Loading...
CEB Minutes 05/24/2001 RMay 24, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, MAY 24, 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: CHAIRMAN: Clifford Flegal Roberta Dusek Kathryn M. Godfrey-Lint Peter Lehmann George Ponte ABSENT: Rhona Saunders Darrin M. Phillips ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Ellen Chadwell, Assistant County Attorney Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Maria Cruz, Enforcement Official Page I buaau~ u~v~ur~' ~ CL~RK OF BRD ~00! DE ENFORCEM B OF_ LIER C FL RIDA Date: ~a¥ 9.4, 2001 at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Location: 3301 E, Tamiami Tr., Naples, Florida, Collier county Government Center, Administrative Bldg, 3rd Floor DE¢ ' ES TO Or NOTE: ~ PE~ON ~- T~ TESTZMO~ ~ 0F TH~_P~CE~IN ~u~ o ~ INGS IS ~E, ~ICH ~Cu~ ~ATIM K~CO~ OF ~ .... ~ID~CE UPON ~ICH THE APP~ ~S TO BE B~ED. N~ITH~ COLLIER CO~ NOR THE CODE ~NFORCEM~ BO~D S~L BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ~IS RECO~. A.~pEOVAL OF AGENDA A__PPROVAL OF %4INUTRS. ~UBLIC HE .ARING~q April 26, 2001 CEB NO. 2001-027 A. BCC vs. Frances L. Pallis C. BCC vs. Mini Max Market, Inc. D. BCC vs. Ronald A. Haar, Jr. E. BCC vs. Eloy & Francisco Fernandez F. BCC vs. Meres Joseph G. BCC vs. Steven M. Medinger M- BCC v~. Steven M. Medinger I. BCC vs. Enrique Iglesias A. BCC vs. Victor A. Hansen A. BCC vs. Mark G. Geatches B. BCC vs. John and Rita Goodman, TR. Review and aDproval of code Epforcemen~ Board Rules and Regulations 10. N__EXT MEETING DATE JtuTe 18, 2001 CEB No. 2001-030 CEB No. 2001-031 CEB No. 2001-032 CEB No. 2001-033 CEB No. 2001-035 CEB No. 2001-036 CEB NO. 2001-037 CEB NO. 2001-016 CEB NO. 97-017 CEB NO- 2000-024 May 24, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'll call the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County to order, please. Please note any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County, nor the Code Enforcement Board, shall be responsible for providing this record. Roll call, please. MS. CRUZ: Good morning. For the record, Maria Cruz, code enforcement official. Roberta Dusek. MS. DUSEK: Here. MS. CRUZ: Clifford Flegal. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Kathryn Godfrey. MS. GODFREY: Here. MS. CRUZ: Peter Lehmann. MR. LEHMANN: Here. MS. CRUZ: Darrin Phillips. (No response.) MS. CRUZ: George Ponte. MR. PONTE: Here. MS. CRUZ: Rhona Saunders? Let the record show that Ms. Saunders informed that she was going to be absent and same thing for Diane Taylor. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Also, I wanted to make note for the board that the Board of County Commissioners heard the request for filling a vacancy for the permanent position, and Miss Godfrey was appointed. Page 2 May 24, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Terrific. Approval of our agenda. Are there any changes, additions? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. For the record, Michelle Arnold, code enforcement director. Items A and B will be continued. Both are being represented by the same counsel and are similar items. They're adjacent properties, so it -- it's best that they're -- they be heard together. And they'll be on the following agenda. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other changes, additions? If none, I would entertain a motion to approve the agenda as changed. MS. DUSEK: So moved. MR. LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Approval of our minutes of April 26th. Are there any changes or additions to the minutes from April 26? If none, I would entertain a motion to accept them as submitted. MR. LEHMANN: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. We'll now open our public hearing section. The first case is Board of County Commissioners versus Mini Max Market, Inc., Case No. 2001-030. MS. CRUZ: Let the record show that Joe Toledo -- MR. TOLEDO: No. Roland Toledo. Joe Toledo is not present; that's my brother. MS. CRUZ: I'm sorry. What is your first name? Page 3 May 24, 2001 MR. TOLEDO: Roland. MS. CRUZ: Roland Toledo is present representing the respondent. This is Board of County Commissioners versus Mini Max Market, Inc., Code Enforcement No. 2001-030. I'd like to request that the packet that was provided to the respondent, as well as to the board and to the clerk of court, be admitted into evidence at this time, marked Composite Exhibit A, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Toledo, did you and your-- or your brother receive this packet? MR. TOLEDO: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have any objection to the county submitting it to us? MR. TOLEDO: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Okay. Thank you. I'd entertain a motion that the packet be submitted and accepted. MS. DUSEK'. So moved. MR. LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify identify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any objections? (No response.) MS. CRUZ: The alleged violation before this board is the violation of Sections 1.5.6 and Section 2.7.6, paragraph I and 5 of the Ordinance No. 91-102, the Land Development Code, and Section 6, 7, and 8 of Ordinance No. 91-47. That is the Collier County Litter and Weed Ordinance. The description of the violation is construction of a block storage area to the rear of the building without first obtaining all the Collier County building permits and accumulation of litter, not included to -- including, but not limited to, discarded lumber. Page 4 May 24, 2001 The violation exists at 3700 Bayshore Drive, Naples, Florida, and is more particularly described as Whispering Pines, Block B, Lots 3 and 4. The owner of record of the subject property is Mini Max Market, Inc. The address of record of the owner is 3668 Bayshore Drive, Naples, Florida. The violation was first observed on May 18th, 1999. A notice of violation was provided to the respondent on May 25th, 1999, requesting compliance by June 9, 1999. The last reinspection was conducted yesterday, May 23rd, 2001, resulting in violation remaining at this time. I'd like to call Investigator John Kelly at this time, please. MS. ARNOLD: Barbara, can we swear both the respondent and the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. Mr. Toledo, would you stand, please, and be sworn in? And we'll get to you in a minute, but it'll make it a little faster. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. You may sit down. MR. KELLY: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, good morning. Just a minute trying to get this machine -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There it is. MR. KELLY: Okay. My name's John Kelly. I'm an investigator with Collier County code enforcement. This case was initiated by anonymous complaint on April 18 -- sorry -- on April 18, 1999. At the time of my initial investigation observed what appeared to be the conversion of a wood-frame accessory structure to a block structure and no building permits posted. At that time I talked to Joe Toledo, who was the manager and a member of the board for -- or the corporation, rather, for Mini Max Market, Incorporated. He stated he wasn't aware permits would be required as was only replacing the wood with block construction. I advised him at that time both the contractor and permits would be required. Page 5 May 24, 2001 I returned to the location on May 25th, 1999, observing the work to the structure nearly complete, served a notice of violation upon Mr. Toledo for the permit issue, in addition to a litter and outside storage issue. Both of those have been cleared up. On June 7, 1999, I was contacted by a Joe Saco of Luvis Construction. He advised he would be taking care of the permitting and stated he had submitted required per -- paperwork for the permits to Nolan's Permitting Service. At that time a site visit revealed other -- the other violations had been abated which I just noted. On July 22nd, 1999, I learned that the permitting process had been stalled as a site improvement plan was being required by the county. The planner involved was a Miss Cheryl Soter, and we pretty much stayed in steady contact throughout the process. On April 28, 2000, a Site Improvement Plan No. 99-57 was approved after numerous required modifications and changes. And at that time we allowed additional time for the building permit process. Regular checks were performed, and meetings had been conducted with the building department, planning, and as well as code enforcement. CEB action was requested on February 1, 2001, as no plans for the structure had yet been submitted and on February 15, 2001, ascertained that Luvis Construction had submitted or, rather, applied for Permit No. 2001021217, which, upon approval, would abate the violations. Since the application was submitted, it's been rejected numerous times by the plan review staff, resubmitted, rejected again, resubmitted, and so forth. The last recheck was performed yesterday, May 23rd. At that time the only plan review pending was FEMA, and they had just been received by the FEMA Page 6 May 24, 2001 staff through the system. So that's where we stand today. MS. DUSEK: Did I understand you to say that the only outstanding requirement now is through FEMA? MR. KELLY: Correct. The FEMA plan review. MS. DUSEK: And do you know what -- how long that takes or if that's -- MR. KELLY: I would assume two, three days. It could be more. MS. DUSEK: So if that gets approval, then everything is in order for his -- his building permit? MR. KELLY: Yes. That's the way I understand it. Also, just so as there's no question, we're talking about this portion (indicating) of the property here. It's a -- now a block accessory structure attached to the principal. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Kelly, the building permit itself has been issued. MR. KELLY: Pardon? MR. LEHMANN: The building permit itself has been issued? MR. KELLY: It's been assigned an application number. It's still awaiting the final plan review, being FEMA. MR. LEHMANN: But you had indicated earlier that it had received a number of rejections. MR. KELLY: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: Is the only thing holding up that permit now the FEMA letter?. MR. KELLY: As of yesterday, FEMA, yes. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The litter problem has -- MR. KELLY: That was abated. MS. ARNOLD: Just for the record, Michelle Arnold. For the board's information, the process -- the building permit process goes through various steps, and the FEMA is a part of that whole Page 7 May 24, 2001 MS. ARNOLD: rejection on there. MR. TOLEDO: MS. ARNOLD: MR. TOLEDO: MS. ARNOLD: 7th of May. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: FEMA to handle these? review. So until all the necessary departments or agencies have signed off their approval on what's submitted, the permit is not issued. All the other departments have signed off on their portion of it. We're just awaiting FEMA to accept what is being requested. MR. PONTE: Miss Arnold, so that in a nutshell, it's out of the hands totally of the respondent at this point. MS. ARNOLD: At this point, unless -- unless they've provided comments, because the rejection that was described before is the county's reviewed, made recommendations for changes, and it's up to the respondent to make those changes and then resubmit it. I don't know whether or not FEMA has requested any modifications at this point. MR. KELLY: They had just received it yesterday. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. It appears that FEMA just received it yesterday. So they -- they probably haven't provided any comments to the respondent. It's very possible that everything that's submitted is in accordance with their code. MS. DUSEK: In the past rejections that the permit process has had, did it ever involve FEMA rejection? No. Oh, yeah. There actually was one FEMA There's no date. 5/7 -- 5/7? -- '00 . Yeah. It looks like FEMA rejected it on the What is the normal process time for MS. ARNOLD: I think the investigator noted that it's about a couple days' review time. MS. DUSEK: Just review with me again. When did he finally Page 8 May 24, 2001 -- after being first cited in 1999, when did he start the application for permit? MR. KELLY: He was stalled during the -- he couldn't submit a building application until he submitted a site improvement plan. That was learned on July 22nd, 1999. The site improvement plan was finally approved on April -- on or about April 28, 2000. And the permit application itself was submitted on or about February 15, 2001. MS. DUSEK: I'm -- my concern is the time from when he was first cited to him taking the time to get the permit, the site improvement plan, etc., etc. It seems the process could have been completed sooner, but we'll wait to hear. MR. LEHMANN: Is there any major hurdles that you expect from FEMA? You say the plan has already been rejected, and now it's been resubmitted? MR. KELLY: I would assume with the former rejection, the contractor, engineer was advised what needed to be changed. MR. LEHMANN: It addressed all the issues? MR. KELLY: Yeah. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The -- the time frame I too was concerned about. And I noticed that from June 15th of '99 till August 8th, roughly, of 2000, there's no contact with the Mini Max people. Is that a true statement? MR. KELLY: I don't believe so. I would need to see the actual case load to let you know. I believe it just hasn't been documented. There was steady contact throughout. MR. LEHMANN: Let me ask you a strange question. And this is really directed towards Michelle. Michelle, why did it take you, as a -- why -- why did you or your staff take so long to bring this to the board? Is it that you thought the respondent was working with you and wanted to give him time or why -- why are we Page 9 May 24, 2001 sitting two years after the problems had occurred and now addressing it? MS. ARNOLD: Well, part of the reason is because there was some activity in terms of the site improvement plan process. MR. LEHMANN: Uh-huh. MS. ARNOLD: When -- when they initiated that process, there's no reason for to us bring this item to the board because they're working towards compliance. With respect to the time frame that -- after the approval and the application for a building permit -- MR. LEHMANN: Uh-huh. MS. ARNOLD: -- it -- part of the reason is probably because it sat on our desk processing it, you know, waiting for other cases to be resolved. I mean, we -- we take things as -- as they're able to be presented to the board. So part of that time is processing, when it can get scheduled on a particular hearing. MR. LEHMANN: So -- MS. ARNOLD: However, during -- during that time my staff is continually checking on the case to make sure that there's progress or whether or not there's progress being made. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Kelly, in reading your notes that you submitted with your package, which I assume is your daily, weekly log or whatever, I find no contact for this 14-month period with the owners. I see some contact with engineering companies. But I guess my concern is that unless we seem to talk with the owners of these projects, we never know that engineering firms or landscape firms or any of these other people ever talk to the owners. MR. KELLY: Can you advise of the 14-month period you're speaking of, please? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. June 15th of '99 to August 8th Page 10 May 24, 2001 of 2000. MR. KELLY: There are calls documented. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I didn't see any of that in what you submitted to us so ... MR. KELLY: I'm looking at your packet. On June 16 -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: June 16. MR. KELLY: I'm sorry. May -- May 3rd. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: May 3rd of what year? MR. KELLY: 2000. Again on June 20. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I see May 3rd you talked to Joe of some construction company. MR. KELLY: Correct. He's the one that was handling the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is he the owner -- MR. KELLY: -- process. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- of Mini Mart (sic}? MR. KELLY: No, he is not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So you haven't talked to the owner. That's my problem. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Mr. Chairman, are you saying that because we did not talk to the owner that -- that we did not provide the owner with information of the violation? Is that the question? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I mean, we have this 2-year period, and I'm trying to account for -- in trying to help people do things, there's 14 months where we didn't talk to anybody. MR. LEHMANN: Well, Mr. Chairman -- MS. ARNOLD: I think we have been talking to the person that's proceeding with getting in compliance. If the board's wanting us to contact the owner to ensure the engineers are communicating with their owner, we can do that. But that's not customary. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, let me interject in here. We Page tl May 24, 2001 have responsible adults that we're dealing with here. MS. ARNOLD: Really. MS. DUSEK: That's right. MR. LEHMANN: I don't feel it's this board's duty or staff's duty to make sure that the responsible adults, respondents, and their agents are doing the job they're supposed to be doing. They've been provided notification. They need to act upon it and govern theirselves accordingly. It's not our job to baby-sit the general public. MS. DUSEK: I concur with my colleague. MR. LEHMANN: So ... CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MR. KELLY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anything else from Mr. Kelly? Thank you, sir. Mr. Toledo, your turn. MR. TOLEDO: Good morning. There's a couple of issues here that have not been discussed. The reason this took so long, as you-all know, I'm on Bayshore Drive. It's being redeveloped. Numerous times we submitted plans. We talked to people, and we kept on being told, "You have to hold on. The street has not been developed totally.". Now, we had a problem with the building. We built that. It was a wood structure. We made it out of concrete. We admitted to that right off the bat. Now, there was another wooden structure that was there. We hired a contractor to come in and knock this down. We signed a contract with the contractor. He came; he knocked this down. He never pulled the permit. That's where the SIP comes into play. At this moment in time we have to go get an SIP. Now, to get a site improvement plan is not a two-week process. You've got to go to engineers. We had to get a landscaping engineer. I mean, it was a whole process. We had Page 12 May 24, 2001 one of the best engineers, I think, in all of Southwest Florida, which is Art Quinnell. He's the one who's been doing our drawings. He's the one who's been on top of this. We finally got our SIP. At that time us as owners felt, oh, we're done. We come back to this, and, oh, you need a building permit for the structure you built. Then we started with this. Jill Saco was the contractor on site, but we know how contractors are. They disappear; they come; they go. I mean, the contractor who knocked the structure next door, he walked away. I ended up paying him $5,000. Never pulled the permit; never did nothing for me. All he did was knock the building down. I as an owner paid him, took care of it. And that's the process. So that's why it's taken so long. Finally this year we decided, you know, we're going to end this. We've done everything. FEMA is the last review. The reason FEMA plan review was rejected on 5/7/2001 was due to the fact that we never filled out an application. We filled it out. It's been turned in. Basically we're just waiting for FEMA to say go ahead and we're done. Basically once FEMA says yes, it goes to the printing department, I presume. It gets printed out. I mean, the structure is done. Basically we're just going to call to have it inspected, make the changes from there and just keep on going. MR. LEHMANN.' Mr. Toledo, you had indicated that you didn't know that you needed a building permit after you got your SIP. MR. TOLEDO: Exactly. MR. LEHMANN: In your notice of violation -- MR. TOLEDO: Uh-huh. MR. LEHMANN: -- issued to you on the 25th of May -- MR. TOLEDO: Yes. MR. LEHMANN.' -- 1999, it stated specifically you must apply and obtain for a building permit. Page 13 May 24, 2001 MR. TOLEDO: I understand. We thought the SIP was part of a building permit. I mean, I'm not -- you know, we're not totally clear what's an SIP, SDP yet. Now I am. I mean, two years ago I didn't know what they were talking about. I had no clue. I mean, basically this was a wooden structure. We changed absolutely nothing on it. All we did was make it out of block. And that was a mistake. I should have never done it. I mean, if you look at the corner now compared to what it was two years ago, I mean, believe me, you'll be satisfied because we've done a great job. We've put a parking lot in there, brand new, I mean, which goes exactly with the renovations of Bayshore Drive. I mean, we're trying is basically what I can say. And we've tried hard. MR. LEHMANN: Michelle, do we have any -- Mr. Toledo had indicated he had a delay due to the road construction of Bayshore. Do you have any evidence of that, anything that might have impacted his project and caused delays in his permitting or construction? MS. ARNOLD: I'm not aware of road construction on Bayshore. There was landscaping and there's also an overlay district that is, you know, underway to -- and they're considering different regulations for some of the buildings and businesses along Bayshore Drive. But I'm not aware of -- of some of the delays that he's referring to. There's no road construction that I'm aware of that's going on. MR. TOLEDO: Well, on the SIP we were told -- we had a driveway where you can drive in completely. And we had to wait for the planner because he hadn't planned which way was going to be in and which way was going to be out, so we held up on that for a while. We also wanted to have an exit on one of the roads. We weren't allowed to have that either. I don't know if Art Quinnell was specifically talking to the person who was Page 14 May 24, 2001 actually doing the planning for Bayshore Drive or if he was submitting to the board. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. TOLEDO: I mean, we've talked to so many people. I mean, I basically know everybody who works in the building department already. And we've been in contact. It's not like we've ignored this totally. MS. ARNOLD: It's possible that what he's referring to is the modifications with the overlay district, the standards that are being considered for that overlay district that delayed any final determination with -- with respect to the access to the property and -- and to adjacent roadways. MS. DUSEK: Would the access to the property have anything to do with this storage building that he -- I mean, would that have held up the permitting process? MS. ARNOLD: It could have in some ways if -- with the site improvement plan it's looking at the whole site and access ingress, egress out of the property. And so it's possible that -- that they had to make determinations in the planning department where this access was going to be. Along Bayshore Drive a lot of the entrances into those businesses are just wide drives, and they're trying to put more direction on -- on those businesses along there and put more landscaping in there. So there's a possibility that that was held up. MR. TOLEDO: I mean, we're talking two different things. We're talking an SIP and a building permit. What we attacked first was the SIP because that's where we felt we had the biggest problem out of everything, and that's where we went first. And obviously we obtained that, and now this is our second thing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. GODFREY-LINT: Mr. Toledo, did you tear down the wood Page 15 May 24, 2001 structure and then erect the concrete, or was it -- MR. TOLEDO: No. We just built a concrete wall inside and took -- then we took the wood down. MS. GODFREY-LINT: Okay. Did you hire a licensed contractor to do that? MR. TOLEDO: Well, actually, we did it ourselves. MS. GODFREY-LINT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Any other questions? MS. DUSEK: My -- my concern, Mr. Toledo, is that you had the site improvement plan approved April 2000. MR. TOLEDO: Yes. MS. DUSEK.' And it wasn't until February 2001 that you had filed for the permit, the building permit. MR. TOLEDO: We were trying to finish our parking lot. I mean, we had a parking lot that was lime rock. That's how it was left. And that's what we concentrated on trying to get done. I mean, we had a break problem. Our parking lot sat there for 4 months on lime rock. MS. GODFREY-LINT: There was a mess out there while they were redoing all that. We go boating by there, and we happened to pull on the road, and it was terrible. I understand. MR. TOLEDO: Yes. So that was our biggest concern as owners. I had the lime rock parking lot. And that's what we concentrated on the most. MS. DUSEK.' So you -- what you're saying is you concentrated on the parking lot. MR. TOLEDO: And put the building permit to the side because we felt -- it was more of a danger to our customers and the public having this lime rock parking lot than having a building erected, which was being used for storage, still is being used for storage. I mean, nothing has been done to it. It's exactly left the way it was. Page 16 May 24, 2001 MS. DUSEK: I understand your concerns, and -- and I would agree with them, except I still am a little concerned that you didn't go ahead and apply for the building permit even though you could have still continued to work on the parking lot. MR. TOLEDO: It possibly is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Mr. Toledo? