Loading...
CEB Minutes 06/28/2001 RJune 28, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, June 28, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the North 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 DARRIN M. PHILLIPS PETER LEHMANN GEORGE PONTE DIANE TAYLOR KATHLEEN CURATOLO, ALTERNATE ABSENT: RHONA SAUNDERS ALSO PRESENT: JEAN RAWSON, Attorney for the Board MICHELLE ARNOLD, Code Enforcement Director MARIA CRUZ, Enforcement Official Page 1 June 28, 2001 ROBERT ZACHARY, Assistant County Attorney JENNIFER BELPEDIO, Assistant County Attorney Page 2 07/12/01 15:58 FAX 941 403 2345 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~ CLERK OF BRD ~001 COD____,~E ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF ~OLLIER CO.UNTY, FLORIDA A ~EN D A Da~e; Loca'cion: June 28, 2001 at 9:00 o'clock A.M- 3301 E. Tamiami Tr., Naples, Florida, Collier County Government Center, Administrative B!dg, 3rd Floor NOTE: ANY P£RSON W/dO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE TMAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WMICH RECORD INCLUDES THE T~STIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. N~ITMER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. R_~T.L CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 24, 2001 PUBLIC MEARINGS A- BCC vs. Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control & Rescue Dist. B. ~CC vs. N.D.C., L.L.C C. BCC vs. Chad Dutton D. BCC vs. Adolfo Carta E. BCC us. Claude Mattel F. BCC vs. Marion Smith G. BCC vs. Jean Claude Martel CEB No. 2001-049 CEB No. 2001-050 CEB No- 2001-053 CEB No. 2001-054 CEB No. 2001-055 CEB No~ 2001-056 CEB No. 2001-058 NEW ~ A. BCC VS. Calixto and Branda Lazo CEB No. 2001-006 OLD BUSINES~ 9- COmmENTS 10- NEXT_MEETING. DATE July 16, 2001 June 28, 2001 (The following proceedings commenced, Mr. Phillips not present.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Call the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County to order, please. MS. CRUZ: Good morning. For the record, Maria Cruz. Roberta Dusek. MS. DUSEK: Here. MS. CRUZ: Clifford Flegal. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Here. MS. CRUZ: Kathryn Godfrey. MS. GODFREY: Here. MS. CRUZ: Peter Lehmann. MR. LEHMANN: Here. MS. CRUZ: Let the record show that Mr. Phillips is absent. George Ponte. MR. PONTE: Here. MS. CRUZ: Rhona Saunders. (No response.) MS. CRUZ: Diane Taylor. MS. TAYLOR: Present. MS. CRUZ: And Kathleen Curatolo. MS. CURATOLO: Here. MS. ARNOLD: And for the record, Michelle Arnold. I'm the code enforcement director. I just want to welcome Mrs. Curatolo to our board. She's going to be one of our alternates. She's here from the Florida Specialty Contractors' Association. And welcome to the board. MS. CURATOLO: Thanks, Michelle. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Before we proceed, let me make the announcement that any person who decides to appeal a decision of Page 3 June 28,2001 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-- (Mr. Phillips entered the room.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- 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. Make note that Mr. Phillips has arrived. Michelle, has anybody explained to our new alternate how the -- the board works, that as an alternate what she's allowed and not allowed to do? MS. CURATOLO: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, we -- we have. But if you want to just for-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: For your own information, as an alternate, we -- we do have six permanent members here. Mr. Phillips is also an alternate. Since we have one regular member absent, he will participate in the voting. As an alternate you're allowed to ask questions. But you, as a second alternate, at this point, since we have seven members, cannot vote. But if somebody was absent, we would tell you that you would be allowed to vote. MS. CURATOLO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're glad to have you. Our agenda: Are there any conditions for correction, revisions? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Items A and B are being removed. Item A is being removed. We're getting closer to compliance on that. And Item B has been complied with. And, also, if we can hear Items E and G together because they're the same owners, adjacent properties. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other revisions? If not, I would entertain a motion to approve the agenda as revised. Page 4 June 28, 2001 MS. DUSEK: So moved. MS. GODFREY: Second. MR. LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have an approval and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The minutes from our May 24th meeting, any corrections? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: as submitted. MS. DUSEK: So moved. MS. TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes as submitted. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. We will now open our public hearings. The first case is Case No. 2001-053, BCC versus Chad Dutton. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman and the board, let the record show that the respondent -- respondent, Chad Dutton, is present. I would like to request that the composite exhibit that was provided to the respondent and to the board be admitted into evidence marked Composite Exhibit A, if there's no objection from the respondent at this time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Dutton -- I would entertain a motion to approve Page 5 June 28, 2001 MR. DUTTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- do you object to the county submitting the pack of paperwork that they sent you to us? MR. DUTTON: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right. motion to accept the county's exhibit. MS. DUSEK: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: to accept the county's exhibit. aye. Thank you, sir. I entertain a And a second? Okay. We have a motion and a second All those in favor signify by saying (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. CRUZ: Any opposed? Thank you. The alleged violation before this board is a violation of Ordinance No. 91-102, Section 3.9.3. This violation describes (sic) as a removal of vegetation without first obtaining all of the required Collier County permits. The violation exists at 2131 14th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, which is more particularly described as Unit 16, the east 150 feet of Tract 83. Owner of record is Chad Dutton. His address of record is 2131 14th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida. The violation was first observed on August 18th, 2000. A notice of violation was provided to the respondent on September 25th, 2000, requesting compliance by October 27, 2000. A final reinspection was conducted yesterday re -- yesterday revealing the violation remains. I'd like to call at this time Investigator Alexandra Sulecki, please. MS. SULECKI: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, board members. Page 6 June 28, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good morning. MR. LEHMANN: Good morning. MS. SULECKI: In case you haven't had a chance -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One moment, please. Let's swear them both in. Mr. Dutton, would you rise, and we'll swear both of you in at the same time. It will be a little easier. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. You may sit down. MS. SULECKI: In case you haven't -- oh, Alexandra Sulecki, code enforcement, for the record. In case you haven't had a chance really to read through this, I'll briefly go through what happened in this case. In August of last year, as a result of a complaint, I went to this property. And I found that the rear of the lot had been substantially cleared, and there was a pile of cabbage palms in the middle. On that day I spoke to a friend of Mr. Dutton's who was there explaining the violation, which was vegetation removal, and also the pile of cabbage palms was considered litter. And I requested that he contact me. I finally reached Mr. Dutton almost a month later and set a meeting to discuss compliance. And that meeting was canceled by Mr. Dutton. At that time I sent a notice of violation by certified mail. And a week or so later we met on the site to discuss what could be done to bring the property into compliance. At that time Mr. Dutton explained that there had been a fire in the past, and the pines and cabbage palms had been scorched. And many, if not all, of the pines had been dead. Now, I did note charred boots on the remaining cabbage palms. And some of the large pines in the adjacent areas were dead, so I accepted this. And I asked him how many living trees he had removed. We came to agreement on 20 trees. Mr. Dutton wanted to plant pines, and I agreed. And we also agreed upon a phased planting Page 7 June 28, 2001 MR. MS. MR. MS. MR. MS. killed? I MS. scorched. MS. plan with two phases. He submitted this plan to me (indicating) which I approved. He did remove the debris, and he planted six pines. After that things kind of came to a halt, and I granted him several extensions due to an injury. And now it's been almost a year. And this is a very good time to plant trees. It's raining almost every day. And so I'm asking you to require Mr. Dutton to complete his mitigation plan as approved. MR. PONTE: Did Mr. Dutton give you an explanation as to why everything stopped? There seemed to be a lot of cooperation there in the letter that you had written to him in October. And his -- his work -- and then it suddenly stopped. Is there an explanation? MS. SULECKI: Yes. Like many people that I -- I work with, it's expensive to plant trees, and they don't have the extra cash laying around. PONTE: These were pine trees, were they? SULECKI: Yes, sir. PONTE: About how many remaining to be planted? SULECKI: Fourteen. PONTE: Thank you. TAYLOR: Did you ever see a cabbage palm that a fire never have. SULECKI: Cabbage palms aren't killed by fire; they're just TAYLOR: Uh-huh. MS. DUSEK: Your last contact with him with any discussion about why this hasn't been completed was when? MS. SULECKI: I have to look in the file itself, but I tried to contact him monthly during this time. I set a 30-day recheck. So I think probably the last time I talked to him was about a week and a half ago. Page 8 June 28, 2001 MR. PHILLIPS: What's the approximate cost to replant 20 pines? MS. SULECKI: I would say -- I don't know how much the pines that he planted cost. I would say probably in the neighborhood of 35, $40. They were kind of small. But they were nice, healthy pines, so I accepted them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Sulecki, let me see, how do I ask the question? Can you give us a -- an estimate? You say it's about how many to be planted yet? MS. SULECKI: Fourteen. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Fourteen. Okay. Do you have any idea what 14 trees would cost? MS. SULECKI: Well, 35 to $40 a tree is my guess. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Okay. Any further questions for Miss Sulecki? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, ma'am. MS. SULECKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MR. DUTTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Dutton. Come up, sir, and tell us your side. MR. DUTTON: She did give me a lot of time to plant the trees back. There's no excuse for it. I just went through a bad time, got separated with a girlfriend. She left with the kids, the whole thing. I just didn't have the money. I work 65 hours a week for Collier Tire. She did the best she could in trying to help me out. I just couldn't do it in the time period. I can do it slowly. I just can't -- I can plant, like, three at a time, something like that. They gave me plenty of time. There's no excuse for it. I just -- I didn't do it in time. That's -- that's about it, I mean. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Dutton, when you say that you could do it Page 9 June 28,2001 three at a time -- MR. DUTTON: Uh-huh. MS. DUSEK: -- what time frame are we talking about? I mean, for three-- for three trees, what time frame? MR. DUTTON: It's not really the money, like, $40 a tree. I leave at four o'clock in morning. They've got to be watered every day. I know it's in the rainy season. So I've got to get up at, like, you know, two o'clock in the morning to water the trees in good. And sometimes I don't get home until ten, eleven o'clock at night. I don't want them to die and have to replant. And at the time I was doing it, it was dry, real dry out. So I was getting up at, you know, four o'clock in the morning and making sure I had the trees all watered in, the six that I did plant. And it's just the thing is the time. Like, I'm going through a lot of things right now with -- with the kids and stuff like that. I just have -- I don't have a lot of time. But, you know, if I have to plant them, I'll have to get up at two o'clock in the morning and water them or do whatever I have to do. It's just a time thing with me. I work a lot of hours. MS. CURATOLO: When were the first six trees planted? MR. DUTTON: Right after I cleared -- there was cabbage palms and some dead palm trees and some vegetation in a pile. And I was told to clear it down. So I had a friend of mine come out. I didn't pay him. I didn't have the money to pay him, come out and just level it off, comply with the -- and right after that -- I don't know without looking in here exactly when, but -- MS. CURATOLO: Approximately in terms of the time frame. MR. DUTTON: Within a couple weeks after I knocked them down, the pile down, a month maybe. I don't -- I don't know exactly when. MS. SULECKI: Excuse me. Alex Sulecki again. They were done in a timely fashion per the order -- the notice of violation. Page 10 June 28, 2001 MR. LEHMANN: Investigator Sulecki, apparently we haven't had any action on this case since January 16th, is that correct, approximately? MS. SULECKI: The pines were planted late November, early December, somewhere around there. MR. LEHMANN: So with that, six or seven months go by with just no action at all. MS. SULECKI: That's correct. MR. LEHMANN: And we're only looking for 14 trees? MS. SULECKI: Correct. MS. TAYLOR: Well, if-- if he planted them now and watered them, I mean, drowned them when he planted them, I bet you maybe once a week or every few days is all he would have to water them now with the rains. MS. SULECKI: Right. The pine trees when they're planted need to be watered almost daily for about a month, and then they don't need irrigation again. And now is a -- a real -- really good time to plant them because it's raining almost day. He might have to supplement the irrigation if it didn't rain. MS. TAYLOR: Right. But with rain every day, if he poured it in first time -- MS. SULECKI: Uh-huh. MS. TAYLOR: -- it wouldn't be necessary, would it, every day? MS. SULECKI: Certainly every day. It's almost every day. some areas don't get rain every day, so he might have to do a And little bit of watering. MS. TAYLOR: MS. SULECKI: MS. TAYLOR: CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Dutton? But it still wouldn't be tough to do it. It's a good time to do it. Sure. Are there any more questions for Mr. Page 11 June 28, 2001 MS. DUSEK: Mr. Dutton, I just want to clarify. The reason you stopped all of the planting -- you were very good about doing it right away in a timely fashion, the first six trees. Are you saying this was all due to personal circumstances that prevented you from doing this? I don't want to know specific. I just want to understand why you stopped. MR. DUTTON: No. I -- I wanted to do the whole thing through. I didn't want to have it come to this. Yeah, it was personal. I had-- MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You don't need to tell us that part of it; that's fine. Any further questions for Mr. Dutton? MS. DUSEK: Do you feel you can now proceed fairly quickly? MR. DUTTON: Yeah. I can-- I can do it. Like I said-- it's just a money thing right now. I can plant -- you know, whatever you tell me to plant, I'm going to have to plant anyway. But whatever I have to do, I'll do. You know, I -- I'm just sorry that I stopped when I did, but I had some personal things that I had to take care of and-- MR. PONTE: Mr. Dutton, would it be easier to complete the plant all at once so that they're getting the same watering treatment all of the time? In other words, it would take a month of intensive watering and rain, and if all the trees went in at the same time, the job would be completed in a timely fashion and not be -- you wouldn't have to commit all of those months of time -- MR. DUTTON: Right. MR. PONTE: -- to an extended program of planting. MR. DUTTON: The only problem I have with that, if it doesn't rain every day and I have 14 trees out there, I got to get up at midnight to plant -- to water them because it's -- 14 trees are going to be spread out on the backside of my property, and it would just take Page 12 June 28, 2001 me -- you got to water them in real, real good and then go back again and water. That's how I did it. That's how they're still -- the ones I have now are living good. And I've really watered them good, put a moat around them so the water would stay in there. And then by the time you get to the end of the tree -- this is only six trees -- it's already dried at the first that one that you did. So I went right back and did it. And it took me, like, an hour and a half to do the six that I did. If I have 14 and -- I'd really have to -- to go -- I mean, it would be better to plant them all 14 if I had a lot of time. But if it was raining every single day, yes, that would work good. But all at once like that, it's just not going to work. I'll be out there twelve o'clock midnight until whenever, three o'clock in the morning when I got to go so-- MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any additional questions for Mr. Dutton? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. You may sit down. MR. PONTE: I have a question for the inspector. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. PONTE: Is there -- so we don't get hung up on the pine trees, is there another tree that doesn't require such intensive care that would be acceptable? MS. SULECKI: Well, that's not exactly intensive care. That's pretty minimal care. MR. PONTE: Well, it isn't if you're getting up at midnight to water the trees. MS. SULECKI: I don't quite understand that, but I guess because of his work hours. But, no, I think that would be the most minimal care that would be necessary. What was removed from the area was cabbage palms, which Mr. Dutton really didn't want to put Page 13 June 28, 2001 back. And pines were there originally before the fire. So they were a really good choice -- MR. PONTE: Uh-huh. MS. SULECKI: -- for him. I think it was a good choice. The ones he has are doing well. MR. LEHMANN: You don't consider this a particular hardship because of the -- the rainy season is here. We have rain on almost a regular basis now. You don't -- you consider this would be the optimal time to actually plant this and -- and impact Mr. Dutton in the most unobtrusive manner; is that correct? MS. SULECKI: I think as far as caring for the trees, yes. Financially, well, that's another issue. MR. LEHMANN: Right. I understand that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions of anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. At this time the public hearing portion of this case is closed, and the board needs to have a finding of fact. MS. DUSEK: Before we do the finding of fact, I have a question for Michelle. In the statement of violation, you have cited Section 2.4.3.7. And in looking at that, that's a maintenance section. And I just wondered if that's a violation, since there's nothing there to maintain except -- well, I guess you're considering the six pine trees at this point. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. On what page are you refer -- referring to? Under the statement of violation on page 2, I see-- MS. DUSEK: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: -- Section 3.9.3. MS. DUSEK: I have 2.4.3. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're on the wrong case, Dear. MS. DUSEK: Oh, sorry. Sorry about that. I was in the wrong Page 14 June 28, 2001 spot. MS. ARNOLD: MS. DUSEK: CHAIRMAN MS. DUSEK: CHAIRMAN Okay. Okay. FLEGAL: Here it is. Okay. So sorry. FLEGAL: Okay. Finding of fact. Does the board, in fact, find that there has been a vi -- that there is a violation, I should say, existing? MS. DUSEK: Again, a question: If-- if the person is complying and in the midst of complying -- I guess he hasn't complied by the date that has been set; is that correct, Alexandra? MS. SULECKI: Yes. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Chad Dutton, CEB Case No. 2001- 053, that there is a violation, that the violation is of Sections 3.9.3 of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code Ordinance. And the description of the violation is the removal of vegetation without first obtaining all required Collier County permits; is that correct? Or is it that he is not -- has not completed the mitigation plan? Should we reword that? MS. ARNOLD: Well, he's -- he's still in violation of that section. And in order to come into compliance is to complete the mitigation plan. MS. DUSEK: In order to get the permits; is that right? MS. ARNOLD: There's no permits to be obtained, just completing the approved mitigation plan. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think what's involved is he's in violation of this because the plants were removed, period. When we get to the order part, to make this work, I think what you're going to have to order him to do is to submit and get an approved mitigation plan, which is already really done but he's not complying with. But Page 15 June 28,2001 we're going to have to order him to do that and by a certain date, which can be short because it is already approved, and then order him to complete the planting by a certain date, which is really what the county's looking for, is that part of it. But there's no, I don't think, specific paragraph they can cite him for not complying with a mitigation plan because he hasn't been before this board before for that item. So I think we'll cover that when we get to what we order him to do. MR. LEHMANN: the table. MS. DUSEK: CHAIRMAN MS. DUSEK: CHAIRMAN MS. DUSEK: Mr. Chairman, I would second the motion on Is it still correct then -- FLEGAL: Yes. -- the motion? FLEGAL: Yes. Yes, ma'am. Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So we have a motion that there is a violation and a second. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Order of the board. Now, in this section the board should order the respondent to either obtain the required permits and/or submit a mitigation plan for approval by a certain date and then comply with the mitigation plan by a certain date, which is really what the county is looking for, that he has not done. MS. TAYLOR: You're not looking for permits, are you? MS. ARNOLD: No. I -- I'm not sure if the -- the order needs to Page 16 June 28, 2001 say submit a mitigation plan, because he's already done that. It could possibly just refer to complying with the approved mitigation plan by a certain date. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I guess the problem I'm having is that-- MS. DUSEK: Well, that's basically what your recommendation is, is completing Phase 2. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MS. DUSEK: That's why I was confused by our motion, my motion, when it says "required Collier County permits." but does that still stand -- is that still correct, the violation that we cited? I'm - - I'm confused about -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think what everybody's confused about is the paragraph that's cited to violate him is one that you have to get removal permits. And the county is saying it doesn't need permits because he's got a plan. Well, I don't think there's a paragraph that they've cited him for because he submitted a plan and is not complying with it. They-- they cited him for not getting permits. MS. DUSEK: That's where I'm confused. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, the county can only cite a violation for ordinances that are on the books, and the book -- the ordinance basically does state the removal without a permit. Also, within those ordinances is the provision that if that does occur, then the remedy for that is to comply with an approved mitigation plan to correct whatever the violation was. So I believe that the notice or our finding of fact is correct. We do have a violation of the section that is referenced. The reparative measure that the county may look at is to comply with the approved mitigation plan that's already been submitted and approved by the county. It seems very straightforward. Page 17 June 28, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. It doesn't to me, but that's okay. MS. DUSEK: So at this point we're just looking for completing the mitigation plan. Okay. And-- now, Mr. Chairman, you had mentioned two dates, two types -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, that's what I thought was required, but Peter seems to think that that's not required. So I -- I'll acquiesce to the pleasure of the board. MR. LEHMANN: Well, I'm only one voice on the board. MS. TAYLOR: I agree with Peter. I agree with him. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't think you can have one without the other but -- MS. RAWSON: Well, I don't think there's any other statute -- I mean ordinance that they could have cited him for other than this one. And I believe if she's already approved the mitigation plan, that's -- the evidence on the record before you that at this point in time all you have to do is tell him to complete the approved mitigation plan. So I agree with Peter. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: Then I make the motion that we follow the recommendation from staff that the CEB order the respondent to pay prosecution charges and abate the violation by completing Phase 2 of -- of approved mitigation plan within -- I don't know if the 30 days is short enough -- I mean, a long enough period of time. Before I finish, does anybody-- MR. PONTE: I just have -- I had -- my thought is that we're going to get most rain now. So the -- to extend it makes it iffier. MS. DUSEK: All right. MR. PONTE: I think that the shortness is -- the brevity of the span is important to the life of the trees. MS. DUSEK: All right. Then I -- MR. LEHMANN: May I -- may I ask a question, please, Page 18 June 28, 2001 Bobby? MS. DUSEK: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: Miss Sulecki, the rainy season that would be applicable to this type of operation, 30 days, 60 days, what is your time period where you feel Mr. Dutton is in a safe zone to plant his trees with the least amount of work? MS. SULECKI: The rainy season will go through November. MR. LEHMANN: So I think if it's at the board's pleasure to extend it past the 30 days, I think we have that option. MR. PONTE: And what's the distance between these trees? I mean, how -- what-- what is the distance you would have to travel to -- to water these 20 trees or these 14 remaining trees? MS. SULECKI: He's got them spread out over the rear of the property, and the property is 330 feet -- or 660 feet deep. So the rear of the property is a good distance. MR. PONTE: Is there any way of getting some irrigation back there, or is there -- MS. SULECKI: He's got a hose. He's got a hose set up. MR. PONTE: So you could simply put a sprinkler system, not an underground sprinkler system, but a sprinkler hose? MS. SULECKI: Uh-huh, yeah. He's -- he's shown on his plan how he's going to irrigate them with -- he's got a well attachment and a hose out there. MR. PONTE: So he doesn't physically have to be out there doing it at one o'clock in the morning. MS. SULECKI: I don't -- I don't know how -- I don't think he's got a timer, but I don't know how that's going to work. MS. DUSEK: All right. I'm going to continue my motion, and I'm going to change the 30 days to 45 days or a fine of $50 be imposed per day every day the violation continues. MS. TAYLOR: I'll second that. Page 19 June 28, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second for 45 days and a fine of $50 and, in addition, the prosecution costs. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: aye. All those in favor, signify by saying (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Dutton, do you understand, sir, we're giving you 45 days to accomplish this or you're going to get fined $50 a day until you do? MR. DUTTON: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay? All right, sir. Next case for public hearing, Case No. 2001-054, county commissioners versus Adolfo Carta. MS. CRUZ: Board of County Commissioners versus Adolfo Carta, Case No. 2001-054. Let the record show that Mr. Carta is present. I would like to request that the composite exhibit that was provided to respondent and to the board be admitted into evidence marked Composite Exhibit A, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Mr. Carta? MR. CARTA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you object to the county submitting their package to us? MR. CARTA: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right. Thank you. I would entertain a motion to accept the county's exhibit. MS. DUSEK: So moved. MR. LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All Page 20 June 28, 2001 those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) MS. CRUZ: The alleged violation before this board is a violation of a structure erected in a rear yard and the remodeling of the residence without first obtaining all of the required Collier County permits. These are violations of Ordinance No. 91-102, Sections 1.5.6, Section 2.1.15, and Section 2.7.6, paragraph 1 and 5. The address where the violation exists is 4587 25th Court Southwest, Naples, Florida. This property is more particularly described as Golden Gate Unit 3, Block 90, Lot -- Lot 15. The owner of record is Adolfo A. Carta. Address of record is 4587 25th Court Southwest, Naples, Florida. Violation was first observed on January 10th, 2001. Two notice of violations were provided to the respondent. One is dated January 10th, 2001, requesting immediate compliance. The other one was dated January 23rd, 2001, with a compliance date of February 7th, 2001. The violation -- the reinspection was conducted yesterday resulting in violation remaining. I'd like to call Tom Campbell, code investigator, at this time, please. MR. CAMPBELL: Good morning. My name is Tom Campbell. I'm an investigator-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hold on one second. We need to swear him in. Mr. Carta, would you stand, please, and be sworn in. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. CAMPBELL: Good morning. Mr. Carta is a plumbing contractor, has a license, has a home occupational license. And this - - this case stems from some -- another case of complying with the home occupation requirements, which was, in effect, some PVC piping dumped or stored in the front right-of-way. He did remove Page 21 June 28, 2001 that in -- in a timely fashion, and that case has been abated. On January 10th I noticed he has a large fence, a 6-foot fence, around his house. And I noticed the gate was open. And in the backyard left rear comer, there was a -- a rack, a wooden rack, a permanent rack, with a lean-to-type roofing, shed roofing, on it. And it was stow -- it was full of white PVC plumbing pipe. I told him that he can't store materials for his business on the residential property, and that's what the initial NOV was for. He agreed to comply. And on the 22nd of January I went back there. I always knock on the door, let people know that I'm in the area, and went into the backyard after, you know, announcing -- addressing them and then announcing that I was there to check it out; went back there. I believe the violation was -- the violation was still in existence as a pipe rack. As I turned around to leave, I noticed that there was a gazebo which you have photographs of-- it's a -- a pretty structure -- and room addition, a lanai enclosure on the back of the building. I asked him if he had permits for those additions. He said no. I said I'll give him an NO -- a notice of violation and he needs to comply. Subsequently, I was out there in February. And the rack, the original rack, was gone. So I closed that portion of the case. I've numerous contacts with -- Mr. Carta has been very friendly, and he's agreed to comply and get the permits. But to date we just don't have the permits, and we're asking that -- he's been given the opportunity. We're asking that he be required to get the after-the-fact permits for the lanai addition or enclosing of the lanai and the -- and the gazebo. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions for Mr. Campbell? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Question, sir. In obtaining the after- the-fact permits, I assume is what he's -- excuse me -- has to get, time span of the process to do this? Page 22 June 28,2001 MR. CAMPBELL: I'm going to say as quick as three or four weeks. And sometimes you have to go back and get -- for the gazebo you need to have the setback, so you need a site plan or at least a graphic showing -- to take into the permitting department. And that can be -- and there might be a couple trips involved. I'm -- you know, not knowing exactly what the specifics are, but making -- crossing all the T's and dotting the I's, maybe six, eight weeks. MS. TAYLOR: How long -- how long do you think this addition on the lanai has been up? MR. CAMPBELL: Well, if you can see the picture there, it looks like it's been weathered. MS. TAYLOR: Uh-huh. MR. CAMPBELL: I'd rather not guess. I'd say six months, a year. Now, his -- the back property -- he's on a canal, and the brock- - back property is vegetated. You can see through from the opposite side of the canal, but it's very difficult to see. MS. TAYLOR: But my question is, do you think this would pass inspection as long as this has been up and as weathered as it is? Do you think it would pass inspection? MR. CAMPBELL: Well, the -- the enclosing of the lanai, I would guess that it would be, yes. The only question that I would have for the gazebo is, are the tie-downs -- that's what we're really concerned with is, is it safe? Are the tie-downs adequate, and, you know, will the structure go in -- in a hurricane? MS. TAYLOR: Uh-huh. MS. GODFREY-LINT: Inspector, on the extension on the lanai, I don't see any supports going from the floor to the roof. It's just kind of hanging over there. Wouldn't that require some kind of supports? MR. CAMPBELL: That, I believe, would be addressed by the permitting engineering department-- MS. GODFREY-LINT: Uh-huh. Page 23 June 28, 2001 MR. CAMPBELL: -- to be picked up when they make their certificate of-- final inspection. MS. GODFREY-LINT: Okay. Because there's really no way he could tie the ends down without the -- having the supports and tie- downs. MR. CAMPBELL: Yes. It looks like there has been a roof addition there. MS. GODFREY-LINT: Yes. MR. CAMPBELL: I would think that you would put a post on the end. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any additions -- additional questions for Mr. Campbell? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. Mr. Carta. MR. CARTA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Tell us your version, sir. MR. CARTA: Mr. Campbell is correct. I didn't pull the permits. I just haven't had time to get everything together. I do have the plans completed, the survey, drainfield inspection. I just have to submit all that paperwork to the county to see what -- what else may be required. I had some engineering done to the roof structure in reference to the -- the overhang, and I was told that it was -- it was safe and it was properly done. MS. DUSEK: Can you tell us why you've delayed getting these MR. CARTA: I just haven't had the time. I -- like I said, I run a plumbing company, and my radio's been going off since I stepped in here; really, really very busy. I'm one person, you know, running five guys. It's been -- it's my fault. As I say, I just overlooked it and been putting it off, putting it off, putting it off. And when you don't Page 24 June 28, 2001 put something in the front of your mind, time seems to fly by. MS. TAYLOR: But you have a business, and you know that permitting is necessary. MR. CARTA: Yes, ma'am. Yeah. I said I -- I neglected to do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Carta? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: section of that case. Any additional questions for Mr. Thank you, sir. Any further If none, we'll close the public hearing MS. DUSEK: Michelle, I have another question for you. violation section, on the violation of 2.1.15, that, in fact, is applicable. MS. ARNOLD: Excuse me. What was the question? MS. DUSEK: Citing him for the violation of Section 2.1.15 in the Ordinance 91-102. MS. ARNOLD: Whether or not we should have cited him -- MS. DUSEK: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: -- under that section, is that the question? MS. DUSEK: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: That section is for prohibited uses and structures. And we cite individuals for that when there's no permit obtained to authorize those uses and structures within the zoning district or in that area. So that was -- that's why that section was included. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Finding of fact by the board that there, in fact, is an existing violation? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that there is a violation in the In the Page 25 June 28, 2001 case of the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, versus Adolfo Carta, Case CEB No. 2001-054. And the violation is of Sections 1.5.6 and 2.1.15 and 2.7.6, paragraph 1 and 5 of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code Ordinance. The description of the violation, a structure erected in the rear yard and the remodeling of the residence without first obtaining all required Collier County permits. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that there, in fact, is an existing violation. MS. TAYLOR: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second to the motion. Any further question? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. MR. PONTE: I'd suggest that we follow staff recommendation. MS. DUSEK: I would agree with that except for the time frame. When Mr. Campbell said 6 to 8 weeks and they have 45 days here, that would be within the 6-week period. But I just wondered if we should extend it to make sure. MS. ARNOLD: I believe the question that was proposed to Mr. Campbell was how long it would take to obtain the -- I mean, submit for the permits. And I think the chairman is the one that asked that question. And he's indi -- and the respondent has indicated today that he has all of the paperwork ready for submittal for the county. MS. DUSEK: So -- Page 26 June 28, 2001 MS. ARNOLD: And it wouldn't take the county six to eight -- six to eight weeks to review those plans. MR. LEHMANN: Michelle, what is staff's recommendation of the time -- turnaround time on the permit? MS. ARNOLD: Our recommendation was to obtain the building permits and -- and get the -- completed within 45 days. I think it's probably doable knowing that he has all of the necessary paperwork. He's already gotten the survey to -- to be submitted to the county. The county should, with this type of project, review the -- the submitted plans within a week's time. MR. LEHMANN: Uh-huh. MS. ARNOLD: And I can, you know, work with the building department to make sure that they're aware that this is a code case and so that there is no delay on the -- the review. Staff would surely - - if we were to the case of imposing fines, for example, and it was created from a delay that the county initiate -- or because of the review process, created a delay for him to meet that time frame, we'd surely bring that back to the board and -- and make recommendations accordingly. MR. LEHMANN: All right. MS. DUSEK: So in the worst-case scenario, is 45 days -- MS. ARNOLD: I think it should be -- yeah. One of the -- the gazebo, all they would be inspecting for is the -- the tie-down of it. Structurally I think it's -- it's sound. He's indicated that he's gotten engineering to -- to con -- confirm that. And the other part would be the addition. Now, it would be up to him to, you know, get the work done for finishing up that addition. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That -- that's not what the board's going to ask him to do. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Just -- just to get the permits, not to Page 27 June 28, 2001 finish it. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: Well, the point of my question is that Mr. Carta has -- has told us that he's ready to submit. He has all the documentation. Staff is telling us the turnaround for the county ought to be a week or so. That gives them plenty of time within that 45-day period, if all the documents then are correct, to -- a rejection letter from the county, to respond to that rejection letter, and then get an approved permit. And that's all that we're asking him to do. So I feel 45 days is more than sufficient at this point in time. MS. TAYLOR: I agree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So the order of the board. MR. PONTE: All right. I'll make a motion that the -- we follow the recommendation of staff in that -- in the case of Adolfo Carta, that he bring the property into compliance by obtaining building permits for the gazebo and -- in addition to the structure, and all -- and to do so within 45 days or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for every day the violation exists. MS. TAYLOR: I-- MR. LEHMANN: May I-- MS. TAYLOR:-- second it. MR. LEHMANN: May I respectfully request my colleague to add the prosecution costs into his motion? MR. PONTE: I will add the prosecution costs. MS. TAYLOR: Now I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second to obtain proper building permits for both the gazebo and the addition in 45 days or a fine of a hundred dollars a day be imposed, plus pay the prosecution costs. And we have a second. Any further question? Page 28 June 28,2001 aye. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Mr. Carta, do you understand, sir? MR. CARTA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you. Next public hearing case -- do you want to add these two together, Michelle? It will be case No. 2001-055 and 2001-058, Board of County Commissioners versus Claude Martel. MS. CRUZ: Let the record show that Mr. Martel is present. I'd like to request that the composite exhibits that were provided to Mr. Martel in both cases, 2001-55 and 2001-58, Board of County Commissioners versus Jean Claude Martel, be admitted into evidence at this time marked Composite Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Martel, do you object to the county submitting their paperwork to us? MR. MARTEL: I've been over here so many times. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, do you object to them giving us the paperwork that you have? MR. MARTEL: (Unintelligible) THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, can I ask you to please speak into the mike? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, you-- you can ask questions later. All I want to know is, can the county submit their paperwork to us? Yes or no would be -- MR. MARTEL: What do you mean by that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, you've got a set of it. And they Page 29 June 28, 2001 have then it all object to them submitting it to us.9 MR. MARTEL: I don't know. there. to give it to us to consider in this hearing. If we don't have it, MR. MARTEL: You don't have no paper? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It would be very difficult to have to do verbally, but we can do that. So I'm just asking you, would you I mean, what I got to do over CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We're not -- we don't want to hear the case yet. All I want to know is, can they give us that paperwork to review and -- and submit as evidence? And then you're going to get the chance to submit whatever you like. MR. MARTEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay? MR. MARTEL: All right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, sir. Thank you. You can sit down. We'll call you back. Okay. I entertain a motion to accept the county's exhibit. MS. DUSEK: I so move. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the exhibits from the county. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.). MS. CRUZ: Thank you. Case No. 2001-55. The alleged violation in this case is accumulation of-- and storage of litter and abandoned derelict materials on the property and weeds in the rear yard in excess of 36 inches. These are vi -- also, on Case No. 2001- 58 is the accumulation of litter and the outside storage of abandoned Page 30 June 28, 2001 and derelict property. These are violations of Sections 1.5.6 and Sections 6, 7, 8, and 11. Those sections are from Ordinance No. 99- 51. That's the county -- Collier County Litter and Weed Ordinance. Section 1.5.6 is the vi -- is a section of-- of an Ordinance No. 91- 102, the Collier County Land Development Code. The violation on Case No. 2001-55 exists at 3176 Karen Drive, Naples, Florida. This property is more particularly described as NG TCLF No. 2, Lot 38 of unrecorded Tarpon mobile home described as follows: the commercial northeast comer of Lot 100, the south 199 feet, west 360 feet. The property on Case No. 2001-58, the violation exists at 3190 Karen Drive, Naples, Florida. This property is more particularly described as NG TCLF No. 2, commercial northeast -- commencing in northeast comer of Lot 100, the south 337.8 feet of the west 360 feet. The owner of record for both of these property (sic) is Claude Martel. The owner of record for Claude Martel is 3190 Karen Drive, Naples, Florida. Both of these violations, both cases, were observed on July 14, 2000. Notice of violations were provided to the respondent on July 14 and July 16, requesting compliance by August 1 lth, 2000. A final reinspection was conducted yesterday resulting in violation remaining. I'd like to call at this time investigator John Kelly, please. MR. KELLY: Good morning, Chairman, members of the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good morning. One moment. Mr. Martel, would you stand up and be sworn in, sir. Just do this one time. Just right there, sir. That's fine. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You can be seated, sir, until we call you. You can be seated, and we'll call you in a minute. Thank you. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to correct Maria real quick. The -- the property that you described it as, you've left Page 31 June 28,2001 out the ending part of it. Basically commences the northeast comer of Lot 100, travel south 337.8 feet, west 360 feet to the point of beginning. MS. CRUZ: Point of beginning. MR. LEHMANN: And then the lot actually starts in the north 139 feet, east 60 feet, and south 139 feet -- MS. CRUZ: That is correct. MR. LEHMANN: -- for -- for CEB Case 058 and then respectively for the other case too. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. CRUZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Kelly. MR. KELLY: John Kelly, code enforcement investigator, Collier County. These cases, 3176 Karen Drive and 3190 Karen Drive, were conducted simultaneously as they are adjoining properties. It was proactive -- they were proactively initiated as a result of a public nuisance being created by the outside storage of litter and abandoned and derelict property which is fully exposed to the weather. The litter and property on both properties is similar. It's difficult to describe, as it seems to include everything, including the kitchen sink. At 3176 we had bicycle parts, aluminum panels, appliances, pipes, cans, electrical equipment, building and construction materials, etc., and weeds exceeding 18 inches. I effected personal service of the notice of violation on July 14 on that case for compliance by August 11 of 2000. At 3190 the litter consisted of auto parts, planters, appliances, tires, electronics, construction materials, disconnected hot tub filled with green water, and numerous other items and weeds exceeding 18 inches. Again, that was -- the notice of violation was personally served on July 14 with a compliance date of August 11, 2000. Page 32 June 28, 2001 For reasons that may have been apparent, I've tried to be compassionate with this gentleman for close to a year now making weekly visits to the property and talking to him personally at least every two weeks to ensure that he understood the violation and in attempts to comply. He's had a lot going on, including other code cases which have been abated, for the most part, that ran concurrent with these cases. And the final visit was performed yesterday; just go through here and show you the current pictures as it has changed. 503 -- sorry. This is going to be your Code Case No. 2001-55, which is 3176. On June 27th this would be the frontward east of the principal structure. This would be between 3176 and 3190, as well as this picture here (indicating) We'll go to the next page. This is going to be the rear yard, south side of the structure, as is this picture (indicating) and the final picture here is going to be, again, between 3176 and 3190. I probably should add that 3176 is used as a rental unit. 3190 is Mr. Martel's residence, I believe. This case is going to be your 2001-58 at 3190. This is going to be the front yard facing south from the roadway; again, the front yard. The -- big difference, you'll notice from your packet and the pictures I'm showing you now, is we succeeded in cleaning up the front yard, for the most part. The side yard has been greatly improved, and I would estimate 50 percent of the litter has been removed since my initial visit. However, we do have a considerable amount remaining. The next picture is going to be the east side of the principal structure. The storage area that he has here is packed full and overflowing. This is the only litter remaining in the front yard at this time and derelict property. This is going to be, again, between the two structures at 7 -- 3176 and 3190, as is the next picture. And these Page 33 June 28,2001 are probably going to be your best pictures here. This is going to be the west side of the property, all three pictures here. And you will note everything is there except the kitchen sink. And here we go into the rear yard where there is the hot tub that is not connected, really has no purpose in being there. And I guess we have more. Just let you take a look at this for yourself, rear yard between the two properties. And this is the southeast comer of the property (indicating), appliances, televisions and, again, the rear yard. As I say, weekly visits have been made to the property since the initial investigation with personal contact attempted at least every two to three weeks. MS. DUSEK: MR. KELLY: MS. DUSEK: In your-- That will conclude my testimony. In your statement saying that he's removed about 50 percent of the litter, is this on his resident property? MR. KELLY: This would be between the -- both properties. MS. DUSEK: Both properties. MR. KELLY: Yes. MS. TAYLOR: I'll bet there -- I'll bet there are many rats running around in here. You probably didn't see any. I don't know how you could, but I'll bet you it's thick with rats. MR. KELLY: I did not see any. MS. TAYLOR: Well, you couldn't. It would be impossible to see them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Investigator Kelly, any safety issues here, you know, or hazards or anything like that? MR. KELLY: As far as the litter and derelict property is concemed -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MR. KELLY: -- it might be a health and safety factor in that some of these piles could fall over. And the -- I guess it could Page 34 June 28, 2001 influence rodents into coming into the area. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. GODFREY-LINT: And, Inspector, with the rainy season on us, we're going to have mosquitoes. MR. KELLY: Uh-huh. MS. GODFREY-LINT: So we've got a problem with mosquitoes and other kind of-- MS. TAYLOR: Well, the problem is, it's probably one of the worst messes I've ever seen. That's the No. 1 problem, and it needs to be cleaned up totally as quickly as possible. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any additional questions for Mr. Kelly? MR. LEHMANN: Investigator Kelly, did you say -- did you confirm there is a safety and health problem here? MR. KELLY: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: Are there children in the neighborhood? Is this -- and I'm not familiar with this particular location. Is this near children? MR. however, MR. property, MR. MR. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Kelly? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Martel? MR. MARTEL: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: KELLY: There are -- there are children on the street, not on the subject properties themselves. LEHMANN: Okay. And there's no fencing around the I assume. KELLY: Around the front, yes. LEHMANN: Okay. Any additional questions for Mr. Thank you, sir. Tell us about the property. Page 35 June 28, 2001 MR. MARTEL: What's that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Tell us about this property. MR. MARTEL: Well, I have somebody help me clean them up, and he got arrested, beat somebody with a wrench and got arrested over there, got a year in jail. And he's supposed to get out on the 15th of Jul -- no, on the 5th of July. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Pull up the mike a little closer to you, sir. There you go. Thank you. MR. MARTEL: And -- and I got a-- I have a hernie (sic) last year, and I couldn't lift nothing for most the year. And I got the gout three weeks ago, and I'm finally got -- getting better now. I'm still on pill. And Mr. Kelly, after I got -- we got a lot of it done. We got a big patch -- I can drive my truck in between the two buildings. Mr. Kelly come over there, said, "We got to take care of the 3000 over there. We have another violation over there, and it's almost expired." and the violation, it was a shared -- the whole cleanup of the property. After -- after I got that done -- and I find -- I find two mobile -- two mobile home for-- Naples Hospital gave me two mobile home for free, which I'm going to put the mobile home on Karen Drive, which I want get a -- destroy -- what do you call that? Destroy permit? You know -- MS. DUSEK: Demolition. MR. MARTEL: Demolition permit, yeah. And that's -- that's what this -- the demo -- 3150 Karen Drive, which I'm still working on it now. And I didn't touch the one on 3000 Karen Drive yet. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But these -- these two -- MR. MARTEL: And not -- not the hospital, but I got to get the mobile home out of there. I got one of it out of there and put it in storage off Radio Road over there. It take me two weeks to get rid of the mobile and all that, you know. I've been having all my time over Page 36 June 28, 2001 there, you know. And I got to -- halfway down -- destroyed that one on 3155 over there and -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let's get back to these two particular places, 3176 and 3190, about cleaning up all this stuff. What -- MR. MARTEL: Yeah. Well, at least -- I'd like to have at least a couple of more months because I'm kind of busy, you know. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody have any questions for Mr. Martel? MR. PONTE: Yes, I do. Why has it taken you so long to -- for this to really be acted on? It's been -- been one year. MR. MARTEL: Well, I was -- I was sick and, you know -- MR. PONTE: I understand that, sir. But it's been one year. MR. MARTEL: Well, I got -- I got the other place. I got six place on that street. MR. PONTE: And the -- many violations. MR. MARTEL: Yeah. And I got that commercial property on Airport Road I got to keep mowed over there because last time they charged me $145 because I didn't have time to mow. The county charged me $145, you know. I got -- I got to take -- I'm by myself. I -- I got to cook myself. I got no -- you know, I'm single. MS. TAYLOR: How long did it take you to get all that stuff in there? MR. MARTEL: Quite a while. MS. TAYLOR: I mean, is this just years of accumulation? MR. MARTEL: Well, a lot of stuff-- a lot of people bring me stuff to check them out, you know, the air conditioning and stuff, you know. I've been -- threw a lot of stuff out. I got probably like -- I probably got a third to go. At least you can walk in between. I can -- I can pull my truck in there now. MS. TAYLOR: You mean -- this is your own personal Page 37 June 28, 2001 junkyard? Is that what you're saying? MR. MARTEL: Kind of. MS. TAYLOR: Kind of?. MR. MARTEL: Yeah. MS. TAYLOR: Definitely. MR. MARTEL: Okay. And I'm, like-- I, like, seen-- a garage of stuff I kind of-- I kind of went through where I can put in my -- I got that big garage on 3176 Karen Drive. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any additional questions for Mr. Martel? MS. TAYLOR: MR. MARTEL: MS. TAYLOR: that full ofjunk also? MR. MARTEL: What's in the trailer? Huh? What's in that mobile home? Anything? Or is I got -- it's got a lot of stuff in there, a lot of TVs and stereo and stuff and -- it's my hobby. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any additional questions for Mr. Martel? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Mr. Martel. MR. MARTEL: All right. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Kelly, I just have one more question. The weeds have been cut. It's just the litter that's still there? MR. KELLY: He's maintained the front yard. However, the back is back to in excess of 18 inches, probably around 36 to 48. MS. DUSEK: Okay. MS. TAYLOR: I would think that the weeds would be the least of anybody's worry, looking at these pictures. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We'll close the public hearing section of these two cases, twenty-one oh fifty-five and twenty -- or 2001-55 and 2001-58. Page 38 June 28, 2001 MS. DUSEK: Do we -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: Do we cite a violation for each one, or do we do it together? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. We have two cases, so we have to-- MS. DUSEK: Do it-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- find a finding of fact for each case individually. MS. DUSEK: All right. I make a motion that there is a violation in the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, versus Claude Martel, CEB Case No. 2001-055. The violation is of Sections 1.5.6 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code Ordinance, and violation of Sections 6 and 7 and 8 and 11 of Ordinance No. 99-51, as amended, the Collier County Litter and Weed Ordinance. The description of the violation: accumulation and storage of litter and abandoned derelict materials on the property and weeds in the rear yard in excess of 36 inches. MR. LEHMANN: Second that motion. MR. PONTE: Or should it read 18 inches? Because I think that's the -- MR. LEHMANN: Is it? MR. PONTE: That's the ordinance, isn't it not, 36? It's over 18 inches. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. The ordinance indicates over 18 inches. The investigator measured and made a specific notation that it's in excess of 36. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I let -- the violation is the weeds are already 36. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. Page 39 June 28, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think that's what Bobby was describing, the violation itself. MS. DUSEK: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Okay. So it -- we have a motion and a second that there, in fact, is a violation against Case No. 2001-055. Is that the one you picked? MS. DUSEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: on Case 055? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: aye. Okay. Do I hear any further question All those in favor signify by saying (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Finding of fact on 058. Do you want to do that one, too, Bobby? MS. DUSEK: Uh-huh. I'm going to make a motion following the recommendation of the staff that the CE board -- CEB order the respondent to pay prosecution costs and bring the property into compliance by removing litter and weeds within 30 days or a fine of $50 be imposed per day for every day the violation continues to exist. MS. TAYLOR: I would like you to amend that to $100 per day. MR. PONTE: I'd second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion for 50 and a Do you want to amend your motion? You don't request to amend it. have to. We can-- MS. DUSEK: I understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We will see if there will be a second. And if not, then we can do something else. MS. DUSEK: I guess the magnitude of this property, the litter, Page 40 June 28, 2001 has been going on long enough and is quite substantial, so I'll agree to the $100. MS. TAYLOR: And I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion. I would ask that you amend it to include prosecution costs. MS. DUSEK: And prosecution costs. MS. TAYLOR: I'll second it again. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second that on Case 055 the respondent be given 30 days to comply or a fine of $100 be imposed for every day it continues, plus pay the prosecution costs, and we have a second. Any further question? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Bobby. Go ahead. Any opposed? Okay. Case 058. You're on a roll, MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that there is a violation in the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, versus Jean -- no. This is not right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. 058. MS. DUSEK: Okay. Jean Claude Del -- Jean Claude Martel, Case CEB No. 2001-058, and the violation is of Sections 1.5.6 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code Ordinance, and violation of Sections 6 and 7 and 8 and 11 of Ordinance No. 99-51, as amended, Collier County Litter and Weed Ordinance. The description of the violation: accumulation of litter and the outside storage of abandoned and derelict property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion that there, in Page 41 June 28,2001 fact, is a violation in Case 058. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: further discussion? aye. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear a second? We have a motion and a second. Any All those in favor signify by saying (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board? MS. DUSEK: Well, in looking at both properties which are similar, I think that probably the same recommendation should be made. So I'll start. I make a motion that the CEB order the respondent to pay prosecution costs and bring the property into compliance by removing litter and weeds within 30 days or a fine of $100 per day be imposed for every day the violation continues to exist. MS. TAYLOR: I'll second that. Oh, prosecution costs. You forgot -- MS. DUSEK: I did include that. MS. TAYLOR: All right. I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second in Case 058 that respondent pay prosecution costs; next, that he be given 30 days to bring the property into compliance or a fine of a hundred dollars be imposed for every day. And we have a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying (Unanimous response.) aye. Page 42 June 28, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: we've done, sir? MR. MARTEL: Yeah. Any opposed? Mr. Martel, do you understand what CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We've given you 30 days to clean up both properties. If you don't, you will be fined a hundred dollars a day until you do. Okay? MR. MARTEL: (Nodded head.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. Okay. Let's take five minutes. (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We'll call the meeting back to order, please. Michelle, is -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. I guess I'll do it since Maria-- I think she went up to record-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: -- some documents. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The next case is Case No. 2001-056, Board of County Commissioners versus Marion Smith and James A. Seals. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. This is a -- violations (sic) of Section 2.6.7.1.1 of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code Ordinance, and violations of Section 6, 7, and 8 of Ordinance 99-51, as amended, the Collier County Litter and Weed Ordinance. The description of the violation is litter in the rear yard and unlicensed vehicles on the property. I just want to note that the unlicensed vehicle portion is -- is not being considered today. The location of the violation is at 5406 Carlton Street, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as Naples Manor addition, Block Page 43 June 28, 2001 12, Lots 1 and 2. The name and address of the property owner is Marion Smith and James A. Seal (sic) with an address of P. O. Box 7471, Naples, Florida 34101. On January 31st the violation was first -- of 2001, the violation was first observed at which time a notice of violation was issued, and another notice of violation was issued on April 19th, '01. Portions of the violations were not corrected by reinspection dates (sic) May 10th, 2001, and as of that date -- and I believe the -- the vi -- the inspector went out yesterday, June 26 -- 27th, and the violation of litter still remains. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: At this time we ask that the board accept the Composite Exhibit A, the packet that was submitted to you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Is Marion Smith or-- and/or James Seals here? MR. SEALS: James Seals. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. Mr. Seals, do you object to the county submitting the package to us? MR. SEALS: No, sir, I don't. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. I'd entertain a motion to accept the County's Exhibit A. MS. TAYLOR: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have 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. ARNOLD: At this time I'll ask Jason Toreky to -- the investigator for the case, to present his case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Seals, would you stand and be Page 44 June 28, 2001 sworn in, please. Just -- are you going to say anything to us later on? MR. SEALS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Good. Let's swear you in, sir, if you would raise your right hand for the young lady. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. TOREKY: My name is Jason Toreky. I'm an investigator with code enforcement. I'm going to give a brief summary. While on a routine patrol on January 31st, 2001, I observed a pile of litter in the rear yard that had concrete blocks stacked around it. The litter consisted of lawn mowers, aluminum scrap, cans, etc. It was also -- well, the -- the vehicle part of it is already abated. While I was on site that day-- there was nobody home. I posted a notice, sent a notice in the mail. The notice was returned. The violation remained on March 2nd, 2001. On April ! 9th, 2001, I met with Mr. Seals on the property early in the morning. I went over the violations with him. I explained to him what he needed to do about the vehicle as well, and a -- a notice was issued to him. The compliance date for that was set for April 29th. On May 1 st I did the -- my visit, and all the litter was removed except for three piles of concrete block. The three piles of concrete blocks still remain there as of today. I spoke with Mr. Seals a few times during -- during that period from May 1 st until today, and he advised he was going to move them, remove them from the property. I spoke with him yesterday, and he said that this weekend -- he would like to be given a chance to remove them this weekend, and that's where this case stands. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any questions for the investigator? MR. PONTE: How big a pile of blocks is this? Is it manageable? It is a hundred blocks or--. Page 45 June 28, 2001 MR. TOREKY: It's approximately probably a hundred block. I have a current photo. That's all that remains. MS. DUSEK: So this is the only thing left on the property? MR. TOREKY: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good. Any additional questions for the investigator? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. Mr. Seals? MR. SEALS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What would you like to tell us, sir? MR. SEALS: I'd just like to say, from what it was, it's a great improvement. And all I got is a few blocks left, and I need a few days to get rid of them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, sir. ~ Any additional questions for Mr. Seals? MS. GODFREY-LINT: Mr. Seals, have you found a place where you can put these blocks so that you don't get tagged again? MR. SEALS: Well, I planned on building a planter, and one of the code enforcement officers told me that I need to get a permit. MS. GODFREY-LINT: Uh-huh. MR. Seals: And they say you don't need no permit for a planter, a three -- a planter. Just stack them up, put some mud between them, put some flowers or something. But I will get rid of them. MR. PONTE: Can you get rid of them in 14 days? MR. SEALS: I planned on getting rid of them this weekend. MR. PONTE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Seals? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. Page 46 June 28, 2001 Any other questions for the county or the respondent? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If not, I'll close the public hearing section. Finding of fact on behalf of the board. MS. DUSEK: We're -- we're discarding that -- the 2.6.7.1 one and -- and in looking at the -- 6 seems to be applicable. I'm not so sure about 8. I mean, they're all fairly similar, but this is such a small amount that the way Section 8 reads, I don't know that we -- we need to cite him on Section 8. Would you agree? MS. ARNOLD: That would be fine. MR. LEHMANN: I think 8 refers to the storing of materials. It seems -- it seems all of them pretty much tie together. MS. DUSEK: Well, I'll make a motion that there is a violation in the case of the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, versus James and Marion-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. James-- MS. DUSEK: Marion and James -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. That's two separate individuals. MS. DUSEK: Sorry about that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Marion Smith and -- MS. DUSEK: Marion Smith and James A. Seals. Sorry -- in the case CEB No. 2001-056. The violation is of Sections 6 and 7 of Ordinance No. 99-51, as amended, the Collier County lead -- Litter and Weed Ordinance. The description of the violation is litter in the rear yard. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that there, in fact, is a violation existing. MS. TAYLOR: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second. Any further discussion to the motion? (No response.) Page 47 June 28, 2001 aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Order of the board? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we follow the recommendation of the staff that the CEB order the respondent to pay prosecution costs and bring the property into compliance by removing all litter within 14 days or a fine of $25 per day be imposed for each day the violation continues to exist. MR. PONTE: I'll second. MS. TAYLOR: Plus prosecution costs? MS. DUSEK: I said that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. She said that. MS. TAYLOR: I'm sorry. I'm not hearing that for some reason. Sorry. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. In fact, the order of the board is for the respondent to pay the prosecution costs and also to come into compliance within 14 days or a fine of $25 be imposed for every day the violation continues. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We've given you 14 days to remove these blocks. get fined $25 a day. Mr. Seals, do you understand, sir? If you don't, you'll Page 48 June 28, 2001 MR. SEALS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Yes, sir. MR. SEALS: How much are these prosecution costs? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's a question I can't answer in just five seconds. I have to defer to the county. Michelle, Mr. Seals asked us if-- what the prosecution costs were. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. That would be three hundred and ninety and eighty-six cents. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: $390.86, sir. MR. SEALS: That's kind of steep, isn't it? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I can't help you there, sir. MR. SEALS: I understand you-all don't work for nothing, but gees. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's the final case. Public hearings are closed. New business, request for imposition of fines. MS. ARNOLD: This would be your previous case heard on February 22nd, 2001. At that hearing the board heard Case 2001- 006, Calixto and Branda Lazo, and found them in violation and asked them to remove debris that was left on the property from the removal of vegetation. And that -- they were given until March 8th, 2001, to - - to comply. They have complied with that portion of the board's order. The respondent -- the respondent was also ordered to obtain an approved mitigation plan by April 8th, 2001, and there has -- they have submitted a mitiga -- mitigation plan, but they have not received approval. There is modification that is required from the mitigation plan. The respondent, if not complying with the board's order, was ordered to pay $75 per day until the violation continues. Staff is at this time requesting that the board issue an impos -- Page 49 June 28, 2001 file an imposition of fine for the amount of $7,525 for the period of April 9th, 2001, through June 15th, 2001, and also order the prosecution charges of $705.26. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle, since -- you say you subm -- they've submitted a plan, but it's not approved. When did they submit the plan? MS. ARNOLD: The plan -- we have a note from the investigator on June 25th, '01, that they received the mitigation plan and they reviewed it and it needs modifications. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So he -- he didn't submit it-- they didn't submit it prior to the April deadline? MS. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a request to impose the fines. The total, if I did it right, comes to $10,730.26. I'll need a motion to impose the fines, please. MS. TAYLOR: So moved. MR. LEHMANN: Michelle, is that correct? Is -- is the total fines we're looking at in the range of ten thousand, or is it seventy- five twenty-five and the other costs were included in the seventy-five twenty-five? MS. ARNOLD: It -- it includes -- I think the -- the chairman is right. I don't know the exact number, but it's -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But you have to add the three numbers together. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. Those three numbers together, because staff ended up removing the vegetation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: impose the fines as requested. MS. GODFREY-LINT: MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. And so we have a motion to Do I hear a second? Second. Any further discussion? Page 50 June 28, 2001 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Michelle, when we -- now that we've imposed the fines, you record these, don't you? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. You might make note, since we're at a pretty good dollar level right now and I'm sure it's still running until he gets approved, the fines that we're imposing versus the cost of the property is -- we're probably close to at least 50 percent of the property value. So, you know, if the county is going to ever get its money, we've got to be careful on this one, or we'll soon get beyond where it's unreasonable for us to ask the county attorney to foreclose. Okay? MS. ARNOLD: Yup. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Old business. I don't see it on here, so I assume we're not going to discuss rules and regulations? MS. ARNOLD: No. No. We're going to put it on the next agenda. We did provide that to you for review. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is there anybody that did not get a copy of what's entitled as, quote, final draft? And I know we still have some exhibits to be given to us also so -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. We'll -- we'll -- once we get those finalized, we'll submit those to you before that next meeting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: So at our next meeting are we meeting to approve the rules and regulations or to discuss them? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I think there's still some Page 51 June 28, 2001 discussions, because in going through them I still found some errors that we had talked about that weren't corrected. So I think there's still some more discussion before we -- it's not saying we couldn't approve and adopt at the same meeting, but it just depends how long it takes. Okay. Nothing under old business. Any reports? I don't see anything listed. Any comments from anyone? Our next meeting date is set for July 16th -- I'm sorry. MS. GODFREY-LINT: Michelle, when I was on the south board, you used to give us a map. Is there a reason why we don't have maps so we can kind of figure out when you're talking about Naples Manor or in the estates where it's located? Remember on the south board you used to give us a map, and you had the north board and the south board. And it would help, kind of, finding out where the property was located, how close to town or, you know, out in the estates, how far out it was and stuff. It -- it helped a lot -- MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MS. GODFREY-LINT: -- to kind of get an idea ofjust how close to town it was and kind of give you a reference point of where these violations are taking-- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. I -- I think that on the other board we had an investigate -- investigator that pulled the maps off of the computer and just included that in the package just as a reference. MS. GODFREY-LINT: Oh, okay. MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. MS. GODFREY-LINT: But it helped a lot. MS. TAYLOR: That was mostly to give us on the south board - MS. ARNOLD: Right. MS. TAYLOR: -- our line -- what we were -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. Page 52 June 28,2001 I--I much know where they are. MS. GODFREY-LINT: CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. GODFREY-LINT: MS. TAYLOR: -- you know. MS. ARNOLD: To indicate the difference between-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. MS. ARNOLD: -- you know, the north and south board. MS. TAYLOR: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's whatever the board's pleasure is. don't require such -- when -- when you bring these, I pretty I don't. But anyway. Any other comments? Go out and look -- you can't go out and look to find out where it is because you have -- because -- but I -- MS. ARNOLD: I mean, it -- it's just added information. MS. GODFREY-LINT: Uh-huh. MS. ARNOLD: I don't think the location of the -- the violation is as relevant in your consideration for -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. The location of where it exists should not really be relevant to making a decision. It's in the county, period. Whether it's five minutes from town or an hour from town makes no difference. I mean, I'm -- I'm not objecting. I'm just saying it really doesn't add anything. MS. GODFREY-LINT: Oh, I understand that a lot of people out in the estates, they move out in the estates because they figure that they can live the way they want to and -- and, as you-all know, we get a lot of problems with people just go out there and they do what they want to because they live out in the estates. And that kind of gives you -- I don't know -- a reference point of their mentality when we get a case. If they're out there, they -- a lot of people don't think they have to pull permits or they can put animals on their residential properties and -- MS. ARNOLD: I'll see what I can do about providing a -- a Page 53 June 28, 2001 map with the cases. MS. GODFREY-LINT: CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Monday. Be 9 a.m., Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. aye. Okay. Thank you. Next meeting is July 16th which is Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would entertain a motion to adjourn. MS. TAYLOR: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Second? MS. GODFREY-LINT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you very much. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:44 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RMR, CRR Page 54