Loading...
CEB Minutes 12/17/2001 RDecember 17, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, December 17, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the North Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:01 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 DARRIN M. PHILLIPS PETER LEHMANN GEORGE PONTE KATHLEEN CURATOLO, ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: DIANE TAYLOR RHONA SAUNDERS JEAN RAWSON, Attorney for the Board MICHELLE ARNOLD, Code Enforcement Director MARIA CRUZ, Enforcement Official JENNIFER A. BELPEDIO, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: December 17, 2001 at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Location: 3301E. Tamiami Tr., Naples, Florida, CollierConntyGovernmemCenter, Administrative Bldg, 3rd Floor NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A ILECORD 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. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BCC VS. ROSE, PATRICK W. & ERIN L. B. BCC vs. Manatee Resort Condominium Association, Inc., Attn. Jim Allen, Ra. Manatee Resort Condominium Association, Inc., Attn. Austin White, Atty Joseph T. And Janet C. Smith; Peter G. And Deborah K. Smith; James D. Allen, Jr., Edna Roth; Cecil J. And Sharon K. Petitti, II; Anthony P. And Lynn R. Palladino Daniel J. And Diane R. Gavin; Eithne Fulton, Cyril E. Fulton; Gordon E. Ens and Carol J. Donner; James R. and Joan M. Devore ~ 171625 Canada, Inc., William R. Borbely; Larry J. And Marcelene A. Gode Gary L. Alderman and Mary J. Alderman; Robert J. and Sue A. Massey, Frederick P. Nader; Carol A. Cowell; Gayle Hillman C. BCC VS. HENDRY, BRIDGETT L. D. BCC vs. BLOCKER, CURTIS D., and BLOCKER Jr., CURTIS D E. BCC VS. BLOCKER, CURTIS D., and BLOCKER Jr., CURTIS D 5. NEW BUSINESS Request for Imposition of Fines/Lien A. BCC VS. WENDELL L. KRAMER, SALVATOR F. ANGILERI, and SALVATOR C. CRECH B. BCC VS. BELL, R1CKY L. C. BCC VS. HUBSCHMAN, SIDNEY JOHN 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. REPORTS 8. COMMENTS 9.NEXT MEETING DATE January 24, 2002 10.ADJOURN CEB NO. 2001-045 CEB NO. 2001-086 CEB NO. 2001-087 CEB NO. IM2001-02 CEB NO. IM2001-03 CEB NO. 2001-069 CEB NO. 2001-078 CEB NO. 2001-080 December 17, 2001 (Proceedings commenced, Kathleen Curatolo not present:) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Call the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County to order, please. Please make note any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. Roll call, please. MS. CRUZ: Good morning. For the record, Maria Cruz. Let the record show that Rhona Saunders and Diane Taylor informed at the last meeting that they were going to be absent today. Roberta Dusek. MS. DUSEK: Here. MS. CRUZ: Clifford Flegal. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Here. MS. CRUZ: Kathryn Godfrey. MS. GODFREY: Here. MS. CRUZ: Peter Lehmann. MR. LEHMANN: Here. MS. CRUZ: Darrin Phillips. MR. PHILLIPS: Here. MS. CRUZ: George Ponte. MR. PONTE: Here. MS. CRUZ: Kathleen Curatolo. (No response.) MS. CRUZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since we have one, two, three, four, five permanent members and one alternate, Darrin, you will Page 2 December 17, 2001 participate fully as a regular member today. (MS. Curatolo entered the room.) MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, let the record show that Miss Curatolo is just coming in -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, okay. Terrific. MS. CRUZ: -- and is present. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good morning, Kathleen. MS. CURATOLO: Good morning. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since we're a few regular members short this morning, you will participate fully as a regular member. Approval of our agenda. Are there any changes? MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, code enforcement director. Excuse me. I'm requesting that we move Items B, C, and D before Item B. There is a request for a continuance for cases Board of County Commissioners versus Curtis Blocker. There's two cases with that same name: Code Enforcement Board case No. Immokalee 2001-02 and 03, if we can hear those items prior to the case against the Manatee Resort Condominium. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. You want C, D, and E moved up above B? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any more other changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If not, I'd entertain a motion to approve the agenda as changed. MR. LEHMANN: So moved. MS. GODFREY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion to approve our agenda as changed. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) Page 3 December 17, 200 ! CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have no minutes from our preceding meeting. We will, therefore, go directly to public hearings. The first case in the public hearing is Board of County Commissioners versus Rose, Patrick W. and Erin, Case 2001-045. MS. CRUZ: I'd like to request or ask if the respondent is present. (No response.) MS. CRUZ: Let the record show that the respondent is not present. This is case No. 2001-045, Board of County Commissioners versus Patrick and Erin Rose. The alleged violation before this board today is Section 3.9.3 of Ordinance No. 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code. We provided the board and the respondent a packet. I'd like to request that that packet be admitted into evidence, please, marked Composite Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a request for the County's Exhibit A to be entered. Do I hear a motion? MR. LEHMANN: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second for the county's exhibit. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. CRUZ: The violation described is removal of vegetation from approximately 1/4 acre of unimproved agriculturally zoned property without first obtaining all the required Collier County permits. This property -- this violation exists at the Section 24, Range 50 -- sorry, Township 50, Range 26, the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter. The owner of record is Patrick and Erin Rose. Their address of Page 4 December 17, 2001 record is 105 Bass Lane Drive, Kalispell -- MS. ARNOLD: Montana. MS. CRUZ: -- ZIP Code 59901. The violation was first observed on February 12th, 2001. The notice of violation was provided to the respondent on February 12th, 2001. The violation was to be corrected by March 15,2001, and violations continue as of yesterday. I'd like to turn the case over to Investigator Susan Mason at this time. MS. MASON: Good morning. For the record, I'm Susan Mason, environmental specialist with Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One moment, please. (The oath was administered.) MS. MASON: This case was a result of a referral from the planning department. It has been continued twice before this at the owner's request. Mr. Rose came in to the -- to the county requesting an exotic vegetation removal permit. During his discussions with planning staff member, he admitted to removing six native pine trees. And upon further discussion, they -- both the planning person and Mr. Rose came over to our department and discussed the issue. Upon my investigation I found, though, that approximately one-quarter acre of vegetation was removed, including at least 42 cypress and 24 slash pines. That covered about only half the area ,because in the other half there had been fill spread over, so I couldn't count any stumps. Mr. Rose stated he wanted to put in a tree farm on his property, and that's why he had done the clearing. He should have gotten an agricultural clearing permit which was issued through the county after it has been approved by both state and federal agencies. It is possible that he could get an after-the-fact permit. However, we must get compliance issues settled with South Florida Page 5 December 17, 2001 Water Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers before we would be able to issue that permit. The only other way for him to comply would be to replant. There has been no activity on this property. He has not made an application for any of the permits through South Florida Water Management District or the Army Corps. On the 1 lth -- excuse me. On the 30th of November, I did attend a meeting with two representatives from the district, and they do have jurisdiction over this case. I informed Mr. Rose of this meeting and the fact that he needed to work with South Florida Water Management District to start the permitting process. I left that message on the 3rd and, also, that there was an upcoming CEB hearing. He did not respond to me until the 11 th of December where he stated that he would begin contacting South Florida Water Management and the other agencies. We discussed all the other issues. He did inform me he would be unable to attend this hearing today because he does reside now in Montana, and he would begin contacting the district. I talked with Steve Nagel from South Florida Water Management on Friday, and he has had no contact with Mr. Rose. MS. DUSEK: I have a question, Miss Mason. I believe that the first violation was in February of 2001. MS. MASON: Yes. MS. DUSEK: At that time there was a different owner of the property? MS. MASON: No. It was -- it was the same owner. There -- the parcel has been split. He sold off' the half that does not have the violation on it. So that part has a different owner, but he owns the section that has the violation on it. MS. DUSEK: Okay. MS. MASON: He did at the time and still does. Page 6 December 17, 2001 MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Are there any other questions for Miss Mason? MR. PONTE: Yes. Has Mr. Rose indicated to you why he has not applied, why he has repeatedly said he was going to and then doesn't go forward? MS. MASON: He's never -- he's -- he's given some reasons that initially over the summer apparently there were some medical issues with some family members, and there -- I just explained to him he needed to at least start the process and make this a priority. But since then, my understanding, those medical issues have been taken care of, but there's just still been no progress. I don't know any more than that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Mason, what does he need to do to satisfy the county? MS. MASON: Well, he either needs to come up with a mitigation plan to -- that would be acceptable and replant what was removed, or he can go through that permitting process with South Florida Water Management. My conversation with Steve Nagel on Friday, I asked him if he started right now in earnest going through the permitting process. He felt that 120 days would be more than enough time for him to resolve all the issues with South Florida Water Management, the Army Corps, and then as soon as he got those permits I'd be able to issue an after-the-fact permit for agricultural clearing within a matter of-- of a day. MR. PONTE: If he replants -- that's one of the remedies -- would that mean he would not be going forward with the tree farm, or would that be part of the tree farm? MS. MASON: Well, No. Those trees would not be able to be replanted and later removed and sold. That would be a mitigation that would be monitored over a course of years. And he -- it is still at Page 7 December 17, 2001 least a 5-acre parcel that he has left, so he could use the other areas. But that would tie up that part. MR. PONTE: And how long would it take him to replant? MS. MASON: Well, that actually wouldn't take very long at all. Probably -- you could have a plan drawn up and implemented in a -- a month, a month and a half. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MS. GODFREY: Miss Mason, we're in the -- we're in the -- in the dry season, so would it be -- is there any way he could irrigate when he did plant these trees? MS. MASON: He doesn't have irrigation on site. The area is extremely wet, though. It's actually -- still has some standing water. MS. GODFREY: It's in a swamp area with cypress. MS. MASON: That's why the state and federal agencies are involved, because it is a jurisdictional wetlands. MS. GODFREY: And with him doing the dozing and changing the topography of the land, is that going to cause a problem with the neighbors or runoff or -- MS. MASON: There -- there aren't any developed parcels nearby in this area. There's a pretty good-sized buffer, and it didn't really seem to affect the drainage in this area over this past fall. MS. GODFREY: Okay. Thank you. MR. LEHMANN: Miss Mason, Mr. Rose's situation, he needs to obtain clearance from Southwest Florida Water Management District prior to doing the tree farm scenario; is that correct? MS. MASON: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: Does he need that clearance to enable him to follow any county mandated mitigation plan? MS. MASON: No, he would not. I've gotten the indication from them that if he did do replanting that they would want to look at the plan but that more than likely what we would require would be Page 8 December 17, 2001 acceptable to them as well. MR. LEHMANN: And there's a minimum 120-day time period MS. MASON: Steve -- Steve Nagel said that that would be plenty of time for him to -- if he came in and meant to resolve the issue, 120 days would be more than enough time. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. MS. GODFREY: Miss Mason, will he have to go in and take out the brush that I noticed that everything is not pushed aside? Will that have to be cleared out, or would it be left there? MS. MASON: He actually had already removed the debris when I showed up. There was one small pile of some trunks, but that was it. The debris has been removed. MR. PONTE: One other question, Miss Mason. Would it be necessary for Mr. Rose to be here to start this process, or can he do it from Montana? MS. MASON: He can do it from Montana. South Florida Water Management does have all their forms available on the Internet, so he could even e-mail them in, and he really would not need to attend anything at all. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any additional questions for Miss Mason? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: I would like to make a motion -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: -- that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, in the case versus Patrick and Erin L. Rose, CEB Case No. 2001-045, that there is a violation. And the violation is of Sections 3.9.3 of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, the Page 9 December 17, 200 ! Collier County Land Development Code Ordinance, and the description of the violation is the removal of vegetation from approximately a quarter of an acre of unimproved agriculturally zoned property without first obtaining all required Collier County permits. MR. LEHMANN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that a violation does, in fact, exist. Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board? MR. LEHMANN: Bobby, do you wish to continue, or would you like me to? MS. DUSEK: Well, go ahead, Peter. You take a turn. MR. LEHMANN: Pleasure of the board, I would recommend that we follow staff's recommendation with minor alteration, that the CEB order the respondent to pay prosecution costs and bring the property into compliance by obtaining the county after-the-fact agricultural clearing permit or approved mitigation plan completed within 120 days or a fine of $50 be imposed for every day the violation continues to exist. MS. DUSEK: I second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. MR. PONTE: Just to -- for clarification, you say 150 days? MR. LEHMANN: Twenty -- 120 days. MR. PONTE: 120 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Page 10 December 17, 2001 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) All in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next case is Board of County Commissioners versus Hendry, Case No. 2001-087. MS. CRUZ: I'd like to request -- I'd like to ask if the respondents are present. (No response.) MS. CRUZ: Let the record show that the respondent is not present. I'd like to request that the composite that was provided to the respondent and to the board be admitted into evidence at this time, please. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, I would so move to do so. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to enter the county's exhibit. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. CRUZ: This is Case No. 2001-087, the Board of County Commissioners versus Bridgett L. Hendry. The violation brought before this board is a violation of Section 103.5.1 and Section 101.4.10 of Ordinance No. 98.76, which is the Collier County building administrative code. The violation described as the deterioration of the rear roof, fascia, and eaves of the subject building and in need of repair to the point of being unsafe and windows missing throughout. The violation exists at 109 Royal Cove Drive, Naples, Florida. Page 11 December 17, 2001 It is more particularly described as Royal Cove, Unit 2, Lot 9. The owner of record is Bridgett L. Hendry. Their address of record is 109 Royal Cove Drive, Naples, Florida. The violation was first observed on July 27, 2001. Notices of violations were provided to the respondent on August 6, 2001, and October 5th, 2001. Correction dates of these orders were September 6, '01, and October 20th, '01. The violation remains as of yesterday. I'd like to turn the case over to Investigator Larry Schwartz at this time. (The oath was administered.) MR. SCHWARTZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good morning. MR. SCHWARTZ: My name is Larry Schwartz. I'm an investigator with Collier County Code Enforcement. I received a complaint at the location of 10 -- 109 Royal Cove Drive. I went out there, and I observed the roof needed repair, and -- so I wrote out a notice of violation, and then I came -- well, first I came back with my supervisor and John Serenko, who is a building inspector, and he stated that the roof needed repair, that it was deteriorating. So I sent a notice of violation to the complaintant (sic) -- to the violator. At that point it was -- it was lost in the mail. And a postal check showed that they don't -- they didn't remember delivering it, so I sent another violation, a notice of violation out, which came back to me unopened, and nobody accepted it. I made numerous visits to that location attempting to speak to the violator. But every time I was there, a gentleman would come out and say she's not there, "She's with the baby. She can't see you. Give me your card," which I did on numerous occasions. I gave her a card. Then I received a complaint from a neighbor who said that the roof was coming apart and that it was flying into her yard, and she was afraid that that was going to damage her property or worse yet Page 12 December 17, 2001 hit her or her husband when they were outside. I went back there on this Thursday, and the gentleman that I spoke to twice before was repair -- was taking down the roof. But at that point I asked him to -- where was his permit, and he didn't have a permit for it, and he was -- instructing him to come into the county and get a permit. I issued him a notice of violation. And as of today there is still no permit obtained, and the violation still exists. They are missing a back window, and a kitchen window is missing, and the roof-- the back roof is totally in -- rotting out. MR. LEHMANN: The roof is still in place? MR. SCHWARTZ: He's -- the person is removing it. MR. LEHMANN: He is in the process of removing it. MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, he is. MR. LEHMANN: Without a permit. MR. SCHWARTZ: That's correct. MS. DUSEK: When you spoke to him, even though he's just working on the roof, did he say he was doing anything else to the house? Were his plans to do anything else? Replace the windows or whatever else? MR. SCHWARTZ: Remove and replace the roof; that's all he said. And I issued him a notice of violation for not obtaining the proper permits to do so. MR. PONTE: Investigator, in the executive summary here it said it could become a safety hazard. Is it, in fact, a safety hazard? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, it is, because the roof is now breaking off and flying into the neighbor's yard. So at that point it was a safety hazard and it was deteriorating. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Schwartz, did you have a building official dictate it as a unsafe building or a safety hazard? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. John Serenko came. I brought him Page 13 December 17, 2001 out to the scene, and he said it was unsafe. MR. LEHMANN: And he is considered an officer of the building official? MR. SCHWARTZ: That's correct. MR. LEHMANN: Thank you. MS. GODFREY: Investigator Schwartz, on page 16 you have -- it shows the roof rotting, and there is an electrical fixture there. Is there a safety hazard with the electrical shock or water getting in there and causing a problem? MR. SCHWARTZ: No, I was just -- I have it. I was just taking pictures just -- just to get an overall view of it. MS. GODFREY: It shows the rot where it has been leaking, so, therefore, isn't there a hazard of water getting into that -- MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. I assume there would be a hazard, yes. MS. GODFREY: And then on page 15 on the back, you show the window. Is that a crack in the back -- in the wall of the -- of the ho -- of the home? MR. SCHWARTZ: I don't -- I can't be a hundred percent sure of that. MS. GODFREY: Okay. MR. SCHWARTZ: But the rear window is missing, and there's a window missing in the kitchen in the front of the establishment. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Investigator Schwartz, you cited the violation as 103.5.1. Why hasn't the county prepared the documents to rehabilitate the building or demolish the building? MR. SCHWARTZ: I can't answer that. I don't know why. MR. PONTE: Investigator, is Mrs. Hendry living in this building? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, she is, and she has a small child also. MR. PONTE: And the area of the building that have the Page 14 December 17, 2001 windows knocked out, is that being used as a kitchen and being used for living quarters? MR. SCHWARTZ: It's -- one is the kitchen, and the other is in the -- a side room. It looks like it might have been an add-on many years ago. But there is one in the kitchen. MR. PONTE: Are there no screens on this window, nothing to protect it from the elements? MR. SCHWARTZ: Cardboard. MR. PHILLIPS: Investigator, what type of neighborhood is it? Any other residential properties around the home? MR. SCHWARTZ: They're all mobile homes. It's a mobile home area, about 25 or 30 mobile homes. MS. DUSEK: So it -- excuse me. In your -- in your opinion and the opinion of the building official that came out, this is unsafe not only for the neighbor but for the people living in the mobile home. MR. SCHWARTZ: I feel that way, especially with a young child living there, that it -- that it's unsafe, yes. And she's been given time since July to make the necessary repairs. MS. CURATOLO: Did you explain the permit process to her or to the gentleman working on the roof?. MR. SCHWARTZ: him. MS. CURATOLO: She wasn't there, so I had to explain it to And he understood, in your opinion? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. And he said he was going to get there the next day because it was towards -- late in the afternoon and obtain the necessary permits to build. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Schwartz, again, why did the county not act on this prior to coming to the CEB? MS. ARNOLD: Did not act on it in which way? MR. LEHMANN: Does not the county have the ability to abate unsafe buildings themselves without CEB hearing? Page 15 December 17, 2001 MS. ARNOLD: When there is an occupant in the building, we don't do that typically. We do that with unoccupied structures. We would bring it to the code board so that the board can order the respondent to correct whatever unsafe conditions there are. MR. PONTE: What if-- MS. ARNOLD: And -- and we're -- this is not -- this is an added-on portion of the -- the main part of the living area. MR. LEHMANN: Uh-huh. MS. ARNOLD: So, again, we wouldn't be taking down the whole building. It would be a portion of the building that's affected. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Arnold, are you telling me that -- and telling the board that in 103.5.1 where it specifically says to follow Ordinance 76-70, that 76-70 isn't followed if people live in the building? That ordinance says that you do not do that. MS. ARNOLD: The ordinance says that in the event that there is -- 50 percent of the entire structure is unsafe, then we would -- the county has the ability to go in and remove that unsafe structure. It doesn't -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It also gives -- doesn't it say that you can come up with the cost to rehabilitate the structure and you present that to the owner? MS. ARNOLD: I'm not familiar where you're referring to. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ordinance 76-70. MS. ARNOLD: The ordinance that was cited was the minimum building code, and it was the unsafe conditions. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. You signed -- MS. ARNOLD: We didn't cite them for the ordinance that you made reference to. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You cited them for paragraph 103.5.1. If you read that citation, it talks about, if certain things are not there, Page 16 December 17, 2001 these buildings are considered unsafe. And it says, all such unsafe buildings, structures, or service systems are hereby declared illegal and shall be abated by repair and rehabilitation or by demolition in accordance with provisions of Ordinance No. 76-70 as amended. MR. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: My question is, in 76-70 why hasn't the county gone and come up with getting the pricing or removed the structure? MS. ARNOLD: And -- and, as I answered before, the conditions of the building are such that it doesn't meet those 50 percent -- in excess of 50 percent of the entire structure, and it -- and that particular ordinance wouldn't apply. We would expect the owner to rehabilitate or repair the structure. And in this particular case, they can. If they remove the -- the roof and replace the roof on that structure, it would meet codes. MR. LEHMANN: Getting back -- go ahead. Do you want to continue? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I'm trying to understand why -- why we're citing for something and then -- because 76-70 says, it would not exceed 50 percent, which you're saying this doesn't -- the county manager shall consider the following: The cost to repair, cost to demolish, the value of the property, the value of this, the value of that, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Okay. Okay? MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Schwartz, you had indicated there's a small child living there. Do you have an approximate age? MR. SCHWARTZ: Three, approximately three. MR. LEHMANN: Is this area accessible to that child? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, yes. It's an add-on, but it's attached to the house. MR. LEHMANN: So you would definitely consider this a safety concern for that child? Page 17 December 17, 2001 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: Thank you. MS. GODFREY: Investigator Schwartz, on page 14 someone had written a letter that she has a rat infestation and flea infestation that she has done nothing about. Her water has been shut off, and she has dogs, and there's dog poop all over the place, and she also keeps a dog locked -- locked for days and that you have been aware of this some time and -~ and you were supposed to give her a notice of violation, but I guess you gave her warnings; is that correct? MR. SCHWARTZ: On those vi -- I was -- I didn't notice any rat infestations or -- or anything like that. MS. GODFREY: You didn't note it. But this is, I guess, a letter from a neighbor, and also he has to listen to a level of obscenities that CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, that wasn't written up as a violation, though. MR. SCHWARTZ: Some of those are police department matters; they're not code enforcement matters. MS. GODFREY: Yeah. There are two ongoing sheriff's office - MR. SCHWARTZ: And the water incident was a prior incident, and she applied and had the water reinstated by the utilities. So -- MS. GODFREY: Yeah. MR. PONTE: Has -- has she given you any reason for not have -- improving her own home? MR. SCHWARTZ: Monetary. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Schwartz, you had indicated in your -- in the statement of violation that one of the sections that we were looking at here is Section 101.4.10. Is that a typographical error? Should that be 104.1.10 -- excuse me, 101.4.107 MR. SCHWARTZ: 101.4.10. Page 18 December 17, 2001 MR. correct. MR. MR. MR. LEHMANN: I take that back. I stand corrected. You are SCHWARTZ: That's okay. LEHMANN: Sorry for losing my brain there for -- SCHWARTZ: That's okay. MR. PONTE: Miss Rawson -- MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. PONTE: -- I have a question for you. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. PONTE: If in this situation the owner doesn't have the monetary wherewithal to fix the home and there is a -- a safety hazard and there is a child present, is there a -- a department or division that can order the -- the owner to leave, it's a dangerous place for them to be? MS. RAWSON: Well, there is. But obviously that's not the power of this board. If you don't think they're going to comply, you certainly have the right to ask the county to make the repairs and, you know, charge back to the respondent. That's a better question probably for Michelle about what department is in charge of that, but it's not within the power of this board to do that. MR. PONTE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Investigator Schwartz, you say the part that has the damaged roof, which he's now removing I think is what you said -- MR. SCHWARTZ: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- that's the add-on. MR. SCHWARTZ: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Are they actually living in the add-on? Could you tell? MR. SCHWARTZ: I don't know. They're using the add-on in everyday family life; I could tell that. Page 19 December 17, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. SCHWARTZ: But it's not a bedroom or a living room. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: You say they are using it as a living area, consider it a living area? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Schwartz? MS. GODFREY: Investigator Schwartz, on page 15 at the bottom, is that a living area, or are they just throwing stuff out in the back -- MR. SCHWARTZ: I did not take this photo. MS. GODFREY: Okay. So you have no -- MR. SCHWARTZ: I cannot answer that. MS. GODFREY: Okay. MS. DUSEK: I'm ready for a motion, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Mr. Schwartz? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. MS. DUSEK: Are we ready? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: Okay. I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners, Colli -- Collier County versus Bridgett L. Hendry, CEB Case No. 2001-087, that there is a violation, and the violation is of Sections 103.5.1 and 101.4.10 of Ordinance 98-76, the Collier County Building Administrative Code. The description of the violation is the deterioration of the roof, rear roof, fascia, and eaves of the subject building and in need of repair to the point of being unsafe and windows missing throughout. MR. LEHMANN: I'll second that violation. Page 20 December 17, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that a violation does, in fact, exist. Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. MS. DUSEK: In looking at the order that the staff has recommended, they have given 30 days. If it's an unsafe condition, shouldn't this be handled immediately? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would think so. It's been going on now for almost six months, and they obviously chose not to do a whole lot about it. And if we do have people living there, especially a child, I think something needs to be done immediately. MR. PONTE: And then taking Jean's train of thought, Michelle, can the county -- can -- can we, then, go ahead and make the repairs while they're living in that building? Because I -- if there is a monetary problem, which they claim to be, and they haven't made the repairs, it's for their own comfort, safety, can we go ahead and make the repairs and then bill it to them? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. We can order that done. MS. ARNOLD: You can request the -- I feel more comfortable talking to the county attorney's office about that simply because of if they refuse to let us on their property, which they have the ability to do, we may be right back where we are right now. So I'll have to check to see with -- what we would have to obtain in terms of access to the property and those types of things prior to going in and -- and requesting a contract to go and repair a property. MR. PONTE: Is there another county department that can take cognizance of the fact that there is a safety problem here and a child Page 21 December 17, 2001 present today? MS. ARNOLD: The -- the health department is one that usually does internal inspections with respect to the safety measures and on poor conditions that may affect the family and -- and, you know, young children. I'm not aware of whether or not they have done such an inspection, but they have the ability to go in there. I'm not saying that you can't direct us to go ahead and do that, but I just wanted to -- to let you know that there may be some legal concerns that need to be cleared up with respect to the access of the property. MR. LEHMANN: Jean, does this board have the right to order another department to conduct an investigation? MS. RAWSON: No. MR. LEHMANN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Rawson -- MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- if we ordered the county to repair this building -- I think we've asked this question a couple of times before, but refresh my memory -- can they, in fact, go on somebody's property and repair it? MS. RAWSON: Well, they have the legal authority to do, but, you know, I think they do need to talk to the county attorney's office and probably are -- they're going to have to take somebody from law enforcement with them to be sure that they don't have a problem. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I just wanted to clear up that we do have the authority to order somebody to go there and do that. How they do is -- they'll have to work out that part. I'm interested in the safety of the people there. Okay. Order of the board. MS. DUSEK: Well, I'll make a motion that the CEB order the respondent to bait -- to pay all operational costs incurred in the Page 22 December 17, 2001 prosecution of this case, although I'm not sure how we -- that will come about, but -- and -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: -- I'm going to do this in two parts -- and make needed repairs to the roof, fascia, and windows immediately or a fine of $25 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. In the event that this is not corrected immediately, in this motion I direct the staff, county, to go out and correct the violation. MS. ARNOLD: Can we have a -- a time? MR. PONTE: I think you have a little problem with that. Might be you tell him to do it immediately, he has to get a permit. Nothing is going to be immediate. And given the safety problem, if we could think in terms of directing the county to go in immediately and just make the repairs and then try and collect afterwards, we could do that. MS. DUSEK: MR. PONTE: MS. DUSEK: Well, that's -- Money is a problem. Money is a problem, although there was someone out there working on the property. And if this person will come in and get the permits, perhaps it can be done, but -- MR. LEHMANN: Could I offer a suggestion? MS. DUSEK: Yeah. MR. LEHMANN: We have done this many times in the past where we have ordered the respondent to secure the premises, the subject premises, from access from any person. That resolves an immediate certain concern for the child, and then we can allow them a proper time period to correct the problem. MS. DUSEK: Well, it's only part of the building. MR. LEHMANN: That's correct. MS. DUSEK: So you're saying to not give them access to that part of building. Page 23 December 17, 200 ! MR. LEHMANN: MS. DUSEK: MR. PONTE: That is correct. I don't know how you would do that. How would you enforce that? MS. DUSEK: Yes. How would you enforce that unless you have someone there 24 hours a day? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't see that as an enforcement solution. MS. DUSEK: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think what you need to do, if you're going to order anything -- MS. DUSEK: Have the county go out. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- one, order the pros -- order them to pay the prosecutorial costs; Item 2, order the county to repair the property, period. That should be it. Any costs, including the prosecution costs, if they can't pay the costs, they will become a lien on the property, just like everything else. But, you know, since there is an unsafe condition -- and that's what the county has said -- we need to get it resolved. And it seems the only way to get it resolved is to have the county resolve the problem. It may not be the best solution, but it seems like the only solution to get it solved immediately. It's kind of hard to divide a house in half and tell somebody to stay out of it. That isn't going to happen. MS. DUSEK: Right. I think that's difficult. I was just thinking of the man who was working on the house. MS. CURATOLO: I'm not so sure I wouldn't agree with Peter since they've already started working on the house and they were told they couldn't use that area until the repairs were completed, I don't see where there's any less of a problem with that than requiring them to pay for something that they don't seem to be able to afford to pay for. MR. LEHMANN: Well, and that was my original concern, and Page 24 December 17, 2001 our chairman had brought it up again, it's a matter of how you enforce that. In thinking through that process, they are correct. How do you enforce that this child or the adult will not be permitted into that area? MS. DUSEK: You cant. MR. LEHMANN: You really can't. Anything that you do to barricade or -- or close up that area, unless you have somebody there 24 hours around the clock, you can't insure that they're not going to open that area to access. And it's a very valid point. Now, I would -- you know, in hindsight of what we discussed, I would support what -- what our chairman had said, in other words, order the county to do an immediate repair to the measure as opposed to-- MS. DUSEK: Giving any opportunity to the homeowner? MR. LEHMANN: Yeah, the homeowner had plenty of time to do this. My concern and apparently the board's concern, I feel, is for the child and the safety of the child and the parent. But I think at this point in time, enough time has gone by for them to do what they needed to do, and I think maybe that's what we should do is -- MS. DUSEK: Well, I will amend my motion to say that the county -- we will forget that the owners will try to remedy this problem and just have the county go out and remedy it, if they are able to do this. MS. ARNOLD: Well, my -- my request would be to give the owner some time to correct it, in light of the fact that there was somebody out there last Friday attempting to -- or last week. I don't remember what the investigator testified. But there was somebody out there last week trying to correct the problem. I think we -- we normally would give them some time. And then in the event that they don't correct it within that time frame, then the county would go in and -- Page 25 December 17, 2001 MR. MS. finished? MR. PONTE: But that person was stopped because he didn't have a ermit. And my concern is, if we then open up the -- the entire permitting process -- MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. MR. PONTE: -- we're slowing it down. Meanwhile, we still have a young child living in an unsafe condition. MS. CURATOLO: How long would the permitting process take? MS. ARNOLD: With this, I believe it's a reroof, so, I mean, they would have to -- I don't -- I'm not really sure if it's a couple weeks to submit the plans. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's unacceptable. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Schwartz. MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. MS. DUSEK: One more question for you. How far along was that roof process when you were out there -- well, you just were out there this morning? MR. SCHWARTZ: I was out there Thursday. MS. DUSEK: Thursday? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. MS. DUSEK: And how far along -- SCHWARTZ: He had a -- DUSEK: Was it three-quarters finished? A quarter MR. SCHWARTZ: He had a good part of the roof and that -- and that part of the structure removed. MS. DUSEK: So -- but nothing had been done to actually repair it other than remove -- MR. SCHWARTZ: He was in the process of removing the roof. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So he still -- so he's halted because he Page 26 December 17, 2001 needs a permit which still is going to take a couple weeks to get. MS. DUSEK: Right. I think in the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If the county has said the building is unsafe, it -- it's either unsafe or it isn't. It can't be halfway. It's one or the other. If it's unsafe, we need to get it fixed now. MS. CURATOLO: I have one other question. How do you know that they're using that area? MR. SCHWARTZ: You could see right into the area. MS. CURATOLO: And you've seen them using the area. MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, I think I've seen children in the -- a child in the area. MS. DUSEK: Miss Rawson or Michelle -- I'm not sure who can answer this -~ who has the authority to say that it's unsafe and then can go ahead and do something about it? MS. RAWSON: The Department of Health, I think. MS. DUSEK: So -- MS. ARNOLD: Well, we have made the determination with the inspection from the building department. MR. LEHMANN: Just -- just for the board's knowledge, it is actually the building official who is the only person in Collier County, to my knowledge, that has the legal authority to declare a building safe or unsafe. We have testimony from the investigator that an official from the building department, a building official or an authorized representative of the building official has made that determination. So by testimony, we have a legal interpretation that the building has been declared unsafe, or at least that portion of the building, maybe not the entire building. MR. PONTE: Let me try a motion and see if we can focus on it, that the CEB direct the county to immediately repair the house, windows, the roof, and eliminate all safety hazards. Respondent is Page 27 December 17, 2001 ordered to pay all operational costs and to reimburse the county for all costs of repairs. MR. LEHMANN: In your motion are you referring to any other portion of the house or just the portion that has -- MR. PONTE: I'm just saying generically the house, windows, roof, and eliminate all safety hazards. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We can order them to fix the part that has been cited. We can't overall repair his house, only the part that has been cited. If there are other repairs needed, until they're cited and brought before us, we can't do anything about that. MR. PONTE: Well, should we say just immediately repair the cited violations and eliminate all safety hazards? MR. LEHMANN: Again, it's the safety hazards. There could be safety hazards that exist in the main part of house that we don't know about that the violation does not address; and, therefore, we have no jurisdiction. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MR. PONTE: If the safety hazards exist -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They haven't been brought before us. MR. LEHMANN: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So until they're brought here, you can't just give a blanket order to fix things that haven't been brought before you, even though you know about them. Unfortunately, unless they're brought here as a citation, you can't do anything about them. MR. LEHMANN: We have no evidence or testimony to indicate that there -- that they exist. We may suspect that they exist. MS. DUSEK: Let's just forget all these motions that we have and start fresh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: And I'll try again. MR. PONTE: Okay. Page 28 December 17, 2001 MS. DUSEK: I'd like to make a motion that we direct the staff, the county, to go out and bring this portion of the house to safety standards, whatever that requires, to have the owner pay the prosecution costs and any costs incurred in bringing that portion of the building up to safety standards and that this should be done immediately. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Rawson, instead of the word "immediately," do we need a date? MS. RAWSON: I think so because I don't believe they're going to get up and go out right now to do it so -- MS. DUSEK: Within a week, is that possible? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Pick a date, Bobby. MS. DUSEK: Within a week. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we know the holidays are -- MS. DUSEK: All right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- next week. MS. CURATOLO: How about if we ask staff?. What's realistic? MS. ARNOLD: We're going to have to get a contractor to do the work. I don't know. MS. DUSEK: Well, can we say -- MS. CURATOLO: I mean, is this any more immediate than giving them the opportunity to do the repairs over a two-week period? MR. LEHMANN: Miss Arnold, you had just said you needed to get a contractor to do this work. You do not have staff within the county that is able to repair it to the position of a safe building, not necessarily repairing everything, but just a safe building. MS. ARNOLD: No, we don't. MR. LEHMANN: So you have to go through the same process as the respondent. Page 29 December 17, 2001 MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we do. MR. LEHMANN: Short of maybe a permitting process which you may be able to expedite. MS. DUSEK: Given that -- MR. LEHMANN: Given that idea, what is the time frame that you would expect you actually to be able to accomplish this task? MS. ARNOLD: I'm not really sure how long it's going to take. And -- and my recommendation would be to, say, as -- rather than a quick -- a specific date would be to say as quickly as possible to -- to correct the repairs, make the repairs. MS. GODFREY: Miss Arnold, do you have to get bids, being it's the county for -- MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MS. GODFREY: So that's going to take time then. MS. DUSEK: Can that portion of the building be secured somehow, boarded up or whatever so that that cannot be used? MS. ARNOLD: I -- I can't personally answer that question. I have not been out to the site. So I don't know whether or not there is a way for us to secure this portion of the building from the rest of the living area. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Arnold, are you telling the board that when a problem exists in the county that needs immediate attention, they still have to go through a bidding process that take weeks, they can't resolve a problem within 24 hours? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. I can't -- I cannot take care of this problem within 24 hours. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. CURATOLO: Again, then, my question would be that if-- if there's a time frame in the process for the county to do these repairs, why wouldn't we give the individual a period of time -- MR. LEHMANN: We have. Page 30 December 17, 2001 MR. PONTE: We've given them since July. MS. CURATOLO: I understand that. But if we say two weeks or three weeks, if he -- if they can comply within that two-week period, why wouldn't we ask them to do so as part of the motion? MS. DUSEK: I think the history of them complying speaks for itself, and we know if we ask the county to do it that it will be completed within -- if we gave them two weeks or three weeks, we know the county will do it. We don't know that the homeowner would do it, and then we'd be another three weeks behind schedule. MS. CURATOLO: I'm not saying either/or. I'm saying is it possible to -- let's say if the county comes up with a 2 1/2-week period, if we could also build into that motion that within that period if, in fact, it was repaired, then the county would not go in and repair but -- but move along, assuming that the repairs will be done by the county? MR. LEHMANN: MS. CURATOLO: MR. LEHMANN: I think it is in -~ in the motion anyway. Okay. In other words, if the penalty is ordered to repair something, goes out on site and finds out that the scope of their work is much less diminished than what it normally would have been because the respondent has already taken action ahead of them -- MS. CURATOLO: MR. LEHMANN: taken care of. MS. CURATOLO: I understand what you're saying. -- then innate within the motion that it is And I would agree with that, but I would like the individual to have something in writing stating that they could, in fact, begin the repairs and not then be responsible for the county going in. MR. LEHMANN: I don't think they need anything in writing anything more than the motion itself. They have the ability today to make those repairs. Hire a legitimate company -~ Page 31 December 17, 2001 MS. them. MR. that in all CURATOLO: And I'm saying I'd like to communicate it to LEHMANN: Well, I -- I think the county has tried to do of the notifications. If-- if you would like to make a motion to express that -- MS. DUSEK: Well, I have a motion. And unless it's not seconded, then we can move on. MR. PONTE: Before the motion -- another motion is made or amended, given that there are safety factors and there's always a range of whatever that means -- I mean, there's a safety factor, I suppose, in crossing the street. So I'm not sure what the -- I'm not sure of what the safety factors are, how severe the risk is. And if the risk is minimal, then that's something we should take cognizance of. If, however, the risk is higher, then I think in the motion we ought to request that the county contact the health department and have them look into it ASAP. But I don't know what that risk is, whether it's high or low. In -- in your view, is the risk a high-risk situation, or is it low? MR. SCHWARTZ: I think it was higher a few months ago when it was the rainy season and it was windy and parts of the roof would blow off. I don't think -- I haven't heard any more of the roof going into the neighbor's yard -- MR. PONTE: And to the child? And to the child? What's the risk to the child? MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, not being an engineer, I don't know how sound that roof is. You know, it's in need of repair, but, like I said, not being an engineer, I don't know how sound that roof really is. MS. GODFREY: Not only that, the windows -- it's going to be cold, so the -- got a cold front coming in tomorrow, so -- MR. SCHWARTZ: They have cardboard on the windows. Page 32 December 17, 2001 MS. GODFREY: Yeah. MR. LEHMANN: Miss Dusek, you have a motion that's still on the table. Would you repeat that? MS. DUSEK: I thought you were going to ask that. It's basically saying that the -- this board directs the county to go out and make the needed repairs to bring it up to the safety standards as soon as possible and that the homeowner pay all operational costs and any costs involved in the county bringing it to its safety standards. MR. PONTE: And can we also just add that little simple declarative sentence that we direct the county to contact the health department to see if there is a health violation? MS. DUSEK: Can we do that, Jean? MS. RAWSON: You can recommend it. You can ask them, but I wouldn't put it in your order. MS. ARNOLD: We'll do that. You don't need to put it in the order. MS. DUSEK: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: I would second the motion. 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: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The motion carries. Next case, Board of County Commissioners versus Blocker, No. IM 2001-02. MS. CRUZ: I believe the board has a request for a continuance on this case and the next one which involves the -- Page 33 December 17, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have not seen such a document. MS. CRUZ: If you'll give us a second, please. MS. RAWSON: Mr. Flegal, while they're -- while they're looking for the document that's the motion for continuance, I might advise the board that John Spiller, who is the attorney that represents the Blockers on both of these cases, called my office earlier in the -- last week and indicated to me that he would be here today requesting a continuance from you. He called my home last night. He's in Orlando, but he got the flu, and he couldn't drive. So he asked me to let you know that he expressed his regrets about not being able to be here today but that his intention is still to seek a continuance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Has he, in fact, submitted a document, or do we just have the phone call? Typical Mr. Spiller. We have a motion, request from the respondents to continue. I have no problem in granting a continuance. What's the pleasure of the board? MR. PONTE: I so move we -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: How about the county? The county have a problem? MS. VIDAURI: Dora Vidaurri for the record. Good morning, board members. I'm Dora Vidaurri with the Immokalee housing project. I'm the supervisor, and I have an objection to that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So noted. Since the respondent's not here and their lawyer isn't here, again, I have -- MS. DUSEK: Can we ask why -- why she's objecting? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. MS. VIDAURI: August of 2000 they were issued a notice of violation for this case, and we had a meeting with this property owner, and it's been since August that we tried to identify the Page 34 December 17, 2001 problem. I'd like to see some resolution towards this case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: August of 2000? MS. VIDAURI: One. I'm sorry, 2001. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Big difference. Okay. That's fine. Thank you. Again, under the circumstances without the respondents and their attorney, having the information presented to us in preparation, I think it's in the best interest of both parties to continue this. MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion that we continue the above case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Until our next meeting? MR. PONTE: Until the next meeting, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion to continue until our next meeting. MS. GODFREY: Second. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, do we have the ability to mandate all parties will be here at the next meeting to make sure that we don't continue again? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mandate? We have the order to subpoena them, and they will be here -- MR. LEHMANN: That's what I -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- or be in contempt. MR. LEHMANN: That's what I was referencing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We can do that if you like. MS. DUSEK: I don't think that's necessary if they're -- if they're not willing to be here at the next case -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I suspect Mr. Spiller will be here, knowing Mr. Spiller. I suspect he will be here. Maybe his clients won't, but I'm sure he will be. Do we have a motion and a second to continue? Any further discussion? Page 35 December 17, 2001 aye. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying MS. GODFREY: Aye. MR. PHILLIPS: Aye. MR. LEHMANN: Aye MR. PONTE: Aye MS. CURATOLO: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? MS. DUSEK: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have 6 to 1. Before we get to the next case, let's take five minutes, get everybody organized. Ten minutes? THE COURT REPORTER: Please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. (A short break was held.) Not a problem. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We'll call the board back to order, please. As we get started with the next case, ladies and gentlemen, whoever is going to do the presentation for both sides, you will please stand at the microphones so that you can be heard. The next case is BCC versus Manatee Resort Condominium, Case 2001-086. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, ifI may, for the record allow each respondent state their name so we know who is present and who is not. MR. WHITT: Members of the board, if I can be permitted, my name is Michael Whitt. I'm with the law firm ofBecker & Poliakoff, P.A. I serve as the counsel to the Manatee Resort Condominium Association. And before we take a lot of time doing roll calls and finding out who is here, I would like to present a motion to continue this hearing Page 36 December 17, 2001 on behalf of the association which is one of the named respondents in this case. The reason for the motion to continue is that we have had subpoenas issued for a number of witnesses to appear for the respondent to present testimony before the board today. We subpoenaed a gentleman named Joe McHarris. He was served with the subpoena. However, he is out of state. I spoke with him. I released him from the subpoena for purposes of today's hearing. We do have Mr. Arnold and Mr. Mulhere who have appeared in response to the subpoena. However, we subpoenaed a gentleman named Chahram Badamtchian that worked for Collier County. I have an affidavit of service reflecting that service was made personally upon Mr. Badamtchian on December 12th, 2001, subpoenaing him for today's hearing. I'll give a copy to -- to your counsel. Interestingly, when we had these witnesses subpoenaed, we had -- and, first, issued a subpoena, which is allowed under the Rules of Civil Procedure -- attorneys at law or officers of the court are entitled to issue subpoenas. Basically makes the clerk's life a lot easier. We did that and had those subpoenas served upon these witnesses. Thereafter the county attorney's office filed an objection and motion to quash and motion for protective order and sent a letter to each of the witnesses that we had subpoenaed. I've got a letter dated December 10, 2001, that was sent via facsimile and mailed to each of the witnesses -- that was sent by Jennifer Belpedio of the Collier County Attorney's Office -- where they object both to our subpoena. We had requested that they appear for depositions so we know what their testimony would be for purposes of today's hearing and also for today's hearing. The letter states that it's Collier County's position that neither the respondent nor its attorney has the legal authority to compel you to attend the hearing on the above-referenced matter. The county will challenge the subpoena. Their challenge is that it's not lawful and Page 37 December 17, 2001 that no contempt can arise from failing to appear. After receipt of the -- I'll also give a copy to -- to counsel. I'll have these submitted for the -- for the board. In response to the letter from the county attorney, we had revised subpoenas prepared and had them issued by the clerk of the circuit court and had each one of these witnesses re-served with the new subpoena. Evidently the county took issue with the language in the earlier subpoena that said if you fail to appear, you may be held in contempt of court. I believe that's a factually and legally accurate statement. In the revised subpoena it said you were advised to -- excuse me, if you fail to appear, respondent will file a petition in the Collier County Circuit Court to enforce this subpoena and seek to hold you in contempt of court. I followed that up, then, with a letter that was personally served on each of the witnesses, including Mr. Badamtchian. This said notwithstanding the letter from the county attorney, the Collier County code specifically provides for subpoenas issued by the circuit court clerk and served by any person that's authorized by Florida law to -- to serve subpoenas, which was done, and advised them that they were required to appear for the purposes of today's hearing and, if they failed to appear, that we would file a petition against them in court, seek a court order ordering their appearance. And then, if they failed to appear, presumably the court would issue an order to show cause and hold them in contempt. Florida law clearly provides that the proceeding before the board is a quasi-judicial proceeding. In fact, the ordinance 92-80, the Code Enforcement Board ordinance, provides in Section 8, subparagraph 4, that all testimony shall be under oath and shall be recorded. And it states that the enforcement board shall take testimony from the code enforcement official and alleged violator and from such other Page 38 December 17, 2001 witnesses as may be called by the respective parties. As the respondent, we're put in a position with a county employee who we found out over the weekend was terminated on Friday who was subpoenaed and who is a recalcitrant witness who is obviously not even honoring the subpoena to be here today. This witness is important because under the notice of alleged violation, part of the -- the case that's being brought by the county today deals with the square footage of the unit, that it violates the county codes and that the units in question are approximately 2,000 square feet or more when the code says a maximum is 500 square feet. There is a newspaper article that appeared on Wednesday, August 29th, 2001, in which Mr. Badamtchian is quoted. He was the person that signed off on the manatee -- on the site development plan. He was the principal planner for the Collier County. He stated he was aware that the hotel rooms exceeded the maximum 500 square feet. He said his supervisors told him that he should sign off on it anyway because the county intended to amend the rules because of the demand for larger hotel rooms and, also, that the language was overlooked, that being the language in the Land Development Code concerning the square footage, was overlooked in the past for several projects. Obviously, Mr. Badamtchian is a critical witness for the respondent in this case to testify that, indeed, he knew and the county knew and the county specifically approved the site development plan, it was not a mistake, it was not an oversight, that they knew and intentionally approved the site development plan which on its face shows 2200 square feet being the square footage provided in the -- in the units. The county ordinance that provides the procedures for your hearings says that the formal rules of evidence shall not apply, but fundamental due process shall be observed. Being able to call Page 39 December 17, 2001 witnesses in response to a case where the association and the members that are the respondents, the alleged violators, that supports their case, is critical. If we cannot force witnesses to appear through subpoena power to come before you to state evidence supporting our position, there is no due process before this board. We may as well not even be here. You may as well hear from the county and what they say and that's it, because there's a lot of times that the alleged violators have no knowledge. The owners, particularly those who have come in and bought after this project was approved, they weren't involved in the approval process. They have no direct knowledge. They can't even testify before you on how this thing got approved. Now, much ado has been made about our issuance of the subpoena. And I want to bring to the board's attention Section 10 of Ordinance 92-80. Section 10, Subparagraph 1, says every subpoena for testimony before an enforcement board shall be issued by the clerk of the circuit court as ex officio clerk to the Board of County Commissioners. It goes through what the subpoena has to contain, all of which is contained on the subpoenas that were served, the revised subpoena. And then it says, "and shall be prepared by the party requesting issuance." we're a party. We requested issuance. We prepared the subpoena. We had it issued by the clerk. It doesn't say it's issued by the Code Enforcement Board; it's issued by the clerk of the circuit court. Now, the county's position is only the board can issue subpoenas and have subpoenas served. That's not my reading of this ordinance. Subparagraph 2 goes on to allow for subpoenas for production of documentary evidence. And then you-all sit in your capacity as a quasi-judicial board. It says the enforcement board, upon motion made promptly, and, in any event, at or before the time specified in the subpoena for compliance, you may quash or modify the subpoena Page 40 December 17, 2001 or condition denial of the motion upon advancement by the person in whose behalf a subpoena is issued of the cost for producing the documentation. Now, I put to you, if only the board can issue subpoenas under Section 10, you can't be judge, jury, and executioner. You can't issue it, and then you cannot quash it or modify it. It doesn't make any sense. The parties have to have the right as set out under Section 10 to have the subpoenas issued by the clerk. And then in subparagraph 3 allows for the subpoenas to be served by any person authorized by law to serve process. This was served by South Florida Legal Services of Naples, a certified, state approved -- there's a statutory procedure to be a certified process server. So we have properly served Mr. Badamtchian with a subpoena. He was subpoenaed for nine o'clock. It is now approximately 10:30 a.m. Mr. Badamtchian is not here, and we move that this hearing be rescheduled for a sufficient time down the road. And I believe that's going to be at least 90 days, because to continue it to the January hearing does us no good. I have to prepare a petition and get it filed with the circuit court. I have to serve process upon Mr. Badamtchian. By law Mr. Badamtchian will have 20 days to respond, assuming, as will potentially the county, presumably there will be a motion to dismiss that will be filed that will have to be heard and resolved by the court before the court can ultimately get to the issue of was a subpoena lawfully prepared, was it lawfully served, and will we enforce the subpoena. That is going to take some time. My experience in -- in practicing law in Collier County for approximately 15 years is to get a hearing date before a circuit court judge takes approximately 45 days from the date a motion is filed, the date you seek the hearing. So I believe we're looking at a window of at least 90 days, if not more, for us to be able to force Mr. Badamtchian to come to this hearing. Page 41 December 17, 2001 So on that basis, we would ask that the board continue the Collier County versus Manatee hearing for today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Rawson -- MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- question: In reading our ordinance for the board, 92-80, one of the powers granted the board is subpoena powers. My take on Section 10 of the subpoena procedures would be that they are the procedures for the board's issuance of subpoenas, not for the general public's issuance of subpoenas. MS. RAWSON: Before I answer that question, let me say that the ~- that's probably a response that the county attorney's office is prepared to make, because I'm sure that they anticipated this hearing and -- so I think we should probably hear from the county attorney's office, in answer to your question. I'm sure that's probably the next thing they were going to say. MS. BELPEDIO: Jennifer Belpedio, assistant county attorney with Collier County Attorney's Office. MR. LEHMANN: Excuse me, Jennifer. Would you speak up, please. Thank you. MS. BELPEDIO: Respondent -- respondent, Manatee Resort Condominium Association, issued and served subpoenas on Joe McHarris, Robert Mulhere, Chahram Badamtchian, Wayne Arnold, and Thomas Kuck for both deposition on December 12th, 2001, and appearance at hearing before the Code Enforcement Board today. We did file an objection to respondent subpoenas for depositions and attendance of witnesses at hearing, a motion for protective order, and a motion to quash process. Subsequently respondent had withdrawn his request for the subpoenas for deposition. It is our position that Florida Statute 162.08, Subsection 5, specifically and solely vests the Code Enforcement Board with the authority to subpoena alleged violators and witnesses to hearing. It Page 42 December 17, 2001 follows that this board, the Code Enforcement Board, must be impaneled in order to make the motion -- make the decision to authorize the issuance of the subpoenas, any subpoenas. There would have to be a motion before you, a second, a majority of the members present voting, assuming a quorum in favor. It is true, as counsel pointed out, that Section 10 of the Collier County Ordinance 92-80 -- that's the code enforcement ordinance -- outlines the specific requirements for the subpoena procedures and what must be included in the subpoenas. We're not contending that respondents are not legally permitted to have subpoenas for persons to come and attend wit -- as witnesses. We are contending the procedures in which -- or objecting to the procedures in which they are seeking to obtain these subpoenas. It is our contention that neither the chairman nor any member of the Code Enforcement Board can sign or authorize these subpoenas without the issue first being heard before the Code Enforcement Board and ruled in favor of granting the subpoenas. To not enforce this procedure would allow any respondent's attorney to come in and sign subpoenas and tell anybody to come at any time, and that person wouldn't have the opportunity to have the advanced notice and get to the hearing. I suggest that if respondents seek to move for a continuance based on the fact that Mr. Badamtchian and others are not here in that he would seek to enforce his subpoenas in circuit court, that he present the subpoenas to the Code Enforcement Board, let them make the decision, let you-all make the decision, and subpoena these persons for hearing for the next available date. I believe that that would be the most appropriate, most efficient, most economical way of accomplishing this goal to get us to where we have to be at the next hearing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Basic question, Mr. Whitt. Page 43 December 17, 2001 MR. WHITT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Basically, you're wanting this continuance because Mr. Beldetchio (phonetic) -- is that the way you say his name? MR. WHITT: No. Badamtchian, I believe, is how you say his name. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Badamtchian. And he, from your standpoint, would present evidence dealing with the square footage of the rooms; is that what you're telling us? MR. WHITT: Correct. And let me note for the record, too, that there was another gentleman, Mr. Kuck, K-u-c-k, that was also subpoenaed that has failed to appear. He is the gentleman that actually sent the letter from the county approving the site development plan. Mr. Badamtchian was the planner who reviewed it and approved it, and Mr. Kuck was the person from the county who had to sign the letter that said your site development plan has been approved. Both of those gentlemen -- MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, ifI may object, just one piece of information, just put on the record. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let him finish, and then we'll hear from your side. We're not going to get into any big, fancy arguments. Let's hear from one side first. MR. WHITT: I just did not note that Mr. Kuck is not here today, so I wanted the record to reflect that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. MR. WHITT: IfI understand the county's position, they say that they will stipulate to continue this hearing for the board, then, to issue the subpoenas or direct the subpoenas be issued by -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't know. I'm going to get to that. My question to you was about Mr. Badamtchian and square footage; that's why you wanted him here. Page 44 December 17, 2001 MR. WHITT: CHAIRMAN MR. WHITT: CHAIRMAN MR. WHITT: Yes. FLEGAL: Yes. FLEGAL: And -- and other issues. Yes or no? That was my question. We're not quite sure what the county's going to put on -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. MR. WHITT: -- but, also, to -- to address those issues dealing with the submittal of the site development plan and the review process and the ultimate approval of that and the issuance of the permit to construct Manatee Resort. That would be the nature of his testimony. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now the county's objection. MR. WHITE: IfI may, Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Name. MR. WHITE: -- small factual matter. Again, Patrick White, assistant county attorney. Mr. Whitt had told you that Mr. Kuck's the one that signed the SDP approval letter when, in fact, it was not Mr. Kuck. And I just wanted to make sure that that was clearly in the record. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. LEHMANN: Miss Rawson -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Go ahead. MR. LEHMANN: Miss Rawson, may I ask a question? MS. RAWSON: Sure. MR. LEHMANN: We have two sections -- two sections noted, both Ordinance 92-80 and Florida Statutes 162 which govern this board. What is your take or your interpretation of Section 10 of dash -- of Ordinance 92-80 with regard to subpoena? MS. RAWSON: Well, I'll be happy to tell you what I think. However, I don't wear the black robe. Page 45 December 17, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's okay. We trust your judgment. MS. RAWSON: The -- the two attorneys have both made very good arguments, but neither of them has cited any case law for me to look up. I am aware what the problem is. I can tell you, based on my experience, by being the attorney for the Code Enforcement Board and also by being a member of the board for years before that, that there have been other occasions where witnesses have been subpoenaed and they were not subpoenaed by the board. They were subpoenaed in the same way that Mr. Whitt did; he had the clerk issue the subpoena. This is the first time in -- at least in my history that I know that this particular issue has come up as to whether or not you, in fact, have to authorize the issuance of the subpoena or whether they can do -- as Mr. Whitt says, have the requesting party go to the clerk's office and have the subpoena issued. I think that this is a serious-enough legal issue that I would agree with what I think I heard both attorneys say, and that is let someone who does wear the black robe make that call. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman-- MR. LEHMANN: Just one second -~ go ahead. MR. WHITE: I was going to point out that I believe it's the county's position that if they would like the subpoenas issued, we're not going to object to them so long as they otherwise comply with the law, i.e., they ask this board for those subpoenas today. We don't believe it's necessary to go to court on the matter, but if-- if that's what's required, certainly the county will do so. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let's -- let me first back up and let's get to a basic question before we get to the subpoenas. They want a motion to continue. Tell me the county's position. Yes or no to agree to the continuance? MR. WHITE: I believe we're ready to prosecute today -- the Page 46 December 17, 2001 case today, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I want -- that's what I wanted to hear so -- did you have a question? MR. LEHMANN: Yes. Miss Rawson, I'm referring to Ordinance 92-80, Section 10, paragraph 1. MS. RAWSON: Correct. MR. LEHMANN: The -- the section references -- and I will read -- every subpoena from testimony -- every subpoena for testimony before an enforcement board shall be issued by the clerk of the circuit court as ex officio clerk of the board of county commissioners under the seal of Collier County. My question to you is, does that text apply to this specific board, and does that text make the clerk of the county court, in essence, the authority to issue a subpoena for ourselves or possibly a respondent? MS. RAWSON: Well, I think clearly the clerk can issue the subpoena, no question about that. MR. LEHMANN: Uh-huh. MS. RAWSON: I think that the county's position -- and they can correct me if I'm misstating their position -- is that because it follows up -- Section 10 follows Section 9. And Section 9 is the section that gives you subpoena power. And since it's the very next section, I think their interpretation is, well, you have subpoena power and this is the way you do it; whereas I think Mr. Whitt's position is Section 10 is read independently and clearly says that the subpoena shall be prepared by the party requesting issuance. Honestly, I don't know that this issue has ever come up before, and I don't know whether you have to authorize the issuance of the subpoena and then the clerk actually issues it or whether the respondent has the right to go, as long as he gives notice to everybody and have it issued by the clerk. My -- my major concern always is that everybody receive due Page 47 December 17, 2001 process and that every party presenting their case before you have the right to have all the necessary witnesses that are relevant to his or her case present evidence. I wouldn't want to see you forge ahead and close the hearing without having given the opportunity for the respondent to get all the necessary witnesses here to testify so that you've got a full and complete picture before you make a decision. Now, how we get those witnesses here is the procedural issue that probably we need a legal interpretation on. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have no guarantee, if we continue this case to a later date, that these people will even show up. MS. RAWSON: That's always the case in court proceedings. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. RAWSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's no different than it is today. He's not here, and there's no way to guarantee he's going to be here next time. MS. RAWSON: There's never a way to guarantee that he's going to be here. But I think, if ! understood Mr. Whitt, what he said to you is that he would like the opportunity to go to the court to issue -- to have him show cause why he shouldn't be held in contempt for not having appeared here pursuant to subpoena, anticipating that the county will then come in and say, well, you didn't have the right to, you know, issue the subpoena, and then a court of law is going to make a determination about how the subpoena should have, should not have been issued and try to force the appearance of the necessary witness. MR. WHITT: If-- if at this point I can -- can clarify our position or -- based upon what the county has stated, we're not itching to be a test case. I don't want to take the money from these good people to have to go into court and pursue a petition to get a court order compelling them to appear. And possibly this may be a way to Page 48 December 17, 2001 resolve the issue. We're amenable to continue this hearing to your next hearing date. We'll now move this board for an order directing that the subpoenas be issued in the appropriate form for the witnesses that we seek to have present for our case. We'll then serve those subpoenas, which I think addresses the concern and the objection of the county that you-all have to give it your blessing for the subpoenas to be proper. That's fine. At the next hearing if the witnesses are here, we'll be ready to proceed. If the witnesses are not here, we will again move this board to continue the hearing. We're not going to have, then, the procedural issue with respect to the ordinance on who can and who cannot issue the subpoenas. Clearly, then, we'll have a witness who is not honoring a subpoena issued by you or directed to be issued by you and issued by the clerk and properly served upon that witness. Then, in that event, I'll file a petition in circuit court. And there is a way to ensure that that witness will appear before this board, and it's called a contempt proceeding and a writ of bodily attachment. If the judge finds someone in contempt of court for not honoring a subpoena, that person can be arrested. They can be held, and they can come in here with an orange suit on and handcuffs and stand where I'm standing to be questioned by the respondents in this case. So eventually we will have the witnesses before this board that we need. It just may be a long, tedious process to get there. But it may not. Next month they may honor the subpoena, and this may all become moot. And someone else can fight another day about the procedures and who can have the subpoenas issued. MS. DUSEK: I have a question for you. You subpoenaed I don't know how many people, but there are two that you subpoenaed who are not here? MR. WHITT: That is correct. We subpoenaed five witnesses. One is out of state. Two are present, and two have not responded. Page 49 December 17, 2001 MS. DUSEK: All right. Now -- MR. WHITT: Have not responded to inquiries trying to contact them. Now I understand why with at least one of them. MS. DUSEK: My question, I guess, to our counsel is next -- let's say we continue it to next month. Now, the two that were not here today show up, two others don't, and this could go on forever. MS. RAWSON: Well, I think at that point in time the respondent's attorneys will have to determine whether or not they are willing to proceed without the other witnesses, who's really essential to their case. I mean, those are decisions that -- that I can't make for them, and I don't really know because you haven't heard the evidence. But, you know, the attorneys for the respective sides of this case know very well who they think is truly necessary to give testimony to you so that you get the complete picture. A lot of times in trial we'll subpoena more witnesses than we need, and we'll make a determination at the last minute if we're ready to proceed without a couple that are less essential than the ones that are there. So they'll have to make that call. MS. DUSEK: I still have a couple of more questions. If-- if that case happens, if we give a continuance to next month and the two that aren't here today show up and there are two that don't, then the attorney will say, well, those other two are very important to the case and we continue it another month and then it goes back and forth, who is important. Also, that's a concern of mine. Also, if-- MS. RAWSON: You'll have the same decision next month that you would have today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. RAWSON: And that is whether to grant it. MS. DUSEK: Yes, I understand. Also, with the scenario of finding them in contempt of court if they don't show up and if they do come here in an orange shoot -- suit, they still don't have to answer Page 50 December 17, 2001 questions; is that correct? MS. RAWSON: No, that's not correct. questions. MS. DUSEK: MR. PONTE: They do have to answer Okay. I'm a little concerned with the timetable, the protracted timetable, given that some of these witnesses may not be full-time residents and they return north in March, which is less than 90 days from now, it just seems -- unless we can get a statement from the witnesses or if we can hear the witnesses that are here, is that possible, get a written statement or hear them? MS. RAWSON: Well, you can do an evidence deposition, but there are other ways to present testimony to boards other than -- it's not a written statement. What it is is an evidence deposition where the county attorney is also present. Questions are asked, and everybody knows it's an evidence deposition because they won't really be here. You have an opportunity to read the deposition in advance, so there are other ways to do it. MR. WHITT: IfI could make -- make two points. First -- and I guess to address Miss -- is it Dusek? MS. DUSEK: Yes. MR. WHITT: -- your -- your concerns. If you order the subpoena to be issued, then it's, in effect, your subpoena. And I would think that this board had -- would have some concern with respect to its powers in enforcing the codes of Collier County that when you issue a subpoena and it's properly served that the witness is going to appear before you. That's very important for due process. That's very important to get to the truth. And, second, again, to allay your fear of if they show up and they don't show up and who's important -- and I'll note, as I said earlier, Joe McHarris, I was able to make contact with him. And instead of moving to continue because he was out of town, I Page 51 December 17, 2001 determined that at least with what I know today about the county's case, his testimony was not really important enough for me to come in and seek a continuance because he was out of town and could not honor the subpoena for today, okay. And we will make good-faith efforts to make that determination. For the first time I've been able to speak to a couple of the other witnesses. I'll talk with them again, and we'll make a determination: Is it important enough for them to be here? These two that aren't here, they're the important ones out of the five. So we would ask that you-all enter an order allowing the subpoenas to be issued. Again, let's say for the five, and then we'll make the determination with respect to who we feel we may need, if we need those other three. And we'll have those reissued by the clerk. We'll have the third subpoena served on these people for the new date, and we'll put off that issue of whether or not we end up having to go to circuit court for another day. And if they're here, we'll be ready to go at the next hearing, when all of the owners presumably or at least the majority of them will still be here. It is still in season. MR. WHITE: If I may, Mr. Chairman, just to clarify that those subpoenas that are being requested, if Mr. Whitt could specify to the board whether they're for both deposition and hearing. My reason for bringing this to your attention is that if they are as well for the depositions, then, perhaps, similar to today, having had an opportunity to discuss whatever it is that they believe they need to bring into evidence in their case, they'll be able to do so at deposition. They'll also at that point in time know whether the subpoenas lawfully issued through this board by the clerk are going to be honored or not, and that way they'll have a good-faith determination of whether those same witnesses will likely attend at hearing the next time we convene for this matter. Page 52 December 17, 2001 MR. WHITT: We're happy to do that, to subpoena them for deposition as well as the hearing, and then we can either present the deposition testimony if you feel that is sufficient. We may not even need them for the hearing, although we -- although we might. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Rawson, question: Procedural, I guess. The witnesses, since there's two of them, that aren't here, the alleged violations cover six sections of various ordinances. Based on what Mr. Whitt has said leads me to believe that these witnesses are limited in scope, by his admission. Could we proceed with the case and when we get to whatever point where now we need these people to cover whatever areas, at that point we then continue the case to the next meeting and get these people here? MS. RAWSON: Well, obviously, you as a board can do whatever you please. Procedurally, I would rather see you, if you -- if you're inclined to proceed with the case and then break for a continuance, I would rather see you, first of all, do as both attorneys have stipulated, issue the subpoenas so we get that out of the way. If you intend to go forward with the case today, then let the county present its case, and that -- at that point stop the proceedings so that the respondent can have his own day and his own -- get his witnesses here rather than stop in the middle of his case. Now, you may or may not want to do that because if you wait another 90 days to finish this case, you have to remember -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. MS. RAWSON: -- what happened today. Now, I know we'll have the court reporter's notes. You'll have to refresh your memory. I think if you're going to issue the subpoenas today, it probably is also a good idea to issue the subpoenas for the depositions. It might save you a lot of time in the future if both attorneys could sit down with these witnesses at a deposition and find out exactly what the testimony is going to be. It's been my experience as a litigator for Page 53 December 17, 2001 24 years that depositions aid everybody but mostly the fact finder because we save you a lot of time. Lots of times after depositions cases end up getting settled, too, not that I know that's going to happen in this case. But the -- the actual evidence that might have to be presented to you might be a lot less if there's depositions first. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Whitt, you were asking for a 90-day continuance or 30-day? MR. WHITT: No. At this point, based on the county's position, I believe a 30-day continuance to your next hearing is sufficient, presuming we can schedule the depositions, which I believe really shouldn't be that -- that much of a problem, and -- and have that witness appear at the next hearing. It's after that, the -- the need for a longer span of time is if we have to go to court to enforce the subpoenas, okay. The legal system does not move that quickly. We'll press it forward as quickly as we can. It just doesn't move that -- that quickly. But it all may become moot if these witnesses appear for the next regularly scheduled meeting; then we're ready to go at that time. MR. PONTE: The next meeting is January 24th. Is that a comfortable date? MR. WHITT: That's comfortable with me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let me ask a question because it's a road I want to explore so that we can move on, and I'll ask the county first. The subpoena issue aside, because I think we're going to handle that, what would the county's objection be, or is there one, if we were to proceed with the case today and let the county do its side totally and then continue to next month and let the respondent do his side? MS. BELPEDIO: We would prefer to try the case in its entirety. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. BELPEDIO: And, therefore, put off the court date, the Page 54 December 17, 2001 hearing until the next, if-- if we are even continuing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: Miss Rawson, I have a question. We can accept depositions. We don't have to have the witness here; is that correct? MS. RAWSON: It depends. If it's an evidence deposition or if it's a deposition just for discovery purposes and then, of course, the witness still appears. Attorneys do depositions sometimes just to discover what the witness is going to say at the trial. And I believe that these were discovery depositions that were requested initially. You just want to know what the witness is going to say before they say it. In some instances, we use evidence depositions when people are out of town or it would be impossible for them to be in front of you on the day of the hearing. In that case the sides usually would stipulate and agree that it's an evidence deposition, and it is the same as if the testimony is presented to you live. Now, I don't want to speak for either one of these attorneys. I have no idea whether they are -- intend to do discovery depositions or if they intend to present to you evidence depositions. That's their call, but that's the difference. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. At the same time we have to remember that whatever the deposition is, if the board comes up with a question and that person isn't here, we have no way to get the answer. MS. RAWSON: That is correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Because -- MS. RAWSON: It -- it -- it's different if we had a judge than if we have all seven of you sitting there because, you know, according to the county ordinance, you have the right to ask the witnesses questions, and all of you do. If you are -- have an evidence deposition and all you have is the transcript, you're not able to do that. Mr. Flegal is -- is correct. Page 55 December 17, 2001 MS. DUSEK: Now, another question: If we give the okay for the subpoenas, if we vote yes, go through with your subpoenas, and next month those witnesses -- some of them don't show up and they've been subpoenaed, does that mean that we automatically then have to follow taking them to court -- not us, but the attorneys, filing in court for contempt of court or whatever procedure they have to follow? Does it automatically follow that? MS. RAWSON: It's not automatic, No. MS. DUSEK: Or could we say, well, we've given you 30 days, your witnesses didn't show up, we're going to hear the case then? MS. RAWSON: It's basically if you issue the subpoena, it's going to be your call whether or not you're going to be offended because they didn't come when you subpoenaed them. MS. DUSEK: So we do have the opportunity to say -- MS. RAWSON: Sure. MS. DUSEK: -- if they aren't here, we can go ahead with the case. MS. RAWSON: It will be your decision. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let's do it. One at a time, the first item being, does the board want to issue -- order the issuance of subpoenas for -- and you'll have to give me the names of how many ever people are involved. And, Miss Rawson, what else did we want, the depositions to be included? Was that the other item? MS. RAWSON: Well, that's up to the attorneys. I -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: If they want the depositions included, I don't have a problem with it. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, should we vote first on whether or not to grant a continuance? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, let's first issue the subpoenas, get that over with. Then we'll decide if we're going to let it continue. Page 56 December 17, 2001 MR. LEHMANN: If we do not issue a continuance and hear the case, what is the good of the subpoenas? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I'm basing this on the fact that the county says they want to do everything together, and it seems the respondent is -- says this is very pertinent to his case. So I'm trying to, I guess, give everybody the -- the best rights they have. It looks like we're -- I don't know any way to say it but straight out. There's not a lot of choice in granting this continuance. Due process, I think, would probably be amiss and -- which would make it possibly subject to appeal. So we're -- we're -- I'm not saying we're backed into a corner, but I think in all due judgment, we're probably better off to wait another 30 days. MR. LEHMANN: I was just bringing up a point of order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I mean, that's the way I thought I'd just go about it. I don't have any objection to doing it the other way. MR. WHITE: If it would be helpful, Mr. Chairman, the county would stipulate to the witnesses and to the depositions or to the deponents that the respondent's attorney would request. MR. LEHMANN: Would you repeat that, sir. MS. DUSEK: I didn't follow that. MR. WHITE: We're going to stipulate to whoever they ask. MS. DUSEK: I'm sorry? MR. WHITE: We'll stipulate to whoever it is they ask for -- MS. DUSEK: Okay. MR. WHITE: -- both with respect to depositions and hearing. MR. LEHMANN: One last question, Mr. Chairman. Are you considering subpoenas for solely these five witnesses they had spoken of earlier, or are you considering subpoenas of the property owners as well? Make sure that all parties are here? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They haven't asked -- they haven't Page 57 December 17, 2001 issued, to my knowledge, subpoenas and haven't asked for subpoenas for the property owners. I don't know that this board needs the property owners -- off the top of my head, I think from their case the respondents want these five people. I don't see the need for the board to ask for subpoenas for anybody else at this time. MS. DUSEK: I would agree with that. MR. LEHMANN: Just clarification. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think the subpoenas should be for all five, not for the two that didn't show up. That way they're all on notice, and if they don't show up, then we don't have this problem next time. MR. WHITE: That's precise. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. That's precisely the point we were discussing with MS. Arnold. And kind of to get back to where we started from when MS. Cruz was looking to take the roll of respondents, if we can have that and have them state on the record that they'll waive notice, they'll certainly save the county the time and expense of having to individually mail them again another notice of the continuance of this hearing, and we'll only deal with those folks who are, quote, not present today as respondents. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: As to that standpoint, when we get to that stage, I would agree with that on the notice. So let's -- let's take up the subpoena first. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, my only concern is that we've continued this case twice already. I don't relish the -- the idea of continuing it again today, if we can take whatever action that is within our power to try to ensure that that we can actually hear the case under due process, and I think that we should do that, whatever those actions may be. MS. DUSEK: Did I understand you to say that you do not want to continue the case? Page 58 December 17, 2001 MR. LEHMANN: No. I said that I -- I said that we have already granted -- MS. DUSEK: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: -- a continuance already before coming here today. Respondents have requested another continuance, so this -- if we grant this continuance, it would be the second time. I would actually like to hear this case and get it taken care of so that whatever we do today, I would request that the board -- that we take whatever action would be necessary to try to ensure to the greatest ability that we have all parties here so that we could actually conduct a hearing the next time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: I know we don't have assurances, but we take the appropriate procedures that we can. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If we issue subpoenas for these five people, if my understanding is correct -- Miss Rawson can correct me -- next meeting if these five people, one or all, are not here, we can then make the determination to proceed. If the respondents' attorneys object, we can make note of that and proceed anyway. That's our deal because they're our subpoenas. Is that right, Miss Rawson? MS. RAWSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So we have assurances that if we issue these requests for subpoenas and grant a continuance that at our next meeting, should one or all fail to be here, we can then hear the respondents' motion to do whatever and at that time say, "Sorry. We're going to do it today, and that's the way it is." does that satisfy you? MR. LEHMANN: Yes, sir. MS. DUSEK: I like that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Back to -- I guess what we need is a motion for the issuance of subpoenas for whatever these Page 59 December 17, 2001 five names are; is that correct, Miss Rawson? MS. RAWSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Bobby. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we ask for subpoenas of the five people that the respondent has mentioned in their case. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Whitt, for -- for the record, would you please state the names of the five people and any other pertinent information that the county or the clerk would need to fill those subpoena requests? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you need more than just their appearance, sir? Do you want depositions? MR. WHITT: Yes, we would like depositions. MS. DUSEK: I include with that motion depositions. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What type depositions? MR. WHITT: Discovery depositions. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: All right. ! include that in the motion. MR. WHITT: First would be Joe McHarris, M-c-H-a-r-r-i-s; next, Thomas Kuck, K-u-c-k; Bob Mulhere, M-u-l-h-e-r-e; Wayne Arnold, A-r-n-o-l-d; and Chahram -- I'll spell the first name too -- C-h-a-h-r-a-m, Badamtchian, B-a-d-a-m-t-c-h-i-a-n. MR. LEHMANN: And you will provide whatever pertinent information the clerk needs to fill those subpoenas? MR. WHITT: Yes. We will prepare the subpoenas and have them delivered to the clerk for issuance and service -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. WHITT: -- upon the five witnesses. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that subpoenas be issued for these five people's presence and discovery depositions. Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. Page 60 December 17, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: further question? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) We have a motion and a second. Any All in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The motion carries. MS. DUSEK: I also make a motion that we continue the case to our next meeting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion to grant a continuance to our next meeting which is January -- MR. PONTE: 24th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- 24th. Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to grant a continuance to our next meeting of January 24th. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That closes our public hearings. MS. CRUZ: Do they waive -- waive notice? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. I'd like the respondents' attorneys to waive notice so that we can speed up the process. MR. LEHMANN: Do we need to open the hearing again? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. MR. WHITT: On behalf of the condominium association, as their counsel, we will waive notice. We, however, do not represent the other respondents, the individual respondents. So I believe that's why they had requested a roll call, for that purpose. Page 61 December 17, 2001 MR. LEHMANN: If you have respondents that are present, may we ask that they either waive or do not waive at this point in time? MR. WHITT: We do not represent them. On behalf of the association, our client, we do waive. Those individual owners that are here, you'll need to do roll call and -- and get their waiver. MR. LEHMANN: Jean, do we have that right to do that? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. Miss -- Miss Arnold, would do you a roll call or somebody do a roll call. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: How many respondents are here? Let me ask that question, please. MS. ARNOLD: If they could just one by one get up here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. It would be easier than calling the roll. If you could come up one at a time, just give us your name, and we'll check it off. What we're asking you to do, rather than the county mail you another letter saying we're going to have a hearing January 24th of 2002, since you're here, you're now understanding that we're going to have that hearing, and you're accepting that as notice. That's what we're -- all we're asking you to do, nothing else. Yeah. Just in case, please spell your name so the court reporter can have it. MR. MR. of notice. MR. be here. MR. MR. MR. MR. MS. NADER: I'm Fredrick Nader, N-a-d-e-r, and I agree. DEVORE: Jim Devore, D-e-v-o-r-e, and I waive the right PALLADINO: Anthony Palladino, P-a-l-l-a-d-i-n-o. I'll SMITH: SMITH: ALLEN: GAVIN: GAVIN: Joseph Smith. I waive the right. Peter Smith, S-m-i-t-h, and I waive notice. Jim Allen, A-l-l-e-n. Daniel Gavin, G-a-v-i-n. I agree. Diane Gavin, G-a-v-i-n. I agree. Page 62 December 17, 2001 MS. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. ROTH: Edna Roth, R-o-t-h. I agree. MASSEY: Robert Massey, M-a-s-s-e-y. I agree. PETITTI: Cecil Petitti, P-e-t-i-t-t-i. I agree. GODE: Larry Gode, G-o-d-e. I agree. CLEYN: Frank Cleyn, C-l-e-y-n. I agree. ALDERMAN: Gary Alderman, A-l-d-e-r-m-a-n. I agree. MR. HILLMAN: Richard Hillman, H-i-l-l-m-a-n, representing Gail Hillman. I agree. MR. COWELL: Charles Cowell, representing my wife Carol. I agree. THE COURT REPORTER: Spell your name, please. MR. COWELL: C-o-w-e-l-1. THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. Next item, new business, request for imposition of fines. MS. RAWSON: Before we get there, Mr. Chairman, I just want the county attorney's office to -- to note that all of the people that are respondents did not respond to the roll call, so there might be some notices we have to send. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. We are aware of that. MR. WHITT: May I inquire? Will that be at nine o'clock? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. Nine o'clock in the morning in this room. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's see. These belong to Jennifer. Okay. MS. ARNOLD: enforcement director. Okay. For the record, Michelle Arnold, code The first case that is on your agenda for imposition of fines is Board of County Commissioners versus Wendell L. Kramer, Salvator F. Angileri, and Salvator Crech. This case was heard by the board on August 23rd. At that time Page 63 December 17, 2001 the board found the respondents in violation and ordered them to correct the violation by replacing all the dead vegetation and hydroseeding the retention area and maintain the vegetation in perpetuity. They ordered the respondent to do so by November 23rd, 2001, or fines of $50 per day would be imposed. They also ordered that the respondent pay operational costs. We are at this time entering in the affidavit of noncompliance and ask that the board impose fines in the amount of $850 for the period reflecting November 23rd through December 10th, 2001, plus costs for $483.30. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a request for the imposition of fines. Do I hear a motion? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion. MR. LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and second to impose the fines as requested. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. ARNOLD: ! -- I just wanted to note for the record that the -- Mr. Angileri and Mr. Salvator are present. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Do you want to proceed? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. The next case is Board of County Commissioners versus Ricky L. Bell. That was Case No. 2001-078. The case was heard on September 27, 2001. At that time the board found there to be a violation and ordered the respondent to come into compliance by November 27th. Mr. Bell was at your last hearing and requested a continuance. The board did not grant that ex -- extension of compliance. And at Page 64 December 17, 2001 this time we are requesting that the board impose fines in the amount of $325 for the period reflecting November 23rd, 2001, through December 10th, 2001, and an additional $425.02 for costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a request for the imposition of fines against Mr. Bell. MR. PONTE: So moved. MS. GODFREY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose such fines. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next. MS. ARNOLD: The next is Board of County Commissioners versus Sidney John Hubschman, Case No. 2001-080. This case was heard before the board on October 25th, and the respondent was found in violation. The board ordered that the respondent remove all prohibited exotics within 21 days or by November 16th, 2001. The board further ordered that the respondent pay fines in the amount of $50 per day in the event that they did not remove vegetation by November 16th and ordered the respondent to pay operational costs. Staff is now entering in the affidavit of noncompliance and request that the board impose fines in the amount of $1,250 for the period reflecting November 17th through December 10th and an additional $325.20 for operational costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a request for the imposition of fines for Mr. Hubschman. Do I hear a motion? MR. LEHMANN: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All Page 65 December 17, 2001 in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Old business. Any opposed? Fine. MS. ARNOLD: We have no old business. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do we have the rules and regulations? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. We -- we have them here to be signed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what we need. Have they been approved by us, but we need to sign them? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you bring them to us, please, we'll sign them. Since we have seven people here, let's accomplish that. MR. PONTE: Just sort of as an aside while we're waiting for that, is there any way we can take -- I feel like a traffic cop here. We've continued the Blocker case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MR. PONTE: And that -- to the next session. And we've continued the Manatee case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MR. PONTE: Until the next section. Both of them are pretty hefty. Is there any way we can say, all right, maybe we'll continue the Blocker case to February? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we've done that once, and he had a request for a continuance. Unless they request for a continuance, I don't see us just automatically moving it out. We -- we granted a continuance until the next meeting. I think at this point we have to -- MR. PONTE: Blocker wasn't here, was he? MS. RAWSON: Mr. Ponte, I do -- I do appreciate your concern, and I will tell the board that Mr. Spiller indicated to me last week Page 66 December 17, 2001 when he called and told me he was making this request that he thought it was a three- or four-hour hearing. MR. PONTE: I think we have to take some notice of that. MS. RAWSON: Well, we thought today was going to be a three- or four-hour hearing too. MR. PONTE: Next time it will be. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Biased on -- based on Mr. Blocker's letter, which he seems to think that the case shouldn't even be here, I think at this point we need to let him do his next thing, whatever that may be, come to this board and either request that it be thrown out, continued, or whatever, rather than just automatically say, oh, by the way, we're going to give you an extra 30 days. I understand your concern, but I think at this point we have to accept that. The only other thing that might be done is since those two cases -- three cases, really, are there, maybe staff could see that that might be the only three cases on our agenda for our next meeting rather than -- MS. ARNOLD: Putting any more. Sure, that would be no problem. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That would help. And that way if-- because I suspect the Manatee will probably be a -- long and drawn out. So if Blocker goes, we'll probably need most of the day, so I think staff could help us from that standpoint. MS. DUSEK: Also, I just wanted to say that this is an awful lot of material. And unless there's some addition to it, shouldn't we just save what you've given us? MS. ARNOLD: Please do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Rather than have it recopied, I think everybody just hang onto it, read through it like you've been doing. MS. DUSEK: Unless there's something different that needs to be added, we'll just -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. What we'll be sending to you with Page 67 December 17, 2001 respect to the Manatee case is all the notice of hearing that we sent out for all the property owners that weren't present today and then if there is any additional information -- we'll probably send a notice of hearing, since Mr. Spiller wasn't here to waive those -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. ARNOLD: -- that hearing notice. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And if the county gets any -- MS. ARNOLD: Additional packets. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- depositions or whatever from the other side or if they get anything, we'd like those, in accordance with our rules and regulations, before the meeting. Otherwise we're going to have to take time out and read through all that. And if they get five depositions, that's not a five-minute deal so -- MS. RAWSON: You know, interesting about the depositions, I believe you said there were going to be -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Discovery depositions. MS. RAWSON: --just discovery depositions. And if they're going to be given to you, then it would be up to the respondent's attorney to submit them in his packet, which he has to do ten days before. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Any reports of any type, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Comments? Next meeting is January 24th. MR. LEHMANN: Michelle, are we making any progress on workshops that we talked about? MS. RAWSON: How about January 24th? MR. PONTE: Yeah. MR. LEHMANN: Only if you can reserve the room for the Page 68 December 17, 2001 evening. MS. ARNOLD: We -- we're trying to come up with dates, and it's up to the board whether or not they want to have all the workshops held in this room or other -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's not required, is it, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: No, it's not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And if you-all could pass suggestions with respect to what you want to be -- what to be informed upon at the workshops, we could do that as well. And then I can better schedule workshops for you. MR. LEHMANN: Is it required to have -- excuse me. The workshops are open to the public. Is it required to have audio/visual feed into those workshops? Can we do it in any room? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. You can do it anywhere. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No other business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Everybody have a merry Christmas and happy new year. I'll take a motion to adjourn. MR. LEHMANN: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion. second? MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: aye. Do I hear a All those in favor signify by saying Thank you very much. Page 69 December 17, 2001 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:21 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RMR, CRR Page 70