I think is a
wrong way of starting these whole situations out. Now -- and
going in three days in a row without me there, going around
measuring my house while I wasn't there. The fourth day I finally
met the guy because my neighbor said, "Hey, code standing's
around here." I mean -- and they're coming back and rewriting it
saying that fence, blah, blah. That should have been with the
first violation. The fence was there at that time, at the very first
time. Now, if they're going to keep coming back and coming
back, it's to the point where I almost feel it's harassment.
MR. PONTE: Mr. Mitchell, a question, if I may, about the
fence. Was the fence there when you bought the house?
MR. MITCHELL: The back fence was. I had a chain-link
fence on the sides. And what I have now is a 6-foot picket fence
because -- now, the back fence was a neighbor's fence. All I did
is -- I took the chain link down and put this up because the kids --
they play basketball next door.
MR. PONTE: Did you put up a new fence, or did you --
MR. MITCHELL: I replaced the fence is what I did. I did not
put up a new fence. I replaced it from a chain link to the wood
just because the kids --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: But you did change the type of
fence from a chain link to a wood fence.
MR. MITCHELL: Yes. I changed the type, but I just replaced
the fence. Yes, I changed it to a wooden fence because the
backyard my neighbor had a wood -- so I made it match. Instead
Page 90
April 26, 2001
of having chain link, I made it match because the kids broke out
the chain-link fence. You know how they rust off at the poles
and stuff, so it's hanging and dangling. Well, of course, they
wanted to keep it neat, so that's why I put it in. That's why I
changed the fence.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Any other questions for
Mr. Mitchell?
MS. ARNOLD: No. But I do have the building code, and it
does say that all work involving structural components and/or
fire-rated assemblies requires permits and inspection regardless
of the construction costs. So the work that was performed
meets those criteria, so it wouldn't matter how much it costs.
Also, there is a value that's associated with electrical, but it
relates to repairs, and it's $400, so that repairs -- a permit would
not be required for electrical repairs that is $400 or less.
VICE CHAIRMAN L. EHMANN: May I see that, Michelle?
MS. DUSEK: Michelle, the shed, that was already attached
to the house? I'm a little confused about this addition to the side
of the house which is apparently the shed. MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh.
MS. DUSEK: So that was already there, or did he add that? I
mean, I'm not sure.
MS. ARNOLD: There -- there was no evidence that a permit
was obtained for that part of the structure. And if he installed it
or if the prior owner installed it, whomever installed it did not get
a permit. And if it wasn't his construction, he inherited the
problem.
MS. DUSEK: Okay.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Michelle, what's the -- which
ordinance did this come out of?
MS. ARNOLD: It's the building code --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Is it?
Page 91
April 26, 2001
MS. ARNOLD: -- 98-76.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Just for the board's
benefit, I'll read a section out of it. It says (as read): "if
inspections are required by the building official or requested by
the applicant, the appropriate fee shall be paid," building permit
fees. And then it goes on to the valuation of construction. "the
valuation of construction of less than $750 does not require a
permit unless specifically required by an ordinance or fee
resolution. Exception, all work involving structural components
and/or fire-rated assemblies require permits and inspections
regardless of construction costs.".
So as I'm looking at this code and -- and putting it in light
with the garage, for instance, number one, we have a change of
occupancy. Number two, we have a change of an exterior wall,
which is not only a structure but a fire-rated component. So to
me it's very black and white as far as the garage goes.
Then we go on to the electrical permit fees: Ordinary
repairs limited to value -- excuse me, limited to $400 value or
less may be made without a permit. And, again, they're saying
specifically repairs. "repairs must comply with all county codes
and ordinances." it just goes on to mechanical and gas and fire
permit.
So this coming out of the -- the ordinance for the building
code kind of says it in black and white for me as far as the -- the
garage certainly.
Now, when we get into the fence and other issues, I'm still
wondering about that.
MS. DUSEK: Well, the spa, for example, would also come
into play in this ordinance because you have electrical there.
MS. GODFREY-LINT: Grounded properly.
MS. DUSEK: Yes. So I feel that is also part of the violation.
The fence, if I understand Michelle correctly, you have to
Page 92
April 26, 2001
have a permit for a fence --
MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh.
MS. DUSEK: -- period.
MR. MITCHELL: To replace it? Because I am replacing a
fence, and this is -- one of my neighbors had that question, who
did it. And he had a question with it, and he was told he did not
have to because it was replacement of. Now, this was just when
he was doing his pool about two, three years ago. And he was
told that he did not have to. Being he was just replacing the
fence he did not have to have a permit.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, the question, sir, arises in
-- when you say "replacing," are you just replacing components
so that you have the same type of fence, or are you changing the
type of fence?
MR. MITCHELL: He changed the type -- a different type of
fence, and that was brought up and asked.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The spa renovations that
you've done, tell me about that. What did you do?
MR. MITCHELL: Okay. What I did was I had the pumps ran
off to the side there. And when I had -- they had a pipe, and they
had it above ground.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Uh-huh.
MR. MITCHELL: Well, the black -- the whole platform was
rotted and stuff like that. So what I did is I cut the pipes, dug it
down, put it into the ground. That way it was -- it's a fiberglass
block, so I just poured a little concrete underneath to support it,
and I just laid it down into the ground so instead of walking up
into it, I could go -- just walk down to it.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' Did you do any electrical work
MR. MITCHELL: Well, the electrical was on a pump maybe
10, 11 years ago, yes.
Page 93
April 26, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I'm sorry?
MR. MITCHELL: That was, like, ten years ago, something
like that, yes, when I first moved in.
MR. PHILLIPS: The spa was there when you moved in?
MR. MITCHELL: No. I said I had an above ground, and the
spa -- I said about ten years ago. It was about when I -- it was
about ten years ago when I did this, yes. You -- you know, it was
above ground, and I just put my piping in above ground, but then I
put in -- the wood started going bad. It was a used spa. When
the wood started going bad, I says, "Well, okay, I'll just sink it."
and that's all I did this year.
MS. DUSEK: Did you ever have a permit for the spa?
MR. MITCHELL: No. Because it was an above-ground spa
which you didn't need the permits for.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Michelle, is that a requirement
in the permitting for a below-ground spa versus an above -ground
spa?
MR. MITCHELL: No. You would need it for both.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: You would need it for both?
MR. MITCHELL: Yeah.
MS. DUSEK: Now, getting back to the fence, I know that it
was -- was chain link and then it went to a wooden structure. Is
that considered replacing the fence, or is that considered
constructing a new fence?
MS. ARNOLD: I think you could characterize it as replacing.
But I believe a permit would be required for what he did because
it was the entire length of his side yard that he took a chain-link
fence out and replaced it with a wood fence. Part of what the
inspection process is with a fence similar to what he constructed
is whether or not it's based according to the code which requires
the unfinished side internal and the finish side on the outside
facing the neighbors. So -- and it -- and it has with it some
Page 94
April 26, 2001
structural component. And I believe he needs a permit.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Any further discussion?
Could we maybe have a finding of fact from the board?
MR. PONTE: Just one thought here, if not a discussion. If all
of this happened over an extended period of time, 11 years, and
some of it was inherited, it was already there, it's just not a -- I'm
not getting a comfort feeling here. I think anybody could be
inspected and find out that you -- somebody didn't do something
that they should have in -- in putting in a sink or the control box
in your condo or something, and you wouldn't have any -- any
record of it. This seems very -- a stretch and not very
comfortable.
MS. DUSEK: We've had cases before where people have
purchased properties that have violations on them. And, of
course, when they purchased it they didn't know they were
violations, and we have cited them. It's unfortunate that --
actually, the only violation we have is permitting. It's not that
you probably haven't done it correctly; it's just that you didn't get
permits.
MR. MITCHELL: Right. Under the belief that the $750 rule
that --
MS. DUSEK: Well, that doesn't come into play, as you found
out,
MR. MITCHELL: Well, okay. Okay. It's been something -- 14
years, and you hear this from all contractors. I'm not just
electrical, but I work with generals and that. And they've all
stated the 750 rule. So you don't need one on 750 as long as it's
not structural. It was not structural when I replaced the garage
door because it had the header. I was just filling in. I did not
have any structural problem with it because the garage door was
there. It had the header and the whole bit. All I did was close it
in with wood.
Page 95
April 26, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' No, sir. But it is a fire-rated
assembly.
MR. MITCHELL: Okay. Well, that's why -- I didn't know that
part, but they said the 750 rule. And this is something that I've
been told for 14 years. I think we should have more -- maybe put
more up then having what problems that we have sitting here,
than to the public, the rules and regulations. If they're going to
say -- like last October you went from wholesale price to retail,
they're saying, on this here permitting exceptions.
Well, I've been in 750 for 14 years. Then all of a sudden they
go to a retail price. I don't know the gray line. I mean, this is
what I'm questioning about, is this gray line and what it is. How
much we should we -- we should be getting more after inflation
and everything else. It should not have gone down, which it was
doing. It was going from a wholesale to a retail cost as he was
telling me. I says, "Now it's turned around, and 14 years ago 750
was 750." today now he's saying it's retail. All of a sudden it
becomes a dollar and fifty cents.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Michelle, do we have any
reference to the code section that specifically states about
fences?
MS. ARNOLD: No. I don't have it with me. Sorry.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, unfortunately, I think one
of the board's problems -- my problem personally is that
unfortunately I don't have a reference to what the codes say
about fence. And I don't have a reference specifically about
other areas with the $750 rule.
MS. ARNOLD: What other areas are you talking about?
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The fence itself, whether or not
the code states if we change the type of fence, is that
considered a repair or replacement or how do they determine
that. To me a repair of a fence is not to change the type; to
Page 96
April 26, 2001
repair components. But I'm unsure as to what the code says as
far as replacing the type of fence because, in essence, what I
believe has happened is we have taken down one type of fence
and installed a new fence in the same spot the old fence was. So
I don't view that as a repair of a fence. I view that as a
replacement.
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Which I think--
MS. ARNOLD: That is why we've asked him to get a permit
because --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Right. And I think the codes
state that, but unfortunately I don't have that in front of me to
say that.
MS. DUSEK: Well, I think in some instances we have to rely
on the knowledge coming from the staff that it is correct that
they --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, that's all we have is the
testimony of both sides. MS. DUSEK: Right.
