The URL can be used to link to this page

CEB Minutes 11/29/2001 RNovember 29, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, November 29, 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 DARRIN M. PHILLIPS PETER LEHMANN GEORGE PONTE RHONA SAUNDERS ABSENT: DIANE TAYLOR KATHLEEN CURATOLO ALSO PRESENT: JEAN RAWSON, Attorney for the Board MICHELLE ARNOLD, Code Enforcement Director MARIA CRUZ, Enforcement Official Page 1 DEVELOPMENT ~ CLERK OF BRD ~00! CODE ~ORCEM[~I, llO~'~n OF C'o?:.r;_T.~rt CIiIUIq~Y, Fr~R7OA DaCl: ~ovem~er 29, 2001 ~t 9:00 o'c~oc~ ~.~. A~in~scrative aldg. 3rd Floor OF THE PR~?I{~INGS PERTAINING T~O, ~ TIiERE~E ~y ~ED TO ~S~E T~T A ~TIH R~CO~ OF ~ PR~DI~S IS ~E, ~ICH R~O~ ~ES ~ T~ ~ ~DENCE UP~ ~ICH ~E APP~ IS ~ RE 8RSSD. ~I~ER COLLIER CO~ s~ ~E CODE ~FORCE~ENT UO~ SI'~LL ~ RESPONSIBLE FOR PR~IDINC THIS ~C0~. 2. APPROVAL 3. ~RROVAh 2001 A. BCC vm. Eeincilien Occeu,.* and Halveilleaa Ezt£verne B. BCC vs. ~onnla L. gaFrod C. gCC v.~. Cereld ~rtln E. aCC va. Wa~e gibson end ~Cr Re--nd r- ~C ~. ~ATEE R~ORT ~MINz~ ASSOCIATION, ~T~ RESORT CO~N:~ ~S~IATION, INC., A~. AU~ ~ITE, JOSEPR T. ~O J~ET C. PETER G. ~ D~O~ K. ~ITH J~ES D. ~LEN, JR,, E~A ~'N CECIL J. ~ S~ON K. ~Z~X, ~O~ ~. ~ L~ R. ~DI~ EIT~ F~N, CYRIL ~. F~TON J~ES N. ~ JO~ M. 171625 C~. I~., ~LLI~ R. BO~ELY ~RRY J- ~ ~CEL~ A. CODE ROBERT J. ~ E~ A. ~SSEY, FREDERICK p. N~ER G. ~C v~. ~a Rosa A~lo= 5. N~ BUSI~SS A. ~CC v=. Ja~oa Ja~e$ Billlng~on and ~arie Davey Start B. BCC v~. Vcncto~ p. ~aroules C. ~C v~. HcAlp~n~ Bria~ood. INC., and Charle= ~i~cchcock O. BCC rs. ~drCw ~d Lofty gspinoza ~oet for Vi~sal/Re~etlo~ A. BCC va. ~bert~na C~do~ ~d Ter~ Arco A. ~C vs. ~C vs. Eaten R. b. ~C vs. ~rederlck c. & Susan Deco,er 17, 2001 C~ ~o. 2001-081 c£g ~o. 2001-082 C~a No. 2001-003 CEB No. 2001-08¢ cE~ :~. 2001-0a~ CEB No. 2001-086 CEB NO. IM2001-01 CFR No. 2001-063 CEB No. 2001-074 CE~ No. 2001-075 CE~ No. 2001-079 CEI~ No. 2001-023 CEB No. 2001-07¢ C.~.S ~o. 2001-079 CEB No. 2001-001 C~5 No. 2001-002 1 Om AILT Otrm~_ November 29, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Call the meeting of the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County to order, please. Please make note that any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. Have the roll call, please. MS. CRUZ: Good morning. For the record, Maria Cruz, code enforcement investigator. Let the record show that Kathleen Curatolo is absent, called in. Roberta Dusek. MS. DUSEK: Here. MS. CRUZ: Clifford Flegal. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Here. MS. CRUZ: Katherine Godfrey. MS. GODFREY: Here. MS. CRUZ: Peter Lehmann. MR. LEHMANN: Here. MS. CRUZ: Darrin Phillips. MR. PHILLIPS: Here. MS. CRUZ: George Ponte. MR. PONTE: Here. MS. CRUZ: Rhona Saunders. MS. SAUNDERS: Here. MS. CRUZ: And, also, let the record show that Diane Keller -- Taylor did inform that she was going to be absent today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Since Miss Taylor is absent and Mr. Phillips is here as an alternate, Darrin, you will participate fully. Approval of our agenda, are there any changes, additions, Page 2 November 29, 2001 corrections? MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, code enforcement director. There are two changes. Item F under your public hearing, Board of County Commissioners versus Manatee Resort Condominium, they're requesting a continuance, so if we can move that item first under public hearing to hear that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No problem. MS. ARNOLD: And under new business, we're adding an item under -- under the heading, request for an extension, and that was Board of County Commissioners versus Rick Bell. That was CEB Case 2001-078. And did we pass out that information, that letter? MS. CRUZ: The letter. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. You-all received a letter from Mr. Rick Bell that was distributed to you this morning. So we'll put this on the last item on -- under new business. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other changes? Additions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If not, I'd entertain a motion to approve the agenda as changed. MR. LEHMANN: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to the agenda as changed. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Approval of our minutes from October 25th. Any changes? Corrections? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If not, I would entertain a motion to Page 3 November 29, 2001 accept. MR. PONTE: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion to accept the minutes as submitted for October 25th. 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 hearing portion, and.the first item is Board of County Commissioners versus Manatee Resort Condominium Association, Inc. MR. WHITE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good morning. MR. WHITE: My name is Austin White. I'm an attorney for Manatee Resort Condominium Association, Inc. And we have requested a continuance of this item because of the fact that we have been cited. But there are 19 units at the Manatee Resort. Each unit owner has been cited individually as well. As you'll notice from your notice of hearing, most of the unit owners reside either out of state or out of the country. And so in an effort to have them attend the hearing, we've requested a continuance also to allow us the time to submit a appropriate defense packet to you within 10 days of the next hearing date. We have discussed that with Miss -- Miss Belpedio, the assistant county attorney. She's agreed to stipulate to a continuance until December 17th. So with the board's indulgence, we would respectfully request a continuance of this matter until that time. MS. BELPEDIO: Jennifer Belpedio, assistant county attorney. That is true; we are not objecting to the continuance at this time. Page 4 November 29, 2001 In addition, two packages of materials have been submitted to the members of the board. The first package is a supplemental package. The second package is a -- contains documents that are condominium documents. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Do I hear a motion from the board to accept a request for a continuance? MS. DUSEK: So moved. MS. SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the request for continuance until our next meeting. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. The next case is BCC versus Bonnie L. Harrod. MS. ARNOLD: There's another case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, I'm sorry. BCC versus -- I hope I say this right, and I apologize ifI don't -- Occeus and Estiverne. IfI mispronounced, I apologize. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. This case is Board of County Commissioners versus -- MR. OCCEUS: Saintilien. MS. ARNOLD: -- Saintilien -- MR. OCCEUS: Occeus. MS. ARNOLD: -- Occeus. Thank you very much. That's CEB Case 2001-081. The violation of-- that has been cited is of Section 1.5.6 of Ordinance 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation is the operation of auto repairs storage in a residential area. The location and address of this particular violation is 513 Page 5 November 29, 2001 Stokes Avenue in Immokalee, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 000000013556004 in Section 9, Township 47, Range 29 east, a hundred and six -- 100 feet of the 215 feet of the west half of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter, approximately 49--49 acres. The name and address of the persons who own this property is present and reside at the location, 513 Stokes Avenue. There is also another address listed at 550 19th Street North, No. 7 in Immokalee, Florida. The day the violation was first observed was July 1 lth, 2001. The date the owner of record received the violation was July 9th, 2001, as well as October 26, 2001. The -- the requested dates for corrective action was July 23rd, based on the first notice, and October 31 st, based on the second notice that was issued. The last reinspection that was done was -- MR. OCCEUS: Two days ago. MS. ARNOLD: -- two days ago, and the violation remained. MR. MARSH: For the record, John Marsh, code enforcement investigator, Collier County. MS. ARNOLD: The -- we'd like to now enter the packet that was sent to both the respondents and you-all received into evidence as Composite Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Did you receive a package in the mail, sir, from the county? MR. OCCEUS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Fine. Thank you, sir. I would entertain a motion to accept the package from the county. MS. DUSEK: So moved. MS. SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and that second to accept the package from the county. Page 6 November 29, 2001 MS. ARNOLD: I just need to make a correction to the statement. The violation actually has been abated. This is one that's been reoccurring, and we're bringing it to you today as a repeat violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Back to the motion. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. (The oath was administered.) MR. MARSH: Again, for the record, John Marsh, code enforcement investigator. We brought this case before the board. It's been a reoccurring situation since 1997. We have seven cases which are basically all the same as far as violation, illegal land use, litter, working on automobiles on the property. In your packets there are photos which probably go back that far -- is that upside down or right side up? MR. LEHMANN: Yes. Could you reverse that, please. MR. MARSH: These are just some of the recent photos of this case that we're talking about at the moment. But, as you see in the packets, the photos go back to '97. They all look the same. The respondent does comply after a certain amount of time after he's been notified and such, but then after six months to a year, he goes right back to doing the same thing. This last case was brought up -- brought to us by the sheriff's department. These are what look like -- two days ago. This is the way it usually looks after he finally comes into compliance each time. But then, like I say, six months to a year later, it goes right back to the same thing. Page 7 November 29, 2001 What we're coming to you for is to be educated as a reoccurring offender so that we can just bring him here and possibly have you take action. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Marsh, has -- has this board heard and ruled on any prior cases? MR. MARSH: Not to my knowledge. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. Miss Arnold-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There are no prior board actions against this. MS. ARNOLD: No, there are not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: This is not a repeat? MS. ARNOLD: Reoccurring. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There is no such thing as recurring, is there, Miss Rawson? MS. RAWSON: Well, if you look at 162.062, if the violation is corrected and then reoccurs or if the violation is not corrected by the time specified for correction by the code inspector, the case may be presented to the enforcement board even if a violation has been corrected prior to the board hearing. And the notice shall so state. And I believe that all of our notices have been changed to so state. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. My question is as far as a repeat, it's not a repeat. MS. RAWSON: Correct. It's not a repeat. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That it's been corrected I can accept. MS. RAWSON: It's recurring but not repeat. MR. LEHMANN: Miss Rawson, would you repeat that section that you referenced. MS. RAWSON: 162.062, the last sentence. MR. LEHMANN: And that section basically advised us that the county can bring an action before the board regardless of whether the violation is corrected or not? Page 8 November 29, 2001 MS. RAWSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. RAWSON: Especially in a situation like this when I believe the testimony was that there were seven times that he had been cited prior. MR. MARSH: There is a list of the violations in the past years. MS. GODFREY: Investigator Marsh, what he does is cleans it up until you leave him alone and he starts back up again and -- MR. MARSH: Yes. He promises he's going to keep it clean and not do it anymore, and then six months later or so he's right back at it again. I suggested to him to go to town and get a proper piece of property and licensing to run automobile repair. MS. GODFREY: Uh-huh. MR. MARSH: This is the second time I've had this specific individual on a case. MS. GODFREY: I noted on one of the pictures he has a bucket under one of the vans. Is he -- how's he disposing of his oil? Is he dumping it in the ground or-- MR. MARSH: I don't know that. MS. GODFREY: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Marsh, has this particular respondent ever been found by any other quasi-judicial or judicial process to have violated or admitted violating the same provision within the last five years? MR. MARSH: Not to my knowledge. MR. LEHMANN: He has not been found by any other board, any other judicial process? MR. MARSH: He was never issued a citation. He always came into compliance, and so they just dropped the cases there, rather than getting to the point now that we would like to seek further action done so that we can stop this from reoccurring. Page 9 November 29, 2001 MS. SAUNDERS: So has he paid any fines for those just notices that he cleared up before a fine was imposed? MR. MARSH: Not to my knowledge, he hasn't paid any fines. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. MS. GODFREY: And the county's incurring charges because you have to go out and investigate these cases, and then as soon as he's going to come before us, he cleans the place up? MR. MARSH: Yes, ma'am. MR. LEHMANN: Miss Rawson, to be very clear on this, since the respondent has not come before this board or actually had an order or a finding of fact against him on a violation or has not gone through any other judicial process -- which the statute is very specific. It states that if he were tried and found guilty, in a sense, of any other quasi-judicial board, then we could act on this as -- as a repeat case. MS. RAWSON: That's correct. MR. LEHMANN: As that is not the case, we must act as this is the first case coming before this board. MS. RAWSON: That's right. MR. LEHMANN: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: And what we're asking you to do is look at the evidence to show that this is a reoccurring problem. And the board can take action and -- as to whether or not the problem has reoccurred. And it's my understanding that you can -- based on that, if it were to reoccur again, this would be deemed a repeat violation. You're going to be acting or adjudicating on this violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, to be a repeat violation, we must first issue an order. Then anytime it happens again, it, in fact, is a repeat violation. MS. RAWSON: Right. But I think what they're asking you today is to, even though it has been abated before we got here, it Page 10 November 29, 2001 apparently wasn't abated at the time that they filed the notice to hear the case as a recurring violation. And then if you find, in fact, it is a recurring violation, the next time you come back then it would be a repeat violation, but not today. MR. LEHMANN: According to state statute, Chapter 162, Section 162.045, the definition of a repeat violation means a violation of a provision of a code or ordinance by a person who has been previously found through an enforcement board -- excuse me. Through a Code Enforcement Board or any other quasi-judicial or judicial process to have violated or who has admitted violating the same provision within five years prior to the violation, notwithstanding the violations occur at different locations. So if we hear this case today and we find that the respondent had violated the -- the code, then that would enable the county, in a sense, to bring any future cases to the board as a repeat violation, but it would not enable them to take immediate action as a repeat violation against the violator; is that correct? MS. RAWSON: I think that they would bring it before the board. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. THE COURT: Any other questions for Mr. Marsh? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. MARSH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Would you state your name, sir. MR. OCCEUS: Saintilien Occeus. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Would you swear him in, please. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Tell us your side, sir. MR. OCCEUS: This is 1999. I have been in a bad accident, and I was on doctor care. All this problem after '97 that you-all are Page 11 November 29, 2001 saying, those happened by friend that to loan me because I was hospitalized, and they keep parking car. People go up there and wait on it. And when I found out, there wasn't too much I can do. When the inspector -- inspector found out about it, he told me then -- it take me some time to correct it. But I did correct it. I'm a sick man. I couldn't do too much no more. That's why I had somebody that watched the place for me. I'm going to try to fence it. MS. DUSEK: Sir, you said this was in 19997 This was -- you were talking about 1999? MR. OCCEUS: This is July 6, 1999. I was in bad accident. MS. DUSEK: Yes. MR. OCCEUS: I didn't have too much control on that land -- MS. DUSEK: Yes. MR. OCCEUS: -- because I couldn't work. And I'm still under doctor care now for same thing. And what it was, people who knew me go there, park the stuff, with the -- the land was full with the stuff, like the inspector said. But after the -- after they advised me to clean it, it took me some time because -- now -- because -- I have somebody in the place now, watch the place for me. And I'm trying to fence it. That will not happen no more. MS. GODFREY: Is this vacant property, or is there a residence on it? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You had a house or something on this property, sir? MR. OCCEUS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And tell us what's on the property. House? Garage? Or is it just-- MR. OCCEUS: It used to be a -- it used to be a building they we do mechanic work since 1980. Then after the business closed, there was somebody -- they come back, and they shut the license on Page 12 November 29, 2001 it. But it's still there as that place now, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I got the idea. MS. SAUNDERS: Do you live there, sir, or-- MR. OCCEUS: Not now. MS. SAUNDERS: But when did you live there? MR. OCCEUS: Way back before -- way back -- way back, like, '95, '96. MS. GODFREY: Is there -- is there anybody living in that house now? MR. OCCEUS: Right now, yes. I put somebody in the place to watch for me. MS. SAUNDERS: And how long has that person been living there? They've been a year or-- do you remember? MR. OCCEUS: I'd say about five, four month now. MS. DUSEK: So it's my understanding, sir, that you were not the one who was conducting this type of activity on the property. It was someone else? MR. OCCEUS: From 1999 to now, yes. It was someone else who park the stuff there. Why I used the motor and transmission on the ground, some of those stuff before we junked some of them car. We took some part out. The owner was there with us. They took some part out, come and junk and come get the body. Now that cleared out, that won't happen no more. MS. GODFREY: But you've said that six other times, sir. You told the county you cleaned it up, and then six months to a year down the road it's back the same way again. How do we know that you're not going to do this again? MR. OCCEUS: I -- say that again for me, please. MS. GODFREY: You have cleaned the property up six times, Investigator, and then turned around and allowed this individual that's living at your residence to bring all these vehicles back again, and Page 13 November 29, 2001 then the county comes out and tags you. You clean it up before you come before us, and you've done this six times. And how do we know that after this hearing that you're not going to do it again? MR. OCCEUS: On that six time you're talking about, is that before -- before '99 or-- MS. GODFREY: It doesn't matter. The county has come out six times and found the place a mess, asked you to clean it up, and you clean it up just before you come before us. Never going to happen again, and the county goes out there, and there's another mess. And it just keeps going around and over and over and over again. So how do we know that after this hearing that you're not going to do it again? MR. OCCEUS: Before 1999-- MS. GODFREY: It doesn't matter about '99, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let him-- MS. GODFREY: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- talk. Don't keep interrupting him. MR. OCCEUS: From 1999 1 was -- I was the one do all this stuff until all this thing, what they mail to me. But from '99 through now, it was people who knows me involved on this place cause all this mess. And right now I said I clean it. I have somebody watch the place for me, and I -- I wasn't even able to work by now on -- on -- on mechanic. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Occeus, do you realize that as long as you own this property, you will be responsible for whatever occurs on that property? MR. OCCEUS: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. So if you allow somebody else to do any activity, whether it's storing parts or working on their cars or whatever it is, it's your responsibility. And that's what this board is Page 14 November 29, 2001 looking at, and that's why you're here today as opposed to somebody else. We have -- we -- it is the board's directive to deal only through the property owner. So you are being held solely responsible for whatever actions may have occurred on your property. MR. OCCEUS: But I -- I promise now that won't happen -- happen no more. MR. LEHMANN: Well, apparently you've made that promise before. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Mr. Marsh, you had a chart before about prior things. Could we see that again? MR. MARSH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hopefully there's some dates on there. I think dates will help people. Case found numbers. MR. MARSH: It starts at '97 on the bottom, sir, '98, '98, '99, '99, '99, 2000, and 2000. MS. SAUNDERS: So there are two violations that were cited, one in 2000 and one in 2001, and after each of those -- MR. MARSH: I'm sorry. There's one in 2000, and the last is in 2001. MS. SAUNDERS: again? MR. MARSH: MR. PONTE: MR. MARSH: After the 2000 notice, it was cleaned up Yes, ma'am. Investigator -- The top two cases are my cases. MS. SALrNDERS: So he -- what I'm getting at, I guess, after his 1991 -- '99 accident when he was supposedly in charge of it, he has cleaned -- it has cleaned it up and it's come back to the same problem again. MR. MARSH: Yes, ma'am. The cases in '99 weren't mine. MS. SAUNDERS: Right. MR. MARSH: They were Investigator Saldano who is no Page 15 November 29, 2001 longer with us. MS. SAUNDERS: Uh-huh. MR. MARSH: But the area was cleaned up then, was abated, and we're right back at it again. One of my first cases in Immokalee was this case. MR. PONTE: Investigator, in your many visits out there, have you met with anyone other than the respondent? MR. MARSH: No, sir. There have been many people out there, but the only one I've ever met with and talked to is the respondent. MR. PONTE: So the tenant/operator, as it were, there was no one -- no one else there that would seem to be operating the business other than the respondent? MR. MARSH: That's a hard question to answer. They could have been helpers. There were other people there. And, naturally, when I pull up, everybody stops doing whatever they're doing. And, therefore, the only one I would talk to would be the respondent because it was his property and he was there. MR. PONTE: He mentioned helpers. How many people would you estimate were helping? MR. MARSH: Well, sometimes the people that are out there range from maybe two to four, five, six. A lot of times they're just sitting there, maybe playing cards or things of that -- it's a gathering place. MS. GODFREY: But, Investigator, he is there while all this mess is there. It's not like he doesn't know-- like he's an absentee landlord. MR. MARSH: I would say 90 percent of the time that I have gone out there to reinspect or to issue notices of violation or such that the respondent had been on the property. MS. GODFREY: So him saying that he was unaware of this going on, he was right there and he saw it, so he knew. Page 16 November 29, 2001 MR. MARSH: I would say so. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Marsh, you have two cases that were abated by the contractor as opposed to -- under the respondent's action; is that correct? MR. MARSH: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: What -- when you say abated by the contractor, define what that means. MR. MARSH: They were litter cases, I believe. They were put down as litter cases, and a contractor went out and cleared the area. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. MR. MARSH: Of, say, vehicles that were determined to be litter and automotive parts and such like that. MR. LEHMANN: Was this a contractor hired by the county or by the respondent? MR. MARSH: It would most likely be by the county. MR. LEHMANN: So the county has had to take action itself twice? MR. MARSH: Yes. MS. GODFREY: So the county's incurred quite an amount of funds to keep this place cleaned up if he doesn't. MR. MARSH: Yes. MS. GODFREY: Plus the time that you spend going out there. MR. MARSH: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Of all these two, four, six, eight violations that are listed here, how many times has he been cited for operation of an auto repair shop? MR. MARSH: I think he actually hasn't been cited as operation of a repair shop. He's been cited as illegal land use, which would encompass that. MR. LEHMANN: It's cited under Section 1.5.6 of Ordinance No. 91-02. Page 17 November 29, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Every time he's been cited has it been the same? MR. MARSH: It would be the determination of the investigator either to call it litter or to call it illegal land use, which can encompass quite a few things or could have been occupational license, you know, license to operate the business out there. It's not zoned for that. So it would be at the discretion of the investigator. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What -- what I'm looking for is, out of eight times, since he's been cited for 1.5.6, has all eight times been for 1.5.67 MR. MARSH: The director is looking it up right now. MR. LEHMANN: It's a pretty broad section. Inspector, when you go out there and you see the MR. PONTE: activity going on--. MR. MARSH: Yes, sir. MR. PONTE: -- Inspector, when you're out there and see the activity going on and there are other helpers or workers, is there a safety factor, too, that's a problem here? I notice in one of the photos a van was propped up by a bucket, which would indicate to me that work was going on under the van. MR. MARSH: Oh, definitely. It's just -- the only thing on the property is a cinder-block building which was supposed to be a garage for the property. I believe at one time there was a mobile home on the property. There's a cement pad there that indicates that, plus a telephone pole or a electrical pole. And at this time there's just a cinder-block building. There's no actual facilities for, really, working on vehicles. MR. PONTE: So in addition to safety, would you say that that is an environmental problem as well, disposal of oil -- MR. MARSH: Definitely. We have no idea where all of that's going at the time. Page 18 November 29, 2001 MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, if we don't have any further comments or questions, I'm willing to proceed -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I want to know how many times for this paragraph, because if it's going to be recurring, you can't mix apples and oranges. If he's never been cited for this section, then it's not even recurring because people can be cited for -- I don't know. The code's probably 4, 5 inches thick. So I don't think you can mix them up. Would that be right, Miss Rawson? MS. RAWSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So if he hasn't been cited for this paragraph, then we can forget even the word recurring. So let's find that out. MS. DUSEK: Miss Rawson, I also have a question. Since it's been abated, how can we cite him today and do a -- MS. RAWSON: Well, you can say that you don't want the violation to occur again. MS. DUSEK: But it can't be -- we can't say that we're bringing him because of Section 1.5.6. MS. RAWSON: Well, it depends on if he's been cited under that section before. It-- it's a recurring violation. MS. DUSEK: Even though it's now been abated. MS. RAWSON: Correct. MS. DUSEK: We can bring him a violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. RAWSON: Correct. MS. DUSEK: And, also, in addition to that question, can you charge him with future costs, or do you have to wait -- costs for the county? MS. RAWSON: Only the costs for prosecution of this action. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. RAWSON: And there's no fine because the fine kicks in Page 19 November 29, 2001 until they clear up the violation which has already been cleared up. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. DUSEK: So the only thing he -- we can cite him for the violation, but we can charge him only for the operation costs. MS. RAWSON: Correct. And you cite him not for the violation but the violation as a recurring violation pursuant to 16206. MR. PONTE: Regarding the operational costs, can these -- are these costs covering all seven? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. MS. RAWSON: No. Only this one. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Only this one. You can't go back in time. MS. RAWSON: Correct. MR. LEHMANN: Miss Rawson, you had just made a statement you cite a recurring violation according to Florida statutes. I don't understand where the term "recurring violation" is used. MS. RAWSON: 162062. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Help me a little bit, Miss Rawson. In using 162062, when they use the word in that last sentence, violation corrected and then reoccurs, I get the feeling in reading the whole paragraph that that's -- once we've made a -- a determination, and you're saying it's prior to us making a determination. MS. RAWSON: I'm not sure I understand your question. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. In other words, once we've issued an order and then it reoccurs, you're saying we don't have to issue an order just because they've been doing it every week for 52 weeks, and it finally gets to us, it's reoccurring. MS. RAWSON: If it's the same violation, and this is about the -- I think he said seventh time we're -- that the code enforcement department has been investigating this same violation, and now they've noticed him for hearing on it, but right before the hearing he Page 20 November 29, 2001 abates the violation -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. RAWSON: -- then you can cite him for violation as a recurring violation. And all you can do is tell him not to do it again and charge him with the costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Okay. 1.5.6, has he been cited before by you folks? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. All the properties have been noted as illegal land use; however, we don't -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That wasn't my question. Was he cited for 1.5.67 MS. ARNOLD: I'm trying to answer your question. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And -- because we don't have access to the notice, the actual notice of violations on the system right now, I can't tell you the specific section that was noted on that notice of violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So you're saying it's recurring, but we have no, quote, unquote, proof that you can give to us that shows it's the same section. MS. ARNOLD: Well, we've given you testimony from the investigator that it's been out there at least two times. And what we're asking you to look at is this particular -- this last violation that has occurred, I believe that you can say yes or no, did it occur at that time and ask the respondent to do what Miss Rawson has just instructed that you can do. If it reoccurs again, then this will be brought back to you as a repeat violation. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Marsh, could you put the report up again on the prior violations? When you go into the case type, you've got zoning and environmental. Next to that you have different code sections, is that correct, what's handwritten in? MR. MARSH: Yes, sir. Page 21 November 29, 2001 case it came up as. just a brief-- MR. LEHMANN: Are those the code sections that you are citing in each individual case? MR. MARSH: Those are the ones that when I looked up the It doesn't necessarily give us numbers. It gives us MR. LEHMANN: Well, what I'm saying, for instance, the first case here next to the case type -- the first case where under the case type heading you have the three-letter designation Z-O-N, and then an arrow going down to a few handwritten numbers, 1.56, 2.67.1 maybe, are those code sections? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. MR. would be MR. MARSH: But we don't have the actual notice of violations to confirm all that. MR. LEHMANN: I see. Okay. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Marsh, you said that you have cited him on these two different occasions, in 2000 and 2001 ? MR. MARSH: Yes, ma'am. MR. DUSEK: And when you cited him, did you at that time designate the Section 1.5.67 MR. MARSH: I can only say at this time I -- I -- I know that I remember that. But I don't know about the prior case. MS. DUSEK: With the case that -- I mean, when you were involved and you've cited him more than once -- year MARSH: Right. LEHMANN: So those -- those two -- those sections that applied, the same thing would apply to the next case down? MR. MARSH: Uh-huh. MS. DUSEK: -- was it Section 1.5.67 MR. MARSH: I can't say for sure, ma'am, because that was a and a half ago, and I don't have copies of it with me. MS. SAUNDERS: Under the county's statement of violation, it Page 22 November 29, 2001 says that the violation was first observed July 1 lth -- well, was given to the -- notice of violation was given July 9th and then also 10/26. That to me says that there's two violations. Both of them have been abated now. But there were two violations in 2001. MR. MARSH: Second notice of violation was issued because on the first notice of violation there was only one person named. MS. SAUNDERS: Uh-huh. MR. MARSH: And it was thought that to make it complete, we should put the other person on the property. MS. SAUNDERS: So that was the same -- MR. MARSH: It was the same one but just with the extra name on it to cover everything. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Mr. Marsh? MS. DUSEK: Well, I have one more. I guess to clear it up in my own head, when you cite these people, wherever it may be, do you ever designate what section you're citing them for, or is it just a general statement? MR. MARSH: No. We tell them what we're citing them for, what part of the code, what their -- what the violation is, what they have to do to correct it, how much time they have. MS. DUSEK: And do you have any record of that so that we would know what section you cited them for -- him for? MR. MARSH: At this time? MS. DUSEK: Yes. MR. MARSH: It would be in the complete case that I filed. MS. DUSEK: That, you don't have that with us. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. You have that in your packet. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, we have the citation. MS. GODFREY: Uh-huh, here. MS. DUSEK: I guess what I-- Page 23 November 29, 2001 MS. ARNOLD: We just don't have the notice of vie -- on -- let's see, on page 8 of your packet, is that the -- is that the corrected one? And also page -- MR. MARSH: Page 7 would be the corrected one. MS. ARNOLD: Page 7 of your packet, that's the notice of violation that was issued. MS. DUSEK: That was -- MS. ARNOLD: And -- MS. DUSEK: That was the most recent violations. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. But we don't have that same document for the prior cases here today. MS. DUSEK: That's what I'm trying to find out so that we can say for sure it's reoccurring. MS. ARNOLD: Well, whether or not we cited 1.5.6 or any other section of the code. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: When you cited him in July, page 8, what is page 7? Why was that issued? MR. MARSH: Because of the names on the property. The names on the property were Saintilien and Occeus and Marveilleas Estivere -- Estiverian (phonetic). I -- on the first notice of violation I only put the gentleman's name; ! didn't put the lady's name. And it was thought to make it correct that I should put both -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And that's the reason you issued this citation? MR. MARSH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. If that's the reason, then why did you add additional violation sections? MR. MARSH: Well, the first time I went out there, it was basically a couple of vehicles that were licensed, had current license tags on them. And they were being worked on, and there was automobile parts all around and so on. The second time I went out, Page 24 November 29, 2001 there was many more vehicles out there that weren't licensed that were all around the property. So I thought it was proper to add that at the time to cover that issue also. MR. LEHMANN: Are those sections still applicable? The statement of violation only refers to 1.5.67 You have Section 2.6.7.1 also -- MR. MARSH: Uh-huh. MR. LEHMANN: -- on your handwritten violation. Your statement of violation does not reference that section. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. The statement of violation that was said only referenced 1.5.6. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. Why? MS. ARNOLD: Why did we exclude the other? I think that -- the reason why we're bringing this particular case to you is for the illegal land use, the operation of the repair, not for the unlicensed vehicles. Maria did check through the files. We do have the notice of violations for two of the cases that were issued. This one is Case No. -- this is the 2000 case, and the investigator was Mr. Marsh, and he did, as you can see, put 1.5.6 on there. This is the -- another case that was in '98, and, again, the notice of violation-- the violation, 1.5.6, was noted. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good. That's what we were looking MS. DUSEK: That's it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Marsh? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MR. MARSH: Occeus. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) Okay. Any additional questions for Any more questions for Mr. -- -- Occeus? Page 25 November 29, 2001 yOU. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: None? You may sit down, sir. Thank MS. DUSEK: I do have one question for somebody. Is it just Mr. Occeus who's being cited? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. They're both being cited. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Because they're both owners of the property. MS. DUSEK: Okay. Then I'd like to make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Saintilien Occeus and Malveilleas Estiverne in the Case CEB No. 2000001-081, that there is a recurring violation of Section 1.5.6 of Ordinance No. 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code. Now, the description of the violation, I'm not so sure what is written there is correct for 1.5.6. MR. LEHMANN: Miss Rawson, do we need to give a description, or can we just cite a code section and violation? MS. RAWSON: You can just cite the 1.5.6. MR. LEHMANN: That would be my recommendation. MS. DUSEK: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: Also -- I apologize for interrupting again. Is it the warranty deed I'm looking at references -- MS. RAWSON: His wife. I noticed that. MR. LEHMANN: Yes. So should the names change? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, they may not. I don't know. MR. LEHMANN: Under the finding of fact? MS. RAWSON: Well, they didn't cite the wife. They cited one landowner, not the other. MR. LEHMANN: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: statement of violation was mailed. They've cited both. Well, that one was issued after the In other words, they did it to Page 26 November 29, 2001 correct their paperwork and -- MS. ARNOLD: No. MS. MR. MS. RAWSON' It's a corrected deed, I think. LEHMANN: So what is our correct finding of fact, then? RAWSON' Well, I think when they see -- they issued their notice of violation, they had the correct -- they had the correct landowners. Now, there is a re -- rerecorded deed to correct errors which indicates to me, I suspect, that now they're married. But it's apparently the same person. MR. LEHMANN: But that was rerecorded back in 1990. No. take it back. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It was recorded. MR. MS. MR. properly. MR. MARSH: If I could help you straighten that out. MR. LEHMANN: Pardon me? MR. MARSH: I believe the parties were divorced and they were supposed to sell the property and split it or something like that and the wife went back to her maiden name or some other name. That's why the difference between the deed and what the property says. MR. MR. MS. MR. I LEHMANN: 1990. RAWSON' I think it's the same person would be my guess. LEHMANN: I just want to make sure that we're doing this LEHMANN: Mr. Occeus, is that a correct statement? OCCEUS: Yes. RAWSON: It is the same person, is it not? MARSH: (Nodded head.) MR. OCCEUS: You must repeat that to say if both of us would sign the violation, that's what you mean just a while ago? MR. LEHMANN: No. We were just looking at the warranty deed versus the records we have to make sure that we're all talking Page 27 November 29, 2001 about the MR. MS. her name MR. interruption. MS. RAWSON: MS. ARNOLD: MS. MS. right persons. OCCEUS: Okay. ARNOLD: We have the information about her changing back to her maiden name as well, so it is the same person. LEHMANN: I apologize, Miss Dusek. I apologize for the I can simply put formerly known as. Okay. DUSEK: Well, that concludes my motion. SAUNDERS: I'll second it. MR. LEHMANN: I thought I broke your chain of thought there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I lost mine. We have a motion and a second that there, in fact, is a violation. Miss Rawson, is it correct to say that there is a violation since it has been abated? MS. DUSEK: I said recurring. MS. RAWSON: You can call it a recurring violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second that there, in fact, is a recurring violation. Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying MS. operating you have MS. MS. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board? SAUNDERS: I would like to ask Michelle how -- what the costs on -- since, I guess, July on this case have been. Do a feel for-- do you know what the operating costs are? ARNOLD: We've estimated approximately $200. SAUNDERS: That's it? Okay. Page 28 November 29, 2001 I would move that the respondent be ordered to pay all operating costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and a fine of $100 per day be imposed if the violation reoccurs for each day. MR. LEHMANN: Miss, Rawson, I don't believe we can do it. MS. DUSEK: I don't think we can do that. MS. RAWSON: I don't think you can do that either. The first part's fine, but I don't believe you can fine him because the violation has been abated. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. So we'd have to have another case brought back to us and we can do -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. I'll change my motion to ask the respondent to pay all operating costs imposed in the prosecution of this case. MR. PONTE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that the respondents be ordered to pay the cost for prosecuting this case before the board. Any further question? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Sir, do you know what we've done? We -- we found that you were violating the section of the code. You have corrected it. Now we're ordering you to pay a fine -- pay the costs, which, in essence, is basically a fine, of $200 for that. Okay? MR. OCCEUS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. MS. ARNOLD: I have a question. Is it possible to request that Page 29 November 29, 2001 the violation not be repeated or request the respondent not do it again as part of the order? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think that's a little redundant. MS. RAWSON: Well, you know, basically I think in general we're telling everybody don't violate the codes. I mean, I think it's implicit. We -- we can tell him today when he leaves we found him to be in violation because it's a recurring violation, and he should be aware of the fact that if he does this again it will be back as a repeat violation. But I think it -- it's implicit in every order: Don't do it again. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Occeus, do you understand that if you should repeat this same violation, that when you come back before this board that we will then impose upon, if you have -- MR. OCCEUS: Yes. MS. DUSEK: If it has reoccurred again? MR. OCCEUS: That will happen no more. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Rawson, I get the distinct impression there's some thoughts about repeat violation. If it comes back before this board and let's say it's under the same conditions, that it gets abated before it gets here, we're, again, in the position where you can't fine him for something he's already corrected; is that correct? MS. RAWSON: violation. That-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: here. MS. RAWSON: Right. recurring violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: with the costs, not -- Well, now, though you're looking at a repeat That will be abated before he gets Well, we're looking at a repeat Right. But you can only charge him Page 30 November 29, 2001 MS. RAWSON: The purpose of a fine is to bring people into compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. But if he gets in compliance before he gets here, you can't-- MS. RAWSON: Probably right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. Just so people understand that. I think there's some people leaning toward that, oh, you can fine him for the days he didn't correct it. And until we issue an order to correct, you can't fine him. MS. DUSEK: Well, let me ask Miss Rawson this: If it's a recurring, how do you ever stop the recurrence if you don't fine? If you can't fine on a recurring -- MS. RAWSON: Bringing him back and charging him with the operational costs. MS. DUSEK: So the only thing he can be charged for are operational costs. MS. RAWSON: As long as he's abated it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. MS. RAWSON: And it seems like that's a lot of trouble to go through to keep getting him to abate it, but you can always charge him with the operational costs. MS. DUSEK: That seems pretty cheap to be running a business. MS. ARNOLD: I -- I -- I think-- MR. PONTE: Is there a mechanism -- MS. ARNOLD: I think there's been other opinions on that, and I -- and I do have them in my files. So I'm going -- MS. RAWSON: Good. Share those with me. MS. MS. MS. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. RAWSON: Then maybe we'll have -- ARNOLD: Okay. RAWSON: -- a legal memorandum for you. Page 31 November 29, 2001 MS. ARNOLD: Yup. MS. RAWSON: Because I'm sure the county attorney's office will help you with that. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: If that is such a big loophole as it sounds, that may be something the commissioners want to address. MS. RAWSON: Well, we will look into it-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You can change the statute. MS. RAWSON: -- because we haven't had that problem yet, but we will anticipate it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next case -- or we will be here until six-- Board of County Commissioners versus Bonnie Harrod. MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. Let the record show that Mr. Harrod is not present. I would like to request that the packet provided to the respondent and to the board be admitted into evidence marked Composite Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'd entertain in a motion to accept the county's exhibit. MS. DUSEK: So moved. MR. LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the county's exhibit. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. CRUZ: The violation brought before this board today on Case No. 2001-082, Bonnie -- Board of County Commission versus Bonnie L. Harrod, it's violation of Section 2.6.7.2 and Section 1.5.6 of Ordinance No. 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code; Section 4-A of Ordinance No. 93-64, the Collier County Right- Of-Way Ordinance; and Section 6, 7, and 8 of Ordinance No. 99-51, Page 32 November 29, 2001 the Collier County Weeds and Litter Ordinance. The violation describes as prohibited parking of recreational vehicles; prohibited outside storage of litter, consisting of but not limited to cut wood, metal, plastic, camper top for truck; and, also, the unlawful growing of vegetation into the right-of-way. This violation exists at 699 98th Avenue North, Naples, Florida. It is more particularly described as Naples Park, Unit 3, Block 29, Lots 1 and 2. The owner of record is Bonnie L. Harrod. Address of record is 695 98th Avenue North, Naples, Florida. The violation was first observed on August 13,2001. The notice of notice of violation was provided to respondent on August 13,2001, and requesting compliance by August 27, 2001. As of yesterday, the violation remains. At this time I turn the case over to investigator Shawn Luedtke. MR. LUEDTKE: For the record, Shawn Luedtke, Collier County code enforcement investigator. I received this -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One moment, please. We need to swear Mr. Luedtke in. (The oath was administered.) MR. LUEDTKE: On August 13th, 2001, I received a call about some trees growing over the sidewalk and making the kids go out into the road on their way home from school at this particular location. I responded to the location, and they did have trees growing out over the sidewalk and blocking the view or the view for traffic, vehicular traffic, and making the kids go out into the right-of-way. While on site I also saw a canoe, recreation vehicle in the front yard, numerous amounts of litter consist of cut wood, turned-over trash cans, garbage, a washer in the front yard, and a camper top in the driveway with a tire on top. On August -- August 13th is when I observed the violations. I immediately sent a notice of violation with a correction date of Page 33 November 29, 2001 August 27, 2001. On August 27th I rechecked the site, noticed the boat had been removed from the location, but all the other violations remained. I went ahead at that time and prepared a citation. Nobody was home at the location, so I sent a citation certified mail which came back unclaimed by the resident. I rechecked the sites again on September 6th, 13th, and 17th, and attempted a phone call with a number we had listed in information by calling and trying to find the owner's number. That number had been disconnected, and I had no luck trying to find the owner or make contact with the owner. At that time we prepared a CEB warning letter to be sent. The letter was posted and sent on September 21 st. On Aug -- on October 2nd, I spoke with Miss Harrod on the phone. She contacted to me. And I explained all the violations of what needed to be done to be corrected. She requested two weeks and she'd have all the violations corrected. I scheduled a recheck for October 16th. At that time none of the violations had been corrected at that time. I tried to make recontact with the owner to see what the status was. I had no luck, no answer. I posted my card on the property and was unable to make any contact. On October 25th we processed this for a full hearing. I rechecked the site yesterday morning. A lot of the trees have been cut down, not all of them. But the trees have just been cut down, and they have piles of dead branches and trees piled up in the side yard. The litter remains on site, and some of the trees still block the drive -- the sidewalk causing the children to go out into the roadway. That's a main sidewalk that kids use coming from Naples Park Elementary School. MR. PONTE: Investigator, does Mrs. Harrod live in the house, Page 34 November 29, 2001 or does she rent it to someone else? MR. LUEDTKE: She advised she lives in the house. I have never caught anybody on the property. I tried early flex shifts in the morning. I start at 5 in the morning. I'm not able to catch anybody or anybody answering the door. MR. PONTE: And regarding the Brazilian peppers, I think they were -- MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, sir. MR. PONTE: -- what length of sidewalk is blocked? Are we talking 50 feet? A hundred feet? MR. LUEDTKE: I would probably say, since a lot of it's been removed, probably now a total of maybe 10 to 15 feet is all that remains. MR. PONTE: I see. MR. LUEDTKE: Because they did take a substantial amount out and piled it up in their front yard. So they have a lot of dead Brazilian pepper piled up in the front yard right now. MS. SAUNDERS: Did they remove all of the exotic? MR. LUEDTKE: Yes. Most of the exotic. What they have now is sea grape growing at the back of the property and at the front of the property growing over the sidewalk. MS. SAUNDERS: You did say that some of the litter remains as well? MR. MR. MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, ma'am. PONTE: And how long ago was it-- LUEDTKE: Sir? MR. PONTE: How long was it that Mrs. Harrod said she would have this all cleared up? MR. LUEDTKE: I spoke with her on --October 2nd was the last time I spoke with her. And she requested two weeks. She said she could have it all cleaned up in two weeks. Page 35 November 29, 2001 MR. PONTE: Okay. MR. LUEDTKE: I have photographs that are black and white. They're not the best quality. We're having problems with our printers this morning. The cut wood, piles of dead branches in the yard, the noted washer or whatever still on the property. These were all taken yesterday morning. MR. PONTE: So she's abated the problem but created another? MR. LUEDTKE: To a point, yes, sir. MS. SAUNDERS: It seems to me we have somewhat of a safety problem here -- the kids are walking back and forth -- if there's a washer, dryer that they can get into and play and, you know, get trapped in. I'm uncomfortable with the fact that the person's obviously not rushing to get anything done. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The bushes along the sidewalk, have they been trimmed? MR. LUEDTKE: This is the photograph taking -- yesterday morning. You can still see how the bushes are growing up over the sidewalk about a quarter of the way to a half the way. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions for the investigator? MS. DUSEK: I need some clarification on, again, the 1.5.6, which says no building or structure or part thereof. Does this fall under that when it's litter? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That I think-- MR. LUEDTKE: We're addressing the land use of the -- what's not covered under litter would be the outside storage of some of the material that you see that's -- they're using the land for what it's not intended for by storing camper tops, tires, etc., in the driveway. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's kind of a catch-all section. MS. DUSEK: Right. I think we had this discussion once before in another case. Page 36 November 29, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You can pretty almost much cite anybody for almost anything under that paragraph. MS. DUSEK: It's very broad, yeah. And 2.6.7.2 is the recreational vehicle? MR. LUEDTKE: That was the recreation vehicle, the canoe that has been abated. MS. DUSEK: So that's been abated. MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: So it's just 1.5.6. MR. LUEDTKE: And the litter of 99-51 and the right-of-way of growing the plants into the right-of-way without permits, 93 -64. MS. DUSEK: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. LUEDTKE: Thank you. MS. DUSEK: I'm ready to make a motion, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: In the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Bonnie Harrod, in the case CEB 2001-082, I make a motion that there is a violation of Section 1.5.6 of Ordinance 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code; Section 4-A of Ordinance 93-64, the Collier County Right-of-way Ordinance; and Sections 6, 7, 8 of Ordinance 99-51, the Collier County Weeds and Litter Ordinance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that, in fact, a violation does exist. Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) Page 37 November 29, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board? MS. SAUNDERS: I would like to ask staff what the earliest recommendation we could make or earliest time period we can suggest to get this cleaned up. Is five days reasonable? You've recommended 30, but I think that's highly overgenerous in this situation. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I mean, her prior request was for two weeks. That would be generous as well. I mean, she said -- MS. SAUNDERS: That was -- that was two -- almost a month and a half ago or so. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MS. SAUNDERS: That's why I'm really inclined, especially the fact that kids are back in school, the traffic is picked up, I think we should get it cleaned up and be fairly stem on this one. Miss Rawson-- MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. SAUNDERS: -- could we do this and, say, give her five days from the date she gets the notice or five days from today, whatever? MS. RAWSON: I would give her more time than that because I can't predict what day she's going to get the notice. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. MS. SAUNDERS: How about ten days? MR. LEHMANN: I would suggest in whatever time period you give her, give her working days and define what the day is. We don't want to give her five days over a holiday or something of that nature Page 38 November 29,2001 or over a weekend. MR. PONTE: We've discussed that part before -- MS. DUSEK: Yes. MR. PONTE: --and decided that we have to do it in terms of days, the -- if you start counting working days only, because I wanted to put it forward, because of Thanksgiving or some other holiday, and we rejected that, so -- MS. DUSEK: Well, that --if we do two weeks, that takes care of working days so -- MR. PONTE: Fourteen days. MS. DUSEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: People trimming bushes work weekends. MS. DUSEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Fourteen days really doesn't have a -- the only nonaccess is probably to the dump, which if you have it all done prior to that, you can still take it on a weekday. I think two weeks would be sufficient. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. Then we -- we do it two weeks. And the other suggestion I've got is that we make the fine a little bit more stringent, again, up to $50 per day because I do think there's a safety factor involved. MS. DUSEK: I concur with that. MR. LEHMANN: Your recommendation for the fine? MS. SAUNDERS: $50 per day, plus costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So we have two weeks from today. MS. SAUNDERS: Today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Plus $50 plus the costs. MS. SAUNDERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Miss Rawson, do you have that? Page 39 November 29, 2001 MS. RAWSON: CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. RAWSON: Got it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Fourteen days and fifty dollars? Yes, ma'am. Plus the costs. That would be a separate item. MS. RAWSON: Thanks. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion on the floor for an order for 2 weeks, $50 per day fine, if not in compliance, plus the operational costs for prosecuting. Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a -- we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Let's take five minutes, please. (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We'll call the board back to order, please. The next case is BCC versus Gerald Martin Dwyer. MS. CRUZ: Yes. Let the record show that Mr. Gerald Martin Dwyer is present. This will be case -- Board of County Commissioners versus Gerald Martin Dwyer, Case No. 2001-083. I'd like to request that the packet that was provided to the respondent be admitted into evidence, if there's no objection from the respondent. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sir, did you receive a package from the county, Mr. Dwyer? MR. DWYER: Yes, I did. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I'd entertain a motion to accept the county's exhibit. Page 40 November 29, 2001 MR. PONTE: So move. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the county's exhibit. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MR. CRUZ: The violation brought before this board is a violation of Ordinance 98-76, Section 104.6.1.2. The description of the violation is of existence of an abandoned construction and expired permit. The violation lists at 1961 14th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, and is more particularly described as Golden Gate Estates, Unit 16, the west 150 feet of Tract 62. The owner of record is Gerald Martin Dwyer. His address of record is 1031 North 22nd Avenue, Naples, Florida. The first violation-- the violation was first observed on March 29, 2001. A notice of violation was provided to the respondent on April 20th, 2001, with a correction date of May 20th, 2001. As of yesterday the violation remains. I'd like to turn the case over now to investigator Jeff Letourneau. (The oath was administered.