Loading...
CEB Minutes 01/24/2002 RJanuary24,2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY NAPLES, FLORIDA, JANUARY 24, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:05 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Clifford Flegal Roberta Dusek George Ponte Diane Taylor Kathleen Curatolo Peter Lehmann NOT PRESENT: Kathryn M. Godfrey Darrin Phillips Rhona Saunders ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Jean Rawson, Attorney, Code Enforcement Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Patti Petrulli, Supervisor, Code Enforcement Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA AGENDA Date: Location: January 24, 2002 at 9:00 o'clock A.M. 3301 E. Tamiami Tr., Naples, Florida, Collier County Government Center, Administrative Bldg, 3rd Floor 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. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 29, 2001 & December 17, 2001 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BCC vs. Manatee Resort Condominium Association, Inc., Attn. Jim Allen, Ra. CEB NO. 2001-086 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. Dormer; 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 B. BCC vs. BLOCKER, CURTIS D., and BLOCKER Jr., CURTIS D CEB NO. IM2001-02 C. BCC VS. BLOCKER, CURTIS D., and BLOCKER Jr., CURTIS D CEB NO. IM2001-03 5. NEW BUSINESS Request for Imposition of Fines/Lien A. BCC vs BARRY, JOHN and SHEILA B. BCC vs. PORTAL, LEONARDO C. BCC vs. BERTELSEN, ERIC B. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Affidavits of Compliance I. BCC vs. BARRY, JOHN and SHEILA 2. BCC vs. PORTAL, LEONARDO 3. BCC vs. BERTELSEN, ERIC B. CEB NO. 2001-052 CEB NO. 2001-065 CEB NO. 2001-084 CEB NO. 2001-052 CEB NO. 2001-065 CEB NO. 2001-084 B. Request to modify Order 1. BCC vs. FERNANDEZ, FRANCISCO and ELOY. CEB NO.2001-032 7. REPORTS 8. COMMENTS. 9. NEXT MEETING DATE February 28, 2002 10. ADJOURN January 24, 2002 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Call the meeting of the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County to order. Please note, any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May I have the roll call, please? MS. PETRULLI: Good morning. Petrulli, supervisor, code enforcement. Mr. Clifford Flegal. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Here. MS. PETRULLI: Peter Lehmann. MR. MS. MS. MS. (No MS. MS. MS. MR. MS (No MS. (No MS. MS. LEHMANN: Present. PETRULLI: Roberta Dusek. DUSEK: Here. For the record, I'm Patty PETRULLI: Kathryn M. Godfrey· response.) PETRULLI: Diane Taylor. TAYLOR: Present. PETRULLI: George Ponte. PONTE: Here. · PETRULLI: Rhonda (sic) Saunders. response.) PETRULLI: Darrin Phillips. response.) PETRULLI: Kathleen Curatolo. CURATOLO: Here. MS. PETRULLI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Rhona has an excused absence. She Page 2 January 24, 2002 called and told me she wouldn't be here so ... We have five regular members so our alternate member -- Kathleen, you will participate this morning fully. Approval of our agenda. Are there any changes? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. For the record, Michelle Arnold, code enforcement director. I'm requesting that we move Item B under Old Business which is Board of County Commissioners versus Francisco and Eloy Fernandez, Code Enforcement Board Case 2001-032 up before the public hearings. It's a quick item. We have staff in the room. Rather than have them wait through the whole public hearing process, it would be appreciated if we could move that up first. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If not, I'd entertain a motion to accept the motion as changed. MR. LEHMANN: So moved. MS. TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the agenda as changed. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Approval of our minutes first from November 29th, are there any changes, corrections? If none, I would entertain a motion to accept the minutes as submitted. MS. DUSEK: So moved. MR. LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the November 29th minutes. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Page 3 January 24, 2002 (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Our minutes of December 17th, are there any changes or additions, corrections? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If none, I would entertain a motion to accept the minutes of December 17th as submitted. MS. DUSEK: So moved. MR. LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the December 17th minutes. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. We now open our public hearings. First item of business is the request to modify from Fernandez. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. This item was heard before the Code Enforcement Board on May 24th, 2001. It was a vegetation removal and then, in addition, to fill violation the board found the respondent in violation and ordered them to remove or to mitigate -- excuse me, wait. Excuse me. The board ordered them to obtain permits. At the time of the hearing, the respondent testified that they were going to be getting -- obtaining a building permit for this site. It was later found out that they could not obtain a building permit; therefore, they submitted a mitigation plan to staff and it was accepted. They've already planted the vegetation to do the same, and that's another alternative to coming into compliance. Because of the wording in the ordinance was specific to obtaining permits, we just want to clarify Page 4 January 24, 2002 the record to provide them an option to come into compliance; and then, therefore, we can certify that the -- the board's order has, in fact, been met. So we're requesting modification of that order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: My question would be, the violations that we found them in of Section 3.9.3 and 2.7.6.5, we don't have a copy of those in front of us. What are they? MS. ARNOLD: Susan, do you want to address that? MS. MASON: Good morning. For the record, my name is Susan Mason, environmental specialist with code enforcement. 3.9.3 is vegetation removal stating that you have to have a permit to remove. And I believe the 3.7.6.5 is beginning -- it's construction without permit since they did vegetation site improvement without permits -- vegetation removal in addition to fill. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So 2.7.6.5 is permits. Is that what you're saying? MS. MASON: Is -- yeah, permits -- site improvement without permit. MR. LEHMANN: Ms. Arnold, the implementation of a mitigation plan is an approved alternate for compliance on the code; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. Typically we've given them that option in some of our orders, but in this specific one, we just put permits in there, and I think it was mainly because the respondent indicated to the board that they were planning on building on the lot. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you. If the board has no objection, then, I would recommend that the -- our order be modified. Item 1 of our order said (as read): "Obtain all necessary permits within 120 days," which was back September 23rd of 2001. I would recommend that we change that wording to say, "Obtain all necessary permits within 120 days" -- before I continue let me ask a question. This is now January. Why are they Page 5 January 24, 2002 coming forth now? Has it -- since September? Because some fines have accrued or they just now find out or what's -- MS. ARNOLD: I think part of the delay was getting a response from the state and-- you know, obtaining all the vegetation and planting because they've already actually complied with the mitigation plan; is that correct, Susan? MS. MASON: In the original plan, they would need to go through all the state and federal permitting to get a building permit for the site. Circumstances had changed according to the consultant. They decided not to go that route. They wanted to do mitigation. They did not have the mitigation complete until December 5th, so it was after the deadline for compliance, but in my opinion they could have had the mitigation done by that original deadline if they wanted to because they -- they put in a total of 32 pine trees and 6 Sabal palms. It wasn't, like, a huge amount of vegetation that would require a long period of time to install. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: Fines -- fines imposed on this particular case run through October 5th; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: We did imposition of fines through October 5th, but the fines are still accruing. MR. LEHMANN: Until the December date that you had mentioned earlier? MS. ARNOLD: Well, we would have to do -- actually file the affidavit of compliance for that December 5th date because that's when they completed their mitigation. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson, do we -- do we have a problem amending an order, in essence, backdating it when you're to comply? MS. RAWSON: Well, we can either amend it nun pro tunc Page 6 January 24, 2002 which goes back to the June date in which it was issued -- if we did that, they would still owe the fines up until December the 5th. So I can just amend the order nun pro tunc back to the June date. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Then continuing, I would recommend to the board that we revise our Item 1 so that we add, "After obtaining all necessary permits within 120 days" -- obtaining all necessary -- "or submit and obtain a mitigation approval plan within the same period." I think that will get us what we want. MR. LEHMANN: Do we not want to push that back, instead of just submitting and obtaining the plan, has to complete the implementation of that plan? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I don't have a problem with that. Is that a motion? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we -- we amend the order to read, "To add mitigation plan, submitted and completed." CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to amend our order to add the submission of a mitigation plan, obtain approval and complete the mitigation. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Ms. Rawson, you will do the proper words? MS. RAWSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Next case, CEB 2001-086, Manatee Resort Condominium Association. MS. ARNOLD: I believe we have a request for continuance on Page 7 January 24, 2002 this particular item. The attorney's here. MR. WHITT: Good morning, board members. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good morning. MR. WHITT: For the record, I'm Michael Whitt with the law firm of Becker & Poliakoff representing the respondent, Manatee Resort Condominium Association. We have filed a motion for continuance in this case. You may recall last time we were here we had the case continued because we did not have our witnesses present. They did not honor the subpoenas that had been served upon them. There has now been a change in direction. We've been working with the county since the last hearing. One of the issues brought forth by the county is the fact that Manatee Resort was allegedly not properly licensed. Manatee Resort since that time has received a license from the State of Florida. It's in the process of getting its county occupational license, the state license being the first step to obtain the county occupational license. The second issue related to the size of the units at Manatee Resort. The parties had heretofore been unable to agree on the procedure to be utilized by the association in seeking a variance from the county commission on the unit size. We have now reached an agreement of sorts with the -- with the county, and an application has been filed by Manatee Resort to receive a variance from the county. We're currently in the process of trying to schedule a preapplication meeting with the county staff, and we will be moving that application through the process. If the variance is granted by the county then, from our standpoint, we do not believe there are any issues left for the board to consider, at least what was raised by the county and the Code Enforcement Board and its notice of violation. So based upon our discussions with the county and with county Page 8 January 24, 2002 staff, we have prepared this motion for continuance, and we have advised the witnesses that they did not need to be here today. We've reached an agreement with the county staff, that they have agreed to the continuance. Now, there is an issue and disagreement, and that is with respect to the length of time to continue this case. We have asked for a continuance of 90 days from today's date to allow the association ample time to move its application through the review process and ultimately have it brought before the Collier County Commission for them to consider and, hopefully, grant the variance. My understanding is the county objects to the 90-day continuance and would like to have this matter come back before the board on a 30- day cycle. That decision, ultimately, is up to the board. I've never seen anything going through county review and needing to go before the county commission be accomplished in 30 days. I don't think that a 90-day continuance is -- is really anything unreasonable for this board to grant. And really more for the sake of saving my client the expense of increased attorneys' fees with us having to deal with county staff and get status reports and report back to the county and prepare things for this board on a 30-day and 60-day cycle, we would ask that the -- this board grant us the 90-day continuance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Couple of points. Mr. White, do you have something to say? MR. WHITE: No, Mr. Chairman, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. You say your office and the county attorney's office told the witnesses not to show up? MR. WHITT: We agreed with the county, yes, that we -- since we obtained the license and the application had been filed which would render the case, from our standpoint -- and I don't know what the county's position is -- to render it moot, that there was no need to bring professionals in before the board today for no reason. So we Page 9 January 24, 2002 filed the motion, the county has no objection to that motion, and -- and the staff so ... CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Suggestion would be that since this board is the one who acts on your motion, we would be the ones to decide whether witnesses would show up or not, not the county attorney's office or you. MR. WHITT: Well, ultimately, it would be our decision whether or not to bring the witnesses in, not the county's position. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand, but if we don't grant this motion, you're going to proceed today. MR. WHITT: I understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. WHITT: I understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Secondly, I'm curious. You say you're going to get a variance on the room size. There was six violations. That's one of them. What happens to the other five? MR. WHITT: I believe that the issues related -- all six are really tied into the licensing and use. We may end up being -- I don't know if we're going to end up being back on this -- on this matter or not before this board with respect to the transient use. It's our position that we can't get a license from the State of Florida if we're not -- you can't get a hotel transient license from the State of Florida if the property is not hotel or transient use. So I believe that those issues related to transient occupancy, use as a hotel, improper licensure or lack of licensure, et cetera, have been resolved by us obtaining a license. We provided that license to the county. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions from any other board members? MS. DUSEK: I have a question, I guess, for the county, and that is the change of use. It was originally considered to be a hotel. I have a question for you. Page 10 January 24, 2002 MR. WHITE: I'm sorry, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: The change of use for the Manatee Resort that was one of the violations brought forward, will that be satisfied in the fact that they'll get their license from the state and the occupational license from the county? MR. WHITE: I'd like to answer that in a bit of a roundabout way. I'm Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. We favorably responded to their request for the motion to continue because it's our belief that the policy of the Board of County Commissioners is to seek abatement of violations rather than to penalize property owners who are the respondents in the case. And based upon the fact that we had evidence that there was a good-faith effort being made to abate one or more of those violations, that at this point in time we would not object to the request for continuance because that was consistent with the overall policy of this process. This morning I was provided a copy of the State of Florida license that has been obtained by the respondents. That's a license purportedly for all of the units. One of the things we put in a letter that we sent to Mr. White yesterday was our concern about the fact that we hadn't had an opportunity to evaluate the actual practical effect of what this license is. Their contention, as I understand it, is that it will abate the violation with respect to both the use and our request that there be compliance with the laws demonstrating that the use is, indeed, one that's either hotel or transient-lodging facility. We have yet to make that factual determination, because as I mentioned a moment ago, I just obtained the license. It's going to require some further investigation on our part. But the primary reason why we're not objecting is because-- in our opinion, the keystone issue is, indeed, at this point one that revolves around the maximum square footage of the room size. And that is the thing that they're -- and I know that they have filed an application for, paid the fee, and the Page 11 January 24, 2002 association has gone the distance to be designated as the agent for all of the other unit owners as respondents. So we're assured that they're moving through that process. And long way around to an answer of your question, I'm also going to use it as an opportunity to counter the point about the 90-day stay. Our perspective is that if we are entitled to come back to you next month and each month thereafter at your meetings and provide you with a status check, that will deal with the concern that the respondents have about having to bring all of their witnesses through subpoena, all of the respondents, themselves here from other jurisdictions and other destinations. We will only have a, quote, "status check," where we will be able to assure this board that it's the county's position that, as I mentioned, the goal here is to abate. So long as these respondents are proceeding in a reasonable and diligent manner to do that, we will not ask that the case be prosecuted. If we have any evidence that they are failing to do so, we're going to come to you at that status check and say, "This is what we would like to do next month," meaning 30 days from now, status check. So there would be time for them to get their witnesses in, to have the respondents themselves appear, and there would be no wasting of either this board's time, the respondents' time or the county's. And I think that's an efficient way to do this, but certainly we need your approval to do that, and we'd request that we have monthly status checks -- MS. DUSEK: Okay. Just let me kind of summarize what you just said so that I understand. If they get the variance, if after you review the state license -- and what it actually means -- and if it meets your satisfaction, then everything will have been abated; is that correct -- MR. WHITE: I believe that they're -- MS. DUSEK: -- if those two things take place? Page 12 January 24, 2002 MR. WHITE: I believe that they're sufficiently linked, that if they obtain the state license and our due diligence determines that they are in possession of a license that represents and requires them to use it as a transient-lodging facility or a hotel -- I think it's more likely the former -- then we will agree that that violation has been abated, that that aspect of the violation has been abated. That will allow them to obtain their county occupational license. They will not be able to get their county occupational license, my understanding is, until such time as first the state license, indeed, but as well the idea that the violation of the zoning district, that with respect to the room size itself has been abated as well. Because you have to have good zoning, if you will, in order to obtain a county occupational license. MS. DUSEK: So if both of those are satisfied, then, there is no reason to prosecute; is that correct? MR. WHITE: I believe that that's true. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Interesting concept. Problem is, what you're doing is you want to come back to this board on a monthly basis, hypothetically, from what you're saying, give us a status report. First of all, we haven't heard the case yet, so all you can do is come back and ask for a continuance for some reason, but you're placing this board in a position of being -- I'm not sure that you can put violations against anybody, put them on and then every month just keep coming back asking for a continuance while you're trying to work out an abatement process that you should have worked out before you even put it on our docket. I'm confused. Why do you want us to just sit here and keep continuing cases forever and ever while you try to work out a deal with somebody? MR. WHITE: Certainly it's not a case where we're looking to have anything continued for forever. I think there's a precise time line. It may not be known down to the level of detail of which day it would be that the board would ultimately have to hear and decide the Page 13 January 24, 2002 variance case, but I think it's on a time line that's predictable. Our concern is that it's not just the variance alone that they must abate. There is the whole notion of the use as well. And so long as we're satisfied that that use is one that's consistent with our site development plan, then we're not going to look to prosecute that aspect of the case. If we reach the conclusion, say, within the next 30 days that they have not, I will be before you next month requesting that the following month, that being in March, that we go to hearing on that issue, certainly. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess my problem is, came in November, asked for continuance, came in December. Now you're back in January. This case -- you issued the violation notice, I believe, in August and brought it to us on our docket in November. August, September, October-- three months, where based on the last four and a half years I've been here, the county has tried to work out these problems for as long as two years. All of a sudden you plop a case before us in three months, two months down the road and now you're saying, "Well, just keep putting it on, and we'll continue it from month to month until we get it resolved." I have a little problem with that. MR. WHITE: I -- I understand your concern. I can tell you if we had acquiescence from the respondents the first time that they'd asked us what it would be that they could do to resolve this case, we likely would have not brought it before you in the first place. As Mr. Whitt has indicated to you, there's been a change in direction, as he put it, and we're here seeking to accommodate that change in direction with the belief that that's in the best interests of the county overall. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Anything from your side? Are you both done trying to convince us? MR. WHITT: Only, let me -- let me just address the issue of Page 14 January 24, 2002 how this case has progressed and continuances. And it is true, we came in the first time having pretty short notice before the first hearing with all of the owners being named, many of them being out of state, trying to respond and deal with the issues, and you graciously gave us that time. We came forth on a rescheduled hearing trying to present the case. If you recall from the last hearing, we had this whole issue on who had the authority and the ability to issue subpoenas for witnesses. We had them issued by the Clerk of Courts. We had the witnesses subpoenaed, but they didn't show up. Okay. That was our problem last time. We were here ready to go. Okay. The witnesses did not honor the subpoenas. We had you issue them. There was a slight problem we had with the county in getting this abated or worked out months ago, and that was, they required the respondents to stipulate to the violations. That's a pretty onerous condition which the respondents, the owners, and the association were not willing to do. That condition of us having to plead guilty has been dropped. We have said from day one, we'll try to obtain a variance, and we'll obtain the license, but the county's position is, you must plead guilty, you must stipulate to the violations. That now being dropped, we're moving forward. We've gotten-- we've received a license from the state, and we have filed the application. Not we're going to, it is filed. We're diligently trying to work out a date to meet on the preapplication meeting so ... MS. DUSEK: Mr. Whitt, when did you apply for the license from the state? MR. WHITT: January 2nd, I believe. MS. DUSEK: And why did you wait until January 2nd when this case was brought to you or this violation was brought to you months ago? Did you feel it was because you were correct -- MR. WHITT: Absolutely. We -- we do not believe that we Page 15 January 24, 2002 need to obtain a license. There is an exemption under Florida law from licensure. We believe we meet the definitions for that exemption clearly and -- you know, with respect to the -- to the application for the variance, one of the issues -- I know you-all have seen it in the paper -- is the fact that the site development plan was approved by the county that has the specific square footage noted right on the face. You know, that is what has lead to Mr. Badamtchian's dismissal from the county, the big investigation, et cetera. Our position, you know, from a legal standpoint is, you can't come to us three years down the road and say you have violated this when the county itself approved it. So we believe from a legal standpoint we have -- we are not in violation. There are no violations. The county can't prove its case. But, again, from a cost standpoint to the client, at what price glory. Easier to go out and get the license, easier to try to pursue the variance if we can work these issues out with the county. That's where we are right now. That's why we would like you-all to grant the continuance today and let us move this through the process. The ball's in the county's court now on the -- on the variance issue. And, again, you-all know that the wheels of the county's process grind pretty slowly so we would ask that we come back in 90 days. MS. DUSEK: One more question. MR. WHITT: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: When did you start the process for the variance? MR. WHITT: That was about two or three weeks ago as well, I believe. Mr. White has been handling that. Was it Tuesday? I know we've been in touch with the staff. The application was submitted this -- this past week. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Anything else from either attorney? MR. WHITE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, just kind of a procedural Page 16 January 24, 2002 thing. It's obvious that from the last hearing we had, as Mr. Whitt had mentioned, the notion of his motion to dismiss and I just need to put on the record that if you're going to favorably consider that request for motion to continue today, that it would toll the motion with regards to the dismissal. MR. WHITT: We have no objection to that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't remember seeing a motion to dismiss. MR. WHITE: That was from the last month's hearing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't have it. So if nothing's been submitted to the board, as far as I'm concerned, there isn't one. MS. ARNOLD: It's in the brown packet like this (indicating). MR. WHITE: It's just a minor housekeeping matter. MR. LEHMANN: I haven't received that packet. MR. WHITT: It was not a separate motion, Mr. Chairman. It was -- it was part of our response that we had filed before. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't remember any motion to dismiss or we'd have acted on it when it was submitted, so that's the way we do it. Motion -- we take motions as they're submitted. I never saw a, quote, "motion to dismiss." If that was just a sentence in a response, it means absolutely nothing as far as I'm concerned. It was not a motion. MR. WHITT: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, if I could address one further point. If the board does grant this unopposed motion for continuance today, we would ask that it be part of the board's order that the subpoenas remain in force. The witnesses were not released from their subpoenas. They were advised that the matter was likely going to be continued today. We had an unopposed motion. We had an agreement with the county. So we don't have to come back to have you reissue subpoenas and have them served and go through Page 17 January 24, 2002 that whole rigamarole again. So we can notify them by letter and by telephonic contact of a new date if we have to come back. I hope we do not, but if we have to come back before the board for an evidentiary hearing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: do? Ms. Rawson, is that something we can MS. RAWSON: Yes, it is. As a matter of fact, it's a good idea because you are the ones who issued the subpoenas, as you will recall, and rather than reissue the subpoenas, if the subpoenas remain in force and effect, all we have to do then is notice the witnesses if this case has to go to trial. MR. WHITE: And, Mr. Chairman, the county's perspective on that with respect to the status checks is the idea that we would seek is that that would afford a 30-day advance notice, if you will, of the need to have those subpoenas reserved and to have any of the respondents make the necessary travel arrangements to be present for hearing 30 days thereafter. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess my big problem is falling into something that could get to be a habit, that a case gets put on our docket, somebody asks for a motion to continue, and then all of a sudden we keep continuing and continuing. We haven't heard this case yet. All we've done is -- this will be the third continuance, and then you want to come back in 30 or 60 days or 90 days and possibly, if it's not resolved, ask for another continuance. If you're going to put a case on our docket, let's hear it. If there's a continuance for some extraordinary reason, I understand it. But I don't like this board being put in a position of, on a monthly basis, somebody getting up and saying, "Well, things are going well, but we'd like to continue another 30" -- that's not why we're here. That's -- that's not our purpose. It's to hear a case, make a decision, issue an order. I mean, we could hear this case today and hypothetically issue the order, it be resolved Page 18 January 24, 2002 in 90 days, however, and now we're done with it. Come 90 days, if it's not complied with, we start fining people. Now we're going to possibly continue it for 90 days. I just think that's a bad habit for this board to get in and really a bad habit for the county to start asking. That's just a personal opinion. MR. WHITE: I don't disagree with your assessment or your perception, but unfortunately in the interests of achieving what is the overall policy goal of abating violations in as efficient a manner as possible, because of the fact that this case got as far down the tracks as it did, we don't have any alternative at this point. And I would just mention that it's not atypical for judicial hearings to be continued and to not have, if you will, circumstance exist where the state would withhold in the prosecution of a case. And if you want to look at that analogy, all we're asking you to do is to allow us the opportunity to assure that the policy goal is achieved, the violations are abated. If we make the determination that that is not the case, we will be before you, and we will prosecute the case on those violations that are not abated. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that. My problem is that our time -- MR. WHITE: Our process under the Land Development Code allows this to occur. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that. MR. WHITE: And they have the right to ask for it, and they have. And I understand that it may not sit well with this board, and I apologize for that. And certainly my preference is to not have our staff and our office be geared up to hear a case and then kind of step back. It's not an economical use of resources, and that's why I'm suggesting the wisdom, hopefully, of a status check which would allow us to precisely focus on when we're going to have a hearing if one is Page 19 January 24, 2002 required. MS. DUSEK: I want to reflect on what Cliff has said. The respondent knew last month that -- some things that you needed to do, possibly the license and possibly the variance. The only issue brought before us was to give a subpoena for witnesses. No other issue was discussed. I would think at that time it should have been in your head that you would probably have to do the variance and the license and not wait until January 2nd or last Tuesday.. That's the part that bothers me, the fact that we have to continue the process, and I understand that our goal is to abate, but I do reflect the feelings of the chairman. MR. WHITT: Ms. Dusek, let me -- let me address that point. I think maybe there is some misconception there. We know-- we knew from day one what the alleged violations were. That's a given. We knew on day one we could pursue a variance. We knew we could pursue obtaining a license. The problem is in going through that process with the county's condition of having to plead guilty to the violations. Okay. So it has not been until very recently, well after the last hearing that that condition has been dropped by the county and we have said, fine. And this does not come without expense to the respondents. Our position, Ms. Dusek, was we are not going to spend attorneys' fees and valuable dollars in preparing a case to defend ourselves before this board and spend money on a parallel track to pursue licensure from the state and from the county and to pursue a variance with that kind of condition from the county. We're not going to spend double the money. Okay. When the county has dropped that condition, we said, "Fine. We can now not have to spend all the fees in defending ourselves before this board. We will gear up. We'll go through the administrative process to try to obtain the licensure and get the variance." MS. CURATOLO: I have a question. Page 20 January 24, 2002 MR. WHITT: That is how this matter proceeded to date. MS. CURATOLO: I have a question for the county. MR. WHITT: Yes, ma'am. MS. CURATOLO: Exactly when was this condition dropped and why? MR. WHITE: It's never, quote, unquote, "been dropped." We are not looking at this as a, quote, "condition or a stipulation." We look at it as the manner in which we choose to prosecute a case, and what we're looking at is, there is now evidence in the form of a filed application, in the form of a license, that demonstrates a willingness and desire and actual action to abate. That, we believe, is sufficient at this point in time to not object to what they have the right to ask for under the code which is, if you will, a motion to continue. So we're not looking at this as the county isn't going to prosecute the case, nor are we looking at it as they're required to, quote, "prove themselves guilty" and state that they are guilty. We'll be able to demonstrate that, if not to this board's satisfaction, then certainly to some appellate court. That's our position. And rather than choose to have a battle before you-- the respondents have acquiesced to what it is they need to do to abate the violation. In our opinion, that is consistent with what it is as the overall best utilization of this process and the county resources as well as the notion that we're not looking to, quote, "penalize property owners." We're looking to have them, just like everyone else, comply with the law. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for the attorneys? MR. PONTE: In light of what we've heard here this morning, I'd like to make a motion that the continuance be granted and be granted for 90 days. MR. WHITE: Is it your understanding as part of the motion, Mr. Ponte, that in 90 days we would again have to consider, if we Page 21 January 24, 2002 were not sufficiently far along through the variance process, another motion to continue at that time? MR. PONTE: Yes. MR. WHITE: We would not have to be prepared for a hearing per se? That's -- that's the point I'm trying to avoid. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: A continuance means that instead of hearing it today, in 90 days we're going to hear it, unless you ask for a continuance for another period of time. I'll tell you up front, I would not recommend. I'm not for this continuance, and I'm not for any more. I see absolutely no reason not to proceed, but I have a motion on the floor. I'm just warning you what's down the track. I would be against any other continuance. This case needs to be heard and disposed of, and then maybe whatever order we would issue would resolve the problems. But I'm not for just keeping this on the docket forever and ever. I think this case is real easy to resolve, but we have a motion on the floor. Is there a second or not a second? MS. DUSEK: Well, I would like to amend the motion to be 60 days and also within the motion, that the subpoenas stay in effect and in force at the same time, and that's the amendment. But I also want to make a comment, that I reflect the same feeling that the chairman has. MR. PONTE: I'm not arguing with the chairman's position, nor yours. I do think that 90 days, however, is a realistic timetable to get accomplished everything that must be accomplished; otherwise, we'll find ourselves right back here in 60 days. MR. WHITE: I assure you-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that, George, but if the county has an interest in seeing this abated, they can fast-track a variance. MR. WHITE: There's nothing that I'm aware of that I've been advised by staff that can assure us that this process will be completed Page 22 January 24, 2002 in 90 days, and I can tell you, that's because this case has to be heard by the Planning Commission and then by the Board of Zoning Appeals. It first has to be fully reviewed by staff, and as you've heard, we only received the application this past week, two days ago. In 90 days, I suggest to you, it's not sufficient time to achieve -- to achieve the objective of having had that variance heard and decided. MR. PONTE: So then neither is 30 days nor 60 days? MR. WHITE: That is correct, sir, but at least you would know 30 days from now whether they were continuing to apply for the variance in a diligent fashion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't think we need to know that. I think what we need to do is either hear the case or it gets disposed of, not every 30 days hear what's going on. That's a waste of our time. MR. WHITT: The county can also drop the case and come back on a new notice of violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that too. But, anyway, we have a motion, and it's been requested an amendment to add the subpoenas and reduce to 60 days instead of 90. George -- MR. PONTE: Certainly adding the subpoenas is agreeable to me, but I think it should be 90 days. I'd like that to stand at 90 days. MR. LEHMANN: I would agree with my colleague. Sixty days is just too short. MS. DUSEK: Well, in 60 days at least we would know where we stood, and they even said that 90 days is not going to make a difference. So I would rather hear sooner than later where this case stands. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MR. WHITE: I think-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: your I'd rather just hear the case but -- -- and get on with it. MR. WHITE: -- but I'm trying to accommodate, sir, your -- request to be as efficient as possible about this. My vision of Page 23 January 24, 2002 the notion of a status check is the respondents themselves need not appear unless by prior discussion with them they're going to agree to show and put whatever they need into the record then. We would merely tell you that it's the county's opinion that a status check for 30 days hence would be appropriate or not. We would either, in 30-day increments, tell you where we were in the process and whether we believed that we needed to go to hearing the following month or not on the matter of the use. MS. DUSEK: Well, let me ask you this. You've indicated that 90 days is not even a reasonable time. What would -- what would be a cutoff time? I mean, rather than have you report back each month, we can say that, all right, in 120 days we hear this case bar none. MR. WHITE: I -- I think you simply could consider the motion to continue to be one that would turn on the decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals with respect to the variance case if you choose to do so. It need not be a fixed number of days. It could be an event- specific continuance. I understand that may not sit favorably, but it is an option. Our-- our opinion was that by keeping you apprised on a 30-day basis, you'd know that the goal of this process was still being sought and was possible to achieve, or you would know that we had run its course and we were going to be before you to prosecute the case. MS. TAYLOR: I see nothing wrong with that. I see nothing wrong with that at all. MR. PONTE: It complicates the whole procedure. MS. TAYLOR: I don't think so. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It creates a very bad precedent. This board doesn't need a status report on any case that has not been heard by the board. This case has not been heard by the board. All it has been done is continuances requested. So to get any kind of a status on a case that's not been heard is, in my mind, a little ridiculous and Page 24 January 24, 2002 sets a precedent that we just now start putting cases on the docket, we get continuances, but somebody will come before us and say, "Well, it's okay. It's proceeding, and we're going to come back next month." I think that is not what the board is here to do. The board is here to hear a case, make a decision, issue an order, get on with the next case, not get in the status-report business. MS. CURATOLO: I think by looking at an overall time frame, we're negating the overall objective. Why are we putting a time frame on this matter? It takes away from looking at the overall objective, which it appears as if is most important in this issue. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, this board's order is to hear a case and make a decision, not get in the status business of cases it hasn't heard. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If the county wants to resolve cases, they should do them before they ever bring them here. They have that prerogative. MS. CURATOLO: I would agree, but that hasn't been done, and because it hasn't been done, I think we need to continue to look at that overall objective. MR. WHITE: We're trying to find a way to do what in all persons' and parties' interest is the most economic and efficient thing that the process itself will allow. We're not looking to create this as a precedent. Of course, it being the first of any of its kind, it could appear that way, but I can assure you that we're not looking to do this as a matter of routine. We understand that your time is valuable. We're not looking to have you act as watchdogs, if you will, of the process. We are where we are with this, and from our office's perspective, that is the best possible solution, is to keep it on a monthly check. MR. PONTE: I think we're straying far from what's before us Page 25 January 24, 2002 right now, and that is simply whether or not to grant a continuance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MR. PONTE: That's the question that we should be addressing. Everything else-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- is immaterial. MR. PONTE: -- is immaterial at this point. I would like to reintroduce my motion, that the continuance be granted for a period of 90 days and to include a fact that the subpoenas currently in effect will continue in effect. MR. WHITE: There was one other-- I'm sorry, I hate to interrupt. I don't want to be a pest, believe me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, why don't you keep interrupting. We'll never get to vote on this, so keep going. MR. WHITE: Ms. Arnold had a suggestion and perhaps is one that may find favor with you and that is, we need not necessarily put this case on your agenda each month. If you give the motion to continue, if you will, an indefinite type of a status or give it until the variance case is heard and decided, then we can, quote, "keep it off the agenda that long." Our preference, of course, is that with the status checks, it allows us to bring the case back to you 30 days later so that you can do, as you've said, your jobs. I think we're -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Go ahead. MR. WHITE: I think we're considering a motion that cuts the baby in half, if you will. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I will tell you that if we do a motion, leaving it open, I think, is the worst thing this board could do. MR. PONTE: I agree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But if it's 90 days, then I don't want to see it on the agenda until 90 days. There is absolutely no reason to see it until the 90 days is up. MR. WHITE: Understood. Page 26 January 24, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: And for clarification, that was my recommendation. There is no need to put it on the agenda every time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't even want to hear about it. Ninety days, then we want to hear about it if that ends up being the term. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. White -- excuse me, Mr. White, am I correct in assuming that even under your scenario, coming back to the board every 30 days, the earliest we could hear this case is 60 days from now? MR. WHITE: That is correct. MR. LEHMANN: That's assuming the respondent does not proceed in a favorable manner? MR. WHITE: That is correct. MR. LEHMANN: Quite frankly, I agree with our chairman and with my colleague regarding the 90-day notice. I don't want to hear this case again, but I do want to hear it, and I want it abated, and I wanted it solved once and for all, and we've wasted enough time with this. In 30 days from now, if you came back to us and said, "Listen, we want to proceed," what is the difference between -- of 60 days and 90 days to hear the case? You're certainly going to know between now and 90 days from now whether or not you're going to prosecute that case and whether or not you should -- MR. WHITE: I submit to you, sir, that is not true. And it's not true because it is not likely 90 days hence that we'll know what the Board of Zoning Appeals is going to do with the variance case that was filed two days ago. It's unreasonable to expect that that process can be navigated in 90 days. There's a 30-day appellate time frame after the results of that variance determination. And I would suggest to you that we ought to wait till that time period itself has tolled so Page 27 January 24, 2002 that this board's not, quote, unquote, "again wasting its time." MR. LEHMANN: I would assume -- MR. PONTE: Are you more comfortable with 120 days? MR. WHITE: I think it's at least possible in 120 days. MR. WHITT: May I -- may I interject something? We -- we have -- it's like a pyramid. I understand the concerns of the board in moving cases that you have and not having things languish on your docket, but when you have the county on one hand and respondents on the other who are working in good faith to try to resolve the issues -- you know, we're trying to give you some estimates on what it's going to take to try to accomplish this objective that is beyond Mr. White's control, beyond my control, and my client's control. It's going to be up to zoning when things get on the county commission. And I am -- I'm troubled by the comments that when this case comes back, we're never going to continue it. Well, if we find ourselves where everybody's acting in good faith and it's a mere delay in the system in trying to get something moved through, again, I understand your concerns, but the cow's out of the barn. This case has been brought. It's on your docket, and short of the county dismissing it, here we are. So I don't want anybody to be punished in the system. What good comes from us having to come in here in 90 or 120 days and slug it out and go to war with one another over something that neither side wants to fight about and that the board should be willing to work with the parties and say, "If the citizens of Collier County who have been accused of this violation are working with the county to address their concerns and see that there is no violation of the code, where's the argument?" Okay. Other than your docket, where's the argument? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Nice comment except they brought it here. Page 28 January 24, 2002 MR. WHITT: I agree, but we're going to end up being punished because of that action by the county. MR. PONTE: Are you more comfortable with 120 days? MR. WHITT: I'm -- I'm comfortable with coming back before this board and telling you as a member of the Florida Bar and doing my job for my client, I'm doing everything I can to move the application through with the county and here's where we are, and, folks, if we need more time, here's what we think we need. Okay. Why do we want to waste a half a day of your time hearing a hotly contested issue with probably ten witnesses, okay, when it's going to be worked out if the county grants the variance? To me, it just escapes logic that the board is going to be so rigid in that type of a time frame. We may come back and say we -- we now know it's on the county's -- it's going to be on the county commission agenda for April 20th, okay, and we come back in March. Nope, I'm not going to grant any more continuances; that's it. You've got the witnesses here; let's proceed. That doesn't make any sense to me. It's been 45 minutes of going around on that issue. Go ahead. MR. PONTE: My question, sir, was to find out what you're comfortable with. We're looking for guidance so that we can work with you and with the county to effect exactly the kind of accommodation you're seeking. MR. WHITT: I appreciate that. I -- I believe -- I don't want to string this out too far and agree with Mr. White. We just don't know what the process is going to take. If it gets fast-tracked and it does go through and it gets on the agenda, I would say in the 90- to 120-day time frame, we can come in here, and it's either been granted, or at that point in time we can tell this board, "Here's where it stands," and at that point we will have a very good idea. I mean, at the beginning of the process, you have no idea how long it's going to take. It may get rejected. It may get tossed out. And at that point in time we Page 29 January 24, 2002 know we're going to have the battle in front of you-all. But, like I say, the troubling thing to me is, you know, in that time frame which I think is reasonable, 90 days or 120 days, for the board to say now on the record, "I'm not going to support any continuance," when you have not heard the facts that may be brought before you on a motion for continuance in 90 or 120 days, I don't think that is serving the community and the respondents or the other citizens of the county. Frankly, I don't. I disagree with you on that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, that's good. That's your privilege -- excuse me. MS. TAYLOR: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm not done yet. MS. TAYLOR: Nor am I. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's my contention as one member out of seven, I've told you up front because of what's transpired I'm not for continuance. So I'm one vote in seven. Why are you worried about one vote in seven? No big deal. MR. WHITT: Two votes -- two votes in seven. I've got five here of all seven. MS. TAYLOR: Excuse me. This board is here to serve the county, county business, and if our attorneys feel that this is the way this should be handled, I trust them, and I think the board should too. We can't -- like you say, we cannot sit here and be so strict and this is this, this, this, and this. We need to trust our attorneys and let them handle this, so when he comes back or needs to report to Michelle, whatever, or our attorney, but whatever, let him handle it. Let that department handle it. We don't know all this legal. MR. WHITE: I appreciate your trust in our discretion. We ask you to give us the opportunity to afford it. Thank you. MS. DUSEK: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have 90 days. Is that the Page 30 January 24, 2002 motion? MS. DUSEK: Ninety days. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Whitt, let me just explain to you, I think the message the board is trying to convey is that we want this case resolved. Whether it's resolved by abatement, by hearing, by whatever manner, we don't want continual continuances. That's what we're looking at. And, again, I speak as one member of the board, but that's what I'm getting from this board's discussion. I think the message is, we want both parties to work very diligently to resolve this issue, and I don't think we want to sit here wasting our time with constant continuances. We want it resolved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second on the floor. We need to -- MS. TAYLOR: Once again, what is the motion? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ninety days and continuance of the subpoenas. MR. WHITE: I hope the board appreciates that it's more likely than not that I'11, unfortunately, have to be back here probably having the same type of discussion at that point in time. I regret that. MR. LEHMANN: I recommend-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we have a motion and a second, so we have to vote on it. All those in favor signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed. COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We'll do it by a show of hands. All those in favor signify by a show of hands, aye. (Ms. Curatolo and Mr. Ponte raised their hands.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Two. All those opposed, like sign. Page 31 January 24, 2002 (Chairman Flegal, Ms. Dusek, Ms. Taylor and Mr. Lehmann raised their hands.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One, two, three, four. Ninety days fails. MS. DUSEK: Does that mean the whole motion of continuance fails? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: For that. You can make another motion. MS. DUSEK: How does that work? MS. RAWSON: You need to make a new motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Just make another motion. Some other day other than 90 days. MR. LEHMANN: I would move that we -- that we continue for a period of 120 days with all the terms acceptable to the prior motion with the exception of extending it to 120 days instead of 90 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One hundred and twenty days plus subpoenas stay in effect. MR. LEHMANN: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's the motion currently on the floor. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second for 120 days with all the subpoenas staying in effect. All those in favor signify by a show of hands, please. (Unanimous response, except Ms. Taylor raised her hand.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Four. All those opposed-- five, I'm sorry. (Ms. Taylor raised her hand.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One. Motion carries. One hundred twenty days. MR. WHITT: Thankyou. Page 32 January 24, 2002 MR. WHITE: Thank you, board members. MS. RAWSON: Point of clarification, there is a board meeting on May 23rd which is almost exactly 120 days, so that would be the day we'd probably bring it back before you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Do we need a motion to amend our motion for the continuance to make it the 23rd? MS. RAWSON: No. I think it's so close that you don't need to do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Next case, IM2001-02. Do these cases need to run together, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, they do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So 02 and 03. MS. ARNOLD: Again, we have a request for dismissal and continuance. This would be the Board of County Commissioners versus Curtis D. Blocker and Curtis D. Blocker, Jr. MR. SPILLER: And that is a -- good morning. John Spiller on behalf of the respondents. That is a consolidated case now, 2001-02 as well as 2001-03. MS. ARNOLD: Both cases will be heard together. MR. SPILLER: Ms. Arnold indicated that there was two motions before the board. One was a motion to dismiss, the other a motion for continuance. In reviewing my pleadings, I previously filed a motion to continue which was granted. That was for a December hearing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I see no motion to continue here. MR. SPILLER: Right. The prior motion was granted transferring of the hearing of the case to today. The reason for the prior continuance was my illness that I communicated to Ms. Rawson. We do have a motion to dismiss this before the board, and the Page 33 January 24, 2002 alternative to that is a more definite statement. I use those terms derived from the Rules of Civil Procedure applicable to the courts of Florida. In checking with Ms. Rawson, I learned just recently this morning that the board has apparently published some form of rules of procedure, but at the time that I filed this -- this motion, I could not find it, and I still don't have a copy of those rules of procedure. So I'm going to proceed using the terminology that exists in our civil courts. The motion for dismissal or, alternatively, motion for more definite statement is one based upon the vagueness of the allegations of deficiencies in the inspection reports that have been attached to the two notices of violations. As a matter of history, prior to this being set for a hearing, I provided a letter to the code enforcement officer that issued the citations, Mr. Bayliss, and informed him that those inspection reports were so vague that no reasonable man could discern what the defect was that had to be corrected. And in response to that, he forwarded, apparently, the letter to the county attorney's office, and I received a response back from the county attorney's office which is a part of my letter to Mr. Bayliss, and the county attorney's response is a part of the packet that I received in the -- together with the notice of hearing back in December, and it should be a part of the packet that each of you have before you now. The county attorney's response to that concern that we had, that we couldn't figure out what we were supposed to fix, was to provide a portion of the county's housing code, including schematics, of how we were to build gabled roofs. These structures are mobile homes. And the response by the county attorney's office did not address the basic defect in those notices, which is, what is wrong with each particular trailer that we have to fix? I communicated by example in the letter to the -- Mr. Bayliss, Page 34 January 24, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: please? MR. SPILLER: and in this motion to dismiss, I communicated or informed the board by example from one of the inspection reports. I'd like at this time to provide what I call a supplement to the motion to dismiss in which I've taken each and every inspection report and highlighted in yellow the vagueness that we are concerned about. And I provide that, if you desire, to Ms. Rawson or to Mr. Flegal, and a copy to the county -- has been previously provided to the county attorneys this morning. Which is your preference, Mr. Flegal? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson. MR. SPILLER: Now, for example -- and I've assembled the inspection reports in order of the -- May I have a copy of that report as well, I provided it to the county attorney this morning. If you take the time to examine each of the 26 inspection reports that are a part of this combined case -- that -- by the way, they all exist on the same parcel of land, though there's separate legal descriptions. When you join the two legal descriptions together, you've got a single parcel. I've put those in the sequence -- numbering sequence of the reports that are called Unit 1 through Unit 26, and I'll use Unit 1 as an example (as read): "Fix all roof leaks. "Number 3, repair all rotted -- rotted wood around doors, windows, bathroom and other locations. "Number 4, repair floor as per" -- then its cited ordinance. "And Number 5, repair or replace windows and screens as needed. "Number 6, replace insulation as needed. "Number 7, submit certificate form, licensed pest exterminator that all termite infestation has been abated. "Number 8, tie down mobile home as per 15, slash, C-1 state rules. Page 35 January 24, 2002 "Number 9" -- and this is the one that is the most shocking that I've ever seen in any form of an allegation by a state agency against a citizen -- "Number 9, a complete report listing all structural deficiency and code violations prepared by a Florida registered architect or engineer shall be submitted, recommendations as to -- as to, comma, how to, comma, make this building comply with all applicable codes and ordinances, i.e., building, electrical, plumbing, Florida energy, period, for the site built portion of this building." What this one says is, We don't know what your violations are. You go out and hire a licensed architect or engineer and have that licensed architect or engineer inspect your property at your expense and then provide a report as to all the deficiencies that he's found. "Number 10, repair siding as needed." Except for No. 9, those that I've already recited appeared on each and every one of these 26 trailer inspection reports. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, Mr. Spiller, that's just -- rather than go through all this, since we haven't heard this yet-- and I understand we're trying to justify a motion to dismiss -- a couple of those items you read I thought were pretty straightforward. Termite -- I mean, you don't understand what get rid of termites means? MR. SPILLER: I don't understand what a certificate form licensed pest exterminator is. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman-- MR. SPILLER: Let me just -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have a couple questions. You're going to have to answer these, so let's get to them. You're dealing with this motion to dismiss based on these inspection reports. That's all your motion says. MR. SPILLER: The remaining portion of the violation notice is pertaining to a zoning complaint and a request that we obtain permits for these repairs that are cited in these inspection reports, and there's Page 36 January 24, 2002 a part of that permit process, submit a site-improvement plan for the county's approval. So there's three components, apparently, of the violation notice. One is to repair. Number 2 is to obtain permits, and Number 3, submit a site improvement plan. Now, part of that evidence that will be brought forth is that they're wanting also the property owners to rezone the property from its current zoning status of VR to one of mobile home park. So, apparently, they are suggesting in their material that was provided to the property owner in advance of this citation being issued, that we also have to rezone the property. What I'm before you on the motion for vagueness is only the inspection reports, not the request that we obtain permits, and not the request that we submit a site-improvement plan. However, in order to submit a permit -- and we'll get into that if we need to with evidence -- the permit application has to specify what repairs -- if a permit is required, by the way -- what repairs are going to be accomplished. And I would submit to you that no reasonable man can look at this inspection report and discern what repairs must be done. For example -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: My problem is making repairs -- you've skipped over the violation about access to the property. You're skipping over the zoning district, the VR. You're asking us to dismiss something because your whole deal is, we don't know what the inspection report says, That has nothing to do with access to the property. It has nothing to do with the zoning district. So I'm a little confused as to why you're asking us to dismiss the entire case just because of an inspection report. That's the part I'm having trouble getting my hand on. MR. SPILLER: Without reciting all the discussions that occurred this morning on the earlier case, we would like to accomplish a single-hearing disposition of all claimed violations rather than address any of those matters that are separate and apart Page 37 January 24, 2002 from the inspection reports. And rather than address things that are inherently bound within the inspection reports and that is obtaining a permit for repair if one is required and then having a separate hearing later on concerning any claimed defects that need repair, we'd like a singular hearing rather than one that's bifurcated over a time period. And, again, using the analogy that I provided of the Rules of Civil Procedure, if there had been a lawsuit filed that made two claims, one in a automobile accident and the other one might be medical malpractice -- or the likelihood of those being joined together is very remote, just by illustration, but the judge said the medical malpractice claim is defective, he would require that the entire complaint be restated rather than have a trial on the automobile case and then later have a trial on the medical malpractice claim. And that is for the purposes of efficiency of our adversarial proceedings, and that's what we're asking for here, and that's why I put it in the form of an alternative for a more definite statement. If I could use the analogy, many of us have lived in the state for a time period sufficient to reflect back upon the '60s and '70s when we had annual inspections of our automobiles, and that was a part of the process of obtaining a license renewal, tag renewal for the motor vehicle. If any of you had gone into that automobile-inspection process and the inspector handed you a report that said, "Repair electrical system as needed, repair brake system as needed, repair fuel system as needed, and repair steering system as needed, and I'm not going to tell you what is needed though. I know that," I think your proper reaction is, this is foolishness. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Spiller-- MR. SPILLER: And that's what I'm looking at in these inspection reports. That inspector either says that there is a -- repair floor as needed -- excuse me, there is a defect in the floor, and it exists in a given location, and that defect is described as, or it doesn't Page 38 January 24, 2002 exist. And that is the standard that is imposed by the county ordinance that sets up the process of these violations. The county ordinance provides -- and I think the packet that each of you should have will contain this. I'd ask the board members to -- in their packet for the Case No. 03, refer to the hand-numbered page 52 -- I'm sorry, beginning on 51 and going through 52. And what is provided there by the county is County Ordinance 89-06 that creates the citation process, specifically at Section 8 titled, "Notice of Violation Procedures." It provides that (as read): "The housing official or housing code inspector shall give written notice to the owner, and that written notice must include the following." I'm going to skip A, B, and C, and direct your attention to the top of the next page, paragraph D (as read): Quote, "if repairs or alterations will bring the structure into compliance with this housing code, comma, a statement of the nature and extent of such repairs or alterations necessary to comply with this article." What I have highlighted in yellow on the inspection reports of each of these 26 trailers doesn't come close to statement of the nature and extent of such repairs. For example, on the floor are we to replace the linoleum or are we to replace the carpet? Are we to put down tile in lieu of linoleum or carpet? Is the bathroom floor saturated and, therefore, needing replacement, or is it the kitchen floor that is saturated and needing replacement? Are there holes that must be filled? Is there a structural weakness present? What is the defect in the floor? And these inspection reports give you no clue as to what inspection -- what defect has to be repaired. The consequence of that is twofold. One, is if the property owner had attempted to comply, then it's very likely that they would have expended enormous sums of money guessing as to what had to be done, and that's exactly what the county attorney's letter which is Page 39 January 24, 2002 part of this packet also tells us to do. If you can't figure it out yourself, go hire an engineer or a general contractor. That's what we were told by the county attorney's response. And I would suggest to you that that is totally insufficient notice. What would be your response or concern if you were sued and the claim says, "You owe me money, period." And you want to know why and what are your basis for that claim? And that's our concern here too. This is so vague that no reasonable man can even begin to guess as to what those defects are. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's get back to the basic question. You're asking this board to dismiss this case, period. There are some, at least by my count, 13 violations. The inspection report deals with -- I don't know, maybe half of them. Why does that justify dismissing all the other ones? You haven't convinced me that it does. MR. SPILLER: I'm not seeking dismissal -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm sorry. Motion to dismiss doesn't say one section or the other. It says dismiss this case, so that to me means everything. You haven't convinced me we should do that. MR. SPILLER: I'm not suggesting by that pleading or by my comments to you today that there is a basis for dismissal of anything that's unrelated to these housing reports, housing inspection reports. The only thing that is related to them, other than the claimed defects or deficiencies, is their claim that we need to get a permit to repair those. I would suggest to you that the housing office is going to look at this property owner somewhat asunder if he comes in and says, "I need a building permit to repair these things, and I don't know what I'm going to repair." CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. SPILLER: Aside from the repair and the permit, there is no concern expressed through this motion to dismiss about the remaining allegations. Page 40 January 24, 2002 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm sorry. I'm reading your document, and unless I don't understand the English language, it says, "Move to dismiss the statement of violation." That covers everything. Affidavit of violation, that covers everything. Notice of violation, that covers everything. And attached inspection reports. Now, what did I miss? MR. SPILLER: You've missed nothing. You just are not following what I'm suggesting. The title of this is "Motion to Dismiss or More Definite Statement." If a more definite statement as to the inspection reports of the trailers is provided and it is sufficient for us to go to hearing, then my concerns have been satisfied and we may proceed. MS. ARNOLD: Can I offer something for the board? For the record, Michelle Arnold. The request is for more specificity on the inspections' report. Our -- the county wasn't able to provide that specificity or on-site visit because the attorney has put a "No Trespassing" or has granted no permission for the county staff to enter on his client's property. Now, if we were granted the ability to go back and identify for a contractor or for the property owner if he choose -- in fact, it would have to be a contractor because the code requires this type of work to be completed by a contractor. The only time that they can do an owner-builder type of instance is when we have the owner residing in the structure that they're repairing or if it does not exceed a certain value. We were not allowed to provide that specificity. The county is not in the business of telling someone whether or not to use linoleum versus carpeting. If there's a hole in the floor, I would imagine that anybody can see there's a hole in the floor and it would need to be repaired. Now, they would repair it to the extent that they would be able to. They could put a surface over it, and if they choose to put linoleum versus carpet versus tile, they have that option. So, you know, we couldn't provide the specificity Page 41 January 24, 2002 or do the inspection to point out certain things because of the prohibition for entering into the client's property. As the chairman has noted, there are many other violations that are stated here, the first of which is that the use itself has not been authorized by the county, and the suggestion for rezoning the property was just that. When we issue a notice of violation, we provide corrective action. There's more than one way to correct the violation. There was no requirement to rezone the property. Currently the county is going through an initiative in the Immokalee area where we're trying to get rid of a lot of the substandard structures out there, bring a lot of the parks into compliance with the county codes because many of them are out there that don't have the required site development plan or the required permission from the county to exist. And the county's taking up this initiative. Board of County Commissioners on January 9th adopted regulations that would further this initiative. Myself and the Immokalee staff have been trying to work with the property owners out here to move towards -- MR. SPILLER: Excuse me, Ms. Arnold. This doesn't have anything to do with the motion to dismiss. MS. ARNOLD: But I think it does. These are options that were identified as part of the corrective action in the notice of violation, and I'm trying to clarify for the board that there was no requirement to rezone the property from VR. That was an alternative to compliance. MR. LEHMANN: Ms. Arnold-- MR. SPILLER: Let me -- let me just rebut something that was just said by Ms. Arnold. We have inspection reports that were submitted that were dated July 24th, 2001, on these properties. Much later in time I sent a letter to the county enforcement that said, "You do not have the consent of the property owners for reentry." There is Page 42 January 24, 2002 statute and the -- and county code recognizes an alternative procedure for them to apply for what's called an administrative warrant that if the property owner does not consent to entry of the property, that they can attain an administrative warrant to enter the property using all reasonable, lawful force to do so. These defects existed in July of-- 24th of 2001, if at all, and if the county can't document and tell us what those defects are, then they need to go back in through that administrative-warrant opportunity and get the authority to go in and inspect. MS. ARNOLD: We believe that we have told you those defects. MR. SPILLER: Just -- just a minute. Just a minute. I am here on a motion to dismiss or require the county to tell us what is the specific defect that you claim to exist so that I can properly prepare a defense to that and present it to this board. I am concerned that I'm going to get shotgunned here, and that is that a whole bunch of mud in the form of these vague allegations is going to be thrown up and that the board could find one of those to exist, and we don't know what the defect is. The defect needs to be specified so that we need to know how to defend against it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Very good. Now, the county has said -- or you said you want more specificity. Notice of violation was dated 10 August. On the 20th of August you sent a letter to the county saying they can't enter the property. Your letter, your signature. That's ten days. Now you're standing here and saying, "Well, we want them to tell us what's wrong." You wouldn't let them on the property, it seems, so they can't tell you what's wrong. MR. SPILLER: Sir, if they saw a defect on July 24th -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Answer my question. MR. SPILLER: I am. If they saw a defect on July 24th, tell us what it is. If they don't know what it is, then tell us, We don't know what it is, so we can come back and go onto your property for that Page 43 January 24, 2002 specific purpose, and they've never said that to me. Their response, rather, through the county attorney was to send me a drawing of how to build a gabled roof. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, let me -- let me say something here, because I think I could add something into this whole process. I think we're getting way off the mark. I think the issue is totally without base. The bottom line here is, the county has done what I think the county needs to do. They said there is a defect. They have told you exactly what that defect is in the sense of, comply with the code, period. It is not their job to tell you, fix the linoleum in this 2-foot square or whatever. They told you specifically by what code to fix. When you talk about, "Does a reasonable man able -- or is a reasonable man able to figure out what this says," I submit, yes, definitely. If I come to anyone and have them tell me something that references a document, an ordinance, a law, a technical issue of any sort, would a reasonable man not go to somebody and find out what that is? MS. TAYLOR: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: That's what the county has done. They have told you specifically by code section what you did wrong. It is up to you now to read that code section, and if you don't properly understand that code section, talk to somebody who can explain it to you. That is what a reasonable person does. I submit to this board, the county has done what they needed to do, and this continuance I would not support. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm sorry. MR. LEHMANN: The motion to dismiss I cannot support simply on the grounds that have been presented by the respondents. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we deny the motion to dismiss. Page 44 January 24, 2002 MS. TAYLOR: Second. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. to deny. Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: aye. We have a motion and a second All those in favor signify by saying (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Opposed. (No response.) MR. SPILLER: Does that also dispose of the motion alternative or more definite statement? MR. LEHMANN: Jean, do we need to vote on that for the motion? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. It says, motion to dismiss or more definite statement. MS. RAWSON: I think you need to vote on the other one. Does everybody understand -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. RAWSON: -- what a motion for a more definite statement is? MSi DUSEK: Clarification of the inspection. MS. RAWSON: In a civil court we would amend the pleadings. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: You understand. MS. DUSEK: I make the motion that we deny the more definite statement motion. MS. TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further comment? (No response.) Page 45 January 24, 2002 aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The next item is, we have a motion for the issuance of subpoenas for witnesses. MR. SPILLER: To advise the board, all but one of those witnesses is now present. The one who is not present -- Mr. Kenny Kemp and I have spoken twice in the last ten days, and he will be here at one o'clock. In the event that he's not here, then we'll have to deal with it at that time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL' Ms. Rawson, I have a question. The motion for the issuance of subpoenas states (as read): "Relevant testimony to present on the issues of history of the use." I don't know what that has to do with a violation of an ordinance. So I guess my question is to you, does the board have the power to deny this motion as well as grant this motion? MS. RAWSON: Well, the board, obviously, has the power to issue subpoenas. Now, you don't know whether what the witness has to say is relevant or whether it's not relevant until you hear what the witness has to say. So I don't think we can second-guess what the witness is going to say. He's basically just stated that the witnesses that he needs, I think, are present or are coming, so the motion for issuance of subpoena might not be necessary. I think that's what Mr. Spiller said. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. I think he said two out of the three are here; is that correct, Mr. Spiller? MR. SPILLER: All but Mr. Kemp is present in the hearing room. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One, two -- we have three names here, Page 46 January 24, 2002 so two out of three are present. MR. SPILLER: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: Jean, if we give -- if we accept the motion for the subpoenas, then that means we have to continue the case to another month in order to have all of these witnesses here or do we have to have all of the -- them here? MS. RAWSON: Well, I think Mr. Spiller said he didn't think it was necessary for you to rule on his motion for the issuance of subpoenas to testify. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, if he'd like to withdraw it, that would let us proceed. MR. SPILLER: Could I provide the third alternative? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. MR. SPILLER: And that is, I fully expect Mr. Kemp to be here. He is enthusiastic about his testimony. He wants to be here, and barring some physical impossibility, I fully expect him to be here. If he's not here at one o'clock, I'll renew the motion at that time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I guess the only comment I would have is, being 10:30, that's two and a half hours. I mean, hypothetically, if you've got the right answers, this case could be way over before then. I don't know. So what you're basically asking is for us to continue it to at least 1:00 or 1:30. MR. SPILLER: No, sir. I'm ready to proceed with the testimony that can be presented by the county -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. SPILLER: -- in their case as well as the testimony that can be presented through the two persons who are here as witnesses as well as one of the respondents, and I fully expect that that's going to take more than two and a half hours. Page 47 January 24, 2002 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. What I want to do since we have a motion for these subpoenas is, in some method you get this out from under us so that we -- we like to do motions first, not go halfway through the trial and then say, "Oh, by the way, I have motion for subpoenas," and we have to stop everything and maybe he doesn't show up. Now we have to issue a subpoena, and everything stops in midstream, and we have to wait until next month. So I'd like to do this on the front end, if I could. MR. SPILLER: Okay. Could I suggest this? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. MR. SPILLER: That you grant the motion and defer execution of the order, and if the witness doesn't appear, then we issue the subpoena and that you hear the testimony that is here to be presented to you today up -- including well beyond one o'clock, because I do expect it to go beyond one, and we come back at a later time for the testimony of Mr. Kemp. I don't expect that to occur. I really don't. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson, some advice. MS. DUSEK: I'm not in favor of that. I'm not in favor of that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's kind of like going -- again, going halfway through and then stopping and starting again. MS. RAWSON: If-- if he is ready to proceed to trial today with two of the witnesses instead of the three -- I think that's what I heard him say -- then I would suggest that you just defer this motion and proceed. And if we're still here at one o'clock and his witness shows, okay. If he doesn't show and you think you've heard enough, you can rule. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Would it not be -- he has the option if we -- since two of the three are here, if we deny the motion for subpoenas, we hear the case, and his witness doesn't show up, he then says, "Gee, I want a subpoena issued," I mean, even though we -- we issue an order, he has the right to ask for a rehearing, does he Page 48 January 24, 2002 not, based on additional evidence? MS. RAWSON: Yes. And you may decide after hearing all the other evidence whether or not you want to hear from this witness, if you think that's an indispensable witness, or if Mr. Spiller convinces you that for his side it's an indispensable witness, you can deal with that later. MR. SPILLER: And to help you understand the context of this witness, he will not be testifying as to the claimed defects of July 24th of last year. He's going to be talking about his period of ownership of this property prior to 1989. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: I have a question. Excuse me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: You said defer, not deny. MS. RAWSON: "Defer" means that -- don't do anything with it now and dispense of-- with it at -- either by granting it or denying it at the end of the witnesses. You're taking it under advisement, I guess. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Well, then I would guess I would recommend to the board we take it under advisement until we get further down the line to see if it's -- Mr. Spiller really needs him. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion we defer to issuance of the subpoenas of two witnesses or just a motion -- that we defer the motion to issue subpoenas. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: Jean, does this require a vote from the board? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to defer the motion for issuance of subpoenas to later in the Page 49 January 24, 2002 proceedings, and that's a motion and a second. Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed, like. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Before we proceed, let's take five minutes. Is that enough? Okay. Five minutes, please. (Short recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We'll come back to order, please.. And cases that we're dealing with are IM2001-02 and 03. Board of County Commissioners versus Curtis D. Blocker and Curtis D. Blocker, Jr. MS. PETRULLI: Thank you. For the record, Patti Petmlli, code enforcement supervisor. Board of County Commissioners finds the respondents in violation of Sections 2.6.5, 2.6.8, 2.7.6.1, 2.7.6.5, 1.8.11.1, 1.8.11.1.2, 2.2.9, 1.5.6, and 1.8.6 of Ordinance No. 91-102 of the Collier County Land Development Code; Ordinance 89-06, Minimum Housing; Ordinance 98-80, Structural Building and Hurricane Code; Ordinance 95-19, Plumbing Code; and Ordinance 98-77, Electrical Code. A description of the violation is illegal land use with no access to a public road and minimum housing violations on mobile homes. The location address where the violations exist are 423 Taylor Street, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. -- MR. SPILLER: Excuse me. I could facilitate. I'll waive the reading of that legal description. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. MS. PETRULLI: Name and address of the owner and person in Page 50 January 24, 2002 charge of the location where violation exists, Curtis D. Blocker and Curtis D. Blocker, Jr., 1406 Lemon Tree Drive, Immokalee, Florida, 34142-0000. The date of the -- that the violation was first observed was January 25th of 2000, and the first notice of violation was given on August 10th of 2001, and another notice of violation was given on October 4th of 2001. On the first notice of violation, it was to be corrected on August 31st of 2001, and on the second notice of violation, the correction was to have been made by October 18th of 2001. There was a reinspection done on November 20th of 2001, and the results of the reinspection were that the violations still remain. MR. SPILLER: What you just recited was that from Case No. 2001-037 MS. PETRULLI: Yes, sir. MR. SPILLER: All right. You may have had a misstatement there. Did you say the Board of County Commissioners had found the violations or, rather, the Code Enforcement Division makes the allegations that those violations occurred? MS. PETRULLI: Yes. MR. SPILLER: Thank you. MS. PETRULLI: And on case -- CEB Case No. IM2001-02, the name and address of the person in charge of the location where the violations exist is Blocker, Curtis D. And Curtis D. Blocker, Jr., 1406 Lemon Tree Drive, Immokalee, Florida, 34142-0000. The observation on this case was first observed on August 20th of 2001, and the date of the notice of violation was August 10th, 2001, and a second notice given on August 4th of 2001. The violation was to be corrected on the first violation by August 31st of 2001 and on the second by October 18th of 2001. Page 51 January 24, 2002 A reinspection was done on November 20th of 2001, and the results of the reinspection were that the violations do remain. MR. SPILLER: All right. Then that is the allegations that you're reading from Case No. 02? MS. PETRULLI: Yes, sir. MR. SPILLER: In reading that, I think you made a misstatement and you said, notice -- paragraph 6, notice of violation, you said August 4th and August 10th. Did you mean to say August 10th and October 4th? MS. PETRULLI: Yes, August 10th and October 4th. MR. SPILLER: Can you explain -- I'm just curious as to how the date first observed was August 20th but you sent out violation notices ten days earlier. MS. ARNOLD: It's a -- probably an error in the statement of violation. If-- if he'd like to object to that particular date of observation, that could be so noted. We're just trying to enter into evidence the statement of violation which was presented to both himself and to his clients. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. What -- what I was just going to say, what I haven't heard yet, is the county moving anything into evidence? So -- right now the board doesn't have anything to look at. So could we do that? I mean, he's objecting to things that, hypothetically, we haven't seen yet. MS. ARNOLD: We'd -- we'd like to enter both documents, the Immokalee Case No. IM2001-02 and 2001-03 as Composite Exhibit A for both cases that's going to be heard consecutively. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That request from the county to enter their exhibit. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept Exhibit A from the county. MR. LEHMANN: Do we have any objection? Page 52 January 24, 2002 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We don't need that under our rule. We have a motion to accept the county's exhibit. Do I have a second? MR. SPILLER: Can I be heard on that motion first? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. Our rules don't permit that. The county can enter their exhibit, you can enter yours, and then you-all can fight it out later. MR. SPILLER: I do object. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. We have a motion and a second to enter the county's exhibit. MS. TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And we will make a note that the respondent has objected to the exhibit being submitted. MR. SPILLER: Before we proceed, could I inquire what that exhibit consists of since I wasn't provided a copy? I have some material, but I don't know if that's what's being offered into evidence. MS. ARNOLD: The exhibits consist of-- and I can show you them. They were provided to your client -- two very thick documents identifying the notice of hearing. MR. SPILLER: Okay. Just a second. Is that what was provided in Case No. 02 consisting of a table of contents and then hand-letter pages 1 through-- MS. ARNOLD: Exactly. MR. SPILLER: -- reproduction of a cut-off hand lettering at the bottom? Could I examine? MS. ARNOLD: 168. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 168 is what it looks like. MR. SPILLER: Is that the last page, a warranty deed? MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. Page 53 January24,2002 MS. provided MR. SPILLER: And in Case No. 03, is that a exhibit that consists of a table of contents as well as hand-letter pages 1 through 131, the last page being a warranty deed? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. SPILLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No other exhibits? ARNOLD: There was a supplemental exhibit that was also to the respondent that consist of, again, a table of contents, notice of hearing, photographs, and a zoning map numbered 1 through 18. MR. SPILLER: I've never seen that document. Mr. Blocker's never seen it. Could you show that to us at this time? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson, if, in fact, this for some reason got lost in the mail, then as the county proceeds, if they have new evidence, they can submit it as they proceed; correct? MS. RAWSON: Certainly and so can the respondent. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Okay. That's fine. If there seems to be it got lost in the mail, then as you proceed with your case, you can submit it. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MR. SPILLER: For the record, I object. I am entitled to have some kind of notice of this material, and none was provided. For the record, I will inform the board and Mr. Blocker-- both Mr. Blockers will do so by testimony that we've never received this material. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. It's not a problem. They can submit it as we go along if they want to, just like you can submit anything. Don't need it in advance. MR. SPILLER: MS. ARNOLD: MR. SPILLER: MS. ARNOLD: Is there a copy of this for me? Excuse me? Is there a copy for me? I will make a copy. Page 54 January 24, 2002 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, Ms. Arnold. MS. ARNOLD: Our first witness is Buddy Bayliss. MR. BAYLISS: Good morning. Do we need to be sworn in? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. THEREUPON, MILFORD BAYLISS, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: MR. BAYLISS: My name is Milford Bayliss. I'm the code investigator for the Immokalee Housing Initiative in Immokalee, Florida. We first found a violation here, as far as my record is concerned, July the 24th when I, with one of the county building inspectors, went out to the property and made a thorough inspection of the mobile homes, of the surroundings of the mobile homes, the roads, and the conditions that were there. We asked Mr. Blocker if he would want to come in to talk to us, the owner of the property, and let's present to him what our findings were. He graciously accepted and came in with his youngest son. And I, with the supervisor and with the county inspector, sat down and explained our findings, and they were all put into writing. Every ordinance that we had referenced to was given to him, every inspection of all the trailers, thoroughly typed out, given to him, and presented to him. At that time we asked him if he would, please, go with us on the site-improvement plan, which is a plan for Immokalee to improve that area. We have others who have already done that willingly, and we felt like -- that this is the only avenue he would have to make his place legal since it was a VR area, a village residential area, that does not allow for a mobile home park. We explained that to him. He sat and listened to us. He was very kind. He told us that he did not believe that that's what should be done, and he accepted all Page 55 January 24, 2002 the paperwork. He signed our notice of violation that said he had received it, and he said that he would not look or read these articles because he didn't like to read but he'd pass them on to his son, and he left. After calls to find out what was going on, we realized that he truthfully was not going to get into the site-improvement plan. He wasn't going to get into any plan of the county. So at that time we received a letter-- not August, I think in that time, August the 20th -- a letter was written to me from his attorney stating that I could no longer go on any property that belonged to Mr. Blocker. We did make an inspection on the property but as a roadside inspection to make sure the mobile homes were still there, that the roads had not been repaired as we had suggested. And, of course, he has not yet agreed to go into the site-improvement plan with us. So to this date, we're standing before you saying, we'd like for him to do that. MS. DUSEK: I have a question. What would be his participation in the site-improvement plan? You said "with us." So what is the county doing, and what would he do? MR. BAYLISS: Sure. Thank you for asking that. The first thing we do is, we ask the person to give us a survey of his property, everything that's on it, where it is documented. Then we ask for him to come in to talk to us about what needs to be done to this property to make it a site-improvement property, one that's legal, one that's acceptable, one that minimum-housing requirements have been met. We show him all of that. Then we ask for him to bring to us a plan that he has presented with an engineer on how he can meet our requirements, which are buffer areas and foliage and water irrigation and good roads and housing that's for minimum housing or better. Now, at that time, when he presents that to us, our participation comes in, that we assist Page 56 January 24, 2002 him financially with that particular item, because that costs a great deal of money. We come up with two-thirds of the price of that to help him. MS. DUSEK: Of that site-improvement plan? MR. BAYLISS: Yes, ma'am, of that site-improvement plan. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold. Just for clarification, what Mr. Bayliss is referring to is the Immokalee Initiative, the -- what the board adopted where there is some financial assistance for the cost for the site-improvement plan. MS. DUSEK: Okay. MS. TAYLOR: Mr. Bayliss, Mr. Blocker expressed to you that he wasn't going to do anything himself and if the county wanted it fixed, they could do it themselves; is that right? MR. BAYLISS: That's correct. MS. TAYLOR: And anything -- any other cases pertaining to this property could be taken in the same vein; right? MR. BAYLISS: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Bayliss, if he cooperated with the site- improvement plan and this is zoned as village residential, how could he still keep his trailers there? MR. BAYLISS: That's what the site-improvement plan does. It simply says to you, if you will come into this site-improvement plan program that we have for Immokalee, we're going to make you legal by making it an overlay of mobile home for the VR area that you're in. We're going to make you legal, and you can keep the same number of trailers. That's what we're trying to do here. MR. PONTE: Mr. Bayliss, question regarding access. The executive summary had said that there was no access to a public road; is that correct or not? MR. BAYLISS: No, it's not correct. MR. PONTE: It is not correct. Page 57 January 24, 2002 MR. BAYLISS: The correct word would have been to say, no proper-- no legal access. MR. PONTE: So how do the trailers get to the site? MR. BAYLISS: There is a way to get there. It's not a legal or proper way to get there, but there is a way to move a trailer or people there. MR. PONTE: And how is that done? MR. BAYLISS: There was --just go across the dirt. MR. PONTE: It's a dirt road? MR. BAYLISS: Yes. They have -- they have what is a semblance of a dirt road that has deep holes in it that -- may have had a picture of that also for you, but it's where they have ruts and things that have been caused by people going and coming from that area but not what we consider an accessible road that makes -- people can go and come and move trailers in and out. MR. PONTE: Uh-huh. Thank you. MR. BAYLISS: Yes, sir. MS. ARNOLD: For the board's information, the site- improvement plan process would identify a road, and it would have specific specification for how that road should be improved to meet health, safety concerns. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Bayliss, one of the citations is 2.6.8, moving of buildings and structures. Is this something you witnessed, that he was moving the trailers around on his property or-- MR. BAYLISS: I'm glad you brought that up because it was not something we could witness. It could be done probably at night or Sundays or some other time; however, we go back to pictures that we have aerial photos of a piece of property that say there are a certain number of trailers in a certain position by that aerial photo. After we reversed or reviewed these, we've come to find there are more trailers Page 58 January 24, 2002 there now than there were those days we took aerial photos all the way back to 1970. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. PONTE: Clarify for me the position of the state on this. Are there state inspections? MR. BAYLISS: Yes, sir. There are state inspections. They are health-department inspections for migrant camps. People who come in here to stay, the health department makes certain that they have their requirements which are water heated and water flowing and bathrooms and space for them to have in a minimal housing. Ours, however, we feel like is more to what we think is minimum-housing standards that the county has, and it overstates that of the state. MR. PONTE: Is -- this Blocker property, would you consider that a migrant camp? MR. BAYLISS: I would not consider it. He may consider it that, but a migrant camp would be a place where people come in at a migrant time and leave at the end of that harvest season, and that's what happens at his park. MR. PONTE: That is what happens? MR. BAYLISS: Yes. MR. PONTE: So it is a migrant camp? MR. BAYLISS: Under that definition. He applied for migrant housing with the state. MS. CURATOLO: And it's your opinion that they do, in fact, come and leave during -- MR. BAYLISS: Oh, yes, ma'am. When I was there making inspection, they were all gone. MR. PONTE: So the property, to your knowledge, has been inspected by state authorities, and do you know their finding? MR. BAYLISS: No, sir. I'm not privy to their findings. We don't go by their findings. We do our own, so we don't try to be Page 59 January 24, 2002 pushed by anything they may or may not have found. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Bayliss, let me ask you some questions just to continue with that. You had mentioned that there are state requirements and there are county requirements. Which supersedes? Which has -- which is the more restrictive? MR. BAYLISS: The county is. MR. LEHMANN: Would the county, therefore, take precedence over the state? MR. BAYLISS: Yes, it would. MR. LEHMANN: As far as in this particular case? MR. BAYLISS: Yes, it would. MR. LEHMANN: When you did your inspection initially, you brought a building inspector with you? MR. BAYLISS: Yes, I did. MR. LEHMANN: Is that building inspector recognized as an appropriate official of the building department? MR. BAYLISS: Yes, he is. MR. LEHMANN: So he is properly accredited, qualified and recognized to make -- MR. BAYLISS: Absolutely 100 percent. MR. LEHMANN: Thank you. MR. PONTE: If this is a migrant workers' camp, does the changing of it into a -- changing the site-improvement plan and putting in the amenities that that implies, does that then turn this facility into something that it is not, like middle-class housing? MS. ARNOLD: Can I address that? MR. BAYLISS: I'll pass that to my supervisor. MS. ARNOLD: The state designation for migrant camp is separate and does not have to do anything with the underlying zoning nor does it prevent or exempt development from going through the local requirements. In this particular case -- and it's been required for Page 60 January 24, 2002 some time now -- a site-improvement plan or subdivision plan was required to be submitted to the county, and that is a separate process from the designation of a migrant camp from -- by the state, and the requirements are totally different, and we have not found them in violation of that designation. We don't have the ability to because that's a separate entity. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There -- there is nothing as I read the Land Development Code -- and you can point me in the right direction -- under this village residential that equates to, quote, unquote, a "migrant" designation. I mean, it's pretty straightforward, single-family duplexes, multi-family mobile homes. I mean -- and then there are some conditional uses, none of which get into the, quote, "migrant" terminology. So I don't know that really applies to anything. Am I correct in that assumption? MS. ARNOLD: You are correct in that assumption. The Land Development Code would say this is the intended use for this district; these are the permitted types of structures that are permitted; these are the setbacks and all these other requirements. If someone choose to go through the process and get a site-development plan and then get designated by the state as a labor camp, that would have nothing to do with the -- it doesn't affect the zoning and the permitted uses in that zoning district. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Bayliss, you said if they go through the site-improvement process, if they have X number of mobile homes now where this village residential only permits them 7.26 units, I guess it is. MR. BAYLISS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If they have 20 or 30, through this process they would be able to keep that number? MR. BAYLISS: That's correct. That's one of the benefits of this process. They may be able to keep that number if they meet the Page 61 January 24, 2002 minimum-housing standards. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MR. LEHMANN: Are they not restricted to the 16-units-per- acre rule? MR. BAYLISS: MS. TAYLOR: wells, et cetera, here. MR. BAYLISS: MS. TAYLOR: tell me about that. MR. BAYLISS: MS. ARNOLD: Not under this plan. I'm very curious about the sewage system and I'm sorry. Your question again? The sewage system and the wells in this area, I really don't know that. We have two -- I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you had more questions. We have two other witnesses, Dick Noonan, who's the building official, and then Dora Vidaurri. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I think we have a couple more questions for Mr. Bayliss. MR. PONTE: Just one other. When you initially investigated the property, not the roadside -- from the roadside but actually were on the property, did you feel that there were safety issues involved in some of these violations, housing violations, that you saw? MR. BAYLISS: Yes, but I'm going-- I'm going to let my building inspector bring those up, but right off the top, I can name several. One is that there were no steps with handrails getting in and out of mobile homes. The electricity in some of the boxes were not properly hooked up. These are things that he discovered and saw, and I'll be glad to let him entertain that question again for you. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Bayliss, in the permitted uses for what's on the property now, are there any kind of, quote, "permits" existing that lets them have X number of mobile homes out there or is it one of these things where, well, they're there and they're there. Page 62 January 24, 2002 MR. BAYLISS: To my knowledge, there are not a sufficient number of permits for the number of trailers that he has there, mobile homes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Okay. I guess that's all for the moment. Any other questions for Mr. Bayliss? MR. SPILLER: I have inquiry, if I could. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. SPILLER: What permits do exist? MR. BAYLISS: I have no idea. That's the permits -- we have -- we have a record, I think. Am I correct? We have a record of permits? He asked what permits exist. MS. ARNOLD: If-- if we can have the other witness answer those questions because she's the one that did that research. MR. SPILLER: Well, we just had an assertion by the witness that, in his opinion, insufficient permits exist. I want to find out what do exist and, therefore, what are insufficient. Otherwise, I would ask that the board not consider that testimony if he doesn't have a factual basis for it. MR. BAYLISS: It appears to me that you have to prove that you have permits for that property also. MR. SPILLER: Sir, you're the one that testified that there are insufficient permits. I'm now asking you what permits do exist. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's do it this way. Did you actually see any permits, Mr. Bayliss? MR. BAYLISS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's fine. That solves that problem, since you didn't see them. Do you have any more questions for him, sir? MR. SPILLER: Quite a few. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. SPILLER: What are your qualifications for the position Page 63 January 24, 2002 that you have now? MR. BAYLISS: I've gone through one year with the code -- you know, the investigation part training, but I've -- also have a Level 1 Code Class that I passed of the state, Level 1. MR. SPILLER: Okay. Would you agree that you do not have five years' experience as an inspector, an engineer, an architect, nor do you have a master plumber, a master electrician, a mechanical or a Class B Contractor's License? MR. BAYLISS: I will agree to what you're saying except with one exception, the five-year inspection. I was an inspector for the Jackson, Mississippi, Fire Department for 23 years. MR. SPILLER: That wasn't my question. Five years' experience as an inspector-- MR. BAYLISS: That's what you asked. That's what I answered. MR. SPILLER: -- as inspector or an engineer or an architect. MR. BAYLISS: I said inspector. I didn't say engineer or comma or comma. I said inspector. MR. SPILLER: That was in a fire department? That was the Jackson Fire Department, MR. BAYLISS: Mississippi. MR. SPILLER: MR. BAYLISS: And you're looking for fire code violations? We're looking for any violation that would cause a fire or result in a fire. MR. SPILLER: MR. BAYLISS: pardon -- MR. SPILLER: Mr. Flegal, I'd object to Mr. Bayliss being coached by the other witness who's present. If she's going to be making comments, she needs to do so during her testimony. Okay. Who told you to inspect this property? Well, I'm under a mandate from my- Page 64 January 24, 2002 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. You don't need any help. You think on your own. If you don't know the answer, just say you don't know. There's nothing wrong with that. You don't know, you don't know. MR. BAYLISS: I'm under mandate from the county and its initiative housing project that we have for the Immokalee area to inspect all the mobile-home parks and determine whether they meet the minimum-housing standards or not. That's what I'm asked to do. MR. SPILLER: Earlier there was some reference to that initiative being approved by the county commission in January of this year? MS. ARNOLD: The regulations is what I said were approved in January of this year. MR. SPILLER: Okay. You indicated that the zoning currently in existence on this land is VR? That's correct. Would you agree that VR designation permits MR. BAYLISS: MR. SPILLER: mobile homes? MR. BAYLISS: MR. SPILLER: mobile homes? MR. BAYLISS: MR. SPILLER: What was your question? Would you agree that VR designation permits It does permit one mobile home per parcel. Where do you arrive at that conclusion? Rather than answer it that way, let me withdraw the question and re-ask. Ask that this be marked as an exhibit for the respondents after the report, that -- the zoning designation VR contained in the Collier County Land Development Code as Section 2.2.9. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.) MR. BAYLISS: Do I recognize it? MR. SPILLER: Yes. MR. BAYLISS: I recognize the copy I have here, yes. Page 65 January 24, 2002 MR. SPILLER: Okay. And do you recognize further that paragraph 2.2.9.2.1, permitted uses, sub 4, includes mobile homes, in the plural? MR. BAYLISS: That's correct. MR. SPILLER: And do you see further on dimensional standards, 2.2.9.4, subparagraph 7, that there is no minimal floor area designated for those mobile homes? MR. BAYLISS: I read that. That's correct. MR. SPILLER: Okay. Do you see further in dimensional standards, minimum lot area, it's 6,000 square feet? MR. BAYLISS: That's correct. MR. SPILLER: How many square feet exist on this land? MR. BAYLISS: We have that calculated here. We have two pieces of property here and-- MR. SPILLER: What is the combined total of those two pieces? MR. BAYLISS: Let me see if I can get it for you here. Just a moment. I don't know that answer. Would you agree that it's approximately 3.94 MR. SPILLER: acres? MR. BAYLISS: Three point-- number of trailers allowable -- that's mobile home per acre. I'm sorry. Ask me again your question. MR. SPILLER: Would you agree it's approximately 3.94 acres, those two parcels combined? MR. BAYLISS: Wait just a moment. Let me see. I've got it by the number of mobile homes allowed here. MR. SPILLER: That's not my question. MR. BAYLISS: No, but I've got to go backwards. I don't have your answer here. I'm trying to give you a good answer. Yes, that's approximately right. Yes. MR. SPILLER: Now, would you multiply 3.94 by 43,560 to arrive at the total square footage of this parcel of land? Page 66 January 24, 2002 MR. BAYLISS: Yeah, if you wanted-- yes, you would. MR. SPILLER: Would you do so? MR. BAYLISS: I don't have a calculator. Would you mind someone -- I don't think I can do that that quick. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Spiller, what are we trying to do here? MR. SPILLER: There are more than 26 trailers permitted in that land area. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Based on what, sir? You're asking this question. I don't know where you're going here. You're -- MR. SPILLER: Minimum lot area-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: something? MR. SPILLER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Are you trying to mislead us or Not at all. All right. You cited 2.2.9.4, and so I'm confused as to what you're doing. Can you help us here? MR. SPILLER: If the board would allow me to conduct my examination, I think it will be readily apparent. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we're not following you. That's the problem. MS. ARNOLD: MR. SPILLER: Can I just clarify something? No, ma'am. I would like Mr. Bayliss to multiply those figures that I gave him. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Tell me what you're asking him to do. MR. SPILLER: Multiply 3.94 acres times the number square feet in each acre, 43,560, to arrive at the total square footage of this trailer park. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BAYLISS: 16,988. MR. SPILLER: So that's less than 1 acre. Page 67 January 24, 2002 MR. BAYLISS: MR. SPILLER: 43,560; do you agree? MR. BAYLISS: MR. SPILLER: MR. BAYLISS: MR. SPILLER: MR. BAYLISS: what? MR. SPILLER: MR. BAYLISS: MR. SPILLER: 28.6? Do you agree? MR. BAYLISS: MR. SPILLER: Oh, I'm sorry, 169,884. Follow along with me, if you will. 3.94 times Yeah. That equals 17 -- 17,000 -- no, 171,000. Do you see that comma there? I see a period there, yes, 2.64. Okay. Now 171,626 square feet; correct? Correct. And if you divide that by 6,000, does that equal I agree with your figures, yes. Therefore, there would be sufficient land area in this parcel to accommodate 28.6 trailer lots; correct? MR. BAYLISS: Oh, we have not said it was not. We simply said you need to be on -- get out of VR and get into SIP. MR. SPILLER: You earlier said that there was too many trailers there. MR. BAYLISS: MR. SPILLER: MR. BAYLISS: If I did, I misspoke. So you're going to back off on that? I'm only saying that there are too many trailers there versus if you leave them as VR. MR. SPILLER: Now, what I just read to you, that 6,000 per square feet is the VR mobile home lot size; is that correct? MR. BAYLISS: Yes. MR. SPILLER: So under VR designation, up to 28.6 trailers could go in there, and during your observations there were only 26; correct? MS. ARNOLD: I have to object to that because that's -- that's Page 68 January24,2002 not how you determine the number of uses, and Mr. Bayliss doesn't have the familiarity with the zoning district. This would be determined by a planner with respect to how you calculate how many units are permitted on a given property, and so I'm entering in an objection to this. MR. SPILLER: It sounds to me like -- that Ms. Arnold's indicating that her witness doesn't have the ability nor the competence to testify that there was too many trailers on there. MS. ARNOLD: That's not what I said, sir. I said, I'm objecting to him answering a planning question which is, how many units are permitted on the piece of property, which is what you're asking him. MR. SPILLER: I'd ask MR. BAYLISS to answer the question if he can. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He tried, and I understand. And if he doesn't know, then he should say he doesn't know. Nobody has any objections to people who don't know answers. If he knows, then he's going to answer you. I mean, that's all we're looking for. If you can answer the question, do it. If you can't, say that. MR. BAYLISS: Well, we go by the rule of 7.26 number of trailers per acre that the planning department gave to us. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. SPILLER: So it's your opinion that at 3.94 acres times 7.26, how many trailers could exist there? MR. BAYLISS: Probably 22. MR. SPILLER: So is it now your testimony that only 22 of the 26 trailers is the maximum density under the VR designation? MR. BAYLISS: Maximum density, yes. If it were VR, it can't -- MR. SPILLER: Sir, how long have you been with Collier County Code Enforcement? MR. BAYLISS: A year and a half. Page 69 January 24, 2002 MR. SPILLER: And did you know that the Land Development Code that you're referring to as the basis for all this was enacted by the county commission in 1991 ? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Where are we going, Mr. Spiller? I mean, this is interesting, but it's irrelevant. MR. SPILLER: I have asserted, in a formal pleading to this board, affirmative defenses, and the affirmative defense that this question pertains to is that this property is a nonconforming use, which means that it continues in its status that it had prior to the enactment of Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But you haven't presented any evidence yet. The county's presenting their side, and what you're saying is, you know, it's nonconforming. We haven't got that far yet. I haven't heard any of that. MR. SPILLER: I'm allowed to develop my defenses. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, you're questioning the wrong people, I believe. MR. SPILLER: I'm allowed to develop my defenses through the examination of the county's witnesses. MR. SPILLER: Okay. Sir, did you know-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: How long he's been with the county is irrelevant. Move on to something else. MR. SPILLER: Sir, during the year and a half that you've been with the county, have you seen any change in the use of the trailer park at 423 Taylor Street? MR. BAYLISS: Somewhat change, yes. There were some repairs being made, and now there are people there. MR. SPILLER: Okay. Other than that, the structures themselves, they are the same from the very first day that you began through today; correct? MR. BAYLISS: Yes. To my knowledge, they are the same Page 70 January 24, 2002 trailers that were there. MR. SPILLER: Okay. Now, these aerial photographs that you refer, do you have those with you at this time? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He hasn't submitted any photographs into evidence, so pick something else. MR. SPILLER: I would object to the-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He hasn't submitted photographs. He made a statement that he saw them, but he didn't submit them. So you can't see them either. They're not evidence. He hasn't submitted it to the board. All we have is his statement that he saw photographs. We don't have the slightest idea what they look like. MR. SPILLER: If I might, for the record, the rules of evidence that we use in courtrooms do not apply by statute to these proceedings, but a rule of evidence does apply, and that's called fundamental due process. This man has testified as to conclusions he drew from examination of photographs, and it is a denial of fundamental due process to deny me the opportunity to question him upon that. I would like to see the photographs that he's claiming depict some alteration in the conditions of this property which you have already picked up on is apparently a basis for one of the claimed violations. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I didn't know I picked up on that but -- MR. BAYLISS: MS. ARNOLD: morning. MR. SPILLER: MS. ARNOLD: MR. SPILLER: morning? MS. ARNOLD: Do you not already have a copy of these? Yes, you do. We provided you a copy this That's what was provided this morning? Yes. Yes. That's in the packet you just gave me this Yes. MS. DUSEK: Ms. Rawson-- Page 71 January 24, 2002 MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. DUSEK: -- if-- if the package has not been submitted as evidence, then we-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- can't consider it. MS. RAWSON: -- can't consider it, unless it's evidence. So either side can present those photographs to you so that you can see them before they question the witnesses about them, or not. MS. DUSEK: So they-- MS. RAWSON: But I haven't heard anybody move for the introduction -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I haven't either. That's why I said, they're not evidence. So, you know, you-all are wasting our time. He just made a statement; he looked at pictures. have them. This board can't consider them. statement that he saw some pictures. What pictures? I don't All we consider is his MR. SPILLER: I understand that, but I am going to cross- examine him on the basis that he is telling this board there was a violation on this property by moving trailers. That's what his testimony was. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, he said he saw some pictures that moved some trailers. Why don't you get a witness up and say, "We didn't move any trailers"? MR. SPILLER: I'm not going to restrict myself to that form of proof. I'm allowed to cross-examine Mr. Bayliss who has made that assertion. MR. SPILLER: On No. 8, the Photograph No. 8, Mr. Bayliss -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Excuse me, there is no Photograph No. 8 according to this board. He didn't say Photograph No. 8. He said photograph, sir. So you don't specify what photographs. All he said was, I looked at some photographs, period. That ends it. Now, you can question him about photographs, but don't start Page 72 January 24, 2002 numbering them. There are no photographs, as far as this board's concerned. Do you understand that? MR. SPILLER: No, sir, I do not, and I cannot accept that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, you better. There are no photographs to this board. MR. SPILLER: Then I would move to strike his testimony that he has examined photographs and from those examination that he has concluded that there has been a movement of these mobile homes on that lot. MR. LEHMANN: Could we have a little further clarification on this issue? Your recommendation is to have either party enter those photographs? MS. RAWSON: If we're going to get into testimony about photographs, it seems fundamental fairness that everybody gets to see them. So if the county wants to introduce the photographs into evidence, that's fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If they don't, they don't have to; right? MS. RAWSON: No, they don't. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's right. Okay. MS. DUSEK: And can you just accept the testimony as being true from the fact that Mr. Bayliss is sworn in? MS. RAWSON: Well, you always have the right to assess the credibility of witnesses. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. So there are no photographs yet. Do we understand, Mr. Spiller? MR. SPILLER: Marking as respondents' exhibit next in order what is depicted as Photograph 8 in the materials provided to me this morning. MS. ARNOLD: Can I -- can I just move those photographs, as we were attempting to this morning, into evidence so that we can avoid all of this? That is the packet that we provided to Mr. Spiller at Page 73 January 24, 2002 his request. That was what we mailed out to respondents that they did not receive, if we could admit that into evidence as Composite Exhibit B and we can make reference to them. MR. SPILLER: That would be fine. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Composite Exhibit B, the photographs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I have a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have a motion and a second to submit Exhibit B from the county. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed. (No response.) MR. SPILLER: I'm showing you what is numbered as Photograph No. 8 of that exhibit. Handwritten in the lower right is the apparent date of December 2000; do you see that? MR. BAYLISS: Yes, I do. MR. SPILLER: Did you take this photograph? MR. BAYLISS: No, I did not. MR. SPILLER: Who did? MR. BAYLISS: These folks -- these are hired by the county to take aerial photos of the county, all over the county. These folks? Whoever the county contracts with. How do you recognize this as depicting the MR. SPILLER: MR. BAYLISS: MR. SPILLER: Blocker property? MR. BAYLISS: Well, each one of these has -- this is -- this is on a larger sheet that has a section that they've taken a picture of, and that section is a section numbered at the bottom of that sheet that tells us exactly where everything is on it so we can pinpoint an area. MR. SPILLER: Can you tell from this photograph what Page 74 January 24, 2002 direction is North? MR. BAYLISS: MR. SPILLER: MR. BAYLISS MR. SPILLER: North is on the right MR. BAYLISS By the photograph? Yes. : Honestly, by the photograph I cannot. Assume for the purpose of my questioning that border of this photograph. Okay? : Assume, yes. MR. SPILLER: All right. Now, the road depicted running east- west is called Immokalee Drive; correct? MR. BAYLISS: Yes. Yes, sir. MR. SPILLER: And is that the northern boundary of all of the property that we were talking about today? MR. BAYLISS: If you're assuming, yes. MR. SPILLER: Okay. And you see the road that goes left to right? MR. BAYLISS: MR. SPILLER: MR. BAYLISS: MR. SPILLER: MR. BAYLISS MR. SPILLER: abutted on the north Taylor Street? MR. BAYLISS: MR. SPILLER: Yes, sir. Below the letter "L" in Immokalee? Yes, sir. And that's Taylor Street, isn't it? : That's correct. Would you agree, therefore, that the property is side by Immokalee Drive and on the east side by That's correct. And would you agree, therefore, that any lot owner can drive directly from the trailer that he -- excuse me -- lot occupant can drive directly from the trailer that he occupies onto Immokalee Drive or Taylor Street using either the existing road that's shown there in white or directly onto the road itself from the trailer? MR. BAYLISS: Now, that looks like that could be done; however, Immokalee does not go that far down there. That's a dirt Page 75 January 24, 2002 road down there. It does not -- it's paved all the way to about the first block, the first lot of his property and about another hundred feet, and from there on it's just dirt. MR. SPILLER: Isn't it true, sir, that approximately at the letter "O" on Immokalee, there is a sign that only says "County Maintenance Ends"? MR. BAYLISS: That's probably that. I'm pretty sure there would be one there, yeah. MR. SPILLER: So would you agree, therefore, that south-- excuse me, east of that sign is a county maintenance road? MR. BAYLISS: Yes. MR. SPILLER: And west of that is private maintenance road? MR. BAYLISS: That's correct. MR. SPILLER: So you're telling this board that you can't use a private road for access to property? MR. BAYLISS: You can use private roads, but you must keep the roads in condition for people to get out. They must be properly cared for. MR. SPILLER: Now, if the property line of this property stops short of this road, are you suggesting to this board that there's a violation because that private road belonging to somebody else doesn't meet your standards for maintenance? MR. BAYLISS: Let me hear your question again. MR. SPILLER: Are you telling this board that because this private road, which is the extension of Immokalee Drive, is defective and, therefore, is a Blocker violation for not maintaining that private road? MR. BAYLISS: No. I think when I first came out with it, is it had to have proper access to a road. That's what we're asking about. We wanted to have a road out of the center of this -- this park so any mobile homeowner or resident could easily go to a county road. Page 76 January 24, 2002 MR. SPILLER: Okay. Now, showing you the Exhibit No. 9 that you've included -- Photograph No. 9, November of'96. MR. BAYLISS: Yes. MR. SPILLER: You weren't here when that photograph was taken, were you? You were in some other state; correct? MR. BAYLISS: That's correct. But you attached this as depicting the Blocker MR. SPILLER: property? MR. BAYLISS: MR. SPILLER: Immokalee Drive? MR. BAYLISS: MR. SPILLER: That's correct. Do you see what's on that photograph, Yes. Do you see that there is an apparent paved road that doglegs to the right and then to the left and then continues in the slight curve from the left? MR. BAYLISS: Show me. Yes. MR. SPILLER: And are you suggesting that the Blocker property begins at what is the comer there under the letter 'T'? MR. BAYLISS: As this particular picture depicts, yes. MR. SPILLER: Okay. How did that road become a straight dirt road from a curved paved road? MR. BAYLISS: I'm not sure that road's paved by this picture. MR. SPILLER: Would you agree that this is possibly not the block of property depicted on Photograph No. 9? MR. BAYLISS: Well, I agree what? MS. ARNOLD: I am going to have to object. Mr. Bayliss didn't prepare these exhibits. The person that did prepare these exhibits are here, so they can testify to whether or not this is actually identifying the Blocker property. MR. SPILLER: It's the testimony of this witness so far that he examined these documents. Page 77 January 24, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: No. You-- that's your testimony. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. That's yours. He said he looked at some photographs. He didn't say he examined them. MR. SPILLER: All right. He looked at these photographs -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Proper words. MR. SPILLER: -- and concluded, therefore, there had been changes in the mobile home park. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That had nothing to do with the roads. Changes in the park doesn't depict they changed the road. They could mean the number on them, whatever. So you have to go somewhere else. MR. SPILLER: Also could indicate, Mr. Flegal, that he's making the wrong conclusion because this is not a photograph of the Blocker property. MS. DUSEK: I think what he said in his testimony was that he -- that's how they determine that trailers have been moved. He didn't specify any pictures. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Excuse me, sir. If you're going to say this is not the Blocker property, give us some proof. You're just making a statement which is really neat, but if you have proof that this is not the Blocker property, submit it; otherwise, his assumption that it is -- do you have proof that it is not? MR. SPILLER: Fundamental due process-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have proof that it is not? MR. SPILLER: Under fundamental due process -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have proof that this is not? MR. SPILLER: Under fundamental due process -- I just got this photograph this morning. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You asked them to be brought in. MR. SPILLER: Fundamental due process allows me to examine this witness upon his conclusions. Page 78 January 24, 2002 MS. CURATOLO: Perhaps, could we get the person up here who took the pictures and it might clarify this situation? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: These are aerial photos. You're not going to find that person. MR. SPILLER: Okay. Going to Photograph No. 10, what is the feature there that allows you to conclude that that depicts any part of the Blocker property? MS. DUSEK: I'd like to interject again that I think we need the person who understands these pictures to be brought up and answer your questions. The only statement that Mr. Bayliss made was that this was the type of thing that they used to show when property is changed. That was his only statement. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Bayliss, may I -- may I ask you a question -- MR. BAYLISS: Yes, sir. MR. LEHMANN: -- please. And I apologize for interrupting your cross-examination. These photographs prepared in this evidence package are referred from a larger document? MR. BAYLISS: Yes, sir. MR. LEHMANN: Does that larger document tell you that you are looking at the proper section, township, range, whatever legal description we use to pinpoint this particular subject property? MR. BAYLISS: Yes, sir, it does. MR. LEHMANN: And how are you telling that? What -- what on those plans are telling you? Is there specific information on the original plan or the original photograph that would lead you to believe conclusively that this is the correct property? MR. BAYLISS: The first thing we do is determine if that is the section and township of that area. Once we got that overall page, one page that's been pictured, taken, and the date on it, then if we got-- if Page 79 January 24, 2002 we can't get some point of reference there, we must use the roads as a point of reference to go through that to that particular piece of property, unless it has something really outstanding on it like a water tower or something. MR. LEHMANN: My -- my concern on this particular line of questioning from Mr. Spiller is that we are concentrating on the photographs that are supplied and not considering the fact that they may have been supplied from a larger document where the evidence of saying this is the proper place is in that larger document as opposed to physically in the evidence package with this small reproduction. Jean, is that a proper-- MS. RAWSON: Exactly right. MR. LEHMANN: -- line of thinking? MS. RAWSON: Right on. MR. LEHMANN: Thank you. I'm sorry, Mr. Spiller. Please continue. MR. SPILLER: What on Photograph No. 10 is your reference for conclusion that this vague photograph depicts the Blocker property? MR. BAYLISS: Again, I'd have to refer back to the overall sheet, the page that was taken and the section and the range so that I would know by the roads where this is located on that map. MR. SPILLER: You can't -- can't show us any feature on this photograph that's a reference for alignment with what might have been the Blocker property in the first one, No. 8? MR. BAYLISS: On this particular picture I cannot, but this was taken from the larger picture. MR. SPILLER: Right. Number 11 within this, what is the feature there that allows you to conclude that that depicts in some way the Blocker property? MR. BAYLISS: Same answer we had before. We must go to Page 80 January 24, 2002 our overall picture of that year. We must go by the section, township, and range, and whent we get to that area, we find out by the road access where that property is. MR. SPILLER: Okay. Now, on Photograph No. 11 can you show the board, if you can, where Immokalee Drive is? MR. BAYLISS: May I, Mr. Flegal, to-- introduce something here that I think is important? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I can't help you, other than to say, you answer the question, or you can say you don't know. That's really the only thing I can help you with here. He's asking -- you're under cross-examination. MR. BAYLISS: I'm not asking for help. Explain what maybe the board does not know, that I don't work alone. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand where you are. You happen to be the current witness. He's asked you a question. MR. BAYLISS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You've got two choices. Answer it or say you don't know. MR. BAYLISS: I don't know. MR. SPILLER: Photograph No. 12, what there, other than the writing of "Immokalee Drive," allows you to conclude that this depicts the Blocker property? MR. BAYLISS: Other than the writing of"Immokalee Drive," I would not know. MR. SPILLER: There is references written here, Block 30 and Block 31. Where in the legal description or the street address does the term Block 30 or 31 come from applicable to the Blocker property? MR. BAYLISS: Where in the street address it calls for block-- is that what you're asking? MR. SPILLER: No, sir. I'll break it down. Does the legal Page 81 January 24, 2002 description of the Blocker property make reference to blocks? MR. BAYLISS: The legal description should make reference to a block. MR. SPILLER: Would you look at the warranty deeds that are the last pages of the two cases before this board. Sir, are you familiar with the term "metes and bounds description"? MR. BAYLISS: Yes, sir. MR. SPILLER: Is that a metes and bounds description? MR. BAYLISS: Yes. MR. SPILLER: Is it not -- are you familiar with the term "plat description"? MR. BAYLISS: No, I'm not. MR. SPILLER: Do you see the word "Block 30" or "Block 31" in that legal description? MR. BAYLISS: No, it does not say "block." MR. SPILLER: Okay. Are you familiar with the county tax appraiser's method of designation of property called folio numbers? MR. BAYLISS: Yes. MR. SPILLER: Do you also agree that folio numbers do not include a reference to Block 30 or Block 31 in any form? MR. BAYLISS: To my knowledge, it does not. MR. SPILLER: Folio numbers, rather, refer to the 12 digits, zero through nine; correct? MR. BAYLISS: That's correct. MR. SPILLER: Okay. Are you familiar with the street number designation of this block of property? MR. BAYLISS: MR. SPILLER: MR. BAYLISS: think it's 427 also. two blocks. Yes. And it is 423 Taylor Street; correct? 423 Taylor, but also it's 42 -- excuse me, I It's two numbers there because of two blocks -- Page 82 January 24, 2002 MR. SPILLER: Would you be surprised that the tax collector's and appraiser's reference to the larger component of this -- that is, the segment that is 660 feet east-west dimension -- calls it 1007 MR. BAYLISS: One hundred acres is a common -- MR. SPILLER: No, sir. Not acres, 100. MR. BAYLISS: Let me talk. Okay? One hundred, dash, acres is a common mark that we put on that particular form when we do not have a particular address for it. So that is always used there. MR. SPILLER: As you drive by the property, the only street number and name that you see on the property is 423 Taylor? MR. BAYLISS: That's correct. MR. SPILLER: Legal description, folio number, and street designation. Is there any other form of designation of this property that could possibly include references to Blocks 30 and 31 ? MR. BAYLISS: On our system we have what's called CD plus. It gives us the description of property, folio number, the property address, lot and block on that piece of paper. MR. SPILLER: Okay. Now, lot and block only applies to platted subdivisions; correct? MR. BAYLISS: No. You could have a block that's not platted. MR. SPILLER: Have you ever seen a legal description for an unplatted subdivision? Specifically, immediately adjacent to this property is what's called the Robert Shalleberger unplatted mobile home subdivision; correct? MR. BAYLISS: That's correct. MR. SPILLER: That is also by reference to Lot 47 of the Robert Shalleberger unplatted mobile home subdivision? MR. BAYLISS: That's correct. MR. SPILLER: I happen to remember that because I filed a foreclosure on that one yesterday. So we don't have an unplatted subdivision reference to the Blocker property, do we? Page 83 January 24, 2002 MR. BAYLISS: Not to my knowledge. MR. SPILLER: So Block 30 and Block 31 doesn't exist in any reference we've talked about to the Blocker property; correct? MR. BAYLISS: No, that's not correct. I said it was also a mention to it when I pull up CD plus for property and legal description of the property. It has block number. MS. TAYLOR: Mr. Bayliss, may I ask you a question? When you approached Mr. Blocker and you talked to him -- and you were on his property; right? MR. BAYLISS: Yes, ma'am. MS. TAYLOR: -- did he deny that that was his property? MR. BAYLISS: Oh, no. MS. TAYLOR: Of course he didn't. MR. BAYLISS: We -- matter of fact, he allowed us, by telling us where to pick up the key, to get into all of his property. MS. TAYLOR: Well, this is just a bunch of words flying around. MR. SPILLER: MS. TAYLOR: MR. SPILLER: Ma'am -- ma'am, to explain what I just did -- I would love to hear that. I established that these photographs that the claimed basis for a conclusion of altering the property may not refer to that property. Didn't have a thing to do with the Blocker ownership of it. MS. TAYLOR: We are here because of a violation on the Blocker properties. MR. SPILLER: Correct. And one of the claimed violations that was developed through his testimony was that a violation occurred by moving, and he reached that conclusion by examining the photographs. MR. SPILLER: Now, in the allegations that are a part of the cover sheet on these two cases, specifically in Case No. 02, the Page 84 January 24, 2002 allegation is that date -- paragraph No. 5, the date the violation was first observed was August 20th of 2001; is that correct or incorrect? No. It was August. We first observed was MR. BAYLISS: July 24th. MR. SPILLER: August 20th; correct? MR. BAYLISS: Okay. So that is an incorrect statement of August the 20th we'd received the letter about the -- not going on property. I don't know anything else happened August 20th. MR. SPILLER: On Case No. 03, there is an assertion that the date of-- the violation was first observed was January 25th, 2000? That's correct. Were you a member of the code enforcement at MR. BAYLISS: MR. SPILLER: that time? MR. BAYLISS: time. MR. SPILLER: Oh, we had code enforcement long before that No, sir. enforcement before that time? MR. BAYLISS: the one that did it. MR. SPILLER: Were you a member of code Oh, no, but my -- Ms. Arnold was, who was So what is the basis, then, for asserting January 25th, 2000, as the date of the first observation of violation if the inspection of property didn't occur until July 24th, 2001 ? MR. BAYLISS: Let me -- the initiative housing -- the whole project came out of Ms. Arnold's work -- diligent work out there to discover what was there, what was present, and that was the beginning of this project. She made the findings there. MR. SPILLER: Are you suggesting Ms. Arnold made an observation on January of 2000? MR. BAYLISS: Ms. Arnold recorded someone else's observation, maybe. I can't speak for Ms. Arnold. Page 85 January 24, 2002 MR. SPILLER: observation? MR. BAYLISS: MR. SPILLER: So we don't know who made that first Ms. Arnold would know. We don't know who made that observation on January 25th to find out what the violation was on January 25th of 2000; correct? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Spiller, he didn't say he did anything in January. He just said there was an observation. MR. SPILLER: I understand that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So-- MR. SPILLER: I'm trying to find out if we have a witness to that event. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The -- the county didn't put one up. You're questioning this witness. You don't get to call witnesses until you get your mm. Question him. MR. SPILLER: That's what I just did. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Don't determine if there's another witness. If the county don't want to put anybody else up there, they don't have to. So let's stick with him. MR. SPILLER: All right. Now, you indicated that there was no entry on the property on August 20th of 2001 ? MR. BAYLISS: Actually, what we were saying is that there's no acceptable proper entrance, no legal entrance. MR. SPILLER: All right. Let -- let me withdraw that. You 20th, 200 MR. MR. SPILLER: MR. BAYLISS: 20th, 2001. MR. SPILLER: earlier testified that you did not go onto property on August 1, to inspect it? BAYLISS: August the 20, 20017 Yes, sir. I got -- I received a letter from him August the Okay. And thereafter you did not personally go Page 86 January 24, 2002 That's correct. I did not go on the onto the property? MR. BAYLISS: No. property after that date. MR. SPILLER: BAYLISS SPILLER: BAYLISS: SPILLER: And you, rather, drove by the property? MR. :Yes. MR. Okay. Which road did you use to drive by it? MR. Taylor and Immokalee. MR. Okay. So you had a view limited of the trailers from that perspective? MR. BAYLISS: That's correct. MR. SPILLER: And it's obvious, therefore, that you never went into any of these trailers after the July 24th, 2001, inspection? MR. BAYLISS: That's correct. MR. SPILLER: Okay. So you have no idea what the condition of those trailers was on July 25 or at any time thereafter? MR. BAYLISS: That's correct. MR. SPILLER: What violation did you, then, observe on your drive-by after August 20th, 2001 ? MR. BAYLISS: The No. 1 violation was observed before I got there. Mr. Blocker did not wish to accept the SIP program for his property, getting it out of VR into a legal piece of property. And the second observation -- I'm still speaking, sir-- my second observation was -- MR. SPILLER: I'm only focusing upon the condition of the trailers. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let him answer the question. If you're not going to let him answer the question, don't ask it. MR. SPILLER: Sir, I'm trying to make -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He needs the right to answer the question in his way, not your way. MR. SPILLER: I was focusing the question upon the condition Page 87 January 24, 2002 of the trailers only. That's all I asked. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Under his interpretation of your question, he's trying to answer. Either let him do that or say you want to rephrase the question, if you think he's going the wrong direction. MR. SPILLER: On your drive-by of August 20th, 2001, or thereafter, what violations did you observe relating to the conditions of the trailers? MR. BAYLISS: The violations I observed, that there were too many trailers on the property for a VR piece of property; furthermore, that there were no proper legal access areas from those trailers to a county road. MR. SPILLER: MR. BAYLISS: MR. SPILLER: Okay. Any others? I couldn't observe any more. Now that you mention a legal access, what is the legal standard that you're using to conclude that those dirt roads are illegal? MR. BAYLISS: Well-- the standard? MR. SPILLER: 'Yes. What is the code violation? What is the Florida statute? What is the legal reference for you to be before this board in saying that a dirt road that's got a few potholes in it, as you describe it, is illegal access upon private property? MR. BAYLISS: The property -- we're asking that a piece of property have a 20-foot-wide roadway to access all mobile homes with a 19-foot by 8-foot-wide area to each trailer park and that that goes to the highway or road by the county that has -- all of this has setup, and on top of this, it must be a dustless surface, either blacktop, concrete or 57-degree grade-type gravel on top of it. MR. SPILLER: I understand that is the physical description. My question, though, was, what is the legal requirement to have those physical features? Page 88 January 24, 2002 MR. BAYLISS: You can't-- you can't-- MR. SPILLER: They're not cited-- they're not cited in any of the violation standards that are a part of the hearing today. MR. BAYLISS: We're saying that there are no -- we said, there are no proper access areas to those -- to the road. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Bayliss, for my own clarification, I understand what you're trying to say, provide a reference document. Where are you coming up with those requirements? Give me an ordinance, a document, some standard. Tell me where you're coming up with that, other than just a subjective -- MR. BAYLISS: Thank you very much. Let me get that for you in a moment. MS. ARNOLD: These requirements would be required as a part of the site-improvement plan process. MR. BAYLISS: Set up by the engineer. MR. LEHMANN: You weren't testifying. Staff is trying to testify that a violation occurs because the road itself is improperly constructed. Tell me why. MR. BAYLISS: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: We don't have those engineering specifications here with us. If the respondent were to go through that process, that information would be provided to them. MR. LEHMANN: Are you testifying, then, that such documents do exist, are part of the process that the respondents can be made available to and would know what those standards are? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. SPILLER: Is that a part of the process of complying with the zoning requirements applicable to mobile home parks? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. SPILLER: Okay. Sir, do you know what the permitted uses of mobile home parks Page 89 January 24, 2002 include? MR. BAYLISS: MR. SPILLER: MR. BAYLISS: MR. SPILLER: The permitted uses of a mobile home park? Yes. I may not understand your question clearly. Do you know how the county Land Development Code defines a mobile home park? MR. BAYLISS: I don't have an answer to that. MR. SPILLER: At this time I ask to be marked as -- admitted into evidence Land Development Code definition segment page -- colon 41, specific to mobile home park. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 2 was marked for identification.) MS. ARNOLD: Do you have copies for the rest of us? MR. SPILLER: Sure do. If you'd refer to the copy Ms. Arnold has, do you see on the first line, mobile home park is defined as (as read): "The premises where mobile homes are parked for nontransient living"? Yes. Would you agree that migrant farm workers are MR. BAYLISS: MR. SPILLER: transients? MR. BAYLISS: MR. SPILLER: Certainly. And, therefore, a transient facility for migrant workers could not comply with the definition of "mobile home park" contained in our zoning ordinance? MR. BAYLISS: Well, I would, except for that "or." You got nontransient living or sleeping purposes and where sites and lots were set aside to offer for lease or for rent. MR. SPILLER: "Nontransient" is the qualifier; do you agree with that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Spiller, I'm a little confused here. In your questioning you're now, all of a sudden, into mobile home parks, which I don't remember him testifying about, other than in this Page 90 January 24, 2002 village residential district, mobile homes are a permitted use. I don't remember him testifying to anything about parks. How are we getting into that? MR. SPILLER: There's been frequent reference to the density applicable to mobile home parks and that there is a document that we will provide later as a part of our exhibits, and the material handed to Mr. Blocker specified that in order to comply with the site- improvement plan to be designated as a mobile home park-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're -- we're trying to question him, and what he's presented to the board -- and I don't remember him talking about mobile home parks. That's my problem. You're questioning him about mobile home parks. That wasn't his testimony. So let's get back to what he testified to, not the documents that were submitted to Mr. Blocker. You provided Mr. Blocker documents when MR. SPILLER: you met with him? MR. BAYLISS: Yes, sir, I did. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He hasn't testified to each and every one of those documents, so let's get back to what he testified to. MR. SPILLER: Okay. I'll show you this exhibit and ask you, is that a part of the material you provided to Mr. Blocker that day? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, now he didn't testify to that document that you handed to him, which I don't know what it is, then you're not going to ask him that question. MR. SPILLER: Sir, we are covering a subject that this witness testified to in direct examination. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And that subject was mobile home parks. I don't remember that word. That's my problem. MR. SPILLER: And that is -- and that is that he handed him certain documents and told Mr. Blocker that in order to comply with Page 91 January 24, 2002 the county's request, that he would have to follow these instructions to get a site-improvement plan. I'm just following up on that subject matter of his direct testimony by asking him, is this -- if these materials are the documents that he gave him. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't think he said he gave them to him. I think he said the county gave them to him when they were in a meeting. MR. SPILLER: Is this a part of the material that you provided to Mr. Blocker that day? MR. BAYLISS: Yes. MR. SPILLER: I would ask that this be marked as Exhibit D-3. (Respondents' Exhibit No. D-3 was marked for identification.) MS. ARNOLD: Can I request that Mr. Spiller provide us, as he would want us to do, all of his exhibits so that we can have an opportunity to review? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. You're giving a lot of exhibits. The board hasn't seen any of this stuff, so I don't know what you're doing. MR. SPILLER: I'll move into evidence Exhibit D-l, 2 and 3. MS. DUSEK: We don't have copies. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We don't have copies of all that stuff. MR. SPILLER: The only ones that exist are those that are right here before the court reporter. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, you seemed upset in the beginning that you didn't have copies of something, so we're a little upset that we don't have copies. MR. SPILLER: I agree with you. MR. LEHMANN: Do we have the ability to make copies of those? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well -- MS. ARNOLD: Could I have the rest of your exhibits, sir? Page 92 January 24, 2002 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Back to exhibits on mobile home parks, and ! don't remember this particular witness testifying anything about mobile home parks. So I have a real problem with that personally, but that's okay. MS. DUSEK: I do too. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you want those, Michelle? Deals with mobile home parks. Mr. Spiller, we're trying to do due process here, but what we would like to have is -- this gentleman gave us specific words on certain things. The package of documents that the county gave your client is one thing. He didn't stand up here and testify that he knew each and every word on each and every document. He stood up here and said certain things. I want you to question him about those certain things. Okay? MR. SPILLER: Which is what I'm doing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. You're talking about mobile home parks, and he didn't say anything about mobile home parks. MR. SPILLER: On Exhibit D-3 you see there where the bold- typed material at the very top line reads (as read): "Guidelines governing the submission of site-improvement plans for mobile home parks, including migrants' housing located in Immokalee, Florida." CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Again, you are in cross-examination of this witness. Fourth or fifth time, no words that I remember came out of his mouth about mobile home parks. Pick another question, that's very specific. MS. ARNOLD: I'm going to have to object as well, because the violations that are being considered is not related to those guidelines that were handed out. And I've requested copies of his other exhibits, and Mr. Spiller has identified for me that he will not share those with me until he presents them to the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Page 93 January 24, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: We do have rules for submittal of respondents' packets, and those should be submitted prior to the hearing, and I'm just putting on the record my objection to that. MR. LEHMANN: Ms. Rawson, may we have counsel's advice on this issue? MS. RAWSON: Which issue? MS. DUSEK: I would like to know about the, supposedly, evidence packages that he's submitting right now when we never had copies of them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, he is probably permitted to do that. MS. RAWSON: He is probably permitted because he didn't have a copy of our rules. I think our rules say you have to supply the board a packet within ten days. He didn't have a copy of the rules. And it's not uncommon to expect in fundamental due process that you have copies prior to the hearing. The other side -- whether the board or the fact-finder has them or not, the other side should probably have had those. MR. LEHMANN: Ms. Rawson. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: Aren't our rules not public information? MS. RAWSON: Probably not yet. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, packages have been required since I've been a member of this board. MS. RAWSON: Well, the old rules are public information. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So the old rules have been out there for a long time, so I have a real problem with his saying he couldn't get the rules. They're around. He just didn't ask for them, evidently. MR. LEHMANN: I respect both parties' right to due process. My concern is that we -- this could drag out to be a very long case if we don't keep concentrating on the issues. Page 94 January 24, 2002 MS. RAWSON: Well, I can just give you a general rule of evidence, that Mr. Spiller has a right to cross-examine this witness based on his testimony, and his scope of cross-examination has to be limited to the direct examination given by MR. BAYLISS. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Gee, I'm not stupid. Next question, Mr. Spiller, as long as it doesn't start with mobile home parks. MR. SPILLER: In the notice of August 10th, 2001, to Mr. Blocker in Case No. 03, do you see there where handwritten you have indicated that he must rezone the property? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Excuse me, what he testified to. Let's get back to the point. Did he -- I don't remember saying on this page my handwritten -- he didn't say that. You're now pulling stuff out of this package again. Get back to his testimony. MR. SPILLER: Sir, I am, and if you would be patient with me, you will see clearly that I'm talking to him, questioning him about his direct testimony to you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Said something about his handwriting. MR. SPILLER: Do you recall that you handed this notice to Mr. Blocker on August 10 of 2001 ? MR. BAYLISS: Yes, I handed him the notice of violation. Yes. MR. SPILLER: All right. You said so -- I'm sorry. You indicated that you'd done that by personal service? That's on this document? MR. BAYLISS: MR. SPILLER: That's correct. And at the time you did that, was this handwritten note there, that he had to rezone the property? MR. BAYLISS: I don't recall. I don't know that. MR. SPILLER: All right. Why, then, does the one -- the copy before this board have handwritten on it that the property owner-- in order to comply and correct the violations, he has to rezone the Page 95 January 24, 2002 property? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Spiller, you're really trying my patience. I'm sorry. But ! must be missing something. MR. SPILLER: Yes, sir, you are. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: This gentleman didn't say anything about these two pieces of paper you're talking about. MR. SPILLER: He did. He said he handed Mr. Blocker the notice of violation and the inspection reports. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Along with all this other stuff in a meeting. MR. SPILLER: On August 10. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MR. SPILLER: And I'm questioning him about that, that document that he has now acknowledged he handed to Mr. Blocker on August 10th. Sir, we are before this board -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. SPILLER: -- on claimed violations as well as what we have to do, if there are violations found, to correct those violations, and the material that's before this board collectively referred to as Petitioner's Exhibit A tells this property owner that he's got to rezone the property. It is not necessary that Mr. Bayliss testify as to what he said in direct before I can question him about exhibits before this board. Your restriction of examination, as you express it, to only things that you remember him testifying about is unnecessary restriction on my opportunity to develop a case, including what must we do to correct the claimed deficiencies and this -- under this man's signature on August 10th, and I want to know what he wants this property owner to do in rezoning the property. MR. LEHMANN: Ms. Rawson, your opinion. MS. RAWSON: I think he can ask him what he wants him to Page 96 January 24, 2002 do. I'm sure he'd be happy to answer that question. MR. SPILLER: On No. 4, rezoning the property, what is the new zoning that you indicate the property must -- owner must obtain? We're asking him that he must petition for a MR. BAYLISS: rezone. MR. SPILLER: MR. BAYLISS: All right. What rezoning? So that he may have mobile homes on his trailer or mobile home on that property. MR. SPILLER: Sir, what zoning classification are you telling him he must petition for? MR. BAYLISS: Whatever it would take for him to have a mobile home migrant park that he has. MR. SPILLER: Sir, you're the code inspector. Are you familiar with the zoning requirements of the county? I'm familiar with the violations that he had. Are you familiar with the zoning requirements MR. BAYLISS: MR. SPILLER: of the county? MR. BAYLISS: MR. SPILLER: The zoning requirements? Yes. Let me withdraw. Are you familiar with the