MS. ARNOLD: Well, I think -- and I'm trying to recall what the
fence section of the Land Development Code says. I don't really
know whether or not it specifies repair, replace or remove or
whatever. But under the section that we've referenced for
permits, it says erection, if you move it, if you add to it, if you
alter it, if you replace it, you need a permit. And that's what was
cited. We didn't cite the fence section of the Land Development
Code.
I think the fence section merely describes your height
section -- your height requirements, your types of fences that
would be permitted, and those types of things. I'm not really
sure if it talks about what you're looking for with determining
whether or not if you repair it or replace it would you need a
Page 97
April 26, 2001
permit. The section that we cited refers to structural
components and whether -- when you need a permit. And that
section clearly says, "if you replace it, you need a permit." .
MS. DUSEK: Are you ready?
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I'm -- I'm ready. I'm just
wondering who it's going to be this time.
MS. DUSEK: I make the motion that there is a violation, that
-- with the Board of County Commissioner for Collier County
versus Robert Mitchell, CEB Case No. 2001-021. The violation is
of Sections 1.5.6; 2.7.6, paragraphs I and 5; 2.6.7.1.1 of
Ordinance 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code Ordinance.
The description of the violation is the installation of a
plumbed in-ground spa, the conversion of the garage into a living
area, the addition of the side of the residence, the construction
of a fence without obtaining all required Collier County permits.
MS. ARNOLD:
what is it?
MS. CRUZ: 71
MS. ARNOLD:
Can I make a -- a correction that Section 26 --
26.711 be removed because that's the section
I amend that motion to
that's pertaining to the vehicle.
MS. DUSEK: To the van? Okay.
remove 2.6.7.1.1.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
MR. PONTE: I'll second it.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay.
Miss Dusek and a second by Mr. Ponte.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
Do we have a second?
We have a motion by
Any further discussions?
Any opposed?
Hearing none, the motion
Page 98
April 26, 2001
passes.
Do we have an order of the board?
MR. PONTE: Before we go to the order of the board, let me
just remind the board that all of these actions, even though they
resulted in a violation of getting a permit, have resulted in home
improvements and that it was an effort to improve the property.
The staff recommendation that, unless the -- the permits are
obtained, that the improvements be removed, I think is a little
unrealistic, so that we want to consider that when we address
the planning procedure.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, I think in this -- in this
case I think the board's motion or the board's order should
reflect achieve and compliance by whatever means we have,
whatever means that the respondent chooses to do so. Do I hear a motion or--
MS. DUSEK.' George, why don't you do a recommendation?
MR. PONTE: Well, I think we could just make the motion
that all -- all of the permits -- is there any reason that it would
take as long as 45 days to get all of the permits and particularly
where the respondent is practiced in getting permits?
MR. MITCHELL: I'm not practiced in getting permits. I
explained that to you. This is general elec -- general permits.
MR. PONTE: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: This is -- electrical permits is a different story.
All we do is count our outlets up and we give it -- we -- they have
the plans to it. I've gone to the county to ask on this, and it's like
now I have to get a site plan. Now I have to go get engineered --
not engineered, but I have to get scaled drawings and sit down
and get this all done and that down before I can submit it to
them. So this does take time because they want a site plan
because of the shed.
MR. PONTE: Will somebody-- Excuse me. Somebody had
Page 99
April 26, 2001
mentioned a permit after the fact. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah.
MR. PONTE: How much -- what does that require?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, it -- it's similar to you getting a permit
before.
MR. PONTE: So you have to go through all the same
machinations?
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. And the 45 days was in consideration
of the structural plans that may be required for the enclosure of
the garage.
MS. DUSEK.' Does he have to get a site improvement plan?
MS. ARNOLD: No. That's only for commercial property.
MS. DUSEK: So it's more for insulation and fire and --
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
MS. DUSEK: -- electrical?
MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: George, do you have a motion?
MR. PONTE: No. I don't know what we have decided really
to think about in terms of the penalty. No, I do not have a
motion.
MS. DUSEK: It seems as though we have four violations. So
I'm going back to my $25 per violation, which is my thinking,
which brings it up to 70 -- no, that brings it up to a hundred. MR. PONTE: Yeah.
MS. DUSEK.' And 45 days, is that allowing him enough time,
Michelle, to do all that he has to do with that enclosed
requirement -- an enclosed structure?
MS. ARNOLD: Well --
MS. DUSEK-' I mean, that sounds like that's the most
involved.
MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. I mean, we -- with respect to the
review time, I think it shouldn't be very long on the county's part.
Page 100
April 26, 2001
And if it does -- if it's delayed on the side of the county, we can
come back to the board and say to you that he's done everything
within the time frame that the board has asked him to do; any
delays that were -- that occurred were on the part of the county,
and he shouldn't be penalized for that.
MS. DUSEK: Does the 45 days seem sufficient for him to
come -- I might ask you that also.
MR. MITCHELL: Well, I work seven days a week, I mean, and
you know how that works. I'm a contractor and just a little guy
trying to get it done. To get my drawings done and stuff like this
is going to take some time for me to get this done. I mean, I've
already lost a day today as an example, I've dealt with this stuff,
but I try -- my problem is I've got to get the drawings in, and I've
got to get the site plan because he told me it's the shed is what I
-- they talked about it -- I talked to the county about this shed.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. The spot survey --
MR. MITCHELL: They -- they want -- they wanted a spot
survey, and they want the shed, and they -- they want -- it's
already built, like I say, but now they want to have a -- what do
you call it? I've got the drawings on my computer. I could just
print it out, but they have to have it to scale, scaled drawings. I
don't understand why, if you can give them a drawing, why it has
to be to scale if you can put your footages on it. They won't let
us -- let us put footages on. I have to actually change my whole --
instead of just going, okay, I got a 24-foot -- 24 foot as an
example, if I can't put that on -- but, instead, no, you've got to
scale the drawing. I have my distances on it; I have that. I could
put those on real quick. But the county wants us to where we
have to actually do full-scale drawings. I'll -- that I'll have to get
ahold of a draftsman to do.
MS. DUSEK.' Mr. Mitchell, the staff has recommended 45
days for you to do this. Do you think if we gave you 60 days --
Page 101
April 26, 200t
MR. MITCHELL: Sixty days would probably be better, yes.
MS. DUSEK: I'd like to make a recommendation, a motion,
that the CEB order the respondent to obtain all applicable
permits for all improvements within 60 days -- and I don't know
what else if he doesn't get his permits, what else he can do but
other than remove them. So I'll go ahead and say "or remove all
unpermitted improvements or a $25-per-day per fine plus costs
which would be incurred from the time the case was first brought
forward for prosecution and any costs that incur if he does not
come into compliance.".
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And those costs are regardless
of whether he complies or not.
MS. DUSEK: (Nodded head.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Now, let me clarify this. This
$25 per day is that a fine per violation? MS. DUSEK: Yes.
MR. PONTE: Per violation.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So if Mr. Mitchell does not
comply with any of the violations, he would face a $100 fine per
day?
MS. DUSEK: That's -- no, it's per violation. So if he does one
-- if he corrects one, that eliminates one of the $25.
MR. PONTE: Right. We're going to be $75 a day.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I'm looking at this and saying
we have four violations. We have the installation of the plumbing
in-ground spa --
MR. PONTE: Right.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- conversion of the garage, the
addition of the side residence, and the construction of the fence.
MS. DUSEK: Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So for each one of those
particular violations remain --
Page 102
April 26, 2001
MS. DUSEK: Each one is $25.
MR. MITCHELL: I have a question. Can I get this all in one
permit from the county then, but it sounds like not. I got to go
out and buy four separate permits?
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: You may. I -- I have no idea
how they're going to handle that, but you may have to.
MR. MITCHELL: I mean, you can build a whole building with
one permit.
MS. DUSEK: Speak -- speak to the --
MR. MITCHELL: Yeah. They'll probably going to pull my
license. Yeah.
MS. DUSEK:
through this and
Speak to the staff. They'll help to guide you
MS. ARNOLD: I think we have to do separate.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. We have a motion from
Roberta. Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion and a
second. Any further discussion? No?
All those in favor sig -- signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed?
No? The motion passes.
Mr. Mitchell, do you understand what we had just discussed
and --
MR. MITCHELL: Yeah, I understand. My question is, it
sounds like four permits that I have to buy instead of one --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: -- and it's --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you very much then.
If you don't mind, let's take another five-minute recess, and
this time let's keep it down to five minutes, please.
Page 10:3
April 26, 2001
(A short break was held.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Before we start with the next
case, I just wanted to bring to the attention, we do have some
administrative hearings to deal with this afternoon, typically
imposition of fines and other administrative tasks. Those
hearings typically are not being evidentiary hearings so that
we're not asking for testimony. We typically will not hear
testimony for those hearings. It is just an administrative task
that the board has to go through as we go forward.
If -- Michelle, if you can go ahead and start the next case.
MS. DUSEK.' Michelle, before you start, I just wanted to
make it clear what Mr. Lehmann just said. If there are any
people here who are waiting, if they are waiting to hear about the
imposition of fines, please understand that we will not be hearing
any testimony today.
MR. LOVE: My name is Larry Love, and we are on the docket
as John and Rita Goodman. Three of you are familiar with me. I
was told that -- we've just found out about this two days ago in
certified mail. I was told yesterday that there would be no
presenting of testimony and so forth.
However, I -- they -- they are saying that we are not in
compliance by February 15th, and I need to let you know that we
were. So I believe I do need to be heard in our matter. And I was
told by Miss Cruz that you do have -- the board does have, you
know, the availability to let me speak in response to their finding.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. If-- if you wouldn't mind
just having a seat then. Maria, please.
MS. CRUZ: Next case is Board of County Commissioners
versus Russell G. Platt. For the record, Mr. Platt was present but
is not present at this time. I don't know if they just stepped out
for a second or not.
Page 104
April 26, 2001
I'd like to request that the composite be admitted into
evidence. And also I'd like to add that the respondent did obtain
the packet. We do have a certified receipt signed by the
respondent.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So we have proof that the
respondent has received it? MS. CRUZ: Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. I'd entertain a motion to
enter the packet into -- packet into evidence.
MR. PONTE: I so move.
MR. PHILLIPS: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I have a motion and a second,
George and Mr. Phillips.
Do any -- excuse me. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So moved -- or so passed.
Michelle.