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, my name is Jeff Letourneau, Collier County code enforcement investigator. On March 29th, 2001, I received an anonymous complaint about a unfinished structure at 1961 14th Avenue Northeast. I investigated, and this is the structure that I found present on the property (indicating). After some research I determined that Mr. Dwyer was the owner and contacted him by phone, and he stated that he had tried to build this house back in 1976 and had run into some monetary problems and was unable to finish it. So I determined that according to the Page 41 November 29, 2001 section that I cited, 9876104.6.1.2, that this was now an abandoned structure. On April 20th I served Mr. Dwyer an NOV for the section with an order to correct either by obtaining a valid Collier County permit or removing the structure and associated debris from the unimproved property. Mr. Dwyer signed the NOV. And continuing on through the year, I observed the violation still existed, and Mr. Dwyer attempted to get his permit. He went to permitting and talked to Ed Perico and Johnnie Gebhardt -- Gebhardt who stated that he needed to get everything brought up to code nowadays and pay the impact fees as if it were a building that was building nowadays -- you know, today. Mr. Dwyer went up north for the summer, and I kept in touch with him. He stated that he wanted to come back this month, in November 1 st, and obtain his permit for the -- for the structure. It's on -- not on the sheet, but he did come in early November and talk with myself, my boss, Mr. Morad, and Chief Inspector Jerry Ballard, who told him that he had to go about and act like this structure was being built nowadays and had to come up to the codes of-- of 2001. So we advised him to go get a -- an engineer to draw up the lot and draw up the structure and try to get this thing -- you know, the ball rolling on the permit before he came in here. And that was the last time I talked to him. And I went out yesterday, and the violation still existed. MS. DUSEK: When you spoke to him, did you give him some time frame in which to have the engineer draw up plans and get back to the building department? MR. LETOURNEAU: When I spoke to him, I told him to get ahold of permitting, which he did. And they were the ones that had -- you know, they basically told him that he had to go through the engineering process and everything else to get this structure up to Page 42 November 29, 2001 code and permitted. He was advised that, yes, he did have to go through and get the engineering and everything else. MS. DUSEK: And so after that, there was no more contact with you to ask to delay this? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, there was. When he was up in -- let's see, seven nine -- when he was up in -- up north, he called my boss, Mr. Morad, and he told him he had spoken with a Mr. Bill Joseph. And Mr. Joseph was a former contractor who was retired who had told Mr. Dwyer that he would try to help him get his -- his permit, but when Mr. Joseph went to talk to permitting, he ran into the same problem. There was a -- you know, he needed to get the impact fees and permit fees and bring the structure up to today's codes. MR. PHILLIPS: Do you know when any work was last performed on that project? MR. LETOURNEAU: I think probably 1976, I imagine. MR. PHILLIPS: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: '76? MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. Mr. Dwyer would probably know the last time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for the investigator? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. Mr. Dwyer. MR. DWYER: Yeah. My name -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One moment, sir. (The oath was administered.) MR. DWYER: There's a lot of reasons for that building being unfinished. Back in the late '60s I bought this building with a friend of mine who was -- I went to school with. He worked in Miami. And we bought a 5-acre tract from the Gulf American Corporation. Page 43 November 29, 2001 And Brian and I decided -- our plan was to divide the tract in half, 2 1/2 acres each, and we'd both build a house. I was the first one, and he was going to build one. Anyway, the power company stated that they couldn't take a promise, that we had to put the whole structure up and then they would bring the power, the electric. So I filed -- I got the permit then from back in -- back then it was Immokalee. And inspections came from Immokalee and -- and I got some -- I had worked with a contractor up north. But anyway, I drew a building, and I got some guys from North Naples, and they -- it was a masonry structure with a tie beam with reinforcing rod. We followed the code. And then -- this is in -- that was in '76. But, anyways, during that time the company, Gulf American Corporation, went bankrupt. They had promised the city, which was north Golden Gate, which is now Orange Tree -- and when they went bankrupt, they didn't -- the building was -- the city was only a promise, so they didn't build it, but they did do the roads. Well, they told -- they changed the rules that you had to have three houses on the avenue before they would bring the power out from Everglades Avenue, a mile and a half. Well, that -- that killed it for me. What are you going to do -- I was up in the stage -- everything was approved until the electric, plumbing underneath the slab and so forth, and then -- they knew there wouldn't be any more building with no city over there. And with no power, anyway, I had no choice but to -- to leave it. I went back up -- back up north. In the meantime, they had stolen materials I had there, which I was planning to for lack -- ceiling joists. All the rafters, the roof and everything were on. Anyway, to make a long stow short, back up north I kept checking with the power company. I can't-- I would come down here with my -- I had a son then about ten years old. And we -- we'd come down on va -- Christmas vacation and check with the power Page 44 November 29, 2001 company. And they said, "Look. There's -- there's one guy that wants to build, and you get a third guy, and we'll bring the power." well, anyway, that never happened. This other guy had -- he had a third guy who had a camper, and he was going to be the third guy. He was wanted by the police from another state, and he came and took him away. That delayed it again. Well, anyway, during this time I had bought a -- up north I bought this house from my grandfather, an old farmhouse -- he was an retired farmer -- from his estate. And so when he -- my uncle advanced me the money. He wanted me to buy it, and he wanted me to buy the house because it was his father's house. And so anyway, he lent me the money. Well, later he died, and I got into debt quite a bit. Well, my wife to make that -- to make the stow short, my wife had divorced me. And I was taking care -- we have one son and-- and Dustin was ten then. And so she met -- well, at that time all you had to do was be separated a year and you get a no-fault divorce, so she -- she got a divorce and then married some guy and wanted -- brought Dustin back to live with me. His name was Dustin Dwyer. So even though I was paying support to the family court -- that's up near Utica, New York. She never came back for over a year, and I -- and then she -- she called me and said to -- to keep Dustin -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sir, can I ask you a question, please? I'm sorry to interrupt you. Can we get to why you don't have permits now? I mean, this is all interesting information, but let's get to today and why you can't get permits. MR. DWYER: I'll just tell you that my sister -- my son was abandoned. You know, I had to take care of him. I didn't have a chance to come down, finish the house. So that's why the years went by. I think the power came in about -- in the late '80s, and I could have finished it then, but that's when I was taking care of this boy of mine. Page 45 November 29, 2001 So three years ago I went to the power company, and, you know, it's only in the last two, three years they started building houses out there where they started letting them build wood-frame houses. They even burned my -- I used to keep a moat around mine so the roof wouldn't burn. Anyway, three years ago I went to the power company, and they knew I had a dirty deal. So they were going to bring the power to me. I paid the $400 to -- for the poles. The house is about two -- 250 feet from the road, and the -- pay for the transformer, the power, and all that. And they said the county would inspect it. So I got a call from some guy -- I don't know who he was -- but he says, "Look. You don't have a permit." I says, "Yes, I do. That's what the power company went by." he says, "Well, it's too old." he wanted me to come in the next day. I did. He said, "It's too old. You got to get another permit." So I was going to get another permit, and they just put the impact fees on. That's another 5,000 plus. So the following year I had to let it go again. I'm working on a farm up north with my cousin, and my sister -- older sister's got a house that I stay in down here when I come down, and so the -- the power company put -- put the poles and everything out there. The inspector had me come into his office, and he said, "Look, you've got to get another permit." so I -- I was prepared to do that. Well, then the impact fee, we found out, was 5,000. And so I just didn't have the money to -- that kind of money to get another permit. So I went back up -- I went back up in the summer and, again, on the farm. Well, last year was when I had -- I was going to try and resume it when I got a summons. Well, of course, the inspector -- the guy that built the house next to mine had complained it was abandoned. And I went over to see him. He said that-- you know, the guy said he might want to buy it. So he only wanted to give me 10,000 for it. And his wife said the reason she complained, there was squatters -- Page 46 November 29, 2001 she was worried about squatters being over there. Well, there was no law back in those days. There was -- all the stop signs were full of bullet holes. They used it for gun practice. But, anyway, now that there's people there and law enforcement, I don't see where complaining of-- about squatters -- but anyway, that was -- so I didn't want to sell for 10,000. But I tried to -- I put it up for sale with a real estate party. Now, I went to Ed Perico. He's over in the -- where the permits are. And he says, "As long as it's up for sale for the" -- I told him, "I'11 get -- raise the money this summer and come down and get a permit, start over again or finish it." And he says, "As long as it's up for sale, they can't really demolish it on you." They wanted to demolish it. Ed Moran said, "If it's -- if it's abandoned, you-- you either got to finish it or demolish it." Well, no one wanted to buy it because they had to buy it, start in with a permit. They thought they could just finish the building, you know, from where it was. So I -- since the summer was over -- during the summer I -- I raised money and financing to get -- finish this building. And, anyways, about a week ago I was -- I was all set to get the permit, and Johnnie Gebhardt over there at the permitting said that you've got to have an engineer to prove that it's safe. So I paid $450 and got an engineer, but he -- he was supposed have the report -- I've got the report here. I just got it yesterday. He said that he'd have it, you know, by last weekend. So I was hoping by today I'd have the permit started, but since I got -- I've got to start with the engineer's report, and that's where it is today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So-- MR. DWYER: I hope to finish it because I want to live over there. That's the American dream, isn't it, to build a house and live in it? That's -- there's been a lot of delays in it, but really, there was Page 47 November 29, 2001 nothing I could do unless -- unless I paid my own son to come down here and finish it at this time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But you are at this point prepared to go back to the county hopefully with some paperwork to start your process? That's what you're telling us. MR. DWYER: I've got everything ready to go. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's what we need to know. Any questions for Mr. Dwyer? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. You may sit down. MS. DUSEK: I have a question for someone. I'm not sure whether Mr. Dwyer could answer this or the county. How much time do you think it will take for Mr. Dwyer, once he submits his engineering drawings or whatever-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle? MS. DUSEK: -- to be properly permitted? Is that something that somebody can answer? MS. CRUZ: I don't think we can determine the time that it will take for the building department to review the plans and approve or disapprove the permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What's -- what's the normal cycle? I mean, is it three months? Six months? A year? There's some -- some cycle I'm sure. MS. CRUZ: No. I would imagine it would be a lot less than three months. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. CRUZ: We're recommending 60 days. So we think that that will be ample time for him to obtain the permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Finding for the board whether there, in Page 48 November 29, 2001 fact, exists a violation? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of Board of County Commissioners versus Gerald Martin Dwyer, CEB No. 2001- 083, that there is a violation. The violation is of Section 104.6.1.2 of Ordinance 98-76, the Collier County Building Administrative Code. MR. LEHMANN: I would second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that there, in fact, is a violation existing. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Order of the board. MR. PONTE: I think that if we look at the staff recommendation and make a slight alteration, and the staff recommendation we're talking about 60 days to obtain a building permit, if-- because we have no control over the time element, if we were to rephrase that and say to apply for and shorten the length of time, say, have 30 days to apply for a permit to remove the structure or -- or get it into -- get it permitted, that we -- we follow that. MR. LEHMANN: I think that leaves too large of a loophole because the respondent could apply for it and rescind it and we're back where we were. MR. PONTE: Well -- but he is -- he has the engineering drawings. And, Mr. Dwyer, you are going to go forward with that, are you not, as soon as possible? MR. DWYER: Yes. I -- I plan to start right -- right away on, you know, getting the paperwork started because I just talked to Johnnie Gebhardt Monday. Today's -- or Tuesday, I mean. Today's Page 49 November 29, 2001 Thursday. And she said that-- tell the -- tell you people, the board here that I had trouble getting a permit, engineer's report on time. That was the main -- main thing she wanted. She wanted to make sure this structure is safe to continue on as it is, and it is. This is -- there's a couple things I need to do. It's all spelled out in the engineer's report. And I'm ready to go and start -- start working on it. In fact, three years ago I was ready, but the impact fees were the big thing that stopped me back then. But I've -- I spent a lot of time this summer raising financing and the money so that I can not only get all the materials but everything that is needed to be done to finish that building. So the hard work has been done on it. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Rawson, I have a question -- MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- just to make sure we're on the right track. The section of the code that has been cited and that we're -- we have found him in violation of, maybe we didn't ask enough questions, but specifically is abandonment. MS. RAWSON: Well, 612 says that, you know, if you don't commence construction within six months, it's -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I mean -- MS. RAWSON: -- the permit's expired. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, it says if construction has commenced, and it did back in '76 or something -- MS. RAWSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- we're way past six months. And then it says it's abandoned, and they're supposed to be doing -- have done some letters. And then it states at the end of that paragraph A that I guess they can come in and say considered by the building official that the project has not -- and evidently the building official is not willing to look at any hardship. And then when you go to B it Page 50 November 29, 2001 says the contractor/owner on the last sentence shall have the burden of establishing that the project has not been abandoned or suspended and the board should reverse the decision of the building official. So this is real -- this section is really dealing with permit intent. And I assume if he got a permit back in '76 that they're only -- they're not good forever, I wouldn't think. MS. RAWSON: I don't -- I think they're not good within six months. VOICE IN AUDIENCE: Fifteen years. MS. GODFREY: Is the house complete -- is it 60 percent completed? MR. LETOURNEAU: I think it says during any six-month period fails to actively be engaged in construction and fails to complete at least 60 percent of the construction, that would be considered average for the industry for that 6-month time. I don't think it's 60 percent. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So what -- what we're seeing now is not 60 percent of a house; right? MR. PHILLIPS: I'll second-- MR. LEHMANN: 104.6.12, same paragraph, A, it states specifically, permit abandonment shall be deemed to have occurred if a required inspection has not been requested or satisfactorily completed within a six-month period. MR. LETOURNEAU: That's what we've got. MR. LEHMANN: So, I mean, just with that sentence alone, we have permit abandonment. MS. RAWSON: Correct. MS. GODFREY: It also says if-- due to unavailability of construction supplies or materials. What about his unable to get power to the house? MR. LEHMANN: It says specifically increased cost of building Page 51 November 29, 2001 materials or supplies or financial hardship shall not be considered by the building official as evidence that the project has not been abandoned or suspended. This particular code section in paragraph B goes on to say, the owner-- the owner only has 15 days to appeal the building official's decision. MS. GODFREY: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: So at some time in the past it was considered abandoned; no appeal was filed. It's still considered abandoned. MS. GODFREY: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: My -- my question is that with this specific paragraph that he's been cited, it's an abandonment. So the paragraph doesn't give him the option of going to get a new permit. And so that's why I'm saying if-- for us to come up with an order to come in compliance with this, since this is the violation, there's no way to come in compliance with this. This is specifically abandonment. I'm -- I'm looking for a way to -- what do we have him do? MS. ARNOLD: Well, if-- normally when someone abandons something or the -- they fail to request inspections and the permit is then voided, they have the ability to reapply for a building permit and -- and to complete the job. It -- it just depends on what the property owner wants to do. Does he want to continue the construction or he wants to remove the structure? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: I think those are the two things that you can tell him to do. MS. DUSEK: That -- that last sentence in B where it says the contractor/owner shall have the burden of establishing that the project has not been abandoned or suspended and that the board shall reverse the decision of the building official, I think that if-- by our order would allow him to do that. Page 52 November 29, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I just want us to be specific in what we're ordering him to do and for what reason. MS. DUSEK: I think he has to obtain a building permit more than just apply. MR. PHILLIPS: Or demolish the structure. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, is your concern the fact that we are maybe citing an incorrect code section as the violation? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's probably not the incorrect code section, but there probably should have been a couple other ones. So I'm looking for us not to say obtain a building permit. I think it should be a broad sentence that the respondent needs to come in compliance with the Collier County code or ordinance, which I don't know if 98-76 requires the actual issuance of a permit or not but rather than-- I think it should be a statement something like that, that he come into compliance with the ordinance, a specific paragraph of the ordinance and/or remove the structure. MS. DUSEK: By obtaining-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: By obtaining whatever is required. Don't be specific. Whatever is required, because it may be more than just, you know, a permit. I don't know. Just come in compliance with the ordinance within X days, and then -- and I don't have any problem with whether it's 30 or 60. I don't know which is more realistic. Staff recommended 60. I would -- evidently for a reason. So I'd say that's probably more realistic. MS. DUSEK: It would seem to me obtaining a building permit, what he has to go through to get that, brings him into the compliance. MR. LEHMANN: Miss Rawson-- MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: Miss Rawson, are we able to write our order to say that we order the respondent to achieve code compliance within 60 days? Is that a narrow enough -- Page 53 November 29, 2001 MS. RAWSON: Well, that's pretty broad. MR. LEHMANN: That's a very broad order. MS. RAWSON: I think there's only two ways he can come into compliance. That is that they give him a building permit, he continue building his structure or that he tears it down. What else can he do? MS. SAUNDERS: I think the staff really said it very well where it sounds to me like we're analyzing and critiquing the law. And I -- I've got to rely on the staff and the staffs attorneys to say that this is how we're supposed to do it. I don't think it's our job -- our job, really, to critique the law, to tweak it. If the staff and the attorneys tell us this is legal, this is how we're interpreting the codes, then I trust that. So I -- I go with the staff recommendation. MS. DUSEK: I agree with that also. MR. PONTE: Me too. MR. LEHMANN: Do we have a motion? MS. DUSEK: We don't have a motion yet. MR. LEHMANN: Then I would so move that in this case we follow staff's recommendation, the CEB orders the respondent to pay all operations costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and obtain a building permit or remove structure within 60 days or a fine of $50 per day be imposed for each day the violation continues. MS. SAUNDERS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Operational costs? MR. LEHMANN: It's already in there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I didn't hear you say that. We have a motion and a second. MS. SAUNDERS: We did finding of fact, didn't we? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All in favor signify by saying aye. Page 54 November 29, 2001 (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Mr. Dwyer, do you understand, sir? MR. DWYER: Yes, I do. But I didn't -- I didn't quite get about the inspections. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Forget inspections. Our order is just telling you that you've got to come in compliance in 60 days by getting a permit, period. Inspections is not part of our order. MR. DWYER: I understand that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Next case, BCC versus Eric B. Bertelsen. Am I saying that correctly? MS. CRUZ: Yes. Let the record show that the respondent is not present. I'd like to request that the packet that was -- that was provided to the respondent be admitted into evidence marked Composite Exhibit A, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'll entertain a motion to accept the county's exhibit. MR. LEHMANN: MS. GODFREY: So moved. Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept county's exhibit. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MS. CRUZ: This is Case No. 2001-084, Board of County Commissioners versus Eric B. Bertelsen. The violation brought before this board is Section 2.6.7.1.1 and Section 2.6.7.2.1 of Page 55 November 29, 2001 Ordinance No. 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code. This violation describes as illegal storage of an -- unlicensed recreational vehicles in a residential-zoned area. The violation exists at 4415 Lorraine Avenue, Naples, Florida, and is more particularly described as Coconut Creek, Unit 3, Block B, Lot 12. The owner of record is Eric B. Bertelsen. Address of record is 4415 Lorraine Avenue, Naples, Florida. The violation was observed on August 31st, 2001. Two notice of violation were provided to the respondent, one dated August 31st with a compliance date of September 1st, 2001. The second one was provided on September 18th, 2001, with a correction date of September 22nd, 2001. As of today, the violation remains. I turn the case over to Investigator David Repicky. (The oath was administered.) MR. REPICKY: My name is Dave Repicky, Collier County code enforcement investigator. On August 31st, 2001, I was on patrol in the Coconut Creek area on Lorraine Avenue. I observed a large RV and a boat in the front yard on -- this address here of Mr. Bertelsen, 4415 Lorraine Avenue. The RV at the time was unlicensed. I knocked on the door, spoke to Mr. Meyer who stated he was Mr. Bertelsen's roommate. I then issued a notice of violation to Mr. Meyer for Mr. Bertelsen. He said he would let Mr. Bertelsen know about the violation. I explained in detail about the violation, how the vehicles need to be stored and that the RV needed to have a -- needed to have a license plate on -- on it, a good, current tag on the vehicle at that time. September 14th I went for a recheck. The violation still existed with one exception. The RV did have a valid tag on it at the time. Page 56 November 29, 2001 Nobody was home. I had no contact with Mr. Bertelsen or his roommate, Mr. Meyer. At that time I sent certified mail, notice of violation to Mr. Bertelsen, which was received by him, and we did receive the return receipt that he did receive it. On September 15th and October 2nd, I did two more rechecks. The violations still remained. October 17th the violations still remained on another-- another recheck. The -- the only exception was the RV had been moved. The boat is still present. As of yesterday and today, this morning, you can see the boat -- it's not a very clear picture. I apologize for that. But the boat -- the boat still does remain. And I've had no contact with Mr. Bertelsen. MR. PONTE: Investigator, just a clarification: Did you say the RV had been moved or removed? MR. REPICKY: It has been removed. MR. PONTE: Removed. Thank you. MS. DUSEK: So since the motor home has been removed, then, we're going to be taking Section 2.6.7.1.1 out? Are you ready for a motion, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have a que -- I'm trying to think of the proper question. Investigator, you haven't -- you haven't had any contact with the owner, Mr. Bertelsen; correct? MR. REPICKY: No, sir, I have not. I have stopped by on early mornings on our early flex day. Nobody's answered the door. I stopped by in the afternoons. Nobody's at -- the only contact I've ever had was with Mr. Meyer at the residence. MS. DUSEK: When you had contact with Mr. Meyer, did he say, in fact, that Mr. Bertelsen lives there? MR. REPICKY: Yes, ma'am. Between that and his girlfriend's house. He did live -- his primary residence was right there on Lorraine Avenue. Page 57 November 29, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The motor home is, in fact, gone. MR. REPICKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So now we're down to the -- MR. REPICKY: The boat on the trailer. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And the trailer-- the trailer doesn't have a license or does or it's just there? MR. REPICKY: The trailer does have a license for the boat. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's just on his property? MR. REPICKY: Yes, sir. MS. DUSEK: Are we set, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: Okay. I make a motion in the case of the Board of County Commissioners for Collier County versus Eric B. Bertelsen in the case CEB 2001-084, that there is a violation. The violation is of Section 2.6.7.2.1 of Ordinance 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code. MR. LEHMANN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion -- MS. SAUNDERS: I think what you just noted was the violation for the motor home rather than the boat. MR. LEHMANN: No, Section 1.1 is for the motor home. Section 2.1 is for the boat. MS. SAUNDERS: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that there, in fact, exists a violation. Any further question? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) All in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? Page 58 November 29, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board-- I'm sorry. You may sit down, sir. MS. SAUNDERS: I move that we accept staff's recommendation as stated. MS. DUSEK: The only thing is for the unlicensed vehicle, there -- it's been removed. MR. PONTE: I also think that indicates some attempt to comply and that $50 per day is a bit stiff for simply parking a boat in your driveway. And I think that $25 would be sufficiently -- MR. LEHMANN: My sheet, staff's recommendation is $25. Oh, it is. MS. DUSEK: It's 25 each violation. So it would be. And now it's just one violation. MR. LEHMANN: Do we have a motion that is partially the way through? MR. PONTE: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. We don't have a motion at all yet. MR. LEHMANN: Then I would move that CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the prosecution of this case and store unpermitted vehicles or unlicensed vehicles as required per ordinance and remove the same within 15 days or a fine of $25 per day be imposed each day the violation continues. MS. SAUNDERS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second for an order to pay operational costs, plus correct the violation within 15 days, or pay a fine of $25 per day thereafter. Any further question? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Page 59 November 29, 2001 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Next case, BCC versus Wayne Simpson and Lester Redmond. MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. Let the record show that Mr. Lester Redmond is present, Mr. Wayne Simpson is not. I'd like to request that the packet provided to the respondent and to the board be admitted into evidence marked Composite Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Simpson, did you get a package from the county? MR. REDMOND: Redmond. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MR. REDMOND: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're Redmond? Thank you. I'd entertain a motion to accept the county's exhibit. MR. LEHMANN: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the county's exhibit. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) MS. CRUZ: The violation brought before this board on Case No. 2001-085, Board of County Commissioners versus Wayne Simpson and Lester Redmond, it's Section -- it's violation of Section 1.5.6, 2.1.15, 2.7.6, paragraphs 1 and 5; Section 2.6.7.1 of Ordinance No. 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section 6, 7, and 8 of Ordinance No. 99-51, the Collier County Weed and Litter Ordinance. The violation describes as a stilt-type structure constructed without obtaining a Collier County building permit; litter consisting of but not limited to miscellaneous materials, such as metal scraps, plastic, paper, wood, tires; and also storage of vehicle parts, vehicle frames, motors, transmission, building materials, air-type tanks, steel Page 60 November 29, 2001 boats, mechanic-type tools and equipment, and storage of unlicensed vehicles all on unimproved property. These violations exist at 2752 State Street, Immokalee, Florida. It is more particularly described as Section 20, Township 46, Range 29, the north 75 feet of the south 576.15 feet ofthe east 135.18 feet of the east quarter of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter. The owner of record, Wayne Simpson and Lester Redmond. Violations were first observed on March 20th, 2001. Notice of violations were provided to the respondents on May 5th -- 8th, 2 -- 2001, with a correction date of June 10th, 2001. A second notice of violation was provided to the respondents dated August 6, 2001, with a correction date of September 15,2001. The violation remains as of yesterday. I'll turn the case over to Gary Dantini. (The oath was administered.) MR. DANTINI: For the record -- good morning. For the record, my name is Gary Dantini, Collier County code enforcement investigator. And excuse me, but I'm just getting over a code -- cold. So if I break up a little bit here, it's because of that. And I apologize. On March 20th I went to the location and observed numerous violations of litter, vehicles, and parts around the property and went back to the office, investigated the structure also to find out if there was a permit for that, and there was no permit issued for that structure as it stood. In fact, the property had been taxed as unimproved property; to this day it has been. I made a notice of violation to a Wayne Simpson and sent it to the address of record that he had with the county. The notice was returned unsigned, and the letter was -- was returned to us. I talked to Mr. Lester Raymond-- Redmond. Excuse me. I'm sorry, sir -- about the property. And he stated that -- that he was the owner of the property, apparently that in -- in '78 there was a contract with -- with Wayne Simpson for five years and that he had paid that Page 61 November 29, 2001 and he was trying to get a quitclaim deed from Mr. Simpson through a lawyer. And as of this day there still has not been any quitclaim deed, and it's still -- the property is owned by Wayne Simpson. I did issue a notice of violation to Mr. Redmond. I had to do drop service to him. He did refuse to sign. Courteously, though, he did refuse to sign. And I also posted the property in the proper ways, the property at the courthouse. We did a -- Mr. Redmond did let us do a structural inspection on the building. Inspector Dick Newman, did an inspection of the building and found the building to be a sturdy building but is not up to code. So it's in violation, of course, with the county because of the fact that it does not have a -- a permit and it is not built to code. And I went out to the property this morning. And, as you see, Mr. Redmond had cleaned up most of the -- the property in the front portion of-- of-- of the land. But in the very back part is stored an awful lot of equipment still back there, parts and steel and -- and vehicles. And -- but he did clean up about 60 percent of what -- what the litter was. But there's still a violation of-- litter violation there. And we still have the structure on site without a permit. MS. DUSEK: I'm confused. I'm not sure who owns the property. MR. DANTINI: Right. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Simpson owns it, but you've cited four people. MR. MS. MR. property, MS. DANTINI: Yes. DUSEK: Why are we citing Mr. Redmond? DANTINI: Because Mr. Simpson claims that's his his materials, and everything that's on there, that's his. DUSEK: But the owner of record is Mr. Simpson. MR. DANTINI: That's correct. And I also did a notice of violation to him. But he is nowhere to be found. Apparently the last Page 62 November 29, 2001 five years he's disappeared. MR. PONTE: Investigator, I'm a little confused on -- on that. In the executive summary it says Mr. Simpson did, however, agree to let a county structural building inspector inspect the structure. MR. DANT1NI: Okay. MR. PONTE: I guess that is a mistype. MR. DANTINI: Yeah, that's a mistype. MR. PONTE: But then it says since Mr. Simpson refused to sign -- I'm confused as to the players. Where is Mr. Simpson? MR. DANTINI: Again, that should have been Mr. Redmond. I'm sorry. MR. MR. PONTE: So Mr. Redmond refused to sign? DANTINI: Yes. I had to do drop service at that point. MS. GODFREY: Investigator, you have pictures of expired tags on an older truck, but yet it says December of 2001. MR. DANT1NI: Oh, that. That was just an example of some of the vehicles that were on -- MS. GODFREY: Okay. MR. DANTINI: Yeah. vehicles that were there. MS. GODFREY: Oh. Those are general pictures of all the Because you have the truck with the expired tag, but it's December of 2001. It's a collectible. MR. DANTINI: Yeah. No. If you look at the -- MS. GODFREY: Expired tags on all the truck s. MR. DANTINI: -- this red tag -- red truck right here on the monitor, that was one of the vehicles that didn't have a tag on it. MS. GODFREY: Oh. MR. PONTE: Of the vehicles and materials that were in the front yard -- MR. DANTINI: Uh-huh. MR. PONTE: -- 60 percent have been moved or removed or Page 63 November 29, 2001 just put in the back? MR. DANTINI: and -- MR. PONTE: Off site? MR. DANTINI: Off site. put in the rear of it. MR. PONTE: Okay. Well, I would say 60 percent of it was removed And the remainder portions of it were MR. DANTINI: And the remaining vehicles that -- I was not able to obtain to see if the licenses were current on the remaining vehicles. He had posted no trespassing. MR. PONTE: Is there a business being conducted here, I mean, a storage business or a repair business or -- MR. DANTINI: Mr. Redmond says no. MS. DUSEK: Miss Rawson, if the owner of record is Mr. Simpson, can we site Mr. Redmond also? MS. RAWSON: Yes, we can. He's like a tenant at this point in time. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for the investigator? MR. PONTE: by Mr. Redmond? MR. DANTINI: That's correct. MR. PONTE: And have been for five years; is that correct? MR. DANTINI: I've just checked the last couple years. That's Just one other. The property taxes are being paid Any additional questions? Thank you, sir. Thank you. all that I know of that he's paid. MR. PONTE: Thanks. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MR. DANTINI: Page 64 November 29, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Redmond, your turn, sir. (The oath was administered.) MR. REDMOND: I was not under the impression that I live on residential ag. Most of this equipment's left are tractor parts. I'm a tinkerer. And as far as motors, I drag race. And I just can't see where the big problem is. I'm -- I'm trying to bring everything up and -- and, you know, the building -- the building has been there for 30 years. I told them I'd bring it up to code if they would allow me a permit to do so. And since then I'm wasting my time talking to them. And I just -- I don't know what else to do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well -- huh. Yeah, I don't know if you can get a permit since you're not a, quote, legal owner. That's probably where your problem is, until you solve your ownership problem. MR. REDMOND: Yeah. I have a lawyer -- I have had three lawyers working on this, and I've done paid lawyer fees more than I've paid for the property. And -- and I'm under the impression that unimproved land is agriculture. And as far as tractor parts, I'm a tinkerer. I put this stuff together, and -- MS. DUSEK: Mr. Redmond, if-- you said you've obtained a few attorneys. Do you have any case pending? MR. REDMOND: As far as I know, I still do, trying to get a legal document of the property. I've tried several occasions to get ahold of Wayne Simpson, and he's -- had moved to Georgia. As far as I know, the guy is dead by now, as far as I know. And it seems to me he -- I paid him. He skipped town with my deed, and I just can't -- MS. GODFREY: Mr. Redmond, we have a picture here that is Lester's Welder's Repair, Gas, and Diesel; acetylene torches in the garage here for welding, major welding? MR. REDMOND: No, ma'am. That's personal property, Page 65 November 29, 2001 acetylene torches. work for C&B Farms now, and I never did take the stickers off. have removed them since I got a notice, you know. MS. GODFREY: But you were getting ready to go into business and-- I was going into business for myself at one time. I But I MR. REDMOND: At one time I got a better deal, so I work for C&B Farms in Clewiston. I never did take them off. I didn't -- the DOT didn't see no problem with them, you know, so I didn't-- but now there was a problem, so I took them off. MS. GODFREY: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: Miss Arnold, do we have any record as to what the zoning classification is, the zoning district for this property? MS. ARNOLD: It's agriculturally zoned with a mobile home overlay. MS. GODFREY: Now, if you have agriculture, don't you have to have two goats or a cow or something on it? MS. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, God. MS. SAUNDERS: A tomato plant. MS. ARNOLD: In this particular case the primary structure can be a single-family home or a mobile home because of the overlay district. MR. REDMOND: This building, it's a storage barn. There's no electricity, no plumbing to it. I have books and stuff that I keep in it and a few odds and ends and stuff like that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Arnold -- I don't know how to word this. Let's make the assumption that, as Mr. Redmond said, this is all his stuff and he just tinkers with it when he wants. That's, you know, whether we might think of it as some other class. Is he allowed to keep it, or does he have to put it under a building, or -- or is the county just considering you're not allowed to leave it sitting in Page 66 November 29, 2001 your yard? I mean, help me out here. MS. ARNOLD: It's -- it should probably be in an enclosed or-- you know, area so that it's not just laying all over the yard. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So, in other words, even though it's behind a fence, it has to be under some kind of roof?. That's what you're saying? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, it could be -- since this is a stilt structure, if it's under the carport area, then that probably would suffice. MR. REDMOND: I'm sorry. This -- this is wrong. She's got a picture. There's a guy lives down the road from me, has 20 acres hisself. It's not under no building. So that -- it has to be wrong. You know what I mean? You know, I'm just saying -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm just looking for some -- MR. REDMOND: Why does my tractor have to be under a storage shed and 20 acres of tractors laying out in the field? I don't -- you know, I can't -- I'm at a loss. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand your statement. It's something I -- I'm not able to address. That's why I was asking the question that try and find us some relief. MR. REDMOND: I have pictures to show you that I'm not lying. And they know it already. So I don't understand why I'm up here. MS. ARNOLD: I believe the investigator opened this not just for a tractor. There was other material stored around the property, and he can answer that question better than I because I -- I haven't been out there. MS. DUSEK: Well, it's suggesting litter, metal scraps, plastic paper -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. MS. DUSEK: -- different things, not just the tractor. MR. REDMOND: Well, that's gone. Page 67 November 29, 2001 MS. DUSEK: Most of that's gone, Inspector Dantini? MR. DANTINI: Yeah. There's still about 40 percent as you can see in this picture right here that he's -- still has about 40 percent of the land area filled with different parts. Some of it's covered with canvas, so I couldn't tell what it was that was underneath that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But these could be parts that he's tinkering with. MR. DANTINI: It could be. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Could be. MR. DANTINI: It could be. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, that's -- I don't know how we make that determination-- MR. DANTINI: Well, but if-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- but it could be. MR. DANTINI: If you look through some of the other pictures that were done in the same location there, they're in the same piles. There were generally just litter. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. DANTINI: And so I had to go with that assumption that since he covered it, that it was still just litter. MS. DUSEK: I have a question on the Section 2.1.15. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do we have any more questions for Mr. Redmond at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. You can sit down. MS. DUSEK: Where you cited him for that and you haven't specified which numbers, because if I'm looking at it correctly, one of them says roadside sales. MR. DANTINI: No. 4, storage and display. And the No. 1, any use or structure not specifically permitted in a zoning district, is permitted use. Page 68 November 29, 2001 MS. DUSEK: Okay. So 1 and 4 of the section? MR. DANTINI: Right. MS. DUSEK: And, Miss Rawson, the structure, can he as a so- called tenant get a permit? MS. RAWSON: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. MS. DUSEK: So what does he have -- I mean, it sounds like he has to take it down if he can't-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. He can't take down somebody else's property. MS. RAWSON: Right. He can't take down somebody else's property, and he can't get a permit. What he has to do is what he's apparently doing, and that is pursuing legal action to get the title deeded into his name which he can do with a quiet-title action or whatever. MS. DUSEK: But how can we -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Wait. You can't cite him for the building, because it's not his building. MS. DUSEK: I understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You can cite him for the litter. MS. DUSEK: That's what I'm concerned about because we're asking about the stilt-type structure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What -- what we have to do is, you're going to have to cite one of these gentlemen as the owner of record, because that's all there is to date, with -- let's just assume, for this 5 seconds, all the violations. You can then cite the, quote, unquote, tenant at this 5 seconds with certain violations, the stilt house not being one of them because he doesn't own the property or the house. So -- MS. DUSEK: So we can-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're going to have to -- it will be Page 69 November 29, 2001 basically two orders: one to Mr. Simpson, one to Mr. Redmond, and they will read differently because different sections apply. MS. DUSEK: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: Miss Arnold, in the agricultural-zoned district that Mr. Redmond's place is at, is it permitted to store the type of materials that he is storing in the manner in which he is storing them? MR. DANTINI: Can I answer that question? MR. LEHMANN: Yes, please. MR. DANTINI: Gary Dantini, for the record. Just before I came here I went and talked to the planning department. And they said if-- if it is not used as an agricultural purpose, in other words, if the -- he isn't using the land around where the material is stored -- excuse me -- then it would be a violation because it is not -- the intent is not for the use of agricultural uses. MR. LEHMANN: Even though Mr. Redmond says he is repairing tractors, for instance, it could be a lawn tractor; it could be a farm tractor. And so -- MR. DANTINI: But that's not all tractor-- there isn't a tractor on the property that I saw. MR. LEHMANN: I see -- I see a lot of trucks and motor vehicles, but you do see some tractor tires in there. MR. DANTINI: Yeah, storage. But it-- it still -- he's not using the tractor for the property. Yes. And also it is still considered unimproved property. MR. LEHMANN: So technically he couldn't store anything there. MR. DANTINI: That's correct. MS. DUSEK: I just need to backtrack a second. MR. DANTINI: Sure. MS. DUSEK: Did you say that the unlicensed vehicles had been Page 70 November 29, 2001 removed? MR. DANTINI: The ones that I -- I witnessed before. I couldn't tell by the ones that are on there now. I could not read the license on it because I could not get on the property, so I don't know if they have license or not. MS. DUSEK: So how are we treating that if we don't know for sure in the citing of one of the sections --. MR. DANTINI: Well -- MS. DUSEK: -- of unlicensed vehicles? MR. DANTINI: -- there is one for sure that I know it is not. It's the same vehicle that I have seen before, this truck right here (indicating). It's in-- MS. DUSEK: Okay. So at least there's one. MR. DANTINI: And there is one other one, if I can-- this green vehicle right here (indicating), this -- you see the back end of that truck on page 25, you see the front end of that vehicle. And that is a - - an unlicensed vehicle also. That's another one that was on there. So there are some vehicles left that are unlicensed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Basically what the board can do is, you can cite both parties pulling out the things that have been complied with for the exact same things, except Mr. Redmond can't be cited for the building. That's the only thing you could pull out for Mr. Redmond. Everything else would apply, if it's still there. So the building is the only thing we couldn't cite Mr. Redmond for because it's not his land, it's not his building, as presented by the record. And, you know, taking into consideration what he's trying to do, that would have to be down the road. But that's what you would have to pull out, the board would have to do, just leave that one -- anything that applies to the stilt-type structure without the permit, that would not apply to Mr. Redmond. Everything else would apply if it still exists. Page 71 November 29, 2001 MS. DUSEK: MR. PONTE: MS. DUSEK: Okay. I'd like to make a motion, if we're ready. Ready. And I guess I would do this in two different motions, Miss Rawson? MS. RAWSON: You can do it in the same motion. You're just going to require different respondents to comply in different ways. MS. DUSEK: Okay. In the case of the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, versus Wayne Simpson and Lester Redmond, in the case of CEB No. 2001-085, I find that there is a violation. The violation against Mr. Simpson is of Section 1.5.6, 2.1.15, Section 1 and 4 of that, 2.7.6, Part 1 ofthat and 5, 2.6.7.1.1 of Ordinance 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code, and Section 6, 7, and 8 of Ordinance No. 99-51, the Collier County Weed and Litter Ordinance. For Mr. Redmond, the violation is of Section 1.5.6, 2.1.15, Part 4, and Section 2.7.6, 1 and 5, 2.6.7.1.1 of Ordinance No. 91-102, the Collier Coun -- County Land Development Code, and Sections 6, 7, and 8 of Ordinance No. 99-51, the Collier County Weed and Litter Ordinance. MR. LEHMANN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Have we got the right sections, Miss Rawson, for each? MS. RAWSON: The only one that Mr. Simpson can abate is, according to the stilt-type structure without a permit. Mr. Redmond can't do that one. Mr. Redmond can do all of the rest. MS. DUSEK: That's why I left out in Section 2.1.15, No. 1, because that pertains to the structure. MS. RAWSON: Okay. MS. DUSEK: So I left that one out. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, but 2 -- let's see. I've got to go back. Page 72 November 29, 2001 MS. DUSEK: CHAIRMAN MS. DUSEK: CHAIRMAN MS. DUSEK: CHAIRMAN because it all deals MS. DUSEK: CHAIRMAN MS. DUSEK: Well, actually, maybe -- we're looking at 2.7.6 -- FLEGAL:-- 2.7.6.1. -- 1. You're correct. FLEGAL: He can't do and -- That's right. FLEGAL: And 4-5 -- 2.7.6 he can't do at all with building permits. Right. FLEGAL: And he's not an owner. That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I just want to make sure we do -- we don't impose something on him that he has no control over. MS. DUSEK: That was an oversight in mine -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's why I asked the question, just so we can make sure. MR. LEHMANN: Miss Dusek, do you amend your motion? MS. DUSEK: I do amend it. And I'm not sure, Miss Rawson, looking at No. 5 in 2.7.6, improvement of property prohibitive prior to issuance of building permit, should that be left out? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. DUSEK: So perhaps we should leave out that 2.7.6. MS. RAWSON: 2.7.6 as to this respondent. MS. DUSEK: So as to Mr. Redmond, I'm amending the motion to take out 2.7.6, 1 and 5, and I've already taken out No. 1 on 2.1.15. MR. LEHMANN: And I'll second the amended motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second that, in fact, a violation exists, both for Mr. Simpson and for Mr. Redmond. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All in favor signify by saying aye. Page 73 November 29, 2001 (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. Any opposed? Thank you. MS. DUSEK: Now, once again, I have this concern about how we can order Mr. Simpson to do anything when we know that we can't find him. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, but-- MS. DUSEK: The burden is put completely on Mr. Redmond, so I think when we make a recommendation, that somehow -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, but we've done that before. You -- you make the order, and -- and if the person doesn't comply, then the fines start. And then after a certain period of time, which, I believe, is three months, we could then instruct the county to start, you know, foreclosure proceedings. MS. DUSEK: That's right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: In the meantime, I'm sure Mr. Simpson -- or Mr. Redmond is trying diligently to get property he thought he bought under his control. And then he would have the right to come back and say, excuse me, I'm now the owner, and give me some time to do something. But right now, I think what we have to do is do the order, as we have done all other orders, and establish what we want done by whom, by what date, and/or a fine starts, and then wait to see what happens before we try to second-guess something. MS. DUSEK: For example, who's going to pay the operational costs, or is that going to be divided, or are they both -- that's where I'm having a problem. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I mean, the operational costs, in essence, if-- if you had two orders -- and basically that's what we're Page 74 November 29, 2001 doing -- you can divide the operational costs. Mr. Redmond being around could pay his part. Mr. Simpson's part, which wouldn't be paid, would then be applied to the uncollected fines and such should foreclosure procedures be started. That's typical. That's -- that's not out of line. MS. DUSEK: In the staff's recommendation, I'm a little uneasy with $100 per day. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's a recommendation. What you need to do is make your recommendation to the board to see how the rest of the board feels. We don't always follow staff's recommendation. MS. DUSEK: I understand. I'm just making that comment in the event that someone is going to make a motion. Well, I'll make a motion unless Rhona or someone else -- MS. SAUNDERS: You go ahead. MR. LEHMANN: We're going to let you do the dirty work. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're doing fine. MS. DUSEK: I make -- make a motion that we order Mr. Simpson to pay half of the operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and obtain proper permits, if obtainable, or remove structure and remove all litter within 45 days or a fine of $50 per day be imposed each day each violation continues. That's No. 1. And I guess we should look at that first, or should I go ahead with the other? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Rawson, do we need to do them -- I mean, it's all going to be it in one order. Is it easier to do it individually or can we just-- MS. RAWSON: Whatever, the pleasure of the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: You can go ahead and now that you've made your recommendation or proposal about Mr. Simpson's Page 75 November 29, 2001 responsibility, you CHAIRMAN MS. DUSEK: CHAIRMAN MS. DUSEK: FLEGAL: Okay. FLEGAL: can go ahead with Mr. Redmond's. Yeah. And just do one approval. Okay? Well, I make a motion that -- for Mr. Redmond that he pay half of the operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and remove all litter within 45 days or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed on this violation if it continues. MS. ARNOLD: How many days did you give Mr. -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Forty-five. MS. DUSEK: Forty-five. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion for the costs to be split among the two parties. The time limit is 45 days for each party. Mr. Redmond is not involved in obtaining any kind of permits. And the fine for both parties is 50 -- $50 per day for noncompliance. MS. SAUNDERS: I'll second that. MS. DUSEK: You know, I'm just going to make a comment about this, my same motion. What bothers me is that this structure may be a fine structure, and it's possible that it could be brought to code and be left there. And because we can't find Mr. Simpson and we're not allowing him due process with his cases, Mr. Redmond, in getting ownership, I feel so uncomfortable about the fact that if he can't obtain permits, which we know is not going to happen -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ownership of the property for us is in Mr. Simpson's hands. MS. DUSEK: Yes. I realize that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I mean -- MS. DUSEK: That's what's bothering me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that. But, unfortunately, that can't reflect what we do. MS. DUSEK: Well, I'm-- Page 76 November 29, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Because we have no way to help Mr. Redmond, since he's not an owner. That's not within our purview to try and help him because we have no way to do that. MS. DUSEK: Well, my concern is that he's trying to get ownership. Are we allowing enough time so that in the event that no -- Mr. Simpson is around, that we're allowing Mr. Redmond enough time in that 45-day period? MR. LEHMANN: Should conditions change on Mr. Redmond's part, such as he would proceed with a civil action or something else, he can always come before this board and ask for an order to be amended. We can always reduce it if we want to. We cannot add to; we can reduce. MS. DUSEK: I realize we can reduce. I'm concerned about the building being demolished. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we haven't told anybody to demolish it. We've told Mr. Simpson to come into compliance. If Mr. Simpson doesn't come into compliance -- no one is going to demolish the building. MS. DUSEK: Well, it says remove structure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If Mr. Simpson doesn't get permits or demolish the building, as the owner, he has that right unless Mr. Redmond can somehow prove that he is the owner. So right now, Mr. Simpson, should he appear in this order issued, he can demolish the structure or get permits, period. MS. SAUNDERS: IfI understand-- MR. PONTE: And what happens to Mr. Redmond in the event that he does get control of the structure in due course, and how does all of this apply? There would be a lien against the property because it was Mr. Simpson's. And, yet, it really isn't all Mr. Simpson's. It's very complicated-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand it's complicated. But Page 77 November 29, 2001 until he gets control of the property, I don't think he was buying half of it. I think he was probably buying all of it. If he gets all of it, I would think at that period of time if there's some type of a lien on the property because of Mr. Simpson, that he would have a reasonable case for his attorney to go to the county and explain, gee, I've been fighting for 15 years to get my piece of property, and it's taken me this long, and you've liened it because of this and -- I think all that can be worked out, and the lien would probably be lifted. And then we would be -- in this particular case, the order of the board to get permits and/or demolish to Mr. Simpson -- if he turns out not to be the owner, then the county would have to bring that part of their violation back to us against Mr. Redmond. And then we could then say, now, Mr. Redmond, since you're the owner, you need to get the permits and/or demolish the structure. But you need to deal with what is existing today. And today Mr. Simpson owns the property. What might be really is unimportant. You can only be governed by facts. Facts are Mr. Simpson owns the property. We have to tell him to do something. If that doesn't occur under the ordinance and the statutes, the only thing that we could do is that if he doesn't come into compliance in three months, instruct the county to start foreclosure procedures, and they can make that determination whether they want to do it or not. MS. DUSEK: Miss Rawson, in looking at the warranty deed -- MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. DUSEK: -- with the Xs on there and the scratched-out names and etc., is this legal to have it like that where it says the grantor to Wayne Simpson and then it's crossed out, and then there's another name crossed out and the address written in? Once it's notarized, are you allowed to go back and fool with the deed? MS. RAWSON: Well, the answer to the latter question is, no, you're not supposed to do that. But I'm looking at a deed from Lester Page 78 November 29, 2001 Redmond and Marie Redmond to Wayne Simpson. Is that the one you're talking about? MS. DUSEK: No. Because-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. That's the contract for sale. That's not a deed. MS. DUSEK: That's the contract for land sale. Then we were given a deed this morning, and on this deed there's scratched-out names and things written in after it was notarized. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't think that was -- if I had to guess, since that's Miss Jenkins' signature, I think she signed in the wrong place because if you look at the signature that's scratched out and the signature on the bottom, they're fairly close to the same. I think she probably signed in the wrong place. MS. RAWSON: I'm looking at the deed that you're talking about now. It's fine. I don't have any problem with it. MS. DUSEK: Okay. MS. GODFREY: It's initialed also. MR. LEHMANN: Miss Rawson, just a point of clarification. If this board cites an owner with an order and then the owner sells the property, does that order get transferred to the new owner? MS. RAWSON: Well, it's going to lien on the property, as you know, which runs with the land. MR. LEHMANN: For-- forget the lien. The lien hasn't occurred yet. The order -- let's say we give an order for nine months and the respondent sells the property after four months so there is no lien because we haven't fined yet. Does that order to take care of what -- whatever the board asked for, does that carry through? Does it transfer through to the new owner? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. RAWSON: Yes. And that happens sometimes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And that's -- then the new owner can Page 79 November 29, 2001 go back to the old owner and say, you didn't inform me of this problem. MR. LEHMANN: All right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Are we back-- MS. DUSEK: Yeah, I have one more question. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: I'm still questioning my own motion. Let's say that Mr. Simpson is found and he's going to get building permit. Is 45 days a reasonable time for someone to get the building permits? MS. ARNOLD: Well -- MS. DUSEK: Earlier we gave a 60-day to the earlier person. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MS. DUSEK: And I wonder if I should amend this to read 60 days for the building permits. MS. ARNOLD: It -- it's probably safer to go with a longer amount of time because I'm assuming that no structural drawings have -- have been done on this particular structure. It just was installed without submitting anything to the county because there's no evidence that there's any permits. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let -- let me just -- Bobby, for a sake of-- I won't say expediency, but based on the testimony we received, obviously Mr. Simpson isn't around. I mean, they can't get any mail to him. MS. DUSEK: I realize that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Can't get any phone calls to him. I think changing 45 to 60 days is really immaterial because I don't think he's ever going to show up. MS. DUSEK: Well, I-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If he does, he can always come and ask for an extension of time. I think just leave it like it is, and let's go with it. And if he does show up, that's to Mr. Redmond's plus, Page 80 November 29, 2001 because then he can get his deed, although I don't know how this paperwork's going to get delivered because obviously nothing is getting to this man. And Mr. Redmond, I think, is -- it was told he was paying the taxes, so even the tax notices aren't getting to him, so I think at this point the days aren't going to help anybody, the number. I throw that out, food for thought. MS. DUSEK: Well, I -- I agree with you, in reality. I am just trying to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's get the order out. And maybe with the issuance of the order-- who knows -- maybe that will trigger something and help, and then everybody will get this straightened out and Mr. Redmond will get his property. So are you going to leave your order like it is? MS. DUSEK: I guess. You were pretty firm with that so -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sorry about that. MS. DUSEK: No. That's fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion on the floor. MS. DUSEK: I think it was seconded also? MR. PONTE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good. We have a motion that has been seconded. Let's not rehash it. Any further question? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Mr. Redmond, you know what we've done after all of this? MR. REDMOND: (Nodded head.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We're giving you 45 days to clean up what-- what is being called litter. Okay? Page 81 November 29, 2001 MR. REDMOND: Can I ask you one question? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. REDMOND: I have -- what specifies as agricultural? I have tomato plants on my property, stuff like that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's a question we can't answer. You need to work that out with the county. That's a question we have no knowledge of. MR. REDMOND: He just said that -- well, you said two goats, a chicken or-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're going to have to work that out with the county because that's something this board can't help you with. MR. REDMOND: I cannot work nothing out with the county. They will not do nothing. MS. DUSEK: It's zoned-- they did determine that it's zoned agriculture. MR. REDMOND: They did give me a permit for a building at one time. Now how can this be? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's something, again, this board can't really help you with. What I would recommend to you -- and she's always helped everybody that's asked her that -- if you'll, you know, talk to Miss Arnold, I think she can maybe get you the assistance you need. Okay? That's -- she's always been very gracious about doing that. So I think if you go to her and ask her for some help, she'll get you somebody to help you. MR. REDMOND: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay? Next case, BCC versus Anna Rosa Avalos. MS. CRUZ: Let the record show that the respondent is not present. And before I request that the packet be admitted into evidence, I'd like to make a correction on page 2 and 4. Under the Page 82 November 29, 2001 description of the violation, it should be one mobile home illegally situated on an estate-zoned property without the proper permits. The travel -- travel trailers have been removed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. 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 to accept the county's exhibit. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MS. CRUZ: This is the Board of County Commissioners versus Anna Rosa Avalos, Case No. IM 2001-01; violation of Sections 2.7.6, paragraph 1; Section 2.1.15, Section 2.2.3, 2.2.3.2.1, and Section 2.2.3.2.2 of Ordinance No. 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code. Again, the description of the violation is one mobile home illegally situated on an estate-zoned property without the proper permits. This violation exists at 1003 South First Street, Immokalee, Florida. This property is more particularly described as Section 9, Township 47, Range 29, the north 340 feet of the east 435 feet of northeast quarter of the southeast quarter, less the right-of-way 2.74 feet -- acres. I'm sorry. The name of the respondent, the property owner, is Anna Rosa Avalos. Address of record is 1003 South First Street, Immokalee, Florida. The violation was first observed on May 24th, 2001. Several notice of violations were provided to the respondent dated 5/24/01 with a correction date of June 7, '01; another dated August Page 83 November 29, 2001 24th of'01, with a correction date of 9/7/01; another one dated September 10th, '01, with a correction date of 9/20/01; and the last one dated November 5th, 2001, with a correction date of November 9th, 2001. As of yesterday the violation remains. I'd like to turn the case over to Investigator Milford Bayliss. (The oath was administered.) MR. BAYLISS: My name is Milford Bayliss. I'm the housing code investigator in Immokalee. This case progressed. When we first got there, it had two small mobile homes, these two in the rear of the house, a double-wide mobile home on the side. All of those were hooked up to the utilities, and the lady who lived in the house, it was her families that lived there. Her husband had passed away. She asked that her family remained near her, so she moved them into the trailers. We found a notice of violation with her and brought it to her attention that this was illegal because it was an estate area. She speaks very well, Spanish. She speaks English fairly well but may not understand everything we're trying to say to her. So I had an interpreter at every case. When we brought to her attention that all the utilities had to be disconnected, she did that. She moved her family into the house. When I brought to her attention that she had to have license plates affixed to the trailers in the rear that are small and considered travel trailers, she did that. When I asked her that she had to remove the mobile home, double-wide, she asked could she present this to the county board. I told her it would cost her the sum of bringing it there and that they would decide on -- what had to be done at that time. I had an interpreter with me, and I also used her son-in-law who spoke to her in Spanish and explained it. After hearing my story to her, this is what was going to happen, we were going to the board, she would have to pay the cost, the expenses, and then they would Page 84 November 29, 2001 decide whether the mobile home would remain or not remain. But it is illegal, as we see it, by the county and by the Land Development Code. She understood. And so that's where we are this morning. MS. DUSEK: So our only issue is the double-wide trailer. MR. BAYLISS: Correct. MS. SAUNDERS: Did she indicate that she was going to bring it to the board? MR. BAYLISS: I didn't hear you. MS. SAUNDERS: Did she indicate that she was going to pursue bringing-- getting permission-- MR. BAYLISS: She wanted to bring it to this board, this body. That's what she kept saying, "I want to bring it to the body." in -- in a social world that she probably grew up in, the body was judges. MS. SAUNDERS: Uh-huh. MR. BAYLISS: That's what she wanted, to let the judges decide. MR. PONTE: And what happened to her plans to move the trailer to another piece of property? MR. BAYLISS: She did not get the other piece of property. She had it surveyed, and it wasn't -- it could not be a mobile home put on it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Currently where she is, am I correct in understanding that a mobile home is not permitted -- MR. BAYLISS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- period? MR. BAYLISS: It's estate zoned, not allowed for a mobile home on an extended time. It's been there a great deal. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I just want to be clear -- MR. BAYLISS: That's okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- because the only option this board has is tell her to come into compliance, which is going to be remove Page 85 November 29, 2001 the mobile home. Any further questions for the investigator? MS. SAUNDERS: Is someone living in the double-wide mobile home right now? MR. BAYLISS: No, ma'am. When we issued her a notice of violation that no one could live in there, she moved the family in the house. And when I went to serve another notice of violation, they were all in the house. MS. SAUNDERS: She's really trying. MR. BAYLISS: Yes. She -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She is trying. MR. BAYLISS: She's done everything I asked her to do. She just asked that the judges -- she said it in Spanish -- the judges decide whether she can put this family back in this mobile home and get her out -- get them out of her house, as much as she loves them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Unfortunately, that's not a decision this board can make, so we can only tell her that she's going to have to remove it. She needs to go to a higher judge than us. MS. SAUNDERS: What is the process for getting an exemption or an exception on something like this? There is none? MS. ARNOLD: This particular use is not permitted. And when there's a prohibition in a zoning district, you can't get a variance or an exception. MR. LEHMANN: I can understand how sections -- I can understand how all the sections apply except possibly 2.2.3 of the ordinance. Could you explain how we're pulling that into play for the mobile home? MS. ARNOLD: That's just the purpose and intent of the estate zoning district, I believe. MR. LEHMANN: So is there a violation of that section? MS. ARNOLD: No. Page 86 November 29, 2001 MR. LEHMANN: Oh. MS. ARNOLD: It's just describing what the intent of that zoning district is. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. MS. DUSEK: So did you say we're eliminating that? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. It's just added there because -- MR. LEHMANN: So the only -- the only sections that we have that really apply to this case is 2.7.6.1 and 2.1.15; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: There's 2.2.3.2.1. MR. LEHMANN: Yes. But that's all part of Section 2.2.3 which you said is -- MS. ARNOLD: Well, the violation would be the -- let me see what those sections read. MR. LEHMANN: That's why I asked the question. MS. ARNOLD: I thought you meant just that one paragraph, the heading. But -- it's pointing out that in the estates zoning district under 2.2.3.2.1, the permitted uses are single-family and family-care facilities. And the use that we -- that -- or the structure that they have don't meet either one of these permitted uses. MR. LEHMANN: So the mobile home is not considered a single-family dwelling? MR. BAYLISS: Is not in estate. MS. ARNOLD: Mobile homes are listed separately as permanent -- or what -- if it were a permitted use, it would be listed separately, similar to the agricultural zoning district that we talked about previously. It had a mobile home overlay, so it then allowed mobile home structures in addition to single-family structures. MR. LEHMANN: I'm a little confused. So what you're saying to me is this is in the estates. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: This section would apply, and it's Page 87 November 29, 2001 permissible in the estates and on this property to have a single-family dwelling, but the mobile home is not considered a single-family dwelling. MR. BAYLISS: Correct. MS. SAUNDERS: Is there any way to turn a mobile home into a single-family -- MR. BAYLISS: It would have to be a module home, and it can't be on wheels. You can't have a structure built for DOT -- MS. SAUNDERS: If it was put on a type of concrete slab -- MR. BAYLISS: No. MS. SAUNDERS: I'm just looking -- MR. BAYLISS: Once a trailer has been designed and approved by DOT, it's a mobile home. No matter what you do to it, it's still a mobile home. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's different than a, quote, house, whether it's wood or concrete block. It's built totally differently. MS. SAUNDERS: Do you think it would help her, if she could find another piece of land, she would be happy to move this to there? MR. BAYLISS: Her wish is to have her family surround her like a hen with her little chicks. She wants everybody next to her. She's getting older, and her husband passed away. If she could find a piece of property close by probably, if we can approve -- if it could be approved by the county, put a mobile home on, it probably would work. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's beyond us. MR. LEHMANN: Can I go back again? So the next section that we refer to also, 2.2, is that still applicable or not? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. That is explaining the accessory uses that are permitted. And, again, if she wanted to build a guest house, for example -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. She could do that. Page 88 November 29, 2001 MS. ARNOLD: -- she could do that. And that's one of the uses that are permitted under the accessory use section of this code. But, again, mobile homes are not listed in that section. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. So you're using the mobile home as an illustration of how we're violating that section. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: Thank you. MS. DUSEK: And in that same section, that 2.2.3.2.2, the -- are we using all of the pans, 1, 2, 3, 4? MS. ARNOLD: Those are just the list of all the permitted uses under that access use -- MS. DUSEK: So we don't have to separate one out? MS. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. Any additional questions for the investigator? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. BAYLISS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Finding of fact by the board? It's obvious a violation does exist because mobile homes aren't permitted. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners Collier County versus Anna Rosa Avalos, CEB Case No. IM 2001-01, that a violation does exist. The violation is of Sections 2.7.6.1, 2.1.15, 2.2.3.2.1, and 2.2.3.2.2 of Ordinance No. 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation is one mobile home illegally situated on an estate-zoned property without the proper permit. MR. PONTE: You can't say without the proper permit because you can't get a permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. There's no permit to keep it on Page 89 November 29, 2001 that piece of property. MS. DUSEK: All right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: fact, does exist a violation. Do I hear a second? MR. LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Are there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Order of the board. Unfortunately in this case there is only one solution, and it's to remove the trailer. Permits cannot be obtained or anything like that, so our only order can be for her to remove it. MS. SAUNDERS: But we do have some flexibility in the time limit we give her to move it. And since it doesn't seem to me that it's hurting anything and I really empathize with the lady, I would like to propose that we ask her to remove the double-wide mobile home within one year. That's stretching it. Just trying. MS. DUSEK: That's too much. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm afraid she's been apprised of this since May, so she's already had quite a few months to -- MS. SAUNDERS: Done everything we asked. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- yeah, to try to come into compliance. Unfortunately, the only thing is to remove it. She has tried to buy one piece of property. She either has to try to buy another one, or she's going to have to sell it or remove it. I don't think an exorbitant amount of time is going to resolve it. I'm not saying remove it tomorrow, but based that she's been under notice Then we'll eliminate that. Okay. We have a motion that there, in Page 90 November 29, 2001 since May 24th, you know, what, she had, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven months already, I think it's reasonable to give her another 30 days and-- MS. SAUNDERS: Oh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- well, we've got Christmas. Let's give her until after the first of the year. There's going to be a lot of holidays. Maybe 60 days -- MS. DUSEK: Sixty days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- to do something would be reasonable at this point. MS. DUSEK: I notice that the staff didn't recommend any fine. MS. ARNOLD: No. MS. DUSEK: I didn't know whether that was intentional or just an oversight. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Whether they would recommend, I think, is immaterial. I think the board can -- MS. DUSEK: Well, I know we can -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- empathize and come up with something that would be reasonable since the lady has been trying to work with the county in all cases. I don't think she should be, you know, drastically punished for trying to comply. She obviously, every time the investigator has been there, has tried to do what he's asked, so I think that gives us the idea that we should be as tolerant as possible. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of the case, to remove the double-wide mobile home within 60 days, or a fine of $25 per day for each day the violation exists. MR. PONTE: I think you could reduce the fine. There's nothing magical about $25 unless it's coming out of your basis on a per diem basis. It's a lot. I would say $10 a day. Page 91 November 29, 2001 MR. LEHMANN: I would rather see the time period extended rather than reduce the fine. It gives them plenty of time to take care of it; you don't have to worry about the fine. MR. PONTE: You do if the problem is not solved. I'd go for 90 days myself, but I think 25 is high. MS. DUSEK: I think since she has been very cooperative, I don't think the fine is going to matter. But I do think that we need to have a little more than that. I feel like $25 is not too much. I don't think she's going to pay. I think she'll have it removed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Right now we have 60 days and $25. Any further discussion, and/or do I hear a second to that? MS. DUSEK: I don't mind adjusting that to 90, if that's preferable to most people. MR. PHILLIPS: Second 90. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have 90 days and still $25. MS. DUSEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Darrin, are you all right with the $25? MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. 90 days and $25 plus costs. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Opposed? MS. SAUNDERS: Opposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One opposed. Motion carries. That closes the public hearing section. New business, imposition of fines, administrative action. MS. CRUZ: The first deposition of-- request for imposition of fines is Board of County Commissioners versus James -- Jason James Page 92 November 29, 2001 Billington and Mary -- Marie Davey Starr, Case No. 2001-063. This case came before the board on July 16, 2001. The board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law, and order of the board finding the respondent in violation and ordering the respondent to correct the violations by coming into compliance with -- within 90 days -- that would have been October 14 -- or in the event that the compliance is not obtained, a fine of $25 per day be imposed for every day the violation continues. The violation was conversion of a single-car garage into a living area without first obtaining the permits. Staff requests that an imposition of fines be filed in the amount of $575 for the period of October 15, 2001, through November 7th, 2001, at a rate of $25 per day. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would entertain a motion to impose the fines as requested. MR. LEHMANN: So moved. MS. SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the fines. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next. MS. CRUZ: Next one is the Board of County Commissioners versus Penelope Maroules, Case No. 2001-074. This case came before the board on October 25th for violating -- violation of birds squawking at 63.2 decibels over the county ordinance requirements. The board ordered the respondent to abate the violation by 6 p.m. On October 25th, 2001. Page 93 November 29, 2001 The respondent did obtain-- further, the board ordered, the respondent paid all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of the case. The respondent did obtain compliance, as ordered by the board. However, staff requested the board issue an imposition of fine in the amount of $421 with 80 cents for the operational costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I will entertain a motion to impose the fines for the operational costs. MR. PONTE: So moved. MR. LEHMANN: Second CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: aye. We have a motion and a second. Any All those in favor signify by saying (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. CRUZ: Any opposed? Next. Next one is Board of County Commissioners versus McAlpine Briarwood, Inc., and Charles Hitchcock, Case No. 20010-75 -- dash 075. The violation was brought before the board. It was failure to install the ball netting for the driving range along the westerly edge of the parcel and install landscaping and irrigation along Livingston Road according to the SDP No. 99-058 (sic). This case was heard -- heard by the board on August 23rd of 2001. The board issued an order ordering the respondent to install the required safety netting along the Livingston Road part of the property as required by the SDP by August 30th, 2001; further, to install the landscaping and irrigation along the Livingston Road as required by the SDP by September 7th, 2001, to pay all operational Page 94 November 29, 2001 costs incurred in the prosecution of this case in that the -- if the respondent did not comply with said order, to -- by installing the netting, a $75 per day be imposed Staff requests that the board issue an imposition of fine in the amount of $2,650 for the period of September 8th through October 31st, 2001, at a rate of $50 per day, plus 636 with 20 cents for the operational costs incurred in the prosecution of the case. MR. PONTE: I have a -- a problem here. Is there a typo or a conflict or something I'm not understanding? In one instance we're talking about $75 a day, and then we talk about 50. The affidavit of compliance says $75 a day, and the actual order says $50. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The order of the board is 50. MS. ARNOLD: It should be 50. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: $50 is the number. So do you need to recalculate or-- MS. ARNOLD: Which one are we on? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is what you're recommending correct? MS. CRUZ: What we're recommending is correct, the 2650. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's based on $50. MS. CRUZ: Based on $50. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I would entertain a motion to impose the fines as requested. MR. LEHMANN: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any All those in favor signify by saying Any opposed? Page 95 November 29, 2001 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next one. MS. CRUZ: Next one is the Board of County Commissioners versus Andrew and Letty Espinoza, Case No. 2001-079. This violation was brought before the board for a large commercial dumpster placed upon residential property and the parking/storage of vehicle without license plates. On October 25th this case was heard by the board. The board issued an -- an order request -- ordering the respondent to abate all violations within ten days, which would have been November 5th; pay operational costs in the prosecution of the case, or a fine of $25 per day for every day the violation continues. The respondent did obtain compliance as ordered. However, we're requesting that a fine, an imposition of fine, be imposed for the total of $380 with 52 cents, and this will be for the operational cost involved in the case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'd entertain a motion to impose the operational costs, fines, as requested by the county. MR. LEHMANN: So moved. MS. SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That closes the imposition of fines. We have a request for a dismissal and/or reduction of a fine. MR. LEHMANN: Do you want to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, did I miss one? That's next on the agenda. MS. ARNOLD: Right. Page 96 November 29, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. We're still under new business. MR. LEHMANN: I'm way ahead then. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So -- we have Albertina Cardona and Terry Arce or Arcey (phonetic). I hope I pronounced that correctly. That's the first one. MS. CRUZ: Yes. This is a request -- request made by Mr. Arce. He is present. If I may remind you what this case was about -- it came before the board on April 26 -- the violation was removal of slightly under 1 acre of protective vegetation without the authorization of a Collier County permit. There was an order imposing fines on this case, and there's still -- the fines are pending for $350 plus $430 with 10 cents for the operational costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Are the fines still running, or has he complied? MS. CRUZ: No, sir. He has complied. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He was complied. So the amount of the fines that are in contention are how much? MS. CRUZ: $350. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Three fifty, plus the -- MS. CRUZ: Plus 430 and 10 cents for the operational costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Mr. Arce, are you here, sir? MR. ARCE: Yes. I was just requesting a waiver of the fine but not of the operational costs. I'd like to pay that, but I just didn't have the -- it took me longer to comply than what the board had given me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: How much longer? Give us a hint, since we don't have the paperwork in front of us. MR. ARCE: It was maybe three weeks longer. Yeah. It might have been three weeks. I don't remember. MS. GODFREY: Wasn't this the case where you cleared to put orange trees in? MR. ARCE: Right. Yes. I complied. I -- I took the after-the- Page 97 November 29, 2001 fact permit which cost $600. I put all the 20 plants in, which cost over a grand and some shrubs, 10 shrubs that I was told to put back. I put that back in too. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. GODFREY: If I recall you gave the investigator quite a hard time. I recall your case quite well. MR. ARCE: She wanted me to put all the trees back. MS. GODFREY: No. She wanted the arbitration is what she wanted, the -- you would not meet with her. You were stalling regarding putting -- MR. ARCE: We couldn't get together. MS. GODFREY: -- certain trees and stuff and putting irrigation, I couldn't do this, I couldn't do that. MR. ARCE: She wanted me to put-- MS. GODFREY: You said, well, if you could put orange trees in, why couldn't you put the trees that she wanted in. MR. ARCE: Right. I put all that back. I went ahead and did that. We wouldn't -- we couldn't get together as far as the amount of trees, and we couldn't get together to talk about the plan of the plot, where the trees -- MS. GODFREY: IfI can recall -- excuse me. But ifI can recall, that was all settled. MR. ARCE: Yeah. MS. GODFREY: We were just waiting -- the plan had already been approved. They were waiting for you, and you two just had to get together. MR. ARCE: Right. MS. GODFREY: So why did it take three weeks? MR. ARCE: I needed to find the landscapers. I needed to get some bids to get 20 plants or 20 trees put back. MS. GODFREY: If I understood, that was already taken care Page 98 November 29, 2001 of. She was just waiting for you to -- MR. ARCE: Yeah. Well, I agreed to do that. I needed to get the landscape company to put the trees back. I needed to get some bids. I needed someone to give me some prices on putting them back and buying these trees. I don't do that. I don't know how to do that. I needed to get some bids, and it took a little bit longer. It took -- I don't know. I got probably four bids, and I needed to get -- you know. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. I understand. You and the county had worked out what was to be done. MR. ARCE: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What you didn't have was bids on actually getting it done. MR. ARCE: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. Miss Arnold, can you tell us, the 350 is over-- is that 3 weeks or 18 days, whatever, however? What was the amount of money, since I don't remember? MS. ARNOLD: We actually have additional fines because September 27th was the date of compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That was the date he complied? And when was he supposed to comply by? MS. ARNOLD: He should have complied by July 26. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And the fines were to be how much? MS. ARNOLD: Okay. I'm calculating that now. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. Just tell me what the order said, how much a day. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, $25 per day. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Sixty-two days? Yeah. $15507 MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. An additional eleven -- eleven seventy- Page 99 November 29, 2001 five, plus three fifty; fifteen twenty-five total plus the operational costs. MR. LEHMANN: period in the order? MS. MR. MS. MS. MS. Miss Arnold, what was the original time ARNOLD: 725. LEHMANN: How much time was permitted? ARNOLD: He was given-- CRUZ: Ninety days. ARNOLD: Ninety days to comply. MR. LEHMANN: The order of the board gave him 90 days to comply. And he's looking for-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And he took an extra 62 beyond the 90? MS. ARNOLD: (Nodded head.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: Could you repeat to me what the fines are, the total? I mean, you-- the operational costs and the fines. MS. ARNOLD: The operational costs were four hundred and -- MS. CRUZ: Thirty. MS. ARNOLD: $430 for the operational costs. Then for the period between July 26 to August 9th, which you did imposition of fines, it was $350. Then from August 10th through September 26, which is the -- we assume it was done the day before, it's $1175 for a total of 1525. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So the fine is 1525 plus 430. And Mr. Arce is asking us to waive the 1525. MR. ARCE: Yes, that's right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Just so we -- I want to know the numbers that you're asking us to consider, just so we're all on the same page. And the time -- the reason the fines were so high is it took an Page 100 November 29, 2001 extra 62 days. MS. GODFREY: We asked him -- we asked him the time he would need, and he told us, if I can recall correctly. MR. LEHMANN: Refresh my memory again. Roughly how many specimen trees needed to be planted, and what was -- what was the scope of the job? MS. ARNOLD: Let's see if I can tell. I don't have what -- the exact mitigation plan. But there are notes in the case that indicate on August -- August 17th the investigator observed 20 mitigation trees, 9 cypress, 10 dahoon holly, and 1 oak and 1 unknown species. No shrubs were planted. And she left her card at the door requesting a call. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle? MS. CRUZ: We have-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Read me what the order told him to do, please. MS. CRUZ: Okay. The respondent corrected violations of Section 3.9.3 of Ordinance No. 91-102 by obtaining any applicable after-the-fact permit and submit an approved mitigation plan within 7 days and complete planting for approved mitigation plan within 90 days, parentheses, July 25th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Complete planting, is that what it says? MS. CRUZ: Planting, uh-huh. Further, it goes on respondent pay all operational costs in the prosecution of this case until they come into compliance, and No. 3, that if the respondent does not comply with paragraph 1 of the order of the board by July 25th, 2001, that in that event, there would be a fine of $25 per day for each day. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The first one where it was complete, was that submittal of the mitigation plan by the 7th or Do you have access to the actual order, Page 101 November 29, 2001 something, did that occur? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He met the first part. What he didn't do was plant everything, which was X days from approval of the plan; right? MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: He had most things planted; is that correct? It was mainly the shrubs that were -- MS. ARNOLD: I don't know what the mitigation plan was for. In this particular case on the 17th -- and he can probably tell you exactly what Alex approved, but on this particular date she noted what she observed, but it wasn't complete because there was a notation that there were no shrubs planted, and I'm assuming that -- MR. ARCE: That's correct. It was for 20 native trees and -- and 10 shrubs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Do this for me, please. The order was dated what day? MS. CRUZ: It was signed May 4th, 2001. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. 5/4. And he was to have the mitigation plan by, which he did -- was that September or July? MS. ARNOLD: Seven days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, within seven days from May. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So that went to May 1 lth. And he met that. Then we gave him-- MS. ARNOLD: 90 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- 90 days from May 1 lth to do everything; correct? Okay. So I guess the question is, instead of 90 days, he needed 152 days. I guess I have a little problem with that personally but -- Page 102 November 29, 2001 MS. GODFREY: I do too. There's a purpose of clearing the land. He and his wife were going to grow orange trees. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Whatever. We gave him enough time, so I -- I have a problem giving him an extra 62 days personally. MR. PONTE: We gave him enough time in order to let the plantings be done during the rainy season. We also were very lenient on the fine. It's the same fine we've leveled earlier today where everybody was very sympathetic. I think we've shown our willingness to work with the respondent in this case when we gave him the 90 days and a very lenient fine of $25. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So do I hear a motion? MR. LEHMANN: I would move that we deny Mr. Arce request for waiver of the fines. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to deny the request. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All in favor signify by saying aye. (Mr. Lehmann, Mr. Ponte, Ms. Saunders, Ms. Dusek, and Ms. Godfrey all responded.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? MR. PHILLIPS: Nill. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One. 6-1. Sorry, Mr. Arce. MR. ARCE: Okay. I tried. What's the time period? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You work that out with the county. Next one is Mr. Bell, Rick Bell. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. Mr. Bell is present, and he was requesting to come before the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is this also a -- do we know what it's for? MS. CRUZ: I believe Mr. Bell is requesting for an extension? Page 103 November 29, 2001 MR. BELL: Yes, ma'am. That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. What -- first, before he asks us, tell us what the order says so we know. MS. CRUZ: This case came before the board on September 27th, 2001. The board found him in violation of enclosure of a structure of a lower level of a stilt home without first obtaining the necessary permits. The board ordered the respondent to comply by obtaining all the necessary permits, if obtainable, or returning the structure to its previously permitted condition within 60 days, which would have been November 27th. And it further goes on to pay the operational costs and $25 per day. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. All right. Mr. Bell, just so we know what we're doing. MR. BELL: Yeah. I've been working on this steady ever since then, and I'm still now waiting on the county to get back to me because I've submitted more for-- and they've come up -- there's a question when the house was built, it was built on the improper setbacks on the seawall. So the county hasn't given me a clear answer on that yet, and they won't issue me a permit until they clarify the problem. I met with Miss Arnold, and I'm still waiting on an answer back. I can't get a permit yet. I'm still waiting on the county. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So your holdup is not your fault. It's the county at this point. MR. BELL: Also, I've applied for getting the original documents when the house was built, and there's a mix-up with the county with their warehouse, and they're unable to produce them at this time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BELL: So they don't know when they're going to be able to produce them. Page 104 November 29, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What- what I would suggest, I guess, the board has, really, two options. We can amend our order to give you more time, or you can -- we understand you've been here. It's on file. Just proceed with what you're doing. When the county comes to us to impose a fine on you, you come back and say, you know, I still haven't got my permit, it's not my fault, or I got my permit X, and I'd like you either to reduce the fine or waive the fine. Okay. That's the two choices. I would be probably against amending the order at this time. Let's just wait and see if the county doesn't move along a little faster and solve its problem and then you can come back. How's that? MR. BELL: Yeah, that's fine. I just wanted to make sure I didn't wait until later and then you-all said, "Well, you should have came back, and you should have asked for it in the beginning." CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We understand, and that's terrific. MR. BELL: As long as I'm covered, that's fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. MR. BELL: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That finishes new business. We don't have any old business. Affidavits of compliance. MS. CRUZ: This is just a matter of reporting to the board that these two cases came before you, and they have been -- they are in compliance at this time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Great. Reports are done. Under comments we have, for some reason, a request for discussion. I don't-- what? MS. ARNOLD: The citizen that requested to be placed on the agenda is not present. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Dead item. MS. SAUNDERS: We tried. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anything from the board? Page 105 November 29, 2001 MS. SAUNDERS: on December 17. I'm very sorry about that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. county's side? MS. ARNOLD: No. that she won't be -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: anyone? Just that I will not be here, Mr. Chairman, Anything from the I also received word from Diane Taylor She won't be here for the 17th? Any other problems for the 17th from MR. PONTE: I have a possible problem the 17th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That still leaves one, two, three, four, five, five out of seven is still a quorum. And we don't know about Miss Curatolo. She might be able to be here. I don't know. That gives us six. Miss Rawson, you okay? MS. RAWSON: I'll be here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The next meeting is the 17th. If there's nothing further, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. MS. DUSEK: So moved. MS. SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you very much. MS. ARNOLD: I would request that everybody keep your packet, the very thick packet, for Manatee. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. Rather than ask the county to reprint all that stuff. MR. PONTE: Good suggestion. Page 106 November 29, 2001 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:25 p.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RMR, CRR Page 107