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. TOLEDO: Thank you. MR. PONTE: My thoughts -- let me just think about this. The Toledos have worked long and hard and perhaps in some areas not as diligently as they ought to have. But given the fact that there have been government and rules and regulations slowing the whole process down, I don't think that we can find the respondent in violation. I think -- I don't think a violation exists upon the part of the respondent and that paying the fine for -- or paying the -- the costs of the case will be sufficient fine. MR. LEHMANN: I disagree with my colleague. I think that it's very clean -- a clean-cut case. The fact of the matter is, the building was erected without a permit. That's what we're here to discuss. I -- I think almost completely opposite. I think it is very clean-cut that a violation does exist -- does exist. Whether the board chooses to use extenuating circumstances in its order, that's the board's pleasure. But I'm fairly convinced, in my own mind anyway, that we do have a violation. MS. DUSEK: I would agree also. I also think that the Toledos have worked very hard to improve the place. MR. LEHMANN: Uh-huh. MS. DUSEK: But they did drag their feet in getting this permit in knowing that we were in violation and the possibility of coming before this board. They had enough time from April to February to apply for that permit. Page 17 May 24, 2001 MR. PONTE: But they were being -- if I've got it right, they were being stonewalled a little bit by planning. MS. DUSEK: That's earlier. MR. PONTE: Or whoever was going to give them an okay on the driveway. MR. LEHMANN: Well, take a look at staff's recommendation. We're really getting ahead of ourselves because we haven't even got a finding fact yet. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's back up. We've had a mini discussion. I would entertain a motion, if there is to be one. Is there, in fact, a finding of fact that a violation did exist? MS. DUSEK: Did or does? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Did exist. MS. ARNOLD: There's no permit at this point. MS. DUSEK: What was your comment? MS. ARNOLD: There is no permit that has been pulled at this point. MR. LEHMANN: At this point it doesn't matter whether it's did or does. A violation does still exist. MR. PONTE: But the violation doesn't exist because of any fault or lack of action upon the part of the respondent. MS. DUSEK: But I disa-- MR. PONTE: We're waiting for a FEMA okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's -- let's make it, is there a violation. Let's take the did, does, whatever out. Is there, in fact, a violation as of today, assuming no blame? MR. LEHMANN: Can I ask a question of Jean real quick, if you don't mind? MS. RAWSON: Sure. MR. LEHMANN: It kind of brings up a good point. If we hear a case and a violation has been abated, are we here to -- are we here to judge the case based on whether a past violation has Page 18 May 24, 2001 occurred or whether it still exists? MS. RAWSON: You are here to assure that the respondents come into compliance. MR. LEHMANN: Right. MS. RAWSON: And so right now you need to determine whether or not there is a violation that currently exists. MR. LEHMANN: A present violation. MS. RAWSON: Correct. And then you are to consider, when you do your order of the board, whether or not he's made reasonable efforts to come into compliance during this period, and then you can use that information in ascertaining what your order will be in terms of how many days he's got and what the fine might be. But the ]ob of this board is just to see that respondents come into compliance. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: I have a -- I have a question for counsel. Is it a part of the board's responsibility to determine whether or not the facts that have been presented before them were sound and whether or not a violation existed as presented by the investigator? MS. RAWSON: Absolutely. They are the trier of fact. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. And is it possible, then, for the board to hear a case where the violation did occur and has been abated? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MS. RAWSON: They still have jurisdiction over those. MR. LEHMANN: And that is my point, especially in cases like this. My personal opinion in this particular case -- we haven't taken a vote or anything -- is that we do have a violation. Now when you step into the order of the board, part of -- of our finding of fact, now you can consider whatever extenuating Page t9 May 24, 2001 circumstances you may have in the fact of whether or not a permit is pulled yet or not or anything else that might have occurred. But in my mind it's very clear, an open-and-shut case, that a violation did exist and still does exist, because a permit is not pulled. MS. DUSEK: I agree. Right now he does not have a permit, and that's what we're here to decide. He's supposed to have a permit. He does not have a permit. He may have it by Monday, but today he does not have a permit. MR. LEHMANN: So if -- if it pleases the board and our chairman, I'd like to go ahead and move in that direction that in the case of CEB -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what I asked for. MR. LEHMANN: Sorry. I didn't mean to get sidetracked. In the case of BCC versus Joe Toledo and Roland Toledo, d/b/a Mini Max Mark -- Market, Incorporated, Case No. 2001-030, we do -- do have a -- a violation of Sections 1.5.6 and 2.7.6, paragraphs 1 and 5 of Ordinance No. 91-102 as amended, Collier County Land Development Code Ordinance, and violation of Section 6, 7, and 8 of Ordinance No. 91-47 as amended, the Collier County Weed -- Litter and Weed Ordinance. The description of the violation is a construction of a block storage area to the rear of the building without first obtaining all required county permits and the accumulation of litter including, but not limited to, discarded lumber. MR. PONTE: That had been the -- that had been corrected. MS. DUSEK: The litter has been removed. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. I amend that order or the statement to eliminate all reference to litter. I apologize. MS. DUSEK: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion that there, in fact, is a violation and a second. Page 20 May 24, 2001 Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.). CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Order of the board. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, I have a question for you. Assuming that FEMA approves this, then he has come into compliance; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: He's fully in compliance when he requests a final certificate -- an inspection for certificate of completion. So once he obtains the permit, he will have to call the county when all the construction is finished. And he's testified today that it's completed. So he'll call the county for a final inspection. And if everything is according to code, it will be granted. And then he be -- then he's in compliance. MS. DUSEK: And so assuming that by Monday or Tuesday, FEMA has approved his permit, he calls the county, how much time does it take for the county to go out and inspect and give the final -- MS. ARNOLD: MS. DUSEK: MS. ARNOLD: The next day. The next day. Uh-huh. MR. LEHMANN: How much time is required to issue the permit pending FEMA's approval? MS. ARNOLD: Again, it -- it just depends on whether or not they have any problems. He's indicated to you today that he doesn't that believe there is any problems with the requirements. The reason why it was rejected previously is because he never completed it. So now he's completed it, and they need to review it. If everything's fine, a couple days it will get approved. Page 21 May 24, 2001 MS. DUSEK: Well, the staff's recommendation for 45 days certainly seems to be more than enough for Mr. Toledo's Mini Max to come into compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further discussion? What if -- what would be the order of the board? MS. DUSEK: I'm going to just recommend that we follow -- excuse me -- the staff's requirement that the CEB order the respondent to pay prosecution costs and come into compliance by obtaining the building permit within 45 days; if not, a fine of $25 per day be applied. And I -- the prosecution costs, I assume, are also inclusive of administrative costs, is that correct, or is that separate? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. That last sentence should have been deleted. It's the same -- it's the same thing. MS. DUSEK: And I feel that this is probably going to occur within a week to ten days anyhow since you've completed everything that they've required. MR. PONTE: I'm a little concerned about the $25-a-day fine because it makes the respondent responsible for the actions of another agency, that is, FEMA. Everything that the respondent has had to do he has done. And we're now waiting for FEMA. So to -- to levy a fine of $25 that is not anything that the respondent controls that is the final outcome of that -- MS. DUSEK: But if he -- MR. PONTE: .- we have to word that a little carefully. MS. DUSEK: But if he doesn't get the FEMA approval, he doesn't get the permit which means he's still in violation. MR. LEHMANN: Well, maybe I can solve this -- this particular issue also. The fine of $25 per day, I think, is as lenient as this board would ever tend to go. Also, if -- if the respondent is held up by another agency that is beyond his control, he has every right -- and I would encourage you to do so Page 22 May 24, 2001 in that instance -- every right for the respondent to petition the board again in a rehearing to waive those fines, and we have the ability then at that point in time to judge the conditions and -- and waive those fines entirely if -- if the board deems that -- that the respondent has been unduly held up by forces beyond his control. I think the $25 fine is a -- is a good thing in the sense that we are trying to be as lenient as possible on the respondent, recognizing what he has done, but also protect the interest of the county in trying to just push this thing forward and keep some gentle pressure on the process to make sure that we have compliance. We can always come back in and waive the fine. MS. DUSEK: Do you understand that? MR. LEHMANN: And I would encourage you, if -- if that is the order of the board, I would encourage you to utilize that should you be delayed by forces that are beyond your control because the board has waived those fines and -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Do we have an order on the table -- a motion, rather? Bobbie, did you make that -- MS. DUSEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that it's 45 days and a $25 fine, plus the payment of the prosecution costs. MR. LEHMANN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MR. TOLEDO: Yes. We have a motion and a second. All -- All those in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? Mr. Toledo, do you understand? Page 23 May 24, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, can I ask that we move one of the items? There's a conflict with one of my staff's schedule. It's Item I, Board of County Commissioners versus Enrique 191esias, Code Enforcement Board 2001-037. Can we move that and hear that next? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any objection from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We'll do Case 2001-037. MS. CRUZ: It's Board of County Commissioners versus Enrique Iglesias, Case No. 2001-037. Let the record show that Mr. Iglesias is not present. The notices for the hearing were served -- were posted at the subject property, at the courthouse, and were sent via certified mail which we have not received certification for. I'd like to request that the packet that was provided to the board and to the respondent be admitted into evidence marked Composite Exhibit A, please. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the Exhibit A. MR. LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: A motion and a second to accept the exhibit. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.} CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.} MS. CRUZ: The alleged violation before this board is the violation of Section 3 -- of Section 3.9.3 of the Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 91-102. This violation is the clearing of approximately 20,000 square feet of vegetation without first obtaining the required Collier County permit. The violation exists at the property described as Golden Gate Estates, Unit 86, the east 180 feet of Tract 67. Page 24 May 24, 2001 Owner of record is Enrique Iglesias. The address of record is 4525 Coral Palm, No. 6, Naples, Florida. The violation was first observed on April 26, '99. Notice of violation was provided to the respondent on 4/28/1999, November 27, 2000, and January 23rd, 2001. These requested compliance, and the last compliance date was requested for 2/6/2001. A reinspection was conducted this morning resulting in a violation remaining. I'd like to request that the -- Investigator Alexandra Sulecki. MS. SULECKI: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, board members. For the record, name is Alexandra Sulecki. I'm an environmental specialist in the code enforcement department. And this case is (The oath was administered.) MS. $ULECKI: This is a kind of a fairly typical clearing-in- the-estates case where the owner, way in advance of construction plans, decided to do some clearing on his own. The thing that's not typical about it is that it took so long to resolve and that it was in a wetland area. So I'd just like to kind of briefly go through the process so you understand why it took so long to resolve. We received an anonymous complaint in April of '99. I went out to the property. It's 2 -- roughly 2 1/2-acre lot off of 20 -- 22nd Avenue Southeast in the estates off Everglades. And I found there about 20,000 square feet cleared. This was in a wetland area. It was a pretty nice little wetland. I posted a red tag NOV, and I attempted to contact the owner. A couple of days later I reached a relative, but I wasn't able to actually reach the owner until two or three weeks later. At that time I also contacted the Department of Environmental Protection and spoke to one of their agents who told me that they would likely prosecute this because it was in a wetland, and the soils and vegetation and the previous mapping Page 25 May 24, 2001 designation showed it to be so. So at this point I had explained the violation to the owner, and I set up a site visit with DEP which they couldn't schedule for about a month and a half. I met with their agent on site, and I notified the owner we were going to meet there, and he didn't show up. When we were there, DEP told me that they were going to open a case and there would likely be a consent order with fines and mitigation. I decided at that point to hold off on the county action until I could see what the DEP resolution would be so as not to overlap our mitigations. And at that point I started getting the no action from the DEP. In October of '99 I tried to set up a joint mitigation, so I came up with a plan, and I called DEP and tried to get some kind of approval from them so that we could both proceed on this mitigation and they could handle their fines separately. And the agent had to get some approvals from supervisor which never materialized. I -- I wanted at that point to help the owner to satisfy both of us. In March of 2000, I had not received anything from DEP. So I contacted the owner again to set up a meeting to go ahead and prepare a mitigation plan independent of DEP and keeping in mind that there may be a mitigation required from DEP as well. So I met with the owner and discussed a possible plan. What we talked about was planting cypress seedlings, about a thousand of them with required a 30 percent survival rate. This was around the edge of the clearing. He told me he was going to build at some point but not for a couple of years. So I didn't want to require him to plant something in the middle where he could maybe get permission to clear in a couple of years. And I was concerned about DEP requiring the tremendous mitigation, so I wanted to keep the costs Iow but the sweat equity high for him. Page 26 May 24, 2001 So we decided that that would be agreeable, and at that point I called DEP because I wanted to try again to get them to authorize my plan for their mitigation, and he told -- they had another agent at that point, and I made another site visit with another DEP agent. What he told me was that they would not approve my plan and that they were going to order a mitigation independent of mine and likely a $1500 fine. So I called the owner again. I said, "Hold off. DEP is ready to act. Let's wait until they come out with us, and then we'll see where we are." and nothing happened again. Months and months contacting DEP. So I talked about the case with my supervisor and tried to set up a -- an appointment again with Mr. Iglesias to go back to the seedling plan because I have to resolve the case. I can't just keep it open forever. And I got ahold of his wife again, and she made an appointment for him to meet with me, and he never showed up for the appointment. And at that point I had sent another notice of violation, and it returned -- was returned undelivered. I went to the address, and it was an apartment building. The apartment manager never had Mr. Iglesias on the lease. Their phone was disconnected. So I was at a standstill again. At that point I set it for CEB hearing. And just recently then I checked the property records again to see if it was sold and found another name on the deed. What's that? So I went down, and I pulled the deeds and found out that this was an older deed. It was likely recorded to clear title, and it was part of the original transaction years back with Mr. Iglesias. It was owned by a whole bunch of heirs to an estate, and I guess they had forgotten to clear up something. Anyway, it wasn't that there was another owner. So at that point I went to the tax collector to find out if he Page 27 May 24, 2001 was still paying taxes on it. And I got another address off of a check that they had used to pay taxes, and I went to that house and left some information, didn't get any call. And just recently I went back to the house to deliver a copy of the packet of the notice of hearing, and someone else lives there, and they don't know who Mr. Iglesias is, so I can't find this gentleman. I talked to DEP yesterday, talked to the supervisor, Greg O'Connell. And he couldn't find the case, even though he remembers it. The investigators that handle it are now gone. They're having staffing problems. But he says he's going to be addressing the case. So I'm here before you today. Sorry it took so long. MS. DUSEK: Well, that was very thorough. MR. PONTE: It must have been very frustrating for you. MS. DUSEK: My concern in hearing your report is that if we make a decision on what he should do today and DEP comes in and says, "We don't approve of this," if they're -- if we can ever find this owner, I mean, it just seems as though we can't -- we're kind of restricted. MS. SULECKI: Not really. Our jurisdiction is independent of DEP. I was just trying to really look out for the interests of the owner and do the best job I could for everybody, but our interest -- our jurisdiction is totally different. And we already decided on this plan with the seedlings, which is very -- it -- it's not expensive. It would require the owner to go out there and plant some things, but that's about it. I mean, I don't think that that's excessive, even whatever DEP does. MS. ARNOLD: I think our efforts with coordinating with DEP is -- is trying to help the -- the property owner and so put as minimal burden on them as possible. But we don't have to do that. We just typically do that to try to coordinate efforts. MR. PONTE: Was there any indication -- did you get any Page 28 May 24, 2001 indication that there was any contact directly from -- with DEP to the owner?. Was there any possibility that they were talking about another agreement or another settlement and the owner might think that he was dealing with the authority? MS. SUKECKI: No, I don't think that's possible. I was really clear about the separate jurisdictions. I don't know if they've ever contacted Mr. Iglegias or not. MS. DUSEK: Do we know that he owns this property? I mean, since you've been unable to find him and through the tax records, the check that he sent is a different address -- MS. SULECKI: There is a deed to -- of the property in his name. He is the owner, according to my search. MS. DUSEK: If we find this person -. I'm a little confused. MS. SULECKI: Mr. Iglegias is the owner. MS. DUSEK: Yes. MS. SULECKI: He's paying taxes, and he's listed as the owner on a deed. MS. DUSEK: But we can't find him anywhere. MS. SULECKI: Don't know where he is. He knew that thiS was happening. My -- my guess, although I can't confirm it, is that he's avoiding contact with me. MR. LEHMANN: And, again, it's not the responsibility of the board to try to find the respondent. MS. DUSEK: I know that. I'm just concerned about if we do find that he's in violation and we impose fines, is it going to sit there for years, you know, and become -- get to the point where -- well, I guess it wouldn't sit for years; we'd foreclose on the property. MR. LEHMANN: Yeah. That's a concern. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Miss Sulecki? Thank you. MS. SULECKI: Thank you. Page 29 May 24, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Iglesias is not here, so is there, in fact, a finding of fact by the board that a violation does exist? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that -- that the BCC versus Enrique Iglesias, CEB Case No. 2001-037, that a violation does exist. The violation is of Section 3.9.3 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code ordinance. Description of violation, cleared approximately 20,000 square feet of vegetation without first obtaining all required Collier County permits. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion on the table. Is there a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second by Mr. Ponte. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor that a violation, in fact, does exist, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. MS. DUSEK: This is where it gets to be a little confusing because we know that the -- the board has recommended seven days that he come into compliance. They can't find him. He's not going to be in compliance in seven days. I'm not sure just how to proceed with this. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Arnold, notices that you've been sending, what address have you been sending them to? MS. ARNOLD: Well, we've been sending them to the address of record which is on the -- at the property appraiser's office, which we are required to by law. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is it -- do you know if that's the same Page 30 May 24, 2001 address where his tax bill is being sent? MS. ARNOLD: Do you know? MS. SULECKI: Alex Sulecki again, code enforcement. No. That was just a copy of a check that was used to pay the taxes, and it was the address that was typed on the check. That's what I got from the tax collector. They still have the Coral Palms address as the address -- MS. DUSEK: The tax office. MS. SULECKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And the information is coming back from Coral Palms that he doesn't live there. MS. SULECKI: And never did. Never--wasn't registered. He may have lived with people who were living there, but he was never registered as a renter there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The -- I'm looking for -- trying to help us make this decision. The address that you got from the check in paying the taxes, was that for last year's taxes? MS. SULECKI: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And that's the only address we can find? MS. SULECKI: That's all I can find. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is that in or out of Collier County? MS. SULECKI: That's in Collier County. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: In Collier County? MS. SULECKI.' Uh-huh. MR. LEHMANN: Miss Rawson, real quick question. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: Do we have the authority to order the county to make whatever reparations are required and then charge the respondent? MS. RAWSON: Well, you're asking the respondent -- at least the recommendation of staff is that you put in your order that you Page 31 May 24, 2001 ask the respondent to obtain an approved mitigation plan. That's not something that the county can do. MR. LEHMANN: No. But what I'm -- what I'm kind of alluding to is if we provide sufficient time for the respondent to do whatever it is that has been asked by the board to do and the respondent fails to do that, either by choice or whatever method, do we then as one of the methods to achieve compliance is just order the county to go ahead and mitigate the property so it goes back into compliance and then charge those costs back to the respondent as -- as his penalty as opposed to saying $75 a day, as staff recommends? MS. RAWSON: Well, I suppose you have to ask the county if that's something they can or would do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.: I would think that would be an expense above and beyond. MS. DUSEK: I do, too. I think especially since the DEP is involved, they may eventually find this person and make him conform. MR. LEHMANN: That's a good point. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: First of all, he's cleared the land, and right now -- maybe not the proper thing to say -- but even though he's cleared it, it's not that big a national disaster. It's not life threatening. The State of Florida isn't going to sink, and nothing is going to be washed away. So what we need to do is instruct the respondent, order him to do something. If he's not found, then let the fines amass and, after a time has gone by, request that the county attorney foreclose on the property. If the man just wants to stay hidden, that's his problem. I just don't think we need to get too involved. If he can't be found, he can't be found. Let's order him to do something. And if he doesn't, then the county can always foreclose on the property. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. I would have to agree with the Page 32 May 24, 2001 mitigation part of it, that that wouldn't be something that the county would pursue because it would be, in a sense, improving somebody else's property. MR. LEHMANN: No. I understand. I'm]ust looking for, maybe, options that are outside the typical box, so to speak. MR. PONTE: What if we were to make it rather vague and simply take the staff recommendation but just say in compliance and not suggest the method of getting into compliance and make the fine $75 in 60 days' time, do the normal procedure of trying to communicate with the elusive Mr. Iglesias and take it from there? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think that's the best alternative. MS. DUSEK: Do you think so? I just wondered if we had to be a little more specific. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: How he comes into compliance, I don't think we have to be that specific. I think we just need him to come into compliance in whatever -- with the ordinances that he's been cited for. How he does that is up to him. I -- I'm prone not to get real involved in the submit such and such by -- in telling him to do these things. As we all know, emergencies come up and, yes, we say he can come back and ask, but the general public, I think, tends to get panic stricken. MS. CHADWELL: This is Ellen Chadwell, assistant county attorney. If I might a comment on that, I think we would oppose any order by this board that was that generally phrased. I can understand your concern. But, then again, when we get into a foreclosure proceeding or further enforcement, he's going to be standing up here and saying, "Well, how did I know how to come into compliance," and you're going to have the same quandary that you're considering now, Chairman. So I would ask that there be some submittal of a mitigation plan. I think that's pretty straightforward remedy for the Page 33 May 24, 2001 violation. I don't know if there's anything else out there he could do to remedy the violation; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: Well, what -- what we were recommending is the submittal of a mitigation plan and obtaining approval of that plan within a certain amount of time and then commencing with the implementation of that plan, which would be the planting to be completed by a certain amount of time. So upon planting -- the planting is what would bring him in complete compliance. The -- the reason why we recommended such a short time for the mitigation plan is because Alex has already more or less come up with something and that he agreed that he would comply with. So it's -- it's not as if it would be something that he's creating from scratch. He would just submit that to her and say that this is what I agree to do. With respect to the time frame suggested for the planting and the completion of the planting, we were taking into consideration the beginning of the raining season and so we wouldn't have to worry about whether or not those new vegetation would survive. MR. PONTE: If -- if we were to do that and make it clear to say to plant the -- I think it was a thousand seedlings and he did that and the DEP then came up with another action, is that possible? I mean, we've got two -- two authorities. MS. ARNOLD: That's possible. But, as Alex mentioned, that's separate and -- from -- from our action. We try to coordinate that effort. It's not -- it's not working out. MR. PONTE: No, it isn't. MS. ARNOLD: Because we're not getting any response from them. It's not required for us to do that coordination. MR. PONTE: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: As I indicated, it's an effort to minimize the impact on the property owner. Page 34 May 24, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I -- I tend to disagree about the mitigation plan. You cited him for not obtaining a removal permit. I think we can order him to obtain any permits required. If the county says we won't issue a permit because you're clearing X acres and that's not allowed and you want to do something else, that's up to the county. You cited him under a paragraph that says they didn't get a removal permit, period. Okay. We order him to go get a permit. Now, if you won't -- if the county won't give him a permit because of something, I -- you know, that's -- MS. ARNOLD: There's no -- there's no question whether or not the county's going to give them -- him the permit. We've already discussed that with him, and Alex has already indicated what would be required to obtain that permit. MS. CHADWELL: If the board is going to rule that he obtain a removal permit and leave the mitigation out there, that's sufficient for us. My concern is that it be clear what he has to do before those fines start ticking because, you know, it's a penalty and he needs to be on notice as to what he can do to correct that. If I misunderstood, I apologize. But I thought -- I understood the board to say that they wanted to just say he needed to come into compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's true. He come in compliance with what he's been paying for it. MS. CHADWELL: By obtaining a removal permit. Is that what I -- what the board would order?. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, that's what the -- that's what the ordinance that he was cited for says he has to do. MS. CHADWELL: Okay. Well, I -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That -- that Section 3.9.3 says obtain a permit, period. It doesn't say do anything else. MS. ARNOLD: The -- the Land Development Code describes Page 35 May 24, 2001 remedial action that could be taken, which is to -- a mitigation plan. He -- he can get an after -- he -- the thing with this, because he -- as Alex testified, he's able to get a building permit and remove the vegetation with that building permit for an acre of land. He cleared more than the acre of land. What we're addressing now is the property in excess of that acre, to come up with some mitigation for revegetating that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess what my problem is, when you come before the board and you cite people for a violation and we find them in violation, it's of a paragraph. You've cited them for that, and that's what we're going to find them in violation of or not in violation of, not that, oh, yes, that paragraph also now encompasses 8 million pages of other things. No, it doesn't work like that. MS. SULECKI: Could I -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You cited him for not getting a permit, and I think that's all we can find him in violation of, period, and order him to get a permit. How he obtains that permit is between he and the county; we just want him to get it. Yes, ma'am. MS. SULECKI: Could I interject briefly? If you'll look on the notice of violation, on the order to correct, that section that I cited him from, the vegetation removal and protection section has a corrective actions section that says anyone found in violation of this section shall do the following. And I did cite those sections in the order to correct. And their coming into compliance could be a mitigation plan. Mitigation could be possibly getting his permit. He's mitigating by those sections. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I'm reading 393. And where is this that you're talking about? MS. SULECKI: Well, you actually have to go to 3969 -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: How do we get there? MS. SULECKI: -- which is corrective actions. Let's see. Is it Page 36 May 24, 2001 in the packet? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. Tell me how I get there. MS. SULECKI: It's in the same section as the end of the section that describes the corrective actions for violations of the section. MS. DUSEK: I think where the concern is, we just made a motion and a second requiring Collier County permits, and it was just citing Section 3.9.3. That's all. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. MS. ARNOLD: Right. And the NOV, the notice of violation, that was issued, under the order to correct violation section, said prepare mitigation plan according to No. -- Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, Sections 3.9.6.9 through 3.9.6.9.5 to re -- to restore removed vegetation. And that is the mitigation or the corrective action that's identified in the Land Development Code for cases such as this. MS. DUSEK: Shouldn't that have been cited in our statement of violation? MS. ARNOLD: No, because it's a corrective action section, not a violation section. You -- you note the violation. And then in the notice of vie -- violation, you cite corrective actions way to come up with -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. No, that's not how it works. MS. SULECKI: Can you look on page 17, please. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MS. SULECKI: That is the corrective action section. And, No. 1, the language in it says the persons responsible for violations of the environmental sections of the Land Development Code shall be notified and shall have 30 days to prepare a mitigation plan that's acceptable to the county to resolve the violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Rawson -- Page 37 May 24, 2001 MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- unless I'm totally -- miss how the board operates, we find people in violation of Collier County ordinances. We don't find them at the same time that they are ordered to make the corrections that are listed on this -- on the citations. MS. RAWSON: Well, what -- what she's saying is that you have to cite them for a violation of the ordinance. You can't cite them for a violation of a corrective measure. So they cited them for the violation of the ordinance that says it's unlawful to remove vegetation. If you find, in fact, that that section of the ordinance has been violated, in order to get him to come into -- that's all you can find in your findings. Now, in order to get him to come into compliance, which is your job, you can then say you need to go and do the corrective measures, which includes the mitigation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: That's what they're saying. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Which part of the corrective measures that they cite on their certificate, you know -- it would have been nice if they put in their recommendation. My -- my point is that when we find somebody in violation, it's of a section. It doesn't automatically include what you write on your citation. So you -- you can't just encompass that. It's not all encompassing, and I don't think this board should get trapped into falling into that. I think that's the wrong thing to do. MS. RAWSON: Well, I think all you can find him in violation is 3.9.3. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. MS. RAWSON: And then when you do your other part of the board's order, in order to make him come into compliance, you can use any measures, including the corrective measures that Page 38 May 24, 2001 are in 3969. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. DUSEK: So in our recommendation we can recommend that he get a mitigation plan. MS. RAWSON: Certainly. MS. DUSEK: It doesn't have to be that he get a permit, because that's what he was cited for. MS. RAWSON: Well, he can get a permit, if it's possible. And I was going to ask that question anyway. I think I understand he can get a building permit. I don't know if he can get a permit after the fact for the other clearing. But if -- if he doesn't have a permit, you can certainly order him to get a permit. And if he doesn't get a permit, then -- you know, then you go into the mitigation part. But as I understood the testimony, part of it he can get a permit for, and part of it he cannot; is that correct ? MS. ARNOLD: Well, I misspoke with respect to the amount of acreage that he cleared. The mitigation portion says that he can get a build -- he can get a building permit and be able to remove vegetation. But to order him to get a building permit for something that he really doesn't have any plans on building anytime soon is probably setting him up to fail. He -- he has no intentions of building on there at this point, so we went with the safest bet with the mitigation plan to try to close out this case and resolve it. So that is the reason for our recommendation, submit a mitigation plan, revegetate the portion that was removed. MS. DUSEK.' I didn't -- I actually didn't mean a building permit. I meant that, I guess, the permit for removing vegetation. In order to mitigate, do we have to require him first to get that after the fact? MS. ARNOLD: No. No. MS. DUSEK: Okay. That's where I'm confused, because we Page 39 May 24, 2001 cited him to get the permits. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Cited, yeah. MS. DUSEK: And so to recommend, it seems to me we should recommend that he get the permit and then follow the mitigation plans. MS. RAWSON: Well, if you follow the ordinance, that's probably correct, Miss Dusek, because the ordinance says it shall be unlawful for anyone to remove or cause to be removed vegistate -- vegetation without first obtaining a vegetation removal permit. And I think he did not do that so -- MS. DUSEK: So our recommendation would be for him to get the permit but not to mitigate? MS. RAWSON: No. I think you find him in violation of removing vegetation without a permit. And then when you get to the other part of your order, you can say, "Obtain the vegetation removal permit or mitigate." . MR. LEHMANN.' In accordance with what? MS. RAWSON: 3969, the corrective section, which is in your packet. MS. CHADWELL: I understand that he cannot obtain an after-the-fact removal permit. So we can't order him to obtain one. MS. RAWSON: Okay. MS. CHADWELL.' Miss Sulecki will be happy to explain it. I guess we need to spell that out before we dictate an order. MS. SULECKI.' Alex Sulecki again, code enforcement. He -- you can't get a permit in advance to clear this type of property. The only permit that he can possibly get at this point is a building permit. And to do that, he's going to also have to get probably state and federal permits before he applies for a permit. So there's no way he's going to get an after-the-fact permit for this, and there's no other vegetation removal permit he could get for Page 40 May 24, 2001 this. MS. DUSEK: Well, then I'm confused about why we cited him to get -- MS. SULECKI: Well, we cited him for removing the vegetation in an unlawful way. MS. DUSEK: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: The finding of fact appears very clear. It's just the order of the board seems convoluted. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Lots of discussion. What's the order of the board? MS. DUSEK: Miss Rawson, I have to ask you again, we can recommend that he go through a mitigation process? MS. RAWSON: Yes. Yes, you can. MS. DUSEK: All right. MS. RAWSON: I hate to see you order him to get a permit when we know it's impossible for him to get one -- MS. DUSEK.' Right. MS. RAWSON: -- because now you're setting him up to fail. I think it's not a good order. MR. PONTE: I think we ought to just go along with the recommendation of staff as is. MS. DUSEK: Okay. I would agree with that. MR. LEHMANN-' Well, the only modification I would make to that is maybe -- MR. PONTE: Seven days because of the holiday? MR. LEHMANN.' Well, reflecting closer to what the actual ordinance requires. Basically they're saying 30 days to prepare a mitigation plan that is acceptable to the county to resolve the violation. MR. PONTE: The only reason I -- Peter, is because we can't seem to get in touch with this fellow so -- MR. LEHMANN.' Yeah, I agree. Page 41 May 24, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That doesn't mean you should stop trying. MR. PONTE: That's true. MR. LEHMANN: And -- and then in your order, what you're thinking anyway, are you looking for just submitting an approved plan -- MR. PONTE: Just as -- MR. LEHMANN: -- or actually mitigate? MR. PONTE: Just as written, submitting a plan. MR. LEHMANN: And then completing within 60 days or remove the same? MR. PONTE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, there's nothing to remove. The land's bare. MS. DUSEK: I recommend that we follow the board's suggestion. I'll make a motion, and then we can work with it from there. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have to state what that is for the record. MS. DUSEK: Okay. I make a motion that the CEB order the respondent to pay costs for prosecution and come into compliance by submitting and obtaining an approved mitigation plan within 7 days, which would be May 31st, 2001, and completing within 60 days, July 23rd, 2001 -- now I'm not sure about or remove same. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Nothing to remove. MS. ARNOLD: There's nothing to remove. MS. DUSEK: Or a fine of $75 per day until compliance is obtained. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Don't second that yet. Miss Rawson -- MS. RAWSON: Yeah. Page 42 May 24, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- before we do this, do we have a problem in issuing an order for somebody to submit a plan within a short period of time when, in fact, the ordinance says they have a 30-day period of time? MS. RAWSON: Given the testimony today about how long this has been going on, I don't think so, because the testimony on the record is that this has been going on for about a year or more. MS. CHADWELL: I believe the county would recommend -- MS. DUSEK: Excuse me. But I think -- aren't you supposed to be sworn in? MS. CHADWELL: I'm sorry? MS. ARNOLD: Not testimony. MS. DUSEK: Not testimony? Okay. MS. CHADWELL: We would alter our recommendation to extend that time period to a little bit longer because there is a -- the holiday, and there's three days out of seven, and you've got mailing time. So at this point I don't think it really matters, so if the board would -- would like to extend that, that's fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would recommend to my colleagues that, as I said before, at this point all this property is cleared. It's not a major disaster. Why don't we make the 7 days 30 days, as the ordinance says, and live with it. MS. DUSEK: I amend my motion to 30 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: A few more days isn't going to help -- hurt anybody. MS. DUSEK: I amend my motion to 30 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second -- MR. LEHMANN: Before you stopped me, that's what I was going to say. MR. PONTE: I'll second it. Page 43 May 24, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Now, back to CEB 2001-031. No MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. -- yes, 31. MS. CRUZ: This case is Board of County Commissioners versus Ronald A. Haar, Jr., Case No. 2001-031. Let the record show that Mr. Haar is present. I'd like to request that the packet that was provided to the respondent be admitted into evidence, marked Composite Exhibit A, if there is no objection from the respondent, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Haar? MR. HAAR: (Indicated.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you object to the county submitting all of their paperwork to us? MR. HAAR: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MS. CRUZ: Violation -- oh, sorry. MS. DUSEK: I make the motion that we accept the package, Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Is there a second? MR. LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Page 44 May 24, 2001 MS. CRUZ: Violations brought before this board are Section 2.7.6, paragraph I and 5 of Ordinance 91-102; Section 104.1.1 and Section 105.5 of Ordinance No. 98-76, the Collier County Building Construction Administrative Code. The viol -- the violation is described as renovation of a mobile home without first obtaining the all re -- the required Collier County building permits. The violation exists at 4032 New Moon Court, Naples, Florida. This property is described as Lake Kelly, Unit 2, Lot 31. The owner of record is Ronald A. Haar, Jr. Address of record is 4032 New Moon Court, Naples, Florida. The violation was first observed on September 11th, 2000. Two notices of violations were provided to the respondent. One was dated September 25th, 2000. The other was dated November 24th, 2000. These required compliance by October 23rd, 2000, and November 27, 2000. I believe the violation exists as of yesterday, May 23rd, 2001. At this time I'd like to call Investigator John Kelly, please. MR. KELLY: Good morning again. John Kelly, Collier County code enforcement investigator. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One moment, please, Mr. Kelly. We need Mr. Kelly -- Mr. Haar, would you rise, please, and get sworn in? We'll get it over in one go-round. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MR. KELLY: This case was initiated during routine patrol on September 11, 2000, at which time I had observed construction in progress, however, no workmen at the site. Work consisted of replacement and installation of exterior windows and doors, including the framing for those units, preparation work for the installation of exterior siding, and apparently new electrical wiring which was exposed hanging outside of the trailer at approximately three places. Page 45 May 24, 2001 At that time a stop work order was posted, and I proceeded to investigate if any permits had, in fact, been issued that just weren't posted. I was unable to come up with any; obtained a property card for the subject location. That did not reveal any permits except one issued back in 1968. The current permitting system had none as well. On September 25, 2000, I discussed the case with my supervisor, ascertained permits were required for all the items documented. Windows require permits; exterior doors; exterior would require permits, as do siding and electric. At that time a notice of violation was also issued that no -- that was by certified mail. That notice of violation was returned to our department as unclaimed. A second notice of violation was posted at the subject property and the courthouse, the official posting date being November 14. Between the time that the original NOV was returned to our office and the posting, I had also requested a CEB warning letter be mailed to the property owner. I was made aware by Supervisor Bill Bolgar that Mr. Haar had met with him on September 28, 2000. And he stated and documented that Mr. Haar had admitted to the violations, and at that time he was instructed to apply for and obtain permits. I will note for the record Mr. Haar has not contacted me. All notices that I've posted have had my phone number. I was unable to come up with a telephone number for Mr. Haar. My only contact has been through official correspondence. And I effected official posting of the Code Enforcement Board hearing on May 14, May 23rd, performed my -- yesterday performed recheck revealing no permits applied for or obtained. I observed no changes to the condition or status of the mobile home. I'll further note that as this is a mobile home, the building department for a permit requires sealed engineering this -- since Page 46 May 24, 2001 the structural integrity of the mobile home was affected and that it was originally manufactured to given specs. Those specifications have been changed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do we have any questions? MR. KELLY: Any questions? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions for Mr. Kelly? (No response.). CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If not, thank you, Mr. Kelly. Mr. Haar? MR. HAAR: Well, I'm here representing my son. Ronald, Jr., is the one that owns the property. And he bought the mobile home for investment, to live in, until I can get him out of my house so he can get married some day so he could live somewhere else beside my house. And everything Mr. Kelly says is exactly right. The only thing that we were unaware of is he issued a stop work order. No one ever, including Mr. Bolgar or Mr. Kelly, who I did talk to the day I talked to Mr. Bolgar in the office, ever said, "Mr. Haar, you must get a building permit by such and such a time." as he stated, no more work has been done, period. My son ran out of money to do anymore, and we just haven't done anymore. So no one said by March 23rd, nine -- 2001, you must have a building permit. And they've sent letters to the house. No one lives at the house -- at the mobile home. And the first time I found a stop work order, it was laying on the ground, and I just happened to pick it up and say, What's this?" and I went immediately to talk to Mr. Bolgar, who is the person I knew at the county, and he said -- asked me if I was in violation. And I said yes, which we were. But on my son's behalf, he went in -- I don't -- the date's in here somewhere. He coaches football and softball and everything. He has -- we have no time to do this, but we just decided to do it. And he said it was like trying to get a law Page 47 May 24, 2001 degree to get a building permit. They -- just the terms that were used to him were just not easily for a layman to get a building permit at our building permitting place. So then we just dropped it some more, and he didn't -- we didn't -- we were just waiting until this summer to go ahead and do it. Then this all came about, and I'm here. We're going to get a building permit. The only question I have, Mr. Kelly said an engineered sealed drawing for changes in integrity of a building, for my structure. What -- when you take a sliding glass door out and put something exact same opening, how does that change the integrity of the building? That's my question. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's a question we can't answer here. That's a question that needs to be answered down on Horseshoe Drive. MR. HAAR: Well, we've asked that question and no one -- the people that I talk to cannot say -- when you call down there, if you try and call during the day, it's like you can't get through, you know. They put you on hold, and you get the one person. This young lady says, "Well, I don't know that answer." then they transfer you to another place. It's -- it's our fault. Don't get me wrong, but it's just a hard process to get handled without going down there and -- MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Haar, you indicated that you or your son were not aware that a building permit was required in the process? MR. HAAR: No, no. What I said was after the stir -- stop work order, I was not aware that I had to get a building permit by a certain date. MR. LEHMANN: But you were aware that you had to receive a building permit? MR. HAAR: Yes, sir. Oh, yes, after the stop work -- well, you know, just brief -- the things that we did are like tear out Page 48 May 24, 2001 carpet, put new carpet in, you know, inside -- and I don't know, as a layman, if -- if you put a new cabinet in, do you have to get a building permit for that? If I change a toilet, do I have to put a -- get a building per -- permit for that? Those are things that I do at my other -- other house, and I have no reason to have Mr. Kelly come out and inspect my bedroom if I rip my carpet out and put new carpet down or if I put a new toilet in. Why would I want Mr. Kelly to come out and inspect that if I'm not doing anything structurally different? That's was my feelings for years, and maybe I was wrong, but that's where we're at. MR. LEHMANN: And I -- I think the confusion here is that the county is looking at this and saying that in the alterations you did do to the structure, you changed it structurally, or at least in their opinion you have changed it in a manner that would require a sealed engineering drawing and, therefore, a building permit and all the rest of it. MR. HAAR: Well, I understand getting a building permit. But when you take a jalousie window out and put a new, upgraded window in that is better than what you took out, how can it make it worse? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, again, that's a question this board can't answer for you. MR. HAAR: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And -- and we don't want to try to attempt -- MR. HAAR: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- to mislead you anymore. MR. HAAR: All right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You know, those kinds of questions are best addressed down on Horseshoe Drive. MR. HAAR: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: This board is -- the total purpose is to Page 49 May 24, 2001 -- we've been told that there's a violation. MR. HAAR: There is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And -- and we need to either determine, yes, there is, or, no, there isn't and if there is, give you some order that says do the following by such and such a date -- MR. HAAR: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- or something is going to happen. That's the purview of what we're allowed to do. MR. HAAR: Well, I'm not -- that's what I'm here for. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So these other questions, I would recommend that if you feel you're not getting the proper help on Horseshoe Drive that maybe Miss Arnold can direct you to somebody that would see that you get that proper help, resolve the problem. MR. HAAR: All right. I -- I have no problems with doing any of that. I just got to do it. MS. ARNOLD: I -- I can make a suggestion that you contact or your son contact the inspector for this case, John Kelly, and he can help set up meetings with the appropriate staff meeting -- staff members to help you answer some of your questions. MR. HAAR: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: All right? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions for Mr. Haar? MR. HAAR: Can I -- can I say one more thing? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. HAAR: Now, is this -- when this comes about, what I'm asking for is, when I get the building permit, do I have time to finish this or just -- we want to -- we want to make this livable. It wasn't livable when we bought the place, when my son bought the place. Now, what -- what am I here -- am I here because we didn't do the work properly, or I'm here because we haven't done the Page 50 May 24, 2001 right permit? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't believe the board is going to tell you that you have to make your house livable by such and such a date. MR. HAAR: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm only one person right now, and there's five of us up here. I think that what the board will probably tell you is that, yes, you're in violation because you didn't get a permit, and we're going to order you to get a permit. And once you get the permit, however long it takes, the permit is not good forever. It's good for such and such a period of time. MR. HAAR: I understand that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's between you and the county. We're probably going to order you to get the required permits, period. How long it takes you to finish your house is really not our concern here. MR. HAAR: Okay. The next question I have for you is, in here it said we need an engineered -- what -- what's the exact words? Stamped drawing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I believe it was a -- MS. CHADWELL: Sealed? MR. HAAR: Sealed? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Again, that's something you're going to have to work with them. MR. HAAR: Well, the question I wanted to ask you people is, does that cost money to do that? I don't know how much it costs, and if my son doesn't have the proper funds to get that engineered sealed thing and you determine he must have a building permit in 30 days and he doesn't have the funds to do that, I don't know how much it will cost. It could cost a thousand dollars. It could cost five thousand. I don't know. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We may try to allude (sic) some, at Page 51 May 24, 2001 least, information to help us set up a time period which may help you there, you know-- . MR. HAAR: Okay. And what -- what is -- do I have an engineer come out? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't know the answer to that question either. MR. HAAR: Okay. Those are the questions we all wanted to ask. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We may try to allude some information to guide us to give you enough time. MR. HAAR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL-' Any other questions for Mr. Haar? MS. CHADWELL: I have a question for the witness. Hi. Could you give me -- you said your son is Ronald A. Haar, Jr.? MR. HAAR: Junior? Yes, ma'am. MS. CHADWELL: And he doesn't currently reside on the property? MR. HAAR: He lives with me. MS. CHADWELL: Okay. What's your address ? MR. HAAR: 5339 Myrtle, M-y-r-t-l-e, Lane, Naples, 34113. MS. CHADWELL: And he intends to reside with you for the next year or two? What are his plans ? MR. HAAR: He may be there forever. MS. CHADWELL: Okay. Thank you. That's it. MR. HAAR: That's why we're trying to get this done. MR. PONTE: Miss Arnold, what is the length of term of the construction permit? In other words, if you get a permit, how long is it valid before it expires? MS. ARNOLD: Okay. It's valid for six months until you obtain a -- and its request for an inspection. If nothing transpires between that six months, then it expires. However, they can request a renewal of the permit. Page 52 May 24, 2001 MR. PONTE: So they can go for an extension of the end date. MS. ARNOLD: Right. But then a permit's good essentially for 18 months if -- if inspections are requested during that time period. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That -- I -- I think, if I may give some information to my colleagues, in reading the recommendation, I don't think it's fair for the board to tell somebody that, hey, they have to get a C.O. By a certain date, because there's a lot involved. They may not have the funds. They may not -- you know. MR. PONTE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think if they're in violation of something, we should order them to get whatever it takes. In this case I think it would be a permit. Once they get the permit, they've completed it. They've solved their violation. I don't think the board should order them to then finish building their house. I think that's wrong. Just get the permit. Once the permit expires, if they do don't anything, now they're back in violation, and that would be a repeat violation to me, and the code enforcement department can come back to us and cite that, and then we can do something drastic. I just don't think we should order them to finish building their project. MR. PONTE: No. And I agree with you. I'm just a little concerned, what Mr. Haar said, in terms of not having -- certainly he has the funds or his son has the funds available to let him go ahead and get a sealed drawing on the construction permit. And if you were to get the permit and doesn't have the funds, you're right in saying that he's setting himself up for a repeat violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. MR. PONTE: And so how are we going to avoid that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I don't think that part of it we can Page 53 May 24, 2001 avoid. I think the board, if they find him in violation and order him to get a permit which would erase the violation by getting the permit, that ends what we really can do. If he chooses because he doesn't have funds or something, if it were me and -- and the time period went by, I'd come back to the board and say, "Look, you know, I'd plead whatever. I don't have the money. I need an extension, and can you help me." and then if the board wants to grant it, fine. If the board says, "No, we're not going to help you," then that's it. He didn't do it, and he's going to start getting fined. That maybe sounds harsh, but I think that's your two alternatives. He can ask for an extension and we can grant it or we can not. I just don't like to see us set somebody up when we already obviously already know by testimony funds are very, very limited. I think if we can garner some information from the county as to what that process may cost, maybe we can give him a long enough period of time to come up with some way to get the money or whatever to at least get his permits and then let go of it. MS. GODFREY-LINT: I would like to add that the exposed electrical wiring, I see a picture on 24 where he's got 3 wires and only 2 are capped, that they be addressed so there's no problems of " CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: that. MS. GODFREY-LINT: Yeah. We can address something like That's what I would like to see. MR. HAAR: Sir, can I say something? The wires aren't hooked up to anything. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There's no power-- MS. GODFREY-LINT: No power? MR. HAAR: They're just -- they were going to be for future lighting after the site was done. MS. GODFREY-LINT: Okay. I just wanted to make sure there Page 54 May 24, 2001 was no power going to that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So there's no power to the property -- thank you. MR. LEHMANN: Can I take us on a little bit different tract (sic)? I want to make sure that if the board chooses to cite a violation, we're actually citing the right violation. The statement of violation references Sections 104.1.1 and 105.5 of Ordinance 98-76. I don't have either one of those sections in my book. MS. DUSEK: I don't have 105.5. MR. LEHMANN: Well, I -- I have 104.1.1, but it does also provide exceptions to that permit application. And it says exceptions, but I don't have listed in my book here -- I want to make sure that Mr. Haar's construction doesn't fall into one of those exceptions where he doesn't need to pull a permit. MS. ARNOLD: Those exceptions are what we had long discussions about last meeting with respect to the -- if there is electrical work that's being done -- MR. LEHMANN: Uh-huh. MS. ARNOLD: -- and if it's struck -- deemed structural or not. I don't know if you recall that whole discussion. MR. LEHMANN: No, I do. MS. ARNOLD: We provided you that information at the last meeting. It's that same section that's been omitted. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. So you're providing testimony basically that none of those exceptions do apply to this particular case ? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. Then 105.5, I just don't have a section in my book at all, so I don't know what it says. MS. DUSEK: I don't either. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. And I think staff needs to, when they submit these things, make sure that we have all the Page 55 May 24, 2001 paperwork and don't rely on that we told you something months ago. Paperwork should be given with each case, please. MR. LEHMANN: Michelle, do you happen to have that section available so that we can look at it real quick? MS. ARNOLD: I have the same think that you have, and I don't have that with me. I think it's in one of the sealed documents that was presented or mailed to the respondent. And we don't occasionally open up those, but it should have been included in your packet. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. MS. CRUZ: If he wants to open it -- MS. ARNOLD: If he wants to open it and -- and provide that information to the board -- we have it. here -- you can do that. MR. HAAR: I can't open it. It's not mine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. MR. LEHMANN: That's -- my only -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If it's not his, he can't authorize you to open it either. MR. LEHMANN: My only consideration is, I would not want to vote for a violation of a -- MS. ARNOLD: He can receive that document, my understanding is, because he's here representing the respondent, and he's over the age of 18, and the respondent resides with him. He has the ability to accept that document. MS. DUSEK: Is that correct, Miss Rawson? MS. RAWSON: That's correct. He does. MR. HAAR: Can I say one more thing? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. HAAR: The only concern I have -- I'll be -- I'll be glad to do anything you want me to do -- is money is not the real issue to finish the project. Money is the issue if the engineered sealed thing costs a lot of money. That's the real issue. I don't know Page 56 May 24, 200'1 how much that costs. approximately how much that cost is, I could we could be done. MR. LEHMANN: Well, we can't do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're trying to get -- MR. HAAR: Does anybody have any idea, ballpark figure? That's what I'm asking. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We may try that here in a second. MR. HAAR: Thank you. MS. DUSEK: Since we're not aware of 105.5, Jean, what do we do? I mean, we can't cite him if we don't know what that ordinance is. MS. RAWSON: I'm looking through my ordinances. I don't have that section either. I do have the exceptions, but I don't have that particular section. You can take a break while we find out what it says. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you need a break? THE COURT REPORTER: That would be great. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let's -- let's take five minutes. That gives our reporter a chance too. (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The board will come back to order, please. Has anybody come up with a copy of -- well, we went blank. So everybody's -- . MS. RAWSON: Miss Chadwell's upstairs obtaining copies for everybody as -- at this moment. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, okay. While we're waiting for that, let's ask a basic question that Mr. Haar has and that I'm sure the board has too. In this requirement that they need sealed engineering plans, is there any estimate -- I mean, is this a hundred-dollar job, a thousand-dollar job, a ten-thousand-dollar ]ob? I mean, do we know what that might cost? And if someone could tell me here -- I could leave and Page 57 May 24, 2001 MS. ARNOLD: I don't have an answer for that. I have no way of knowing. It's something that maybe the building department would have better knowledge of what -- what those types of drawings would cost. But I don't know. I wouldn't even begin to guess what the cost is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So that places a poor imposition -- we're asking somebody to do something within a time limit that may be monetarily unobtainable. MS. CHADWELL: May I approach the board with some copies? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. CHADWELL: In the interest of time, I've only copied the Section 104.1 and then Section 105.5. I appreciate your patience. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Haar is asking for a copy also. MR. HAAR: Can I get that? MS. CHADWELL: Here's a -- what I provided the board. Jean, do you have a copy? MS. RAWSON: I'm fine. I can look at theirs. MS. CHADWELL: Would you like me to read the 105.57 MS. RAWSON: Why don't you read it into the record. MS. CHADWELL: Okay. Section 105.5 of Ordinance 98-76, entitled "Posting of Permit," work requiring a permit shall not commence until the permit holder or his agent posts the permitted plans and inspection card in a conspicuous place on the premises. Those items shall be protected from the weather and located in such position as to permit the building official or representative to conveniently make the required entries thereon. This permit card shall be maintained in such position by the permit holder until the certificate of occupancy, parentheses, or of completion, close paren, is issued by the building official. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. At least we know what that is. Page 58 May 24, 2001 Okay. Any further questions for the county or Mr. Haar?. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If none, is there a finding of fact by the board that there, in fact, are violations? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Ronald Haar, Jr., CEB Case No. 2001.031, that there is a violation. The violation is of Sections 2.7.6, parentheses I and parentheses 5, of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code Ordinance, and violations of Sections 104.1.1 and 105.5 of Ordinance 96-76, as amended, the Collier County Building Construction Administrative Code ordinance. Description of the violation is renovation of a mobile home without first obtaining all required Collier County permits. MR. LEHMANN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. There is a motion and a second that, there, in fact, do exist violations. Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Order of the board. MS. DUSEK: I have a question, and I guess it's directed to Michelle. If -- if we require Mr. Haar to get his permits and we don't give a time and the permit expires on -- in 6 months, he doesn't do anything, then these .. if we go ahead with your recommendation, the $75 then kicks in, if we decide on $75 per day -- for the fine. If he gets the permit and we don't give a time frame on it and month 5 he says, "I've done thus and such, and I'd like an extension," that can be extended for another 6 Page 59 May 24, 2001 months, or you said a total of 18 months MS. ARNOLD: MS. DUSEK: MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. -- with extensions or showing some progress? Right. If -- the question is, if the board's order is to obtain a permit and he does get a permit? MS. DUSEK: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: Then the case is closed. He's in compliance. MS. DUSEK: Well, no -- then if he doesn't -- well, okay. MS. ARNOLD: Then if it expires, then we have to bring a new case to the board. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. That would -- if -- if it expires and he does nothing, it would then be handled as a repeat violation. MS. DUSEK: A repeat violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Which can be handled differently. Still bring it before the board but -- MS. DUSEK: So what we would do here is to give him a certain time frame in order to get a permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. That's what I would recommend -- MS. DUSEK: That's what you had suggested. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- to the board. To bring him into compliance, he needs to get a permit or permit, whatever -- permits, or -- if there's more than one. At that point he's solved what he's in violation of. MR. LEHMANN: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And that's really all we're looking for. MS. DUSEK: All right. And if we give him a time frame in which to do this and he doesn't get the permit, then we kick in the fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Then the fine would kick in and -- Page 60 May 24, 2001 MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: --you know ... MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Then he would be hard-pressed to come back to us and say, "You know, I want the fine reduced," if we give him what may be a sufficient amount of time to do that. MS. DUSEK: And getting this permit within 30 days is certainly ample time? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There's where the one question comes in, because in getting the permit, I understand he's required to do this sealed drawing, and no one knows what that is or how much that costs. I'm reluctant to say, you know, it's a hundred-dollar item because I honestly don't know. Maybe we want to be a little more considerate in the 30-day time limit, the reason being, again, like the last case, there's no one living in this place; there's no power to it. We know it's a violation. Whether we give him 30 days or 60 days, I don't think, is going to break the bank. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Just in case. MR. PONTE: So what you're suggesting is 60 days, and would you eliminate the phrase "certificate of completion within"? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. PONTE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't think we need to do that because then we're asking him to finish building the property. MR. PONTE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That would be what I would recommend to the board, give him sufficient time to get -- get his permit. If there's a financial problem during that 60 days, he's surely going to find it out in the first maybe couple of weeks. He can come back to the board and say, "Look, there's no way I can Page 61 May 24, 2001 do this because this is a $10,000 project, and financially my son can't do that. Can you help me?" I -- I would think that would be probably the best course of action. MS. DUSEK: I'll make a motion that the CEB order the respondent to pay all prosecution costs and obtain a renovation permit within 60 days or a fine of $75 be imposed for every day the violation continues to exist. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion on the floor. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ponte seconded it. Any further questions? MR. LEHMANN: You have omitted the words "and bring the property into compliance.". MS. DUSEK: That's right, because that really won't bring the property into compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. But he's cited for a permit, and I don't -- in trying to bring the property into compliance, he'd have to finish the project. We are then telling him that he's going to have to get the money to finish the project by a certain date. I think that's a little dramatic because we already know that funds are possibly a problem. MR. PONTE: And we don't know the cost of the sealed plan. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think just getting the permit eliminates what he's been cited for. He's been cited for no permit. I think you should order him to get the permit, and then beyond that portion we should stay out of it unless the county wants to cite him for something else. I -- I throw that out for consideration. So we do have a motion to obtain permits within 60 days and, if that doesn't occur, a fine of $75 for every day thereafter. MR. PONTE: And you have a second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And we have a second by Mr. Ponte. Page 62 May 24, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: we've ordered you to do? MR. HAAR: Yes, sir. said something about -- Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) Any opposed? Mr. Haar, do you understand what I have one question: What is the -- you CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The prosecution costs, it -- MR. HAAR: How much are those? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The county will have to tell you. costs them so much to bring the case to us to hear, and we're telling you you're going to have to pay those. In this five seconds, I can't tell you what that is. MR. HAAR: I understand. That's what it is, their costs? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MR. HAAR: Okay. It -- it MS. DUSEK: And, Mr. Haar, you understand that if you don't obtain that permit within 60 days, that there will be a $75 per-day fine? MR. HAAR: Well, as soon as I find out how much the engineering cost's going to be, if it's an exorbitant fee, I'm going to have to come back and talk to you, you know, because then -- if it's -- you know, I don't know -- if it's $10,000, my son can't afford to have something engineered for $10,000. If it's within the realm of the possibility of him getting -- or me helping him out financially doing it, we'll do it. Otherwise when I find that out, I'm going to come back and ask for some other way. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' And that's your right, sir. And we understand that. That's within your right. Page 63 May 24, 2001 MR. HAAR: CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MR. HAAR: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Francisco Fernandez. MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. But I have 60 days from today; is that correct? Yes, sir. Next case is CEB 2001-032. Eloy and Let the record show that Maria Isabelle Ojeda -- that's O-j-e-d-a -- is the spouse of one of the respondents and is present representing the respondent. I'd like to request that the packet that was provided to the respondent be admitted into evidence at this time, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And you say the respondent has a representative here or is here? MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you object to the county submitting this packet to us? MS. GOVEA: No, she doesn't. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you. I'd entertain a motion to accept the exhibit from the county. MR. LEHMANN: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. CRUZ: Thank you. The violations brought before this board are Section 3.9.3 and Section 2.7.6, paragraph 5, of Ordinance No. 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code, and Section 5, 6, and 7 of Ordinance No. 99-51, the Collier County Weeds and Litter Ordinance. The description of the violation is the removal of vegetation; in addition, of fill on an unimproved property without first Page 64 May 24, 2001 obtaining all required Collier County permits; and the accumulation of litter consisting of, but not limited to, horticultural waste. The property -- the violation exists at the property located at 1840 Everly Lane (sic), Naples, Florida, and is more particularly described as Section 31, Township 49, Range 27, east half of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the no -- northeast quarter. The owner of record is Eloy Fernandez and Francisco Fernandez. Address of record is 4648 Golden Gate Parkway, Apartment D, Naples, Florida. The violation was first observed on March 31st, 2000. Two notice of violations were provided to the respondent, one dated April 3rd, 2000, and March 16, 2001. These requested compliance of May 7, 2000, and April 8th, 2001. The violations remain as of May 23rd, 2001. At this time I'd like to call Investigator Susan Mason, please. We need her sworn in, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do we have -- are you interpreting for her? THE INTERPRETER: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We need both of you to be sworn in, please. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MS. MASON: Hello. For the record, my name is Susan Mason. I'm an environmental specialist for Collier County code enforcement. This case is a result of a site visit by the planning department. The Fernandezes originally came into the county and applied -- applied for an environ -- exotic vegetation removal permit. And upon inspection of the property, the planning staff observed that vegetation had been removed and fill added Page 65 May 24, 2001 without getting the permits first, and this is an unimproved agriculturally zoned parcel. Also observed that the adjacent properties were also cleared and filled to gain access to the Fernandezes' land, which up until that point was landlocked. Meetings with the Fernandezes, planning staff and myself, the Fernandezes stated that they had cleared the property because they wanted to store and fix some vehicles on the site. I explained to them that this was not allowed under the county's Land Development Code, that there were two allowed uses on which clearing could take place on agricultural land, the first being a bona fide agricultural use, also with the required state and federal permits, or the construction of a single-family home. And the Fernandezes stated at that time they had no plans to build in the near future, but they would consider an agricultural use in obtaining the permits. I explained that they needed to also contact the affected property owners to get their permission to clear and construct a road on these parcels. The Fernan -- Fernandezes did attempt to contact the other property owners without success. The letters were returned, no forwarding address and -- and the like. They did hire a consultant, Sarah Leon, who began helping them with the state and federal permitting processes, and also to try to gain access to their property. However, in December 2000, Ms. Leon did inform me that she wasn't working for the Fernandezes anymore. However, a conversation I -- I had immediately prior to this with the Fernandezes indicates that they have -- they are now working with her and are actually planning on building a -- a single-family home on the site. And also, since the roadway was opened up, the area is now being used for dumping. And I explained to Francisco Fernandez -- I had a fair amount of contact with him earlier this year -- that Page 66 May 24, 2001 the litter must be removed. And at that point there was no plan on building. So I said the own -- the only way to come into compliance would be a mitigation plan needed to be prepared and approved and completed since they weren't going to pursue the agricultural uses. I did make a lot of regular attempts to contact them with little success until last week. Mr. Fernandez did come in and talk with Maria Cruz, and then we also spoke earlier today, indicating that they are planning on building on the property the single-family home, which would allow an after-the-fact clearing permit to be issued once they applied for that permit. However, as of yesterday no building permits have been applied. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The debris that you found at the site, did the Fernandezes state that it was their debris, or is it -- is somebody driving down the road and dumping it? MS. MASON: It's -- somebody else is dumping it. They would also need to either get permission from the property owners for a after-the-fact vegetation removal permit for the adjacent properties or go through other legal as -- other legal means to obtain access to their property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And since this is landlocked, the people that are dumping this vegetation are driving down this road and to dump it where nobody hopefully could see it I assume is what they're trying to do? MS. MASON: Right. There is a lot of that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions? MR. PONTE: Yeah. I was amazed when I looked at this case and I found so many government agencies involved. We have the Department of Environmental Protection, the Army Corps of Engineers, South Florida Water Management District, Collier County code enforcement, an environmental consultant. And I just wonder if the solution, the end solution, is to get a Page 67 May 24, 2001 construction permit to build a home, how long that would possibly take to get through all this red tape. MS. MASON: Actually, as far as the county regulations would be required, once a -- the county will not hold up a building permit for construction of a single-family home for the state or federal permits. They will issue that, so they could go ahead. But I did also inform them that there are violations from these other agencies that should be dealt with as required by their laws. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions for Miss Mason? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Yes, ma'am. If you would like to have her come up and tell us her side of the story, please. And would you state both your names, please, so -- the recorder can have them. MS. GOVEA: My name is Diane Govea. I work for mortgagees. I am the -- her name is Maria Ojeda. She's the wife of Eloy Fernandez. I'm here basically just to translate for her and to -- I'm the person who is actually doing the financing for the single-family home. They are approved. We have plans. We have specs. We have surveys. We're ready -- I mean, I have a full file being processed right now. We're just waiting for final documentation to get a final approval and start constructing -- closing the loan and starting constructing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Does she understand what the county has cited them for, the -- the vegetation removal, the litter, the road -- putting the road in without all these permits and everything? MS. GOVEA: She understands. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. GODFREY-LINT: Ma'am, are you the builder? Page 68 May 24, 2001 MS. GOVEA: No. I'm the mortgage company. MS. GODFREY-LINT: Okay. Being the mortgage company, knowing the area and there's wetlands and involves the Army Corps of Engineers and Southwest Water Management, did you advise your client that there might be a problem building in that area? MS. GOVEA: She's aware of the problem regarding construction. MS. GODFREY-LINT: Uh-huh. MS. GOVEA: I don't really care if there's anybody involved. As long as the actual county does order or issue a permit, I'm fine with that and that when the appraisal comes in that everything is in order for the value, for the bank to hold the collateral. Everything else is -- is really that stuff that she has to take care of just to -- for her safety. MS. GODFREY-LINT: Okay. Were you kind of concerned being that the property was landlocked and she would have to have an easement from other property owners to get -- MS. GOVEA: I just kind of found out about that right now -- . MS. GODFREY-LINT: Okay. MS. GOVEA: -- speaking to a -- the investigator prior to. MS. GODFREY-LINT: Oh. Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I'm trying to think how to phrase it. Does she -- she does understand that before -- even though you approve her to borrow money, that she's not going to be able to build until she can satisfy the county and get permits under whatever conditions there may be? She understands that? MS. GOVEA: Yes, she understands. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL-' Okay. Very good. Does anybody have any questions that they'd like to ask her?. (No response.) Page 69 May 24, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MS. GOVEA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And we'll -- once we make a decision, we'll ask you to explain it to her to make sure she under -- fully understands. MS. GOVEA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Finding of fact by the board that there are, in fact, violations. MS. DUSEK: Well -- well, there definitely, in my opinion, is a violation. So I'll go ahead and make the motion. I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Eloy Fernandez and Francisco Fernandez in CEB Case No. 2001- 032, that there is a violation, and the violation is of Sections 3.9.3 and 2.7.6, parentheses 5, of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code Ordinance, and violations of 5, 6, and 7 of Ordinance No. 99-51, as amended, the Collier County litter and weed ordinance. Description of the violation: removal of vegetation and addition of fill on unimproved property without first obtaining all required Collier County permits and the accumulation of litter consisting of, but not limited to, horticultural waste. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion on the table that there, in fact, are violations existing on the subject property. MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second to the motion. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Tell her that we found, in fact, that she is in violation of the ordinance that she was cited for, and now we're going to decide what she needs to do about it. Page 70 May 24, 2001 Michelle, in coming into compliance is getting a -- I don't want to call it a building permit· I'll just say permit or permits. Is that going to be sufficient? MS. MASON: They would -- it would be possible for them to come into compliance by obtaining a building permit for a single- family home and also after-the-fact-vegetation removal permits for their parcel and the other parcels· Is that realistic getting a building permit on MS. DUSEK: their property? MS. MASON: Yes · MR, LEHMANN: Is the time frame of 90 days recommended by staff? MS. MASON: It would be if -- definitely if they decided to mitigate with the -- with the fact that now they're going to get the single-family home, there wouldn't be a problem with getting a building permit through the county in that length of time at all. The only problem I could foresee would be getting the access for the after-the-fact vegetation removal permits. But the -- the after-the-fact vegetation removal permit for their parcel and the building permit, 90 days would not be a problem at all. MR. LEHMANN: But your problem is with the adjoining property owners. MS. MASON: I have no way of knowing how long that would be to get access to property. MR. PONTE: Am I right, Miss Mason -- Miss Mason, am I right in that you were not able to determine who the other property owners are? MS. MASON: Oh, there are property owners that are listed· Miss Fernandez could probably elaborate on -- on which -- how they got the letters returned· I know -- I know they attempted contact on all of them· She showed me copies of the certified letters that were sent out that were returned to them· I don't Page 71 May 24, 2001 recall if they were, you know, no forwarding address or unclaimed or what the status was to -- if I recall correctly, two were out-of-state owners. One was local. I don't know if they made any attempts to contact them by going there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Rawson -- MR. PONTE: Follow-up question -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Surely. MR. PONTE: -- for Fernandez or interpreter. Do you know how those letters were returned? What was the reason for the return? MR. LEHMANN: Could you come to the mike, please, before you answer that? Thank you. MS. GOVEA: The mail's returned -- they no longer live at the address. The prior -- the owners of the property adjacent -- adjacent to theirs, no longer live there, and when she returned -- they were returned certified receipt. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I would probably recommend that maybe she contact the tax collector's office to see if there's any -- excuse me -- current addresses on file. That would probably be the safest place to go for the property. MS. GOVEA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That -- that may help her. Okay. Thank you. MS. GOVEA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would probably recommend to my colleagues that if 90 days is sufficient time to get these permits, understanding that also they need to contact this other -- or maybe it's more than one party -- some of this -- Miss Mason, the vegetation -- or the litter I guess I should call it. MS. MASON: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- that's there to be removed, I assume that's something that can be done rather rapidly? Page 72 May 24, 2001 MS. MASON: That could be done virtually immediately. When I was out there yesterday, no -- nothing had been added within the past month, so it's not like it's become somebody's regular dumping ground. But the more they see it, the more likely they are to use it. There's probably four pickup truck loads full of debris. So if somebody had a truck, they could get rid of it in a couple trips to the landfill. It's not that far. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm trying to get a time frame where they could at least do part of it now and the permit process, since it's going to take 90 days or maybe a little bit longer. Thank you. MS. DUSEK: Do you think if we added 30 days to make it 120 ... CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would think, you know, that gives them an extra 30 days to contact the other parties. They're not going to be able to get -- I wouldn't think that they're going to get a mortgage to build on a piece of property they can't even get to. I don't think people loan money to do that. So why don't we give them -- you know, it would be nice to give them an extra 30 days to make this attempt, complete everything in 120. If there's some big problem, they can always come back to us, but I think maybe that's a sufficient amount of time to at least get their -- those permits as to removing the litter. That's something they can do immediately, if we want to put a separate time limit, which I think would probably be a good idea so nobody else uses the site as a dumping grounds. We might ask them to remove the litter within the next, you know, 15, 20 days or something like that. I don't know if they have the truck or whatever, you know, but maybe 15 days to get rid of all of that and then a total of 120 days to come up with the proper permits. MR. PONTE: Seeing they're not responsible for the litter -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. Page 73 May 24, 2001 MR. PONTE: -- is there some way you can say, "Okay, you're going to have to fence it off or post it so that the litter doesn't continue to get dumped there by a third party"? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If we order -- Miss Rawson, if we ordered somebody to fence property that is not accessible, we're ordering somebody to go across somebody else's property to do something, can we do that? MS. RAWSON: No. I -- I -- I -- I wouldn't suggest that you do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: I think you just stick to the violation as cited here and try to have the landowner bring that into compliance. MR. PONTE: Miss Rawson, what in the case that this litter is not caused by the landowner and is being dumped by someone else? Now that it is cleared away, it becomes -- just happens again and then you have a repeat violation. MS. RAWSON: I understand what you're saying. MR. PONTE: That's a risk of the property owner. MS. RAWSON: It is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. That's a risk anywhere in the county. MR. PONTE: But if you can't put up a fence or post it -- MS. RAWSON: You can suggest that, but I wouldn't put that in the order. I don't think you can order people how to keep people from putting litter on their property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One thing you need to keep in mind, George, is that it's landlocked. So they have in reality no way to get to their property without trespassing. MR. PONTE: How are they going to remove the litter? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well -- and what the board doesn't want to do is order somebody to trespass. MR. PONTE: All right. Page 74 May 24, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So that's why I say, if we're ordering them to put up a fence, we're ordering them to trespass on somebody else's property, and that's not what we want to do. MR. PONTE: Why aren't we doing the same thing -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're just telling them to remove the litter, and they need to get permission to do that. MR. PONTE: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're saying get rid of the litter -- MR. PONTE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- and then get the proper permits, and I would think that before a mortgage company gives them money, they're going to say, "Oh, you want to build a house," you know, "and you can't get to the property, well, then how are you going to appraise the property?. How are you" -- I mean, there are a lot of problems that they need to solve that we don't need to solve for them. MR. PONTE: Right. But when we make the order then to remove the litter, we should factor in the amount of time they're going to need to get to the owners of the property to get to the permit to cross the line to get the litter. MS. DUSEK: I'd like to keep it 120 days to complete everything. MR. PONTE: Everything. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I don't have a problem with that either. MS. DUSEK: Separate it out. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Just one moment. Yes, ma'am. MS. GOVEA: She was mentioning to me that the garbage or the litter is not actually on her property. It's, like, on the -- on the edge. And, you know, she wants to clarify that it's not that she put it there or it's on her property but it's on the edge. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Is she telling us that the litter Page 75 May 24, 2001 that she had been cited for is, in fact, not on her property? MS. GOVEA: Exactly is what she's saying. MR. LEHMANN: Miss Mason, do we have any testimony from the county that would substantiate? MS. MASON: I -- I'd have to say it's probably not on -- mostly on their property now. It's on the properties that when they built the road, it was dumped there and -- but it's on the other -- the other -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's on somebody else's property. So you -- so has the county cited them for litter when they don't have litter? Is that what you're telling us now? MS. MASON: Well, it's not on their property but was the result of their clearing that it -- it was there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're saying they put the litter there. MS. MASON: No, no, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I guess what I'm trying to get at, you can't cite somebody for having litter if it's not on their property. In other words, I don't -- you know, it's not theirs. So you cited them for having litter on their property, but now you're saying it's not on their property? MS. MASON: No, it's not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's not on their property?. MS. GODFREY-LINT: Because they cleared the property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So you cited somebody for doing something they didn't do. That's what we're hearing now? MS. MASON: Right. I -- I -- I under -- what I understood was that I could -- since it was their open -- since they created the access there and it was being used for that that they could do that, but-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. MS. MASON: -- I made a mistake. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, you can't do that. Page 76 May 24, 2001 MS. GODFREY-LINT: Miss Arnold, I have a question for you. More and more we're seeing more cases where our neighbors that have difficulty speaking English and understanding our laws are going out in the estates and buying property. And isn't it the contract and licensing's board that give graders and owners of dump trucks that go in and clear lots, give them permits? Or how does that work that when someone goes in and clears out a lot, that they should know before clearing it out -- the person that's doing the grading that owns the equipment should know that this is wetlands and they shouldn't be doing this and, therefore, the property owner should not be held responsible because of them not understanding our English language as well as they -- do you understand what I'm trying to -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, I know what you're saying. It is partially the contractor's responsibility to inform anyone that is hiring them what the codes are. MS. GODFREY-LINT: Uh-huh. MS. ARNOLD: They're responsible for knowing the codes. And I don't know who did the clearing in this instance. If the property owner chooses, because they feel that they were misrepresented by somebody that they hired, they can go to our contractor licensing department and pursue that particular contractor. MS. GODFREY-LINT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: But, yes, you're right. The contractor should know the laws. If the property owner feels that they in some way were fraudulently provided service, then they would pursue that through the contractor licensing department. MS. GODFREY-LINT: Because we're seeing more and more cases like that where, you know, the property owners didn't understand, and they hired a contractor to come in and clear their property, and they're the ones that are standing holding the Page 77 May 24, 2001 MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. Like I said, in this case I don't know whether or not it was the property owner or the contractor. There are some cases where it's actually the property owner going out on the weekends clearing cases, clearing lots. MS. GODFREY-LINT: Thanks. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, ma'am. I'm sorry. I would agree with what -- what was said. Maybe what we need to do is give a max time period to obtain all required permits to come into compliance. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Chairman -- MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman. Please, ladies first. MS. DUSEK: In the motion that we had earlier for the violation, if the litter, in fact, is not on their property, then that should be amended so -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, they -- I think what they did, if I'm remembering the property, they removed some vegetation to put in this road. MS. GODFREY-LINT: Road, uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: In other words, but part of their -- the write-up was that they were cited for the -- also accumulation of litter consisting of five pickup trucks. That isn't theirs, so that's erroneous. MS. DUSEK: 5, 6, and 7 -- liter So would that make a difference then in 99-51, -- litter and weed ordinance? MR. LEHMANN: Well, it -- MS. DUSEK: Miss Rawson, I guess I defer that to you. MS. RAWSON: If there is no litter, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. And that -- MS. RAWSON: So you can -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We need to -- MS. RAWSON: -- amend what you find them to be in Page 78 May 24, 2001 noncompliance with, and you can amend your ordinances. MR. LEHMANN: Well, Miss Mason, real quick. Miss Mason? MS. ARNOLD: Susan. MR. LEHMANN: Can you provide any testimony as to whether or not the respondent actually did remove vegetation from their property and deposit it at the location that it's at now?. MS. MASON: No. No. I have no indication to believe that. My first inspection, all the debris had already been -- the vegetative debris from their clearing had been removed, and clean fill was added. But there was no -- no debris on site initially. MR. LEHMANN: Thank you. Based upon that, Miss Rawson, I would suggest that maybe all of Section 5, 6, and 7 to be amended and deleted -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You have to make a motion to do that. Make a motion. MR. LEHMANN: I would so move to do that, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion to delete from our finding of fact violation of Ordinance 99-51, Section 5, 6, and 7. two She US, MS. DUSEK: I second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a second. We have seconds but -- all those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.} CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, order of the board. I would make a motion, take Bobbie off the hook for a while. seems to be -- MS. DUSEK: I'm doing all the talking. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're the only one willing to talk to That they -- first of all, the respondent be required to pay all prosecution costs to bring the case before the board; Item 2, that Page 79 May 24, 2001 the respondent is required to obtain the necessary permits to bring the property into compliance within 120-day period; and, thirdly, if compliance is not accomplished within 120 days, that a fine of $75 per day be imposed for every day the violation continues to exist. MS. DUSEK: I second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There's a motion and a second. Any further question? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ma'am, do you understand what we just ordered her to do? We've given her 120 days to get whatever permit she needs to abate these violations. If she doesn't do it, we're going to fine her $75 a day until she does do it. Now, if there's some problem in coming into compliance, like she never finds these other people to get access, she needs to come back here and ask for an extension or ask for some type of relief. Okay? She's permitted to do that. Okay? Next case, excuse me, 2001-033, Meres, Joseph. I hope I said that right. If I didn't, I apologize. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Before we proceed with this case, I have a question to propose to the board. This particular case, upon site visit this morning, we found was in compliance. The question that I have is, do you want to proceed with this case and find whether or not a violation -- violation existed and, you know, order prosecutional costs? If you do do that, if the violation then reoccurs, it would come back to you as a repeat violation as opposed to not hearing it at all, and then if it does reoccur, we would be starting initially again. The reason why I'm asking this is I want to determine whether or not we want to possibly bring certain cases before Page 80 May 24, 2001 the board that we feel that could be a reoccurring problem so that at least it gets adjudicated and then we could, if it reoccurs, have it heard as a repeat violation. MR. LEHMANN: Jean, any recommendations? MS. RAWSON: Several months ago I think you instructed me that you always wanted the prosecution costs for bringing the action whether or not they came into compliance and never got fined or not. And this is along those same long -- lines except going one step further. When they cited the respondents, I gather, the respondents were not yet in compliance. But now on the day of hearing they are in compliance. There are prosecution costs that have been incurred as a result of bringing the case here to you today. Obviously, you can't find today that they're not in compliance, and you can't fine them now because they are in compliance. If you want to assess the prosecution costs and make a finding that at the time they were cited they were not in compliance, and then Michelle is telling you that if you bring it back it's a repeat violation, so you'd have to find that a violation did, in fact, exist but does no longer. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Rawson, explain to me under the Statute 162.06, Item 2, it talks about such a thing where a violation has been corrected prior, but it also states that the notice that's sent out, at least the way I'm understanding the last sentence, shall so state that. In this case I doubt that the notice sent out said that. MS. RAWSON.' I'm sure it didn't because I understand the testimony is that she just now found out that they're in compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. So I may not -- what I don't want to do is, we -- we haven't issued an order or -- and we haven't told them that they're in compliance but to come here Page 81 May 24, 2001 anyway because we're going to make a decision, so are we on shaky ground in saying, "Oh, by the way, you're not in violation of anything, but we're going to charge you because you were in violation before you corrected the problem"? I -- what we told you to do before was, once an order has been issued, we want all orders to include prosecution costs. This, I think, is something really different. MS. RAWSON: It is different. It is different. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You've corrected the problem, but we want to fine you anyway. And I've got a little problem with that personally. MS. RAWSON: Well, 162.06.2, the last part says, "At the option of the Code Enforcement Board" -- now, this may be additionally served by a publication. If the violation is corrected and then reoccurs, then that, of course, is a repeat violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. RAWSON: At the time you send out that first notice, though, you're telling them that they are in violation and that they can have a hearing. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But it says, "And even if the violation has been corrected prior to the board, it -- the notice shall so state." so they haven't been given any notice that they've solved the problem, and they're still going to be subject to some type of prosecution. MS. RAWSON: Well, I'm sure at the time they sent the notice out maybe the problem hadn't been solved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But we have nothing to hear now. So how are we going to say, "Gee, nothing exists, but we want to fine you anyway"? MS. ARNOLD: Well, the -- the notice of hearing that sent -- was sent out provided Composite Exhibit A. And the information Page 82 May 24, 2001 in Composite Exhibit A describes what would be discussed before the board. And at the time that that was provided to the respondent, the violation still existed. And -- and so that's the only evidence that we would be hearing, if the board so chooses to hear that case. We would, after the fact -- because we -- we only found today at eight o'clock that it is in compliance, we would be issuing the respondent an affidavit of compliance with today's date on it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, my -- I guess my problem is, the way I read this sentence -- and I am not an attorney -- it says, "The case may be presented to the enforcement board even if the violation has been corrected prior to the board hearing, and the notice shall so state." has he been given notice that he's going to be prosecuted even though he's been -- complied with? MS. RAWSON: He's -- he's being given notice that he's going to be prosecuted. And at the time that he was given the notice, the violation existed. Now, in the meantime, he has corrected it by the time we have the hearing. MR. LEHMANN: I think we're using -- I think we're leaving out a few words, and they're actually in front of what our chairman had suggested. I'm reading again, as -- as the bottom half of it. It states, "If the violation is not corrected by the time specified for correction by the code inspector, the case may be presented to the board." and, in fact, when you -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Then you stopped. See, you stopped there. MR. LEHMANN: That's fine too. As we continue, the most important thing is those words, "If the case -- if the violation is not corrected by the time specified by correction of the code inspector -- and then we go on -- "and the case may be -- the case may be presented to the enforcement board even if the Page 83 May 24, 2001 violation has been corrected prior to the board meeting, and the notice shall so state." but the important words here is, "If the case is not corrected by the time specified for correction by the code inspector, which is on the NOV. So -- and, again, I'm -- I'm looking at this, and we're doing interpretations here -- MS. RAWSON: Well, I think the violation is the NOV. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MS. RAWSON: And I think that's why you're here today. MR. LEHMANN: So my understanding is the moment that we issue an NOV, we, in essence, have provided notification that we have the right to proceed with the code enforcement hearing. MS. RAWSON: Well -- and I don't know that we've ever had a case quite like this before, or if we have, perhaps in the past they just withdraw them from your agenda so that you don't hear them. So I think Miss Arnold's question to the board is, because of 6 -- 162.06, probably lets you go forward with it and get the prosecution costs if you want, and then next time it would be a reoccurring violation. Do you want to do that, or do you want to do as I'm going to guess we've done in the past? When we find out they're in compliance by the time of the hearing, they just remove it from the agenda. MS. DUSEK: If they're in compliance before the NOV, then there would be no question -- there would be no prosecution. MS. RAWSON: Correct. There would be no hearing. MS. DUSEK: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: Well, again, Miss Rawson, is it not the county's option whether to prosecute the case in front of the Code Enforcement Board? In other words, if we have a case where compliance was achieved prior to the board hearing, even though they're already on the agenda, they have been stricken. And the county is basically saying we choose not to prosecute Page 84 May 24, 2001 this case before you, the board. MS. RAWSON: Well, I don't know that for a fact. I was just using that as an iljustration because I think this is the first time this particular issue has come before you. MR. LEHMANN: Well, and -- and the point that I'm making is that possibly in this particular case, the county has suggested to us, no, we choose not to exercise that option; we choose to prosecute. MS. ARNOLD: Right. That's the question that I have. Does the board want us to -- in cases such as this to prosecute regardless of the fact that the compliance has been met this morning, because we do have that option? MR. PONTE: It would seem the purpose of our entire operation is to have people in compliance. And once they are in compliance, we're doing exactly what our goals are. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Rawson, here's my problem: This section states how the board basically -- when there's a violation to operate. And it says once the violation goes past the board -- past the date, the inspector notifies the board and asks for a hearing. We're here for the hearing. And it says, "The Board, through its clerical staff, shall schedule a hearing and written notice," big word, "of such hearing shall be hand delivered or mailed." then as you read further down, you get to my last sentence where I've said, "And the notice shall so state." all you've done is give this man a notice that he's in violation. MS. ARNOLD: No, we gave him a -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He's corrected after the fact. And this sentence says that if he's corrected, you should state that in your notice and we're still going to prosecute him. But you haven't given him that notice. All you've told him is here's a notice that you're in violation. That's what bothers me. MS. DUSEK: Well, I think it would be rather difficult to give Page 85 May 24, 2001 him notice because he's already been hand delivered or mailed the notice of violation. If the case is going to come before us, say, at twelve o'clock and at five of twelve somebody says, "I'm in compliance," then what do we do? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL'. You don't bring it forward. MS. RAWSON: I'd be happy to hear Miss Chadwell's thoughts on the subject. MS. CHADWELL: I believe the notice that you're referring to or statute you're referring to is the notice of hearing. And certainly under your logic, he -- the person would have to abate the violation prior to that notice being issued. And we're -- we don't have any evidence that that's the case. I mean, in order to -- to give him the notice that you're suggesting the statute requires, they'd have to correct that beforehand. But I agree. I think Mr. -- Mr. Lehmann is correct in his interpretation of it in that the notice given -- I'm reading from the NOV right here that says if you don't correct within those -- by November 7th, 2000, failure to correct may result in Code Enforcement Board review that may result in fines up to $250 per day. That -- once that time runs, any after-the-fact abatement of that violation, in my opinion, doesn't prohibit the county from going forward with the prosecution. It's just that there won't be any fines that will be -- that you'll be able to require because the statute specifically says that the power you are to impose the fines. But the statute also allows you to impose costs. So I -- I think that it's proper for you-all to go forward, if you wanted to, and determine -- I mean, I think the notice is there. Otherwise what good is this (indicating)? You have to wait until the last minute every -- and determine whether they've complied or not. They could -- they could hang out there for six months and then wait until the day of the hearing and go out there and remove the trash off their yard. Surely that's not how the statute Page 86 May 24, 2001 is intended to work. So I think that you -- now, whether you want to do that today or not is your decision. But I think the county's is that they've -- they've got adequate notice. You could determine that there had been a violation pursuant to this order -- this notice of violation that, in fact, it's correct and that it was not corrected as of the dates required and impose costs. You certainly -- I don't believe you have the authority to impose fines clearly, but that's my opinion of it. MS. RAWSON: And I think, back to Michelle's question, it's your -- your choice. If you want to impose the costs since, you know, that's always a part of your other orders, whether they come into compliance before the time -- the fines kick in or not. If you go forward today, you can certainly impose the costs, but you can't impose the fines. Or do you want to say they're in compliance and dismiss the case? That's -- that's your call. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Normally when cases are brought before us, it's that a fine does, in fact, exist. Under this circumstance you're now asking the board to sit here and say, "Oh, yeah, there was a violation some time ago and doesn't exist now but, yeah, it existed before ' -- MS. RAWSON: I think it's -- I think it's the board's decision whether you want to go forward. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And I just -- I think that's a waste of everybody's time. If you come into compliance, that's really what the county wants. That's what the board's here trying to force people to do. If they've come into compliance, we're wasting everybody's time, and let's get on with cases where we need to force somebody into compliance. MS. DUSEK: Well, I'm inclined to lean a little bit towards Miss Chadwell's opinion in the fact that the notice was given, they were told they had to come into compliance by a certain Page 87 May 24, 2001 date. They did not. And there are costs involved in prosecuting cases, and I think when someone has not come into compliance by the date that they've been given notice to do, that they should be responsible for the prosecution costs -- . MR. LEHMANN: Well, I -- MS. DUSEK: -- or the administrative costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Chadwell, so it's your contention that the word "notice" at the end of Item 2 in 106 point -- or 10 -- 162.06 is some other type of notice other than the hearing notice? MS. ARNOLD: It is the notice of hearing. MS. CHADWELL: I -- do you have the statute? MS. RAWSON: I have a copy of it here if you need it. MR. LEHMANN: My concern in this particular case is that we end up setting precedents that undermines what this board is trying to accomplish. We're trying to accomplish code compliance, but if we don't convey the message to the respondents that they need to take heed of these notices of violation and actually just comply with it, I mean, we may see a case load to the board just skyrocket because everybody looks at it and says, "Hey, we don't have to do anything before it comes to a hearing, and we'll just take care of it the last day." that's sending the wrong message to the general public. We have people out there every day. Thousands of these a month we get complaints on. I don't know how many cases a month that we are handling, and staff is just taking care of it and achieving compliance without our involvement. The moment we send the message out that you can ignore what staff is asking you to do, wait until you come before the board, we're taking a big step backwards in just trying to achieve compliance with the codes. MS. DUSEK: I agree with you. Page 88 May 24, 2001 MS. ARNOLD: That's part of the only reason why I bring it. And if staff believes that there is going to be -- that -- that's what happens and there is the potential for a continued problem, I'd like to be able to bring certain of those cases before the board, like the -- for example, the case with -- that you heard this morning where there's clearing. It's not likely that's going to be a reoccurring problem. But with litter cases, for example, where someone repeatedly is bringing things back on their property even after prior notice, I think there's those times where we -- we can perceive that it's going to be a continuing problem, and that's easily fixed before the board hearing. And we've had several of those cases that we didn't bring before the board, and I'm just kind of rethinking the way we're processing it. Are we really resolving compliance? We are obtaining compliance prior to the board hearing, but we're really not taking care of the problem. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And the problem being -- MS. ARNOLD: A reoccurring litter case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That could happen even after an order, so, I mean, there's no difference. MS. ARNOLD: Well, the fines and the -- the -- are a little bit different. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Rawson, a big difference here. We're not finding somebody in violation of an order. MS. RAWSON: Not -- not as of today; that's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Because the order's -- I mean, there is no order. I mean, he's already in compliance, so you can't find him in violation of something; correct? MS. RAWSON: He's not in violation today. That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So -- MS. RAWSON: But he was in violation -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that. Page 89 May 24, 2001 MS. RAWSON: -- at the time the notice went out. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. And everybody occurs that way. But we're going to be here and hear a case and we're going to say our finding of fact is you're in violation six months ago. You're not in violation today, so we can't order them to do anything except pay prosecution costs. MS. RAWSON: That's right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And when we say that, because we've given him no -- nothing to correct, because it's been corrected by himself -- MS. RAWSON: That's true. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- how does that become reoccurring if he does it again? MS. RAWSON: Well, it might not be a reoccurring. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, that seems to be what the county is trying to get us to make this decision on so that it will be reoccurring. MR. LEHMANN: The definition, as I understand it, in the -- in the statutes is a reoccurring violation is a violation that's already been prosecuted by this board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: That's the purpose of what the county is trying to do. It's trying to get the board to prosecute this to the point of saying that a violation did occur so that if in the future it occurs again, they have the right to prosecute it again -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. LEHMANN: -- as a reoccurring violation as opposed to a new violation. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. LEHMANN: That's my understanding. Am -- am I missing something here? It seems simple. MS. RAWSON: I'm looking for the definition of a repeat Page 90 May 24, 2001 violation or reoccurring violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's hear the answer from Miss Chadwell. MS. CHADWELL: Well, I would say that the notice does refer to the notice of hearing. I'm not sure if it's really -- I still cannot interpret the statute as requiring what you're suggesting. But, you know, the only thing that I could suggest is that -- that either the county, through our office or Miss Rawson, research this for you and give you an answer based on our -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, it says notice -- I mean, the way you explained it to us, it's not the notice of hearing, but that's not the way I read it. I need you to tell me that there is some other notice. MS. RAWSON: No, I think it's the notice of hearing. MS. CHADWELL: I think it's the notice of hearing. MS. RAWSON: It -- it -- it clearly means the notice of hearing. But the first part of that sentence refers to the NOV. Now, we have to look and see if there's cases on point that interprets that you -- if you don't have a notice that says that, you can't go forward with your prosecution. I can't believe that's the intent of the statute either. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I think their intent was that if somebody did receive an NOV and then corrected it and you still wanted to prosecute them, you send them a notice of hearing and saying, "Even though you were found -- even though you had litter in March and we sent you -- stapled this to your front door and gave you -- March 10th and we gave you to March 20th to correct and you didn't correct until May 1st, we're going to have a hearing on June 24th because you were in violation, even though you're corrected now." . MS. ARNOLD: And I think that's what -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think that's what that paragraph was Page 91 May 24, 2001 for. MS. ARNOLD: I think that's what that notice of hearing says: We are going to prosecute you based on the packet. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. MS. ARNOLD: And the packet is based on information that existed prior to the hearing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You've left out that you've already corrected it, and that's what this para -- MS. RAWSON: Well, now under your scenario in order to -- to do this with a proper notice, then because these respondents are here today and we are having a hearing and it's been noticed and we just found out today they're in compliance, that means that staff would then have to go back and do a new notice, bring it back before you again and say now we've given them the proper notice that they weren't in compliance when we cited And I suppose - them, but now they are, but now we want costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. RAWSON: -- they can do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But that's my interpretation of that paragraph. MS. RAWSON: They can do that, but they'll have to bring the case back every time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand it, but I'm saying that's my interpretation of this paragraph, and I'm trying to get Miss Chadwick (sic) to tell me what other notice there is because it seems to be that notice of a hearing -- and -- and you must state that even though you've corrected, we still want to prosecute. MS. CHADWELL: Well, under -- under -- that's how that statute is to be interpreted. Then every single notice of hearing would have to have that language, in which case why wouldn't the statute just say so, Because certainly, under your scenario, if Page 92 May 24, 2001 it -- we're supposed to give notice to the -- to the -- to let them know that they correct it prior to the board hearing or it's been corrected but recurs prior to the -- we have to know that. I mean, we'd have to have information to that effect; otherwise every single notice of hearing would have to contain this language. I'm not going to stand up here and say definitely this is what this means. I mean, I -- I'm -- I'm sorry I'm not well -- better versed on the statutory provisions. I'm certainly not prepared to make a full legal argument to advise this board as to the -- the interpretation of the statute. I'd -- I just do not believe it can be interpreted to prohibit this board from assigning or assessing costs in this matter. I -- I think to assume that the -- that the violator could wait until the 11th hour to abate the violation and avoid any -- any consequence whatsoever would undermine the whole purpose of Chapter 162, as I understand it. So, yes, I believe the notice does refer to notice of hearing. So, I mean, I would concur with you on that point, but beyond that, all I can say is that this board is troubled by that issue, and you feel like you want to reserve doing anything until you know what the law is or at least get a -- a written interpretation of it for your benefit, then please do so. You know, you should have some comfort level in -- in what you're doing. And since the violation has been abated, I guess this is -- is one that we could either continue or you could reserve ruling on it until this matter is addressed next hearing or -- or you could be done with it and avoid assessing costs on this particular case and -- and resolve this issue prospectively so -- whatever you want to do. I'm sorry I can't tell you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL'. Well, that's okay. I don't think anybody has a precise opinion. We're looking for all the help we can get. MS. CHADWELL: I understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' I guess it would be my Page 93 May 24, 2001 recommendation to the board since we have this problem and it's one that should be addressed, because I have a feeling that we're going to continually get cases of this nature, that on this particular case, since it's already abated, the board should not hear it and that we should request that our counsel get us a proper interpretation from the state as to what, in fact, does this section mean and what kind of notice must be given so that we can eliminate this problem. MS. RAWSON: I'll be happy to do that. MS. DUSEK: What was that? MS. RAWSON: I'll be happy to do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I said on this particular case we should just -- since it's been abated, it should be removed and we shouldn't hear it, period. And we should ask for a legal determination from our attorney as to under what conditions can cases be brought to us for, quote, unquote, strictly prosecution costs. MR. LEHMANN: I disagree with my colleague. MS. GODFREY-LINT: We had discussed this about a year ago that so many of the respondents, they come, and the county's taken two years to get them here, and the day before they clear it up, and the county's run up hundreds and thousands of dollars worth of expenses, and we were to re -- try to -- MS. RAWSON: I'm happy to look this up, and my guess is going to be there's not going to be a lot of cases on point. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't disagree with trying to get the money. What I want to do is if we get it, we get it in the proper manner so that we don't get in trouble. MS. DUSEK: I'm more inclined to -- if the right word is -- postpone or continue this case until we do get the right interpretation. And then if the right interpretation follows what our chairman is saying, then we will not hear the case. But if it's Page 94 May 24, 2001 otherwise, then we will hear the case and use this as a beginning point. MR. LEHMANN: I agree with my colleague. At the least case, I don't want this case dropped. At the least case I would agree to continuing the case until the next hearing until we get a formal interpretation of it, but I don't want to see this case dropped. I don't think we have any grounds for that. I don't mind waiting for a formal interpretation of the -- of the ordinance, but I don't want to see the case dropped. MS. DUSEK: I'd like to make a motion that we postpone this case until we can get a legal interpretation of the Florida Statute 162, is it? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MR. PONTE: I'd second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second to continue the case until we get legal opinion. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.} CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.} CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Cool. The next case, 2001-035, Steven Medinger. I hope I said that right. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, we would like to request to hear both of the next -- the next two cases together, since it involves the same property owner with similar violations. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. CRUZ: If we could do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If that will speed the process up, we're all for that. MS. CRUZ: There is no objection from the respondent, and the respondent is present. Page 95 May 24, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We will hear Case 036 and -- MS. CRUZ: -- 035. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- 035 together. MS. CRUZ: The case is Board of County Commissioners versus Steven M. Medinger, Cases No. 2001-035 and 2001-036. I'd like to request that the composite exhibit provided to the respondent be admitted into evidence marked Composite Exhibit A, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Medinger-- I hope I said that right -- MR. MEDINGER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- do you object to the county submitting all this paperwork to us ? MR. MEDINGER: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. accept the county's exhibit. MS. DUSEK: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. GODFREY-LINT: CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'd entertain a motion to And a second, please. Second. Moved a motion and a second to accept the exhibit. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.} MS. CRUZ: The violations brought before this board are violations of Section 2.7.6.1 -- I'm sorry, 2.7.6, paragraphs I and 5, and Section 3.9.3 of Ordinance No. 91-102 for both cases. The violation on both cases is the removal of vegetation from approximately 3 acres of property, in addition of fill and construction of a pad without first obtaining Collier County building permits. The violations exist for Case No. 2001-35 at 2260 Golden Page 96 May 24, 2001 Gate Boulevard East. That property is more particularly described as Golden Gate Estates, Unit 51, the north half of Tract 131. The violation for Case No. 2001-36 -- 36 exists at 2280 Golden Gate Boulevard East, Naples, Florida, and is more particularly described as Golden Gate Estates, Unit 51, south half of Tract 131. The owner of record of both of these properties are -- is Steven M. Medinger. The address of record is 1201 Ridge Street, Naples, Florida. The violations was first observed on March 28th, 2000. Notice of violation was provided to the respondent on March 31st, 2000, requesting compliance by May 3rd, 2000. The reinspection was conducted yesterday and resulting in violation remaining. I'd like to request Investigator Susan Mason come up, please. Could we please get the investigator and the respondent sworn in? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. Mr. Medinger, if you want--are you going to talk, sir, or both of you ? MR. MEDINGER: Both of us. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you would stand and be sworn in, please. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MS. MASON: For the record, my name is Susan Mason. I'm an environmental specialist for Collier County code enforcement. This case was initiated as a result of a routine patrol in March of 2000. I observed that vegetation and fill -- vegetation was removed and fill was added to unimproved estate-zoned property. No permits were issued for either parcel, the north or the south, and a total of approximately 2 1/2 acres total was cleared. On the south half was a total of approximately one acre. The north Page 97 May 24, 2001 half was 1.5 acres. This case has been going on for quite awhile. Mr. Medinger has been working with various groups of people to obtain compliance. However, neither property is in compliance at this time. Building permits have been applied for and actually have -- for both parcels and have been ready since March of 2001. They've been -- they have been ready so they could be picked up anytime. And obtaining valid building permits for the south half would actually bring that property into compliance. The north parcel, since more than an acre was cleared, along with a valid building permit being issued, there also is a requirement for the submittal and approval and completion of a mitigation plan, and that would bring that parcel into complete compliance. Approximately two weeks ago Mr. Medinger did tell me that he would be into the county to pick up the -- his builder would be in to pick up the permits. However, when I checked this morning, they still had not been picked up. Mr. Medinger has also hired Gary Beardsley of Tropical Environmental to come up with his mitigation plan. Gary is currently working on that right now, and I -- I don't have an estimate of how soon that would be completed. There are some wetlands issues on the north parcel too. It may be noted. But the area affected, mitigation could take place elsewhere, and it's not county's concern about the wetlands issues. He's resolving that with the Department of Environmental Protection at this point. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Mason, did you say the permits have expired? MS. MASON: No. They've -- initially they were applied for and that -- those permits did expire. However, they were reapplied for. They have been approved, and they're ready to be Page 98 May 24, 2001 picked up. They've been ready since March, the beginning of March, and they have not been picked up or they have not been issued yet. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I guess I'm -- I'm confused as to how -- how they expired. MS. MASON: Well, initially back in March of 2000, Linda Monk from Monk Homes had applied for permits. However, they were never issued due to these other proper -- they never picked them up. And after the six months, which would have been in approximately September of 2000, those permits expired. However, they were reapplied for, and I believe that was in January of this year, and they were approved in March so they could be picked up now. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So the -- the ones that you submitted in your package where it says applied for in March 30th of 2000 and approved in March 8th of 2001 -- MS. MASON: Those -- that's not exact -- it's not -- it's the same plans. But the initial permit that was applied for in March of 2000 did expire. They were reapplied for. I don't know if they assigned new numbers. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's the same numbers, so I guess -- MS. MASON: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- that's why I'm feeling confused, is the permit's expired. And, yet, we've got the same number, and it didn't get approved until this year so -- MS. MASON: They reissued them or re -- re -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Just for the board's clarification, it's the discussion that we had before. If nothing's done with the permits -- in this case they didn't pick them up -- it -- it is voided, but then the applicant or the contractor has the ability to reapply. And in this case they reissued using the same numbers, Page 99 May 24, 2001 permits for the -- the plans because they hadn't been changed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They just don't use the reapplied date. They just continue to use the date -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- way back in infinity? MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Lord. MS. DUSEK: Am I understanding this correctly? They have the permits? MS. MASON: They have not been issued. They -- they did apply for them and they're ready, but they have not been issued. MS. ARNOLD: They didn't physically pick them up. MS. DUSEK: So when they pick them up, that means they've been issued? MS. ARNOLD: Right. MS. DUSEK: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: Miss Mason, is there any concept on your part as to why the permits might be just sitting there and not being picked up? MS. MASON: Not really. When I last talked to Mr. Medinger, he asked how much they were going to cost. I gave him a roundabout figure, and then he was going to contact permitting and have his builder pick them up. I didn't receive word why they weren't picked up. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Go ahead, Bobbie. MS. DUSEK: If they pick up the permits, pay the cost for the permits, then this has been satisfied? MS. MASON: The south -- the case that involves the south parcel, that would bring that property into compliance. The north half, however, along with the building permit, does need a mitigation plan to be approved and implemented. Page 100 May 24, 2001 MS. DUSEK: Okay. Are we ready, Cliff? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any -- now, the north parcel, is that Case 35? Is that what we're talking about? MS. CRUZ: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is that the way it is? Okay. Any other questions for Miss Mason? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Mr. Medinger, your turn, whichever one. Will you state your name, sir. MR. BEARDSLEY: Good afternoon. My name is Gary Lee Beardsley. I'm a resident of Collier County, 4661 13th Avenue Southwest. I'm also an environmental consultant hired by Mr. Medinger to resolve this problem with the county and also the state and also the Army Corps. I think I can answer the question that Mr. Medinger's been struggling with, is to pick up these permits, it would solve the compliance, as was stated, and I thought that was a very good presentation. The difficulty is, is he can pull the permits, but he can't do anything with them. He has to resolve, via consent order, the north parcel, which is a violation of the DEP and the Army Corps. So he can pick up his permit on the north half, which is 3 acres, and he can pay his impact fees, $8,500, or if it was before, then whatever the fee was, but he can't do anything. He has to resolve this. The difficulty on this is -- and -- and I'm not trying to make excuses for Mr. Medinger. Immediately when he was cited with the notice of violation, he admitted in writing that he did do it, it was a violation, and he wanted to resolve this violation. The difficulty he got trapped in is growth. And I'll be real specific. I work with the DEP and the Army Corps all the time. I want to commend the county. If there's any agency that is thorough and Page 101 May 24, 2001 detailed, it's Collier County. It's not the DEP; it's not the Army Corps. When Susan Mason found this violation and reported it, she, as a courtesy, also notified the DEP in Fort Myers. They came down and looked at it and did a jurisdictional determination on the north parcel, the 3 acres, and said, "Yes, you did clear wetlands," and that needs to be resolved through a consent order, fees, administrative fees also. So Mr. Medinger sat, because Mr. -- the agent, who was Dan Lawson at that time, said, "1 will develop a report and draft some consent order and find a draft and send that to you.". So Mr. Medinger was waiting for that. He never got it. We're now on our fourth agent through the DEP, and still we're a month -- a year past that time that the violation occurred, and we still haven't gotten the report. What happened is, the DEP came out and delineated what they called a provisional informal wetland line. And Mr. Medinger, if he would have just accepted that line and moved forward, he'd have been a lot better off than where he is today because he asked me in January to go out and look at the site, the north parcel, and determine what the wetland delineation would be. And I came back with I acre of wetland destruction had occurred through the illegal clearing. The DEP last year determined that there was half an acre. Now, that would be nice if my half acre -- or my acre -- that - - that half acre the DEP determined were one and the same, one was just bigger. They didn't even match. They weren't even the same, and that's in the packet that I passed out to you. So Mr. Medinger's saying, "Well, I've got to resolve it with the county. I've got to plant plants. And where am I going to plant them? I need to know where that footprint of that is going to be." so we had two jurisdictional determinations: Mine and Page 102 May 24, 2001 the Army Corps -- the DEP's. So I asked the DEP to come down and resolve the difference. Well, their agent was gone. They had a new one. That one came down and came out with a third line that didn't match the first two. So I reluctantly suggested to Mr. Medinger that if he wanted the final determination of where the wetland was on this parcel that needed to be resolved so that he could move forward with the county and do the consent order, that he pay $550 and hire the Tallahassee specialists, a Dr. Toby, and two soil scientists to come out all the way from Tallahassee and go out on the site and look at these three different determinations. That is called a formal. That's official. These three people came on the site. We met, and they just shook their head. They could not understand the DEP's lines, and they suggested my line, which is I acre of damage. Dr. Toby asked that we survey that in, that exact line. So we had an exact line surveyed in on a boundary survey. We did that. We transmitted that up to Dr. Toby in Tallahassee. He will then -- and -- and I would assume that within a week we'll get a formal jurisdictional determination. Then we have to go up to the DEP up in Fort Myers, Greg O'Donnell -- O'Connor, and he said, "1 need that document before we can start the consent order process."" . So I'm trying to focus on the south parcel and the north parcel. The south parcel, again, if Mr. Medinger pulls his permit, that would bring that in compliance. But he"s caught in this dilemma. He's got to pay the impact fees and sit there on a permit. The north parcel, we finally resolved where the wetlands are. I knew where they were six months ago, but we've now formally resolved that. Now, there's really two parallel courses that we're on. One course is to resolve the violations in the county by doing a Page 103 May 24, 2001 mediation/remediation mitigation plan. That's one path. We also have to resolve the consent order with the arm -- the DEP up in Fort Myers. That's the second path. And they can occur simultaneously. I would expect that in 30 days to 60 days we would have the consent order resolved, and Mr. Medinger may have to pay as much as $10,000 in fines to the state and within 30 days we would have a mitigation plan approved through Susan Mason. That would be the time frame that I think we're looking at. So if these two parallel tracts -- one was 30 days have approved mitigation plan, again, I as an environmental consultant and a mitigation specialist would not recommend planting these plants until the rainy season starts. So typically you put a rain gauge out. You try to monitor the water table coming up. And so I would say the plantings would be installed probably in the September period of time. And then I say that in 60 days we'd have the state DEP resolved. One thing, I think, Susan didn't mention in her notice of violation, on the north parcel she was not ready to move forward resolving that at the county level until the DEP issue was resolved. And, of course, that took so long because we had to finally get a formal jurisdictional determination. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: On your south section, since that seems to be one where if you got permits it would go away, but in getting the permits you wouldn't be able to use them because you need both the north and the south parcels together? Is that the way it works? MR. BEARDSLEY: Well, there's two parts to that. One is, there's -- there is no wetland on the south parcel, the south 3 acres, although the DEP said there was. The formal jurisdiction cleared that up. There is no wetlands, except on the north parcel. But in order to enter this site, both the north 3 acres and Page 104 May 24, 2001 the south 3 acres, Mr. Medinger has to access off of Golden Gate Boulevard. And on the west side of his project -- property is the Miller Canal. So he can't access it right next to the bridge. So he's proposing to access as far away from the bridge as he can get, which is 330 feet, and that would be right through the wetlands'. So he's got to get a permit from the state to go through that wetlands to be able to access both the north 3 acres and the south 3 acres. So that's something that's going to have to be resolved in the consent order. That really isn't anything to deal with the county, other than when I design the remediation, mitigation plan and submit it to Susan for her review, I will try leave that corridor unplanted so the planting will then be in the rest of that I acre with both upland and wetland plants being proposed because Mr. Medinger cleared uplands and wetlands. MR. LEHMANN: And the proposed residence is located on the north half? MR. BEARDSLEY: Oh, excuse me. I didn't know who was talking. MR. LEHMANN: The proposed residence is to be situated on the north end? MR. BEARDSLEY: Well, he actually is pulling permits for both the north 3 acres and the south 3 acres. It's -- the fill pad is already in place in the north 3. So he's actually going to build on both parcels. MR. LEHMANN: So how does pulling the building permit solve the problem for the north -- excuse me, for the south section if you're still getting consent orders? MR. BEARDSLEY: The consent order will not address the south 3 acres at all. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. So it's only limited to the north. MR. BEARDSLEY: Yeah. Except for the access problem Page 105 May 24, 2001 through the wetlands. If he pulls -- excuse me. If he pulls his permits, he can't do anything because he's got to get the permission to go through that wetland, and he's got to resolve the -- the mitigation problem in the north. MR. LEHMANN: Well, it's understandable why the permit's still sitting in the county. MS. DUSEK: So the only access to the south parcel is through the north parcel; is that correct? MR. BEARDSLEY: Yes, yes. MS. DUSEK: Okay. MR. BEARDSLEY: The north parcel is 3 ac -- 3 1/2 acres. It's the north half that's already -- you know, it's a separate parcel. MS. DUSEK: But that's the only way you can access the south parcel? MR. BEARDSLEY: Yes. You could access anyplace along the 330-foot frontage, but it's very dangerous to access off of that bridge because there's just no visibility, and the grade on Golden Gate Boulevard is like 6 feet above and just, whew, like that. So he's recommending to get as far away from the bridge as he can for safety reasons, like a curb cut, try to be as far away as he can. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Mr. Beardsley? Did you have a question for him ? MS. MASON: No, not for him. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you, sir. MS. MASON: I -- I just had a -- wanted to make a statement that if he pulls the building permits now that would bring him into compliance with the south parcel and also the north parcel. Once the mitigation plan was completed, if DEP is slow in processing theirs, he can come back to the county and request an extension for those permits. And the impact fees would not Page 106 May 24, 2001 be paid twice. It would only be a filing fee to request an extension and also -- I'm sorry. I forgot what I was -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. MASON: The permit, though -- I remember. Excuse me. If he pulls the permit now, it would be active for a full six months, so he automatically has a full six months before he has to call for first inspection. If he needed more time, then he could request an extension. MR. LEHMANN: But, again, what you're asking him to do is - - in essence is to outlay $8500 in impact fees payment now, not have the use of those funds for six months or more and -- and my understanding what the respondent is saying the purpose of him not picking up those permits is, quite frankly, he doesn't to want pay the impact fees and sit on that and suffer the loss of those funds, so to speak. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's what I was thinking. MS. DUSEK: I don't know who to ask, but the consent order -- maybe it would be you, Mr. Beardsley, is that it? Is it quite probable that this consent order is going to allow him to access the property? MR. BEARDSLEY: Yes. The consent order will roll into it, a permit for construction on that first 3 acres, the front 3 acres. MS. DUSEK: And it's pretty sure that he's going to get that? MR. BEARDSLEY: There's no problem on that unless he refuses to sign the consent order or pay the fine. There will be -- let me back up. There will be -- and, again, we've gotten no report from the DEP. Mr. Medinger had an engineer meet with Dan Lawson, the DEP person that no longer is there, and we're in the fourth DE -- DEP person. And he sat down and kind of did an after-the-fact memo describing what Dan Lawson said in that meeting. So it wasn't any meet -- any official letter from the DEP. Page 107 May 24, 2001 And in that they talked about a fine, administrative fees, compensatory mitigation costs to make up for the destruction and the consent order. So those items, I assume, are all going to move forward. How it will be resolved, I don't know. But in that memo after that meeting, it was approximately something like $8,000 he was going to have to pay besides doing the consent order and administrative fees. And I think the administrative fees were on the $300 basis, something like that. MR. LEHMANN: And you had suggested earlier that 60 days would be more than sufficient time for the DEP consent order?. MR. BEARDSLEY: I can't see any problem in that unless the compensatory mitigation -- there is a real problem in the compensatory mitigation. MR. LEHMANN: Uh-huh. MR. BEARDSLEY: I don't want to hammer the DEP, but they're overworked and -- and I guess the commission, in their wisdom, put a person in the county here. The dilemma -- and I'm on a soap box, I guess. The dilemma that I see as an environmental consultant is that the county issues building permits without getting permits from the DEP and Army Corps first. Lee County does not do that. So you're -- you set yourself up with difficulties that Susan making -- Mason and the compliance people are caught in this dilemma. They notify DEP that there's a violation, and they don't want to get captured by that because they want to move forward with their own compliance remediation plan, and the DEP doesn't do anything. And that's what Mr. Medinger's caught in. MR. LEHMANN: Right. MR. BEARDSLEY: Thank you. MR. LEHMANN: Now, in your -- if I could ask you one more question, Mr. -- Mr. Beasely -- Beardsley, my understanding of the DEP process is they're going to issue a consent order for you to Page t08 May 24, 2001 comply with. Do you need to mitigate that consent order, or do you need to mitigate the property prior to receiving your building permit, or can you do that simultaneously? MR. BEARDSLEY: If I understand, I think Susan asked me that before. The DEP would accept the remediation mitigation plan of the county of Collier. MR. LEHMANN: Uh-huh. MR. BEARDSLEY: But they still would request compensatory mitigation in the form of money. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. MR. BEARDSLEY: So I think it -- if we move forward with the mitigation plan, Susan Mason reviews it, gives a final approval, that can be fed into the consent order, and then that would give Mr. Medinger some relief in the fine and the compensatory mitigation because he is trying to restore that wetland. MR. LEHMANN: And the purpose of my -- my question is I'm trying to get a handle on the time frame that's involved in the process because the county has suggested to us that a building permit would solve the problem for you. You can't get the permit because of the DEP drawbacks. So for us to go through the whole process of getting the DEP consent order, then in turn getting the building permit -- permit and get you back on track to where you're looking to get, am I talking 60 days, as the county had recommended? You referenced only 60 days for the DEP. What type of time frame am I looking at here? MR. BEARDSLEY: My estimation would be that within 60 days the consent order would be signed, and before that period is even nearly up, we'd already have a mitigation plan in to the county that would be approved. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. MR. BEARDSLEY: A consent -- typically if Mr. Medinger Page t09 May 24, 2001 went in today and requested a building permit that destroyed wetlands, you're talking four to six months. But this is a consent order. Everything will be laid out. It will be signed and sealed, and it'll be done real quick. MR. LEHMANN: So 60 days, as far as staff is recommending, is more than sufficient time to handle all of the issues we discussed? MR. BEARDSLEY: Yes. I agree. MR. LEHMANN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions? MS. DUSEK: I -- I guess I have -- sorry. MR. LEHMANN: Go ahead. MS. DUSEK: Miss Mason, I have one clarification question: You're looking for a permit, and you're looking for a mitigation plan. MS. MASON: For the north half, yes. MS. DUSEK: For the north half, yes. And then just a permit - - to pick up the permit on the south. MS. MASON: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: And just for the board's information, we weren't aware of the access problem at the time of the recommendation for the south half with respect to the -- the number of days. So I think that would change staff's recommendation for that half, seeing as though he can't have access to that particular property until that access problem is cleared up. MR. LEHMANN: So your new recommendation would be what? MS. ARNOLD: Sixty days' period instead of -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. That would be my recommendation. I guess I would hope we keep in mind that understanding Peter's question about 60 days, that we're Page110 May 24, 2001 assuming -- and since we've gone through -- they're on their fourth DEP person, that DEP doesn't change people again and these folks have to kind of start all over again. So we might build in just a little fudge just in case. You might think about that in the back. What would be finding of fact on behalf of the board? MS. DUSEK.' I make a motion that there is a violation in the Board of County Commissioners versus Steven Medinger -- is that correct? -- in the case CEB No. 2001-035, and the violation is of Section 2.7.6.1 and 5, in parentheses, and 3.9.3 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code Ordinance. Description of violation: removal of vegetation from approximately 3 acres of property, in addition of fill and construction of a pad without first obtaining all required Collier County permits. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, may I make a correction, please? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. CRUZ: The section should be 2.7.6, paragraphs I and 5. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. It's not 2.7.6.1; it's -- MS. RAWSON: One is in parentheses. MS. CRUZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: Second the amended motion. CHAIRMAN FI. EGAL: We have a motion on the table and a second. Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. MS. DUSEK: Well, I see the 60-days recommendation, but, my goodness, listening to the testimony and all that they've been through and working so diligently, I think that giving them Page 111 May 24, 2001 another 30 days at least just to make sure that DEP, especially, follows through with their consent order and whatever else ... CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would think that would be reasonable. MR. LEHMANN: Miss Rawson, do we need to separate these two orders as they're separate cases numbers? MS. RAWSON: Well, we have two separate case numbers; 35 and 36 you need to separate. But the north and the south I don't think you need to separate. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, the north and the south are the case numbers so -- MS. RAWSON: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since we're hearing these cases together, Miss Rawson, if our -- our motion -- and maybe we need to specify that our -- our motions and orders are applicable to both cases; in other words, there would be two orders. We've had a motion that there, in fact, is a finding of fact. So that would be an order for Case 2001-035 and 2001-036. MS. RAWSON: That's fine. You can put that on the record. What I'll do, though, I'm actually going to draft two separate orders. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what we want. But the orders -- as we make the motions, the motion would be for both orders -- MS. RAWSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Rather than do two -- two motions each time, can we do one motion, understanding that the motion will be identical to both orders? Is that -- MS. RAWSON: Yes. You -- you can do that, and then, you know, you're going to tell me to do two orders, so that's fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good. MS. DUSEK: Now, for the recommendation. Would it be including both of them, or are we going to do a recommendation Page 112 May 24, 2001 for Case 35 and Case 36? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. I think a motion to -- I mean, you've got -- if it's 90 days, the 90 days would be applied to both cases because they have to run together anyway. So it's not like, oh, 90 and then another 90 is going to make it 180. It's not going to work that way. It's going to be 90 running parallel. Okay?. MR. PONTE: The only question I have is, isn't one of the things a planting, a series of plantings? And the -- Mr. Beardsley suggested that would be best accomplished successfully in September. MS. ARNOLD: That's different. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think what would be -- depending on what we order him to do, if we order him to come into compliance by obtaining the proper permits -- here's another case where I fall back and I'm not prone to say and do a mitigation plan -- I think if in getting the permits, part of coming into compliance is submitting this plan and the county approves his plan, part of the plan is we can't plant until way down there, then that's fine; he's in compliance. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's just that the county has agreed to let him plant six months from now. MR. PONTE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But he's done what we told him to do which is get the permits and/or whatever is required. Would that work for you, Miss Mason? MS. MASON: I think it would be reasonable if, along with the permits, he obtained approval for a mitigation plan and as part of that -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Part of the approval is you let him plant whenever you both agree. Page 1t 3 May 24, 2001 MS. MASON: -- appropriate. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We don't really care, you know. Just as long as you're happy that he's got the plan. Once he's got that, we're done . MS. MASON: That would be fine. MR. LEHMANN: And the violation just references -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. The violation is -- is, again, back to he's got to get permits. MS. DUSEK-' And not the mitigation? Are we just doing permits and not mitigation? MS. ARNOLD: Our recommendation would be to include the mitigation -- approval of a mitigation plan. MS. DUSEK: But it doesn't mean that he would have to plant them within that 90 days, but there needs to be an approval of a mitigation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And I think the approval of the plan should be in accordance with whatever, the 90 days. MS. DUSEK: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, if he gets it next week, I don't care. If he gets it the last day, I don't care. It's just that he's got it and got it approved. You get too many dates for everybody to watch. I think one date is better for everybody. So right now we're talking about possibly 90 days is the time limit. Now, what is it you want him to do in the 90 days? MS. DUSEK'- I think he should get the permits and an approved mitigation plan both within the 90-day period. That's my suggestion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: permits are required -- MS. DUSEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. DUSEK: Yes. Okay. To obtain whatever -- whatever -- and an approved mitigation plan. Page 114 May 24, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. DUSEK: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: you propose? Okay. Any other suggestions? And if he doesn't do that, what would MS. DUSEK: Well, I'm going to go with a $50-per-day fine. I think this person has more patience than I would have ever had to accomplish what he's trying to do, so if you want me to put that into the form of a motion, which you probably want me to do CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.: Yes, ma'am. MR. LEHMANN: Could I ask a question before you do that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. MR. LEHMANN.' Michelle, staff has delineated a different fine for the north and south sections. Was it -- what was your reasoning behind that? Obviously there was a reason behind doing that. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. The fact that it was our opinion that the south half need only pick up plans that were approved since March. We weren't aware of the other circumstances that exist with the access to that property. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. Well, I'm going to agree with my colleague. I think the respondent has been fairly cooperative and unfortunately has a few obstacles in the way. So your motion is for the respondent to pay prosecution costs of both cases and come into compliance by obtaining the required permits and approved mitigation plan within 90 days or a fine of $50 per day -- MS. DUSEK.' And just leave out the south parcel and for every day the violation continues. MR. LEHMANN: Well, I don't know that we can leave out the south parcel because they're both tied together. MS. DUSEK.' That's what I mean. We're not going to put Page 115 May 24, 2001 south or north in there. It's just -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. You leave out the word "south" because there's going to be two orders, one for the south and one for the north. MR. LEHMANN: Well, I would second that, that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Rawson, do you understand what we're trying to do? MS. RAWSON: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good. MS. RAWSON: Right on your way. MS. DUSEK: So it's a total of 90 days for both of them. MS. RAWSON: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They will run concurrently. MS. ARNOLD: However, a mitigation plan is not required for the south half. MS. RAWSON: That's right. MS. DUSEK: We realize that. We're just putting it all together. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. MS. DUSEK: He does 90 days for the permitting and the mitigation. If he does the mitigation tomorrow, that's fine or -- MR. LEHMANN: Jean, do we need to be that specific as far as a mitigation plan only to the north section, or are you going to handle that in your -- MS. RAWSON: Well, they're two different orders, so what's going to be required in one order might be a little different than what's required in the other because one doesn't require a mitigation plan. MR. LEHMANN: But you understand the motion? MS. RAWSON: I do. MR. LEHMANN: Even though we might not. MS. DUSEK: Would you explain it, please. Page 116 May 24, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's why she's our attorney; she understands. We just dream this stuff up. Okay. We have a motion on the table, which I think is clear. Do I hear a second? aye. MR. LEHMANN: I will second it. MS. DUSEK: Well, we kind of did it combined. MR. PONTE: Everybody is in favor. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second by Mr. Lehmann. Any further questions? All those in favor signify by saying (Unanimous response.). CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Medinger, do you understand? We've given you 90 days to solve all these problems. If you don't, it's going to cost you 50 bucks a day until you do. MR. MEDINGER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That closes the public hearing portion. Imposition of fines. Great administrative process. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. This is Board of County Commissioners versus -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Excuse me. If you folks would go outside, I'd appreciate it. MS. GODFREY-LINT: That's okay. MS. ARNOLD: This is Board of County Commissioners versus Victor A. Hansen, Code Enforcement Board Case 2000-016. This case was previously heard by the board on March 22nd, at which you found the respondent in violation and ordered to obtain required permits or remove structures within 15 days and pay prosecutional charges and further order the re -- if -- if the respondent did not comply with the board's order fines of $25 per day would be imposed. Respondent has complied with the Page 1t7 May 24, 2001 board's order. However, staff at this time would request that the board impose fines for the prosecutional charge, which is in the amount of $388.94. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, that's what the order said to do, so I have no problem with that. I would make a motion that we approve the imposition of fines for the operational costs. MR. LEHMANN: I would second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions? (No response.} CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying aye. (No response.} CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And this was our original intent in asking to be able to doing that. Affidavits for compliance. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. We have two before you: County Commissioners versus Mark G. Geatches. Board Case 97-017. And then there's also Board of County Commissioners versus John and Rita Goodman Trust, Code Enforcement Board Case 2000-024. Those are just reports and need really no action from the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good. We skipped over it. I'm sorry. Did we have any old business that we have to -- I didn't see any listed here. It's about ten to one. I will make a comment that our next item is to review the rules and regulations. And I don't know about everybody else, but I went through what was submitted to me. I made lots of notes, and I have lots of comments. I suspect this could take a while. MS. RAWSON: I might suggest that we defer that until next month for a couple of reasons. First of all, if you notice, if you've read the rules -- and apparently you have -- it refers to several attachments. We are trying to draft motions and orders to make Board of That was Code Page118 May 24, 2001 the whole process easier for the respondents. Those are not yet attached, so for that reason, you know, we -- we can defer in addition to which this morning you gave me an assignment to do some legal research pertaining to a particular item as to whether or not we are going to hear certain cases. Depending on what that research shows, that might change our mind about adding something else to the order -- to the rules as they presently exist. We might have to put another section in there, for example. So I don't have any problem if you keep reading in and making your comments and then we defer this until next month. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: While you're looking into our legal question, based on the comments you made before that there's probably not a whole lot of precedent on what we're asking you to look up and cases that you can review -- MS. RAWSON: That would be my bet. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- could we get an interpretation from the state as to what they intended in that section of the statute? MS. RAWSON: Well, I could ask for an attorney general's opinion, but it wouldn't be quick. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If there's nothing on file, then we really haven't helped ourselves and we're still back to our basic dilemma. We're making the assumption of what people were thinking when they wrote that paragraph, and we're not capable of doing that, so why don't we ask them what they meant? MS. RAWSON: I think probably the best way to proceed is to ask for an attorney general's opinion, and I'll be happy to do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think we need to get as much help as we can -- MS. RAWSON: I agree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- so we don't step out on some limb. MS. RAWSON: I agree. Also, you -- if we're the first in the Page 119 May 24, 2001 state to do this, you're setting precedent. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Collier County should set precedent. I would recommend to my colleagues that we push the review of these rules and regulations until next month and see what additional information we get, if any. We also need to understand that whatever we do with these rules and regulations, we can revise them, but they can't be adopted until our regularly scheduled meeting in March. That's Article 13, Item 6. We can discuss them, update them, and/or adopt them at your regular scheduled annual meeting. Item I says that you can revise them anytime but you can't adopt them until March so -- MS. RAWSON: Unless -- unless we change that regu -- that particular part of the rule. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' But if you change it, you can't adopt the change until March because you've changed -- you've changed the rules and regulations, and it states you can't adopt it until March. MS. RAWSON: Well, that's interesting and -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I didn't write them, so -- I'm just reading them. MS. RAWSON: And I understand the original intent behind that, and so I'll have to look into that because some of the changes that need to be made have been needing to be made for some time. And I would hate to think that we have to go almost another year -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Well, I -- MS. RAWSON: -- without some procedure for motions that are filed by respondents after you've already issued an order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: When I -- when I read that, I thought, gee, why would somebody do that? But it's there, and it's been adopted. So now to change it you have to wait until that time limit, because one of my recommendations is to change it. Page 120 May 24, 2001 MS. ARNOLD: Well, then that would nullify our previous modification then because we didn't adopt those until May of 2000. MS. RAWSON: That's right. MS. ARNOLD: So we're not even following our rules. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I -- I don't think we do that anyway. And that's -- that's going to be one of my questions in writing these. We're getting very, very detailed, and I think we're getting way too detailed than we need to be. But neither here nor there. Why don't we postpone this until last (sic) month and let everybody go back over them again and give Miss Rawson time to at least try to get some information and get these attachments and all this other stuff which she can get to us previous -- prior to the meeting. How does that sound to everybody? MR. LEHMANN: Jean, if you could just reference the statute in the ordinance, because those obviously take precedence over our rules, as far as being able to adopt or not or maybe -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's not in the statutes or the ordinance. MS. RAWSON: I'm sorry, Peter. MR. LEHMANN: I was just wondering if -- if the ordinance or the statutes mention anything about when we can or cannot adopt rules because the ordinances do it -- MS. RAWSON: No. You know what? The statute says you have the right to make rules. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Period. MS. RAWSON: And there's an AG opinion, also, that says you have the right to make rules. But they don't say anything about -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: When? MS. RAWSON: -- what your rules say. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We build ourselves a box, Page t21 May 24, 2001 unfortunately. But that's okay. We'll get out of it. MR. PONTE: In a year. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is -- so sidetracking that until next session, is that amenable to the board, putting our rules and regulations until next meeting? MR. PONTE: Absolutely, yes. MR. LEHMANN: May I make a motion? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, please, since it's on our agenda. MR. PONTE: I make a motion? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I make a motion and we move the review and approval of the rules and regulations to the next meeting to gain us time to gain some more information. MS. GODFREY-LINT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further comment? All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any comments? (No response.) Next meeting is June 18th. Is that a good date, Michelle? that when it really is? MS. ARNOLD: That's a good date. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: That's why it's on the agenda. MS. RAWSON: That's a Monday meeting? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Make a motion-- MS. DUSEK: I make a motion we adjourn. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Cool. MR. LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and second. All those in favor -- (Unanimous response.) IS Page 122 May 24, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at: 12:59 p.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIFFORD FLEGAL, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RMR, CRR Paget23