MS. CRUZ: The alleged violation before this board is --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Sorry.
MS. CRUZ: -- Sections 2.6.7.1.1, Section 2.1.15 of Ordinance
No. 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code, and
Section 6 of Ordinance No. 99-51, the Collier County Litter and
Weed Ordinance.
The description of the violation is numerous, approximately
25 to 35, unlicensed vehicles of all makes and models, also litter
consisting of, but not limited to, wood, plastic, metal, wheels,
tires, boat parts, furniture, tools, and construction materials
throughout the property.
This alleged violation exists at 220 Tenth Street Northeast,
Naples, Florida, and is more particularly described as Golden
Page t05
April 26, 2001
Gate Estates, Unit 49, the south 180 feet of Tract 41.
The owner of record is Russell G. Platt. His address of
record is 105 Tenth Street Northeast, Naples, Florida. The
violation was first observed on July 13, 2000. Two notices of
violations were provided to the respondent, one dated June --
July 28th, 2000, and October 2 -- second -- sorry -- October 2nd,
2000. These notices requested a compliance date of August
10th, 2000, and October 12th, 2000. Violations remained as of
April 25th, 2001.
I'd like to call Investigator Jim Seabasty at this time, please.
(The oath was administered.)
MR. SEABASTY.' For the record, James Seabasty. As a
result of an investigation that was started by your former
employee, Investigator Sal Saldano, back in July of 2000, I
inherited this case.
Mr. Saldano did go out himself, and he witnessed numerous
unlicensed vehicles and quite a bit of debris on the property. I
did get in touch with Mr. Platt who allowed me on the property.
This is Mr. Platt here.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' Please let the record show that
Mr. Platt-- Platt is present.
MR. SEABASTY: And I did make contact with Mr. Platt on
this property, and we discussed getting rid of the vehicles and
the litter. And at the time he told me it took almost 22 years to
get it all, and it would take some time to get rid of it, but he said,
"1'11 get on it.".
And subsequently another investigator who is here right
now, Mr. Scribner, he took over the investigation. We both went
out yesterday. We verified that the violations remain, but we
also took a video because the full scope of the violation is better
seen on a video.
MR. SCRIBNER: This is the Platt property.
Page 106
April 26, 2001
(The oath was administered.)
MR. SCRIBNER: All the vehicles that are on the property, we
didn't find tags on the -- any of them. You'll see some of the
litter, also some tires, engine parts; it's pretty extensive. You
can see the equipment that's being used. There's a boat trailer
there. The canopy has engines stacked in there. There's a truck
body, more tires, partially constructed shed. This driveway goes
down behind the residence. You can see even more truck
bodies, some lawn furniture, some building materials. This is
further behind the house.
Pockets down this driveway that contain vehicles off into
the woods, brushed-over areas. None of these vehicles appeared
operable. Some of them didn't have engines. It appears to be a
salvage yard. You can see the piles of tires. I think it's fair to
say that this entire lot is just covered with either vehicles or
debris.
MR. PONTE: How many acres are we looking at here, would
you guess?
MR. SCRIBNER: I think this is a two-and-a-quarter acre lot,
but certainly Mr. Platt could answer that question.
MR. PONTE: And also could you give me an estimate as to
how many vehicles are involved? It's difficult when your
watching that--
MR. SCRIBNER: I was thinking about that before I testified,
and I would have to estimate somewhere between 30 and 50
vehicles.
MR. PONTE: Thirty and fifty?
MR. SCRIBNER: Yeah. It's going to take quite an effort to
get this cleaned, I can -- I can tell you that. It's pretty extensive.
Everywhere you turned there was either a vehicle or some bit of
debris.
MR. PONTE: Is it locked away in any -- in any -- in any form,
Page 107
April 26, 2001
or is it wide open to be a general nuisance?
MR. SCRIBNER: Well, it's not fenced in. What appears is he
started to put a fence in the front, but the side -- I could see over
in someone else's lot. It's not --
MR. PONTE: So it's a danger to kids.
MR. SCRIBNER: Certainly. Certainly.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other testimony?
MR. SCRIBNER: I have nothing.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Seabasty?
MR. SEABASTY: No, sir. That reflects the condition of the
property and how it was when I first observed it. And, of course,
there were some vehicles brought in, taken out, brought in, taken
out, but this is what you see right now.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. Mr. Platt.
Mr. Platt, for the record, would you state your name, spell it,
please, and we need to have you sworn in. MR. PLATT: Russell G. Platt, P-I-a-t-t.
MS. ARNOLD: Are you both going to speak? No.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Do you both intend to speak or
just Mr. Platt?
(The oath was administered.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Proceed, please.
MR. PLATT: Well, I've had this property for about 22 years,
and back then it was in the woods, back in the woods then. It
was like maybe 20 miles to the next -- you know, to the nearest
place you could get parts or whatever. I don't know, I just like
old trucks. You know, I'm just stuck on it. And it's going to take
-- it took me, like, about 20 years to haul all this stuff in there.
And I'll admit it does need cleaning up. And I need about ten
years to clean it up.
And I'd like to ask that lady if she could get me one of those
dumpsters, and I'll get right on that, that I've been saving my
Page 108
April 26, 2001
money to get the driveway done. I'm getting a new driveway,
and the man's there this morning putting that in. I've gotten
enough of that. But I'm trying to clean it up. I've been trying, but
it costs a lot of money to haul that stuff to the landfill. That's
about all I can say.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
Platt?
MS. DUSEK:
MR. PLATT:
MS. DUSEK:
Okay. Any questions for Mr.
Mr. Platt--
Yes, ma'am.
-- if I understand the testimony from the county,
you had removed some of these vehicles, and then you brought
some more back on the property; is that correct?
MR. PLATT: I removed a lot of the stuff and -- I work on cars
and trucks on the side for a living, you know, to make a little
extra money. So I may have brought one in, but I've took a lot of
that stuff out.
MR. PONTE:
MR. PLATT:
them.
MR. PONTE:
MS. DUSEK:
you do this?
MR. PLATT:
I don't really know, sir.
Mr. Platt, how many vehicles are there?
There's quite a few of
I saw that.
How -- when you remove the vehicles, how do
I call a wrecker. I give them to the man that
runs the wrecker. He usually comes and gets them when I get
them ready for him to haul them.
MS. DUSEK: How many can he do in a day?
MR. PLATT: Probably one to two a day.
MR. PONTE: And what about the -- the litter, not the
vehicles, but all of the bits and pieces that are there, all the -- the
tires and the engine blocks and the wheels or --
MR. PLATT: Well, that's -- it's mostly behind the house,
behind the house itself, from the side back. I try to keep the
Page 109
April 26, 2001
front yard pretty clean except right around the shed.
But you still have to get rid of the other stuff
MR. PONTE:
too.
MR. PLATT:
get rid of. MS. DUSEK:
MR. PLATT:
Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I've got a lot of stuff there to
Are any of these vehicles operable so that --
Yes. Yes, ma'am. In fact, two of them -- I've
been trying to get the titles cleared on two of them. There's --
but the coun -- the -- I can't get the title straightened up on them.
I'm having a problem with a couple of them. But a lot of them's
are operatable. Not all of them, though. A lot of it needs to go to
a junkyard.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other questions? Thank
you very much, Mr. Platt.
MR. PLATT: Thank you, sir.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would entertain a motion for a
determination of finding of fact.
MS. DUSEK: Well, I'm the motion maker today, so I'll go
ahead, and I make a motion that there is a violation with the
Board of County Commissioners, Collier County versus Russell
Platt in the case, CEB No. 2001-022. The violation is of Sections
2.6.7.1.1, 2.1.15, and Section 6 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as
amended, and 99-51, the Collier County Land Development Code,
and Collier County Litter and Weed Ordinance.
The description of violation: numerous unlicensed vehicles
of all makes and models, also litter consisting of, but not limited
to, wood, plastic, metal, wheels, tires, boat parts, furniture, tools,
and construction material throughout the property.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Do I hear a second to that
motion?
MS. GODFREY-LINT: I'll second that.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Miss Godfrey seconded
Page 110
April 26, 2001
it.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
Any opposed?
The motion passes. Maylhave
an order?
MS. DUSEK: Mr. Platt made a reference to you, Michelle,
about getting a dumpster for his property. Is this something that
-- I mean, I don't know how much litter is out there. We have an
idea how many vehicles are there, but is one dump -- dumpster
going to do it? It's going to be a major job.
MS. ARNOLD: According to the description that staff gave, it
seems like more than one dumpster load. And my suggestion
with the prior case, they expressed a fiscal hardship. I'm not
sure if the same applies to this particular case.
MS. DUSEK: Okay. So we actually have two violations, the
litter and the unlicensed vehicles.
MR. PONTE: Well, you just have to -- you can't get tags for
these if they're not operable and he doesn't have clear title to it.
So we can't suggest that he obtain valid tags, I would guess.
They're not operating and he doesn't have clear title, he can't get
the tags; right?
MS. DUSEK: Well, if he said two of them he might be able to
do that, but are you saying we should not make that part of the --
MR. PONTE: Yeah. I think it's removal of the litter and -- and
the vehicles.
MS. DUSEK: Now, he said that he could probably get two a
day removed. And if there are 50 out there -- MR. PLATT: Yes, ma'am.
MS. DUSEK: -- we're talking about 25 or 30 days to remove
that. And the litter cleanup, Mr. Platt, do you have an idea how
Page 111
April 26, 2001
long that would take you to get all that litter off the property?.
MR. PLATT: Three months, ninety days.
MR. PONTE: I'm sorry.
MR. PLATT: Ninety days.
MS. DUSEK: Does the county agree with that time frame? I
mean, you've been out there to see the property, and you know
the magnitude of what's out there.
MR. SCRIBNER: The only thing I would say to the board is
that in the time period that he's had notice of this violation, there
hasn't been any progress made so -- MS. DUSEK: Okay.
MR. SCRIBNER: -- the fact that another 90 days, I don't
know that we're going to see anything different in 90 days.
MR. PONTE: Could you do it in 60? I mean, could it be done
MR. SCRIBNER: It could be done in a week if he had a crew,
but it's going to cost him some money.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I -- and I would caution the
board also. I don't think we should go much further than 30 days
on this with both actions because, again, Mr. Scribner is very
correct. The respondent has had -- since July 24th of 2000, he's
known about the problem. He could have at least made some
progress.
MS. DUSEK: I recommend that the CEB order the
respondent to remove all litter and unoperable vehicles within 30
days or a fine of $50 a day per violation be incurred, plus costs
which have incurred since the beginning of this violation through
the compliance period.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' Let me see if I -- if I understand
this correctly. As far as the automobiles are concerned, you're
only looking to remove the unoperable vehicles. What about
untagged vehicles that are operable?
Page 112
April 26, 2001
MR. PONTE: Well, he couldn't get title. He didn't have title.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' Well, my comment is, I think -- I
think the order doesn't quite cover enough of what we need to
talk about.
MS. DUSEK: Okay.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Basically, it says, basically, if
we have an operable vehicle that is untitleable as far as the
board is concerned then in its order that's acceptable. MR. PONTE: Uh-huh.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I disagree with that.
MS. DUSEK'- All right.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I think the order ought to -- I
follow staff's recommendation to object valid tags for all
unlicensed operable vehicles and then remove anything else that
remains. Keep it very simple. MS. DUSEK: Okay.
MR. PONTE: Sounds good.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So do you amend your order as
such?
MS. DUSEK: I do. So it's remove all litter and obtain valid
tags for all unlicensed operable vehicles or remove same within
30 days or a fine of $50 a day per violation.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Plus costs.
MS. DUSEK.' Plus all the costs which occurred from the
inception of this violation.
MR. PONTE: And just that -- clair -- be clear. We've got the
two violations, the two violations of the litter, and the other
violation is the motor vehicles, so that we're looking at a fine of a
hundred dollars a day collectively.
MS. DUSEK: Yes.
MR. PONTE: Okay.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. I have a motion. Do I
Page113
April 26, 2001
have a second?
MR. PONTE: I will second.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All right.
seconded the motion.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
Mr. Ponte has
Opposed?
Motion's passed.
Mr. Platt, do you understand what we have discussed just
now in our order?.
MR. PLATT: Yeah. I got 30 days to clean it up.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes, sir.
MR. PLATT: That lady -- would you try to get me a
dumpster?
MS. ARNOLD: I'll see what I can do.
MR. PLATT: Thank you.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you, sir.
MR. PLATT: Thank you.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Maria, the next case.
MS. CRUZ: Thank you. Next case is Board of County
Commissioners versus Albertina Cardona and Terry N. Arce. Let
the record show that Mr. Arce is present. And, again, I'd like to
request that the packet provided to the respondent and to the
board be admitted into evidence at this time marked Composite
Exhibit A if there is no objection from the board -- from the
respondent.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Arce, would you come
forward, please. Did you receive the packet of information?
MR. ARCE: Yes, I have.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I'm sorry?
MR. ARCE: Yes, I have.
Page 114
April 26, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And do you have any objection
to us entering it as an exhibit?
MR. ARCE.' No. I just needed some time to take care of it.
That's what I requested. And --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' Well, the question I have right
now is, do you mind -- do you have any objection to us entering
this as evidence?
MR. ARCE: No. No, I don't.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Then let the record so
state, please.
I would entertain a motion to admit this packet marked
Composite Exhibit A into evidence at this time. MS. DUSEK: I so move.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Do I hear a second?
MR. PONTE: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Ponte. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' Opposed?
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' So moved. Maria, please
continue.
MS. CRUZ: The alleged violation before this board is Section
-- violation of Section 3.9.3 of the Land Development Code, No.
91-102. The description of the alleged violation is the removal of
slightly under one acre of protected vegetation without the
authorization of a Collier County permit.
This violation exists at 1321 Golden Gate Boulevard West,
Naples, Florida, and is more particularly described as Golden
Gate Estates, Unit 10, east half of Tract 36. Owners of records
are Albertina Cardona and Terry N. Arce. The address of record
is 1747 Wellesley Circle, Apartment 1, Naples, Florida, and also
Page 115
April 26, 2001
1321 Golden Gate Boulevard West, Naples, Florida.
Violation was first observed on June 1st, 2000. A notice of
violation was provided to the respondents on June -- June 29th,
2000, with a compliance date of August 1st, 2000. Violation
remains as of April 25th, 2001.
I'd like to call Investigator Alexandra Sulecki at this time,
please.
Can we just have both -- everyone testifying get sworn at the
same time so Mr. --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' Yes, please.
(The oath was administered.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' Miss Sulecki.
MS. SULECKI: Good afternoon. Alexandra Sulecki for the
record, environmental investigator in the code enforcement
department. This property was -- a complaint on this property
came in to us through the public. It came in through the planning
department, and we received it in code enforcement. I went out
to visit it. It's a single-family 2-acre parcel on Golden Gate
Boulevard right across from the library. And what I saw was that
approximately all of the vegetation, not quite all, but
approximately all, had been taken off.
Now, since it's a 2-acre parcel and it has a home on it, the
building permit gave Mr. Arce the permission to remove an acre
of vegetation. There was an extra acre, almost an acre removed
up and above that acre, and that's what the violation is.
What was removed were cabbage palms, cypress, dahoon
hollies, wax myrtle, some understory shrubs. It was a mixed-
swamp forest.
I met with Mr. Arce and explained the codes. He stated he
had no knowledge of them, and he was clearing to put in some
orange trees. That was his plan. When I explained the codes, I
attempted to set up some -- a compliance meeting, and I was
Page 116
April 26, 2001
unable to do that for a long period of time. I called him and left
cards at his door and tried to set up meetings and was just not
able to get there with Mr. Arce.
In March I again spoke to him, and at that point there was a
huge pile of debris which you can see in here -- these were the
pictures, the -- this is the house that's taken from the back of
the property. Golden Gate Boulevard is along the front of there.
And the debris was removed in March.
At that -- last week I again spoke to Mr. Arce and advised
him that if he were to prepare a plan that could mitigate for this,
that at least met the spirit of the code, that I was willing to meet
with him. I had prepared some sort of a plan way back, about six
months ago, when I had tried to meet with him that would meet
the codes. And I was never able to give that to him because we
couldn't meet. But we discussed it after that recently, and that,
again, was -- he felt was too much. So we again talked before
this meeting, and we have come up with an agreed mitigation
plan.
MS. DUSEK: You say you have?
MS. SULECKI: We have.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN'- The mitigation plan submitted
on page 21 of our packet is not the plan that you are talking
about now that you have agreed to? MS. SULECKI: No.
MR. PONTE: I have a question. The mitigation plan on page
21 is dated April 11th, but this case began on June the 1st. How
did the mitigation plan come before the violation?
MS. SUI. ECKI: There are actually two mitigation plans there.
One of them was a sample plan, and that's how I got to the
mitigation plan that I prepared. Although I do not normally
prepare mitigation plans for people, I did take an old plan, and I
sketched out a possible plan for Mr. Arce based on the amount of
Page 117
April 26, 2001
vegetation I required to be re -- replanted in that other case. So
you have actually two plans there. You have -- this is an old --
this is an old one. This is the one that's from another case.
MR. PONTE: Yeah. That's the one dated April 11th.
MS. ARNOLD: Right. It's from a prior case, not on this
property.
MS. DUSEK: It's not his case.
MS.
MR.
MS.
MS.
how I derived the mitigation plan. MR. PONTE: Okay.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other questions from the
board?
MS. DUSEK: Well, if he comes -- if he follows the mitigation
plan that you've agreed upon, then he comes into compliance; is
that correct?
MS. SULECKI: Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN-' Thank you. Is there anything
else you wanted to add in there?
MS. SULECKI: No. I don't have anything else to say.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. Mr. Arce.
MR. ARCE: Thank you. Well, I wasn't aware of a permit
needing to clear your own property. I wasn't aware of that. I've
been there for five years and never done anything to cross over
anything, so I am very sorry about this and just need some time
to rectify this. And I appreciate Miss Sulecki to give me some
time to rectify this, but it's just I was trying to beautify and
improve my home. And that's all I was trying to do. And that's
all I need is some time to rectify this. And it's going to take
some time and a lot of finance to re -- replant what was taken
ARNOLD: No.
PONTE: Well, why is it here?
DUSEK: As a sample.
SULECKI: It was here -- it's here as a sample to explain
Page 118
April 26, 2001
My plans was to improve it, put some fruit trees and some
nice trees, and that's what I wanted to do. I wasn't aware that I
was trespassing or doing something wrong here. Anyways ...
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Arce, you -- you've known
about this since June of 2000.
MR. ARCE: That's true. The reason for --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I just wondered --
MR. ARCE: Yes. I can explain. It's hard for me to get away
from work, and it's been very hard -- we've been almost phone
tagging a lot. And sometimes I would go over to her and redo the
plan and -- something that's acceptable or within reason for me,
anyways, to reach. And it -- it was always -- we just couldn't get
together as -- or agree on a plan.
away from work to go to her and
it's why we've gone to this point.
time to do this.
And it was hard for me to get
-- and do that. And -- and now
It was not me able to take the
I would need to get some contractors, I guess, people to get
the plants or the trees out there and plant them, and that would
mean to schedule that, to get them out there to make some calls,
get some estimates and so forth, and that -- that's what's taken
some time, and I just haven't had that time. And that's the
reason I'm here.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Investigator Sulecki, could you
tell me the mitigation plan that you have now -- MS. SULECKI: Uh-huh.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- that you have agreed on --
MS. SULECKI: Uh-huh.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- what's an appropriate time to
install?
MS. SULECKI: Well, since Mr. Arce told me that he -- he was
not able to do it all at once, I asked if he could do -- he could
Page 119
April 26, 2001
plant two trees a month until it was done. He agreed he could do
that.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN'- Okay.
MR. PONTE: And how many trees are we talking about?
MS. SULECKI: The plan we discussed just prior to this
hearing was 20 trees and 10 shrubs.
MR. PONTE: And certainly we should think of planting it
during the rainy season, should we not, so it should be completed
by--
MS. SULECKI: That would be a good idea if the property
wasn't developed and there was no irrigation on site, but there
is, so I don't think that's a major consideration.
VICE CHAIRMAN I. EHMANN: Do you have a time frame
that's already built into your mitigation plan?
MS. SULECKI: Well, since it was just a discussed item,
there's nothing written down at this point. We talked about 20
trees and 10 shrubs, planting the shrubs immediately, was my
understanding, and the trees two per month.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Michelle, do you as a
representative of the county, have any objection to completing a
mitigation plan and then following whatever time frame is agreed
between the two parties?
MS. ARNOLD: That's what ordinarily is done with a
mitigation plan. A mitigation plan, when submitted, would have
some time frame identified in there, and compliance would be in
accordance with that time frame.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' Okay. Because in your
recommendation you had recommended 60 days.
MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. That's -- that would -- that would be
completing the plan and we -- we hadn't gotten any cooperation
until this morning from Mr. Arce to submit anything or to agree to
do anything. So, hence, our recommendation for 60 days.
Page 120
April 26, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: But you say that we do have an
agreed-upon mitigation plan in effect.
MS. SULECKI: It's a verbal agreement only.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: It's a verbal agreement. Mr.
Arce, is that your understanding of it also? Have you agreed to a
mitigation plan?
MR. ARCE: Yes. That's -- that's -- that's correct, but not
within 60 days. I haven't agreed to that. That's going to be hard.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: No. We're talking about what it
takes, which plantings have to be installed.
MR. ARCE: Oh, yes, yes. Okay, yes, we have. Yeah.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay.
MR. PONTE: I'd like to suggest that we try and get the time
shortened, ten months to do -- to accomplish that seems a bit on
the long side, even if you added one tree a month to three would
shorten it considerably.
MS. GODFREY-LINT: I'd like to ask you a question. You
cleared that property for what reason?
MR. ARCE: Well, I was wanting to plant some trees, my own
trees, fruit trees particularly and later maybe put a guest home or
an extension to the house.
MS. GODFREY-LINT: Okay.
MR. ARCE: That was the original plan but a step at a time,
obviously. I was not aware --
MS. GODFREY-LINT: Why don't -- why did you go and clear
so early? If you could afford to clear the land and put your fruit
trees in last year, why can't you put two trees a month in now?
MR. ARCE: I could, two months -- two trees a month, yes,
I've agreed to do that.
MS. GODFREY-LINT: Yeah, but up until today, you were not
MR. ARCE: That was only discussed up until today.
Page 121
April 26, 2001
MS. GODFREY-LINT: Is that correct, Alex?
MS. SULECKI: Well, I have been trying to discuss a plan
with Mr. Arce for almost a year now. And I actually went to the
lengths of making a plan for him, which I don't do, which at the
meeting we were -- I was supposed to discuss it with him, he did
not come. And subsequent calls to him could not arrange a
meeting. I tried.
MS. GODFREY-LINT: So my point is, if he could afford to
clear the land and put in the fruit trees a year ago, what is
stopping him from putting in two trees a month now? MR. PONTE: Or more.
MS. GODFREY-LINT: Or more. Is there irrigation in there at
this time?
MS. SULECKI: There's not -- I don't believe there's irrigation
back there, no, in the back of the property.
MS. GODFREY-LINT: But you could run a hose; right?
MS. SULECKI: Run a hose.
MS. GODFREY-LINT: Thank you.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Arce, do you have any other
testimony you'd like to give?
MR. ARCE: What -- are we going to agree on a time period
here or --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, that's for the board to
decide.
MR. ARCE: Okay.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other questions for Mr.
Arce?
I would entertain a -- a motion to determine a finding of fact.
MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that there is a violation, the
Board of County Commissioners, Collier County versus Albertina
and Terry -- oh, Albertina Cardona and Terry Arce in the case
CEB No. 2001-023. And the violation is of Sections 3. -- actually,
Page 122
April 26, 2001
one section, 3.9.3 of Ordinance No. 91-102 as amended, the
Collier County Land Development Code ordinance.
The description of the violation, removal of slightly under
one acre of protected vegetation without auth -- authorization of
a Collier County permit.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion from Miss
Dusek. Do I hear a second?
MR. PONTE: I'll second.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Ponte has seconded the
motion. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' Motion passes.
The order of the board, please.
MS. DUSEK.' Well, I -- ten months seems like a long time to
me. Since he had in his mind to plant fruit trees anyhow, I would
like to bring that down to a maximum of six months.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' Let me interject a comment
from my side. We have a -- a verbal mitigation plan apparently on
the table. It's apparently been approved by both parties now.
The first thing we need to do is get that verbal mitigation plan
converted into an agreement. MS. DUSEK: Okay.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' In that written agreement we
also need a time period that it needs to be done. Staff has
recommended 14 days to achieve an approved written plan. I
think staff is being very generous. I myself would give it seven
calendar days. You have one on hand. All you have to do is put
it on a piece of paper, and probably you can do that in a day. So I
would recommend that that goes down to seven days.
As far as completing the planning for the approved
Page 123
April 26, 2001
mitigation plan, at the board's pleasure, we could leave it up to
staff to agree on an appropriate time period, or we could set a
time period ourselves. Six months I think is excessive based on
the fact that we've had almost a year's worth of time go by
already with no action being taken in a year's period of time. We
could have had two trees a month in a year and it would have
been done and we wouldn't be sitting here listening to the case.
MS. DUSEK: That sounds all legitimate to me. It sounds
good, except I don't know what sort of time frame you're thinking
of, Pete. Are you thinking of three months?
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would go with 60 days. I
would just follow staff's recommendation with the -- altering it for
a written -- approved mitigation plan within 7 days instead of 14.
MS. DUSEK: I think when they made this 60 days they didn't
have a mitigation plan, and they somewhat agreed on a
mitigation plan; is that correct? I mean, I know it's all verbal.
MS. SULECKI: Well, I had one in the case file, which is the
one that's in front of you. I had that made. This is -- this one that
we've discussed prior to the meeting here is a different plan. So
I did have a plan, and -- and we did discuss that there was a
plan there that was ready, so it wouldn't take that long.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: But the testimony we've heard
from both the respondent and from the county is that they have
agreed -- in fact, just now they have agreed to a plan. Whatever
that plan is, I don't care. But we do have a verbal plan. We just
need to get it in writing, which should take a relatively short
period of time. We just need to make it happen, one way or the
other.
I would entertain that as a motion for the board or make it
myself.
MS. DUSEK: My own -- my only concern is the time frame for
getting everything planted. And I'm inclined to go with a little bit
Page 124
April 26, 2001
longer time frame. I know he's had a year to take care of all of
this. I think he will take care of it. And I think it will definitely be
done within the time frame that we give him. But I'd like to give
him a little -- I'd like to say 90 days; 7 days to come to an
agreement and 90 days to complete it.
MR. PONTE: I agree with you.
I do have one just question, though. When you do settle on
the mitigation plan, the -- I don't know anything about growing
trees. I'm from Manhattan. There's not very many. Is there a
time of year other than the rainy season where some of these
trees should be planted or not planted? I mean, is there a time
when fruit trees should be planted, or it doesn't make any
difference?
MS. ARNOLD: It wouldn't be fruit trees that he's planting.
He's planting native trees. MR. PONTE: Oh.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And is there a provision for
irrigation of the trees if we're going into any dry spells on the
property?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, as the investigator testified, there's no
irrigation to the rear of the property --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Uh-huh.
MS. ARNOLD: -- but he do -- does reside there, so he is able
to water as needed.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN'- He could run a hose or
something.
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
MS. SULECKI: With every mitigation plan we do ask how
irrigation is going to be provided. So it could be provided in any
number of ways, but it's part of the mitigation plan. VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN-' Good.
MR. ARCE: There was no irrigation there before. I mean,
Page 125
April 26, 2001
these are native trees. They -- they -- I never watered these.
MS. SULECKI: That's why we don't want you to take them
off.
MR. ARCE: Right.
MS. DUSEK: All right. Then --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Arce, if you're -- if you're
reinstalling native variety of trees, I think the irrigation is really
to get them established. After they're established they may be
able to just handle themselves. MR. ARCE: Oh, okay.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I'm lost. Do we have a motion
before us?
MS. DUSEK: No. But -- but I'll make one. I make a motion
that the CEB order the respondent to obtain any applicable after-
the-fact permit and submit a mitigation plan within 7 days and
complete planting for approved mitigation plan within 90 days or
a fine of $25 a day, plus the costs which incurred at the inception
of the violation through compliance.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I might recommend that we
amend that slightly to read instead of submitting a "mitigation
plan," submitting a "written approved plan receiving approval" of
that plan.
MR. PONTE: Yes.
MS. DUSEK: Okay.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So it's not just enough to
submit a plan. We have to achieve approval of that plan by the
county.
MS. DUSEK: Okay.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion by Miss
Dusek with an amendment. Do I hear a second? MS. GODFREY-LINT: I'll second that.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Miss Godfrey has given us a
Page 126
April 26, 2001
second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' Any opposed?
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' Motion passes.
Mr. Arce, do you understand what we have put down in our
motion -- in our order? MR. ARCE: Right.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So, basically, we need to have
a -- an approved, written approved mitigation plan. I assume it's
going to take a form of what you've already agreed upon, but it
needs to be in writing, and it needs to be approved by the county
within seven days, seven calendar days.
Within 90 calendar days from today, then we need to have
the mitigation plan complete, all the installation's complete and
everything taken care of. Okay. If that does not occur, then
there is a fine of $25 a day that will be assessed. Okay? All
right. Thank you, sir.
MR. ARCE: Thank you.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. At this time I'd like to --
to close the public hearing, and we'd like to move on to new
business. If you would, please, Marie.
MS. CRUZ: This is imposition of fines, Board of County
Commissioners versus Leonard Wisnow -- or Wisniewski. This
case was heard before the board on January 25th. At that time
the board found the respondent in violation and ordered them to
corn -- into compliance by specified time frames. If not, that they
ordered the county to remove the violation. That is what
occurred in this instance. The county removed the violation
within the time frame provided. And what we're doing today is
filing an affidavit of noncompliance reflecting the dates of
February 9th and 21st and March 8th and April 9th of 2001. And
Page 127
April 26, 2001
staff is also requesting the board impose fines for the amount of
$1,150 for the time period, plus an additional $966.62, which
includes the prosecution costs and the costs for county abating
the violation.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any discussion?
Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to approve the
filing for affidavit of noncompliance and the imposition of funds.
MS. DUSEK: So moved.
MS. GODFREY-LINT: I'll second it.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion from Ms.
Dusek and a second from Miss Godfrey.
signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN-' Hearing none, motion passes.
Michelle.
MS. ARNOLD: The other case is Board of County
Commissioners versus John and Rita Goodman. This case was
heard on July 27th, 2001 -- is that correct? -- 2000. And at that
time the board found the respondent in violation and ordered
them to remove the exotics within specified time frames. The
exotics were removed, and there was a question as to whether
or not the ones that were -- the trees that were just cut down to
base rather than removing the roots itself were treated. When
we went to the -- the property, we did not see any evidence of
treating. I attempted to contact the Loves who are residing in
the home, and they did not provide me with the information that
would indicate the treatment of the stumps.
They also refused to provide us with information as to who
the contractor was that did the removal so that we could verify
with them whether or not the stumps were treated accordingly.
All those in favor, please
Page 128
April 26, 200t
We had, therefore, no other recourse than to go back to the site a
month later to determine whether or not the vegetation was
growing back. And upon visiting the site, the investigator found
that there -- some of the vegetation was, in fact, regrowing and
subsequently concluded that the stumps were not treated,
therefore, the -- the notice of noncompliance.
Staff is requesting that the board file this notice of
noncompliance for the dates of February 15th, March 21st -- and
March 21st, and also that would be for a total of three thousand
three -- $3,300, plus the operational costs of $624.97.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Michelle, real quick, may I ask
you, do you have a proposed plan of action that was approved by
the county?. Do you have that?
MS. ARNOLD: The proposed plan of action approved by the
county?
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes. In this particular case.
MS. ARNOLD: There wasn't a mitigation plan. This was
exotic removal, and the order of the board was to remove the
exotics within a given time frame. It is in your packet, I believe.
And it indicated -- they gave them six months to remove the
exotics, and that was expiring February 14th of 2001. Oh, I'm
sorry. There was a proposed plan that was submitted by the
Loves. And let me read it for you because I don't believe it's in
your packet.
(As read): "as agreed to with the County Code Enforcement
Board on July 27, 2000, we will be in compliance by February
15th, 2001. In a phone message from code enforcement on July
31st, 2001, Alexandra Sulecki left a message to call Dynamic
Tree Service. We have phoned Dynamic Tree Service who has
volunteered to help us. They said the work will be done around
their schedule and hope to start soon because the work is being
done by them on a voluntary basis (but they do not know our
Page 129
April 26, 2001
deadline), we do not want to push them so they will rescind their
generous offer. It is difficult to give exact times, dates, and
removal method." and it's signed by Rita Goodman and Larry
Love.
MR. PONTE: Just a reminder for me. Is this the case where
the removal was being -- was in progress and the respondent
then stopped the removal? And I'm trying to remember for what
reason.
MS. GODFREY-LINT: Yes.
MR. PONTE: They wanted the privacy or something.
MS. ARNOLD: Well, the -- the board made an order, and I
think somebody, you know, viewing our -- our hearing on the TV
volunteered to help them. And we passed that information on to
the -- the Loves, and they volunteered to do it free of cost. The --
the work actually started, and the Loves -- MR. PONTE: Stopped.
MS. ARNOLD: -- asked them to stop, but I think they got
another contractor to finish the work. Of course, that was at
cost because the previous contractor was no longer available to
do the work.
MR. PONTE: Thank you.
MR. LOVE: Could I excuse myself, please.
Just one second.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
MR. LOVE: Okay, thank you.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
have a violation existing?
At this point in time do we still
MS. ARNOLD: Well, as I indicated, what was given to me or
information provided to me by Susan Mason, who is the
investigator on the case, she went to the adjacent property and
viewed that there was some vegetation regrowing from the
stumps that -- so, therefore, there -- it's not in compliance.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So they were cut but not
Page 130
April 26, 2001
removed.
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
MR. LOVE: Now may I ask to be heard, please.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Step forward, please.
MR. LOVE: I asked to be heard --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Just one second. Let me just
explain to you, typically we do not hear any kind of testimony.
This is not a rehearing of the case. MR. LOVE: I know.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: You've asked to speak so --
MR. LOVE: I appreciate the opportunity.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: If you just keep your comments
brief.
MR. LOVE: Larry Love, L-o-v-e, for the record, for Rita
Goodman, who is my mother. Three of you up here today were --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I'm sorry.
(The oath was administered.)
MR. LOVE: If the three of you that were here the last time I
was here will remember, there was some problems with using
chemicals on the property. And we were told that we did not
have to use any chemicals. I believe the order was to have the
exotics -- the acacias and the peppers removed by February the
15th. We had the work done on February the 6th and 7th.
Everything was gone by the 15th. And I think if you will ask Miss
Sulecki, who did the inspection at that time, she will say -- you
can ask her, you know, if there was any peppers or acacias there
on the 15th. And she will say that they were gone. But what she
will also say is that she saw no evidence of a chemical used on
the stumps.
There were chemicals used on the stumps, but there was no
dyes in that chemical. And if you were to call Naples Fertilizer,
they will tell you we do sell it but without dyes. I'll be glad to
Page 131
April 26, 2001
take a moment. And if you would like to ask Miss Sulecki if the
acacias and peppers were gone on the 15th of February. VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, in fact -- .
MR. LOVE: There was an issue -- excuse me -- about using
chemicals because of my wife's illness.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I understand.
MR. LOVE: And I -- I've got quotes here by Ms. Mason and
questions regarding chemicals. Even Mr. Flegal said he's
removed plenty of trees, and we don't put chemicals out. That
was the response to us saying we don't want to use chemicals.
So I -- I believe that -- and wholly believe that we were in
compliance on February the 15th. They did call me and ask me
who did the work and how much it cost, and I just -- MS. ARNOLD: We didn't ask how much it cost.
MR. LOVE: Pardon me? Okay. Who did the work and I -- you
know, I believe that's my business who did the work. It wouldn't
matter who did the work. However, we -- the work was done by
a company that does work for the county. They're called E.
Santos and Company. We paid them money. I've given them
receipts for that and statements by them saying that the acacias
and the peppers were removed before the 15th. There were none
there by the date that I promised you that they would be gone.
And because there was no chemicals -- there were
chemicals used. And, as a matter of fact, they came back
yesterday after I found out two days ago that we were not in
compliance, I've heard nothing from code enforcement from Feb
-- from the time they asked me who did the work, and when I --
when I said I would not tell them who did the work, I heard
nothing until two days ago saying that we were not in
compliance.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: At this point in time, do you
have any of the trees regrowing?
Page 132
April 26, 2001
MR. LOVE: There are some -- none of the trees are
regrowing as far as the acacias are concerned. And because of
some of the chemical that was used, there are some peppers
that are regrowing. But there's also seeds from neighbors and all
over the place. And according to what was said -- and I've
reviewed the videotape of our meeting that we had here last time
in July 50 times. And Miss Mason even says here that you can
hand pull over a period of time after the initial -- which is what
we've been doing. The company that -- E. Santos was out
yesterday. They cut down some of the new growth that was
there. And after badgering from code enforcement, they did use
some of the brush killer, blue dye yesterday to keep some of the
stuff from coming back. But we will, just as we promised, hand
pull in perpetuity to keep these things from growing. I don't
believe that there should be any fines. We complied --
MS. GODFREY-LINT: Miss Arnold, isn't it true that if they
don't use chemicals on the pepper hedge stump, that it has to be
dug up?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
MS. GODFREY-LINT: One or the other, you have to use
chemicals or you have to dig the --
MS. ARNOLD: I specifically left a message with Mr. Love
indicating to him that we needed to know who the contractor
was that performed the work mainly to determine what
chemicals were used, if any, to treat the stumps so that there
would be no regrowth.
And I also indicated to him that unless we were given that
information we would have to assume that they were no longer in
compliance. I specifically did that. And if he doesn't recall that,
I'm --you know, I'm sorry.
MR. LOVE: But you do recall that we specifically said that
we did not want to use chemicals due to my wife's illness.
Page 133
April 26, 2001
MS. ARNOLD: I understand that. But I'm making reference -
MR. LOVE: And we were told that we did not have to use
chemicals.
Mr. Flegal said, and I quote, We've had enough trees
removed where I live, and we don't put any chemicals out. Okay?
There's no need to use chemicals. We removed everything under
the -- we did everything the board asked us to do. You asked us
to go to the Board of County Commissioners to ask them for a
variance or to change the law. We went there and did that and
we got turned down. So we complied and had all the peppers
and acacias removed before the 15th of February. That's where -
- that's the date -- that's the cutoff time, and they were gone. As
of this point we are now doing maintenance. We are now cutting
down anything that's starting to grow back, and we will continue
to do so.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Sir, I think there's a difference
in the definition of accomplishing the task. The board has
ordered the removal of the exotics, whether you choose to use a
chemical that kills them and it basically takes care of them that
way, whether you physically remove the root system so that they
do not grow back is regardless to us. All we're interested is
complying with the county codes which require a complete
removal of the plants.
MR. LOVE: They -- they were removed.
As you stated today, we don't
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
have that --
MR. LOVE: No.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
growing back.
-- because you stated they are
MR. LOVE: Listen, my neighbors have acacia trees. And
because they have not been cited, they get to keep their trees.
Page 134
April 26, 2001
don't want to go through this whole thing again with you.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Let me interrupt you. You --
MR. LOVE: Seeds blow. Okay?
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Let me just interrupt --
MR. LOVE: Seeds from peppers, blow, okay. We are
maintaining the property. If -- if Susan Mason came back on my
yard a month later and saw some peppers that are starting to
grow that are this big (indicating), they're not there now. We are
-- we are tearing them down, and we are killing them.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Just -- I'm sorry. Susan -- I'm
sorry, Miss Sulecki, you had testified earlier that the regrowth is
coming from the stumps, not from new plantings; is that correct?
(The oath was administered.)
MS. SULECKI: For the record, Alexandra Sulecki. I only
visited the property once, and I did not see the regrowth. I was
there just after the property was -- the exotics were cut down
but not removed.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Right.
MS. SULECKI: And there was no evidence of chemical
removal on the stumps. And that's the only involvement that I
had in this -- in this case.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All right.
MS. ARNOLD: Right. And Susan Mason, who is the
investigator on the case, went back two days ago, I believe, to
And at that time
verify whether or not there was any regrowth.
she saw regrowth.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay.
MR. LOVE: I'd like to quote Miss Mason.
She said in this
room that conceivably the entire property with hand pulling, if
you did it on a regular basis, should deter use of chemicals, but it
does require constant maintenance. We have agreed --
MS. GODFREY-LINT: Sir, we are talking about the stumps --
Page 135
April 26, 2001
MR. LOVE: Okay.
MR. GODFREY-LINT: -- that were cut down that --
MR. LOVE: They were treated --
MS. GODFREY-LINT: -- would either have to be dug up and
removed, which you did not want to happen, and you did not
want to use chemicals.
MR. LOVE: Okay.
MS. GODFREY-LINT:
MR.
MS.
MR.
Okay.
LOVE: Let me --
GODFREY-LINT: You had your choice.
LOVE: Let me respond.
MS. GODFREY-LINT: You cut them down. You don't want to
use chemicals. They come back; you're not in compliance.
MR. LOVE: The stumps were treated with a chemical that E.
Santos and Company said that they use all the time. They do
business with the county and for the county and do schools and
so forth. I had to trust that they were using the right chemical.
Did it have dyes in it? No, it didn't have a dye in it. But they did
use a chemical. I'm not sure what it was.
There's some papers that I submitted today to Michelle
Arnold and to Miss Cruz that have a statement by them saying
that they removed and treated those stumps before the 15th.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, sir, I appreciate your
comments. What we need to do now as a board is just to -- to
determine whether an imposition of fine will take place based on
the information you've given us.
MR. LOVE: I understand what you're saying, but everything
was removed by the date that you gave me under my
understanding of what was said here. And I watched the
videotape 50 times.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Uh-huh.
MR. LOVE: And I was told we did not have to use chemicals,
Page 136
April 26, 2001
but we did use chemicals. And they were out again yesterday.
There should be no fine involved with this. We complied by the
15th and went out of our way and spent thousands of dollars to
do so. Why -- where does it say in your -- in your code that I
have to use chemicals? You -- you people even told me in here --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Sir--
MR. LOVE: -- we do not have to use chemicals.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- I think we're getting off the
subject.
MR. LOVE: Okay. Off the subject, but--
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We -- we are not -- we as a
board are not saying that you have to use chemicals or don't
have to use chemicals. We're saying that to comply with the
code you have to remove the trees or remove the plants.
MR. LOVE: They -- they were removed. There was -- if you
ask Miss Sulecki, she'll say --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' Well, removal doesn't include
just cutting down. Removal includes killing the plant or removing
the root system so the plant does not regrow.
MR. LOVE: They were treated -- and they were treated and
removed before the 15th under our understanding and our good
faith that we had done what we could to try to save the trees,
and we -- and we lost. Okay. They were taken out by the 15th.
And anything -- any other finding other than that is -- is really a
travesty, and for you to fine us $3,000 is just a travesty of justice.
And I believe that because I refused to name names of who did
the work for us that Miss Arnold and Miss -- and Miss Cruz and
Miss Mason have a vendetta against us because I don't hop to
when they asked me something. But I did hop to to the findings
of this board and had everything removed before the 15th of
February.
MR. PONTE: Do you have a receipt from the --
Page137
April 26, 2001
MR. LOVE: Absolutely. They have it right there.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: As far as Miss Arnold or her
staff maybe having a vendetta against you, I don't mean to
belittle you, sir, but I think she's probably got larger fish to fry in
that area. She probably deals with 2,000 cases a month.
MR. LOVE: I understand. But not everybody just refuses to
I just thought it was my privacy not to answer
I didn't feel it was any of their business who
answer questions.
who did the work.
did the work.
MS. DUSEK:
It just helps us to determine what was done.
MR. LOVE: Okay. So I cow-towed.
MR. DUSEK: I'm looking at this, and it says, "remove at
ground level." so the tree stumps were not removed, the root
systems were not.
MR. LOVE: They were treated. They were sprayed. They
were sprayed with chemical.
MS. GODFREY-LINT: No, it doesn't.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: It says here in your proposal --
and I'm reading from the proposal. MR. LOVE: Go ahead, please.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: It says, "For the scope of work
that they are doing, they are to remove at ground level all pepper
trees and acacia trees located at the rear of the residence." and
very specifically they state poison is not allowed on the trees or
the premises per the owner.
MR. LOVE: That was amended, if you read further down,
please.
MS. ARNOLD: That was dated April 23rd or April 25th.
MR. LOVE: On that same document, Mr. Lehmann, if you
read below, we decided to go ahead and use the chemical, and
they came through and sprayed the stumps as they were cutting
them down. There was not a dye in the chemical. And, again, if
Page 138
April 26, 2001
you call Naples Fertilizer, they will tell you that they're the only
ones that sell this chemical and that the dyes are not in it. You
have to add the dyes.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. All right. Well, if you
don't mind, we'll just take that under consideration, and I
appreciate your comments.
MR. LOVE: I hope -- I hope that you will because I, again,
feel that we have complied. And we will maintain the property
and kill any peppers that happen to grow up.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Thank you, sir.
Bearing in mind what we've heard, I would entertain a
motion regarding the affidavit of noncompliance and the
imposition of fines in this case.
MS. DUSEK: I'm sorry. You want us to make a motion or --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: If you so choose. I don't know
why anybody else should make a motion today.
MS. DUSEK: I was -- I was reading something when you
were talking. Catherine can do it.
MS. GODFREY-LINT: No, I can't do it. I'm inexperienced and
shy.
MS. DUSEK: Well, I make a motion that the request for filing
an affidavit of noncompliance and imposition of fines be enacted
in this case of 200-024, Board of County Commissioners versus
John and Rita Goodman regarding violation of Ordinance No. 99-
51, Collier County Weed and Litter Ordinance, and Ordinance 91-
102, Collier County Land Development Code.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion by Miss
Dusek. Do I hear a second?
MR. PONTE: I think this warrants some discussion. I've
been looking at this invoice dated April 25th, and it says they
returned on this date to reapply stump killer with dye, so there
was effort going on to get rid of the -- to come into compliance.
Page 139
April 26~ 2001
MR. PHILLIPS: I agree.
MS. DUSEK: But the order is that that they did not come
into compliance by the date specified. That's what we're
addressing today.
MR. PHILLIPS: But they made -- it seems like they made
every effort here. They made a very intense effort to take care of
this problem, and it's probably not his fault that the -- whatever
chemical treatment occurred the first time didn't take effect.
MR. PONTE: And I think the point's well made that he's
going to be in compliance today and out of compliance tomorrow
simply due to blowing seeds. It's an ongoing battle.
MS. DUSEK: Was--
MR. PONTE: So --
MS. DUSEK: Was -- the regrowth, Michelle, we don't have
Miss Mason here to say whether they were from the stumps that
are already there.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, the case notes are for the pepper
stumps, and there was regrowth on the Brazilian pepper stumps.
MS. DUSEK: From the stumps.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
MS. DUSEK: Okay. So it's not from seeds coming from some
other source. And what concerns me also is that the Loves
stopped the first company from removing these trees. I
remember the case, and I remember that the Loves did not want
the trees removed. And I feel that this is probably why they
waited until the very end to come into appliance.
MR. LOVE: May I say something, please, in that respect?
MS. DUSEK: Uh-huh.
MR. LOVE: You told us that you couldn't give us a variance
and that we should go speak in front of the county
commissioners. We stopped -- we took out a bunch of stuff. We
stopped so we could go make an appointment to speak in front of
Page 140
April 26, 2001
the County Commissioners to find out if we could have the law
changed -- as you'll recall we felt the law was unfair and we
were selectively being prosecuted and so forth. So that's why
we stopped, because we wanted some time after the election for
the new board members to come and speak with them.
VICE CHAIRMAN I. EHMANN: Okay. Well, we have -- any
other discussion? Okay. We still have a motion on the table. Do
I hear a second at all?
Okay. Without a second the motion fails. Do I hear a new
motion?
MR. PONTE:
now but thinking
I -- based on this, I'm not making the motion
-- just thinking aloud. My feeling is that their --
Loves were in compliance maybe by the stroke of midnight on
the 15th and maybe dragging their feet, but in compliance
nevertheless.
MS. ARNOLD: And I note that -- that this particular case is
one that occurred prior to your new policy for costs -- imposing
costs for prosecution. There was a substantial cost to the
county with respect for, you know, continually going back out to
check on this particular site. The -- the order of the board was,
in the event that they did not come into compliance that
prosecution charges would be assessed. That would be -- I just
want to bring that to the table as an option for imposition of
fines.
MR. PONTE: Uh-huh.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Let me interrupt just one
second.
Jean, if the board were to try to adjust the fines, do we have
any particular vehicle we need to use to do that? MS. RAWSON: To adjust the fines?
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes. Or we -- do we have that
ability with this particular affidavit?
Page 141
April 26, 2001
MS. RAWSON: Well, I guess under the rules as they are
presently written, in the future we're going to have the
respondents come in and make a motion to abate -- or vacate.
But you're here today to decide whether to impose fines, so I
think you either have to decide to impose fines or not to impose
fines. I don't believe you have any other choice.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' If the board decides to impose
fines at this point in time, is there any recourse for the
respondent to come back to us and try to reduce -- MS. RAWSON: Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- those fines.
MS. RAWSON: Absolutely. He can come back with a motion
to vacate. He can appeal within 30 days. Sure.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All right. Okay.
MS. DUSEK: In looking at the order of the board that we
had, it says, "by removing all prohibited exotics and litter by
February 15th." on this most recent invoice from E. Santos, it
says "only apply to the rear of the lot, rear half." does that mean
there was only one section that was done and not all that was
requested by the board? That I have a question about, because if
only part of it was done, then he still -- then he's still not in
compliance.
MR. LOVE: Are you asking me?
MS. ARNOLD: I believe all of the exotics are in the rear of
the property.
MS. DUSEK.' Okay.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, my recommendation to
the board -- as Jean was saying, we have the option of either
approving or disapproving the request.
MR. PONTE: I'd make a move (sic) that we do not fine in this
case.
MR. PHILLIPS: I'll second.
Page142
April 26, 200t
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Was that a motion?
MR. PONTE: If you can make one that briefly, it was a
motion.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. We have a motion to
deny the affidavit of noncompliance or -- or I should say deny the
imposition of fines. Jean, did I word that right?
MS. RAWSON: I think you basically -- his motion is to deny
the imposition of fines, that's correct.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. We have a motion from
Mr. Ponte. Mr. Phillips has seconded that motion. Any other
discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. PHILLIPS: Aye.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Opposed?
Nay.
MS. DUSEK: Nay.
MS. GODREY-LINT: Nay.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All the hands up, please, for
nay. Okay. So the motion fails. The imposition of fines is
imposed.
MS. RAWSON: Well, I -- I think we need to have another
motion --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I was to go to say that.
MS. RAWSON: -- because it seems to me that a while ago
one of you made a motion that wasn't seconded, and so it failed
for lack of a second. Now, we've had a motion that was made,
seconded, and failed. So now you need a new motion.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: That's correct. If nothing else,
I'll just make a motion that we accept the imposition of fines.
MS. DUSEK: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a -- a motion and a
Page 14:3
April 26, 2001
second. Aye.
MS. DUSEK: Aye.
MS. GODFREY-LINT: Aye.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
MR. PHILLIPS: No.
MR. PONTE: (Indicating.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
All those in favor signify -- signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Mr. Love, let me explain a little
bit about what we're doing and why I suggest this. The county,
by imposing the fines upon you now, if nothing more just retains
the right to recover any prosecutory costs or any other fees that
may be associated with the case. You always have the right to
come back and request a motion for reduction of fines or waiver
of fines at a later date. This action preserves the county's
interest, and it preserves your interest. We're not saying that the
door is closed.
MR. LOVE: I am just flabbergasted that you could rule that
we were not in compliance by removing everything by the 15th of
February. This just goes beyond common sense and thinking.
We -- it was all done.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: In essence it does preserve the
right still to discuss that. Unfortunately, on an administrative
hearing, we typically don't hear testimony.
MR. LOVE: What happened with the first vote and then
another vote where they were voting? I don't understand.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, the first vote basically
was not passed. It failed due to the lack of a second.
The second vote did not pass simply because it didn't have a
majority vote to pass the motion.
MR. LOVE: I thought you people were voting. I thought they
were presenting their case.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We are.
Page 144
April 26, 2001
MR. LOVE: They get to present their case and vote also?
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: No, sir. Only the five people up
here are able to vote on a motion.
MR. LOVE: Did I hear -- I thought that they were voting over
here.
MR. PHILLIPS: No.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: No. These people don't get a
vote. They're the same as you. They are presenting the case, as
well as you are defending the case.
MR. LOVE: So when -- when your motion failed first to -- to
fine us -- to find us in compliance or not in compliance, I was
under the impression that you found that we were in compliance.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: No, sir. The first vote
requested that we find you in compliance. MR. LOVE: And that did not pass.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: That did not pass. So in effect
we said you were not in compliance by the sheer fact that the
vote did fail. What we did in the third -- in the second vote, in
essence, was to reverse the wording of the motion to say that we
found that you were not in compliance.
MR. LOVE: Can you please show me where in your codes it
says that we have to use chemicals? When -- when we spoke to
Mr. Flegal and all of you about the fact that we didn't want to --
and we did; the stumps were treated. I mean, I guess --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, Mr. Love --
MR. LOVE: This goes beyond all fairness.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- in all due respect, actually,
this vote, in a sense, still preserves your right to come back to us
at a later date and actually have a hearing to reduce those fines.
It does not close the door. It does not say beyond a shadow of a
doubt you have no rights anymore; you have to pay the money.
What it says is today, in an administrative hearing, we have
Page 145
April 26, 2001
passed an administrative motion which typically we do not hear
testimony from any of the respondents.
MR. LOVE: I appreciate the opportunity --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: It is nothing more than general
housekeeping for ourselves.
MR. LOVE: I appreciate the opportunity --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: What this does is it gives you
the opportunity to come back to us at a later date with a motion
to either waive those fines or to adjust the fines. MR. LOVE: I understand.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And it still does preserve your
rights.
MR. LOVE: And what are the fines that you are assessing on
us?
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: There's a $3300 fine and
administrative costs of about $624.90 --
MR. LOVE: And the 3300 is $50 a day from February 15th till
now?
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' I believe so.
MR. LOVE: But we were never told until two days ago that
we were not in compliance. How can you count all the time that
they procrastinated in getting in touch with us?
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN.' Well, and that's -- that's why I
suggest that you take the avenue of filing a motion to address
those fines. You still preserve that right.
MR. LOVE: I will take that right. But there's a lot of wasted
time here for you people to be dealing with something that could
have been just settled when Miss Sulecki said that the exotics
were gone and that -- I have paperwork that says that they were
treated. I -- I just don't understand. This whole thing has been a
nightmare. It's caused emotional distress to myself and my wife
and my family. This has -- this has not gone very well.
Page 146
April 26, 2001
What's -- what do I have to prove to you in an appeal that's
going to have these fines waived? Because I believe that we
were in compliance on that date. The date -- the cutoff was the
15th, and then we said that we would maintain from then on.
What -- what can I possibly show you in a future meeting -- I've
sat hear for five hours today, and so have you -- that's going to
get these fines waived? I mean, you are the people that could
have done that today.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Now, part of the -- part of the
problem that we have as a board -- and I've spoken to this
before -- is that our actions are very limited in what we can do.
In this particular hearing, all we can do is either approve the
fines or not approve the fines. By not approving the fines, in
essence, we have protected the rights of the county and
protected your rights as well.
MR. LOVE: I understand. But there was a cutoff date. And
on that date we had complied. And -- and anybody that walked
into our yard -- Miss Sulecki was there and -- and Susan Mason --
see, there's another problem. I refused to have Susan Mason
come and do the final inspection, okay, because, you know, we
do not get along. That's why I asked someone else to come, and
Miss Sulecki came. There's a lot of animosity and problems
between my personality, myself, and Miss Arnold, Miss Cruz, and
Miss Mason. So I do believe there is a problem to where they are
making a point out of me.
Okay, we had the stuff removed by the date that we
promised you before the date. We did it a week before it was
due, and this is --
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Love.
MR. LOVE: -- a travesty.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Let me interrupt you. What I
would recommend then is that you do contact Michelle's office
Page 147
April 26, 2001
and that you do file a motion for us to be able to review the fines,
and that way we can either eliminate them as a final status --
MR. LOVE: I--
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN'- -- or we may waive or -- or
reduce those fines.
MR. LOVE: I do appreciate that opportunity, however, it
could all have been settled today. Okay.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, unfortunately, it wasn't.
MR. LOVE: And then everybody is going to have to come
back again, and it's going to cost the county -- I mean, it just
doesn't make any sense that we couldn't have settled this today.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I understand your concern, sir.
MR. LOVE: Well, I'd like to file an appeal.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Could we move on to filing
affidavits of compliance?
MS. CRUZ: Yes. These are compliance for cases that were
presented before the board. The board issued an order and
ordered the respondents to comply with -- within the time frame.
I'd like to report that all these cases, Board of County
Commissioners versus Dean M. Blocker and Kenneth J. Blocker,
Jr., Case No. 2001-003 and Case No. 2001-004 and also Jose and
Maria Rodriguez, Case No. 2001-019, are in compliance at this
time.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Jean, do we need to vote on
these separately or --
MS. RAWSON: I think you don't need to vote on the
compliance ones. You -- that's information.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All right. Any other comments?
Okay. The next meeting date is May 21st.
MS. ARNOLD: I do have a question about that, because we
had a lot of discussion at the last meeting about whether or not
we wanted to still do two meetings in a month. And right now we
Page 148
April 26, 2001
are scheduled for two in May. So I just wanted to confirm that
with you-all that that's -- that's still okay before we send out
notices to everybody.
MR. PONTE: And remember what we had -- we had done.
We said, yes, okay, two is all right as long as -- using that old
phrase -- the first day was chock-a-block full, not a chopping
block, but chock-a-block full, as this day has been.
MS. ARNOLD: And the next day will be and the day after
that.
MS. DUSEK: Will both of those days be full?
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah.
MS. RAWSON: In addition to which I have the new rules of
procedure, which, of course, you'll probably get with your packet
and have time to read beforehand. There are extensive changes.
We've worked on this over a period of a couple of months. And,
you know, you'll want to digest that, and you might have some
questions. I'm sure you'll find that they're perfect, but in case
you have any questions, we'll be happy to discuss that with you
at one of those meetings, probably the first one. It depends on
how busy we are.
MR. PONTE: I was going to make the request that the
revisions, the new rules, be in the first batch so that we don't
have a whole lot of reading and rules in two days' time so that --
MS. ARNOLD: So --
MR. PONTE: At least the rules, if not up for discussion and
on the agenda, should be in the hands of the individual board
members as soon as possible.
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
had two months to work on this.
more time.
MS. RAWSON:
In other words, Jean, you've
We're not going to give you any
Well, I know you're going to love them and
Page 149
April 26, 2001
immediately pass them, but I do think that we need time for you
to read them, ask questions about them, and ask us why we
made the changes that we did.
Okay. We -- we can have those to them by
MS. ARNOLD:
next week; right?
MS. RAWSON:
MS.
MS.
finished
Yes.
ARNOLD: Yeah.
RAWSON: I mean, I -- I think I'm finished, at least I'm
with my final draft.
MS. ARNOLD: So we can get those out to you as soon as
possible.
MR. PONTE: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: And then you want me to limit the number of
hearings then on the first hearing? MR. PONTE: No.
MS. ARNOLD: Oh, okay.
MR. PONTE: No, no. All I wanted was to have time to read
the new rules and regulations. That's all. MS. ARNOLD: All right.
MS. RAWSON: Do we want the respondents to have to sit
Probably not.
through the review of the rules?
MR. PONTE: No.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
No. I'd like to run those back --
actually, Cliff would probably want to run those back in the back
end of his business, and get the public hearings out of the way.
MS. RAWSON: So long as it's not two o'clock, that's good.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I agree. All right. Next hearing
is May 21st, nine o'clock, here.
MR. PONTE: And then the one after that would be ...
MS. ARNOLD: The, what, 26th?
MS. CRUZ: I believe it's the 24th or 25th.
MR. PONTE: 24th.
Page 150
April 26, 2001
MS. CRUZ:
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay.
motion to adjourn.
MS. DUSEK: I so move.
MS. GODFREY-LINT: Second it.
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
Thursday of the same week.
I would entertain a
A first and a second. All those
Opposed?
I'm out of here.
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:10 p.m.
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
PETER LEHMANN, CHAIRMAN
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT
REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RMR, CRR
Page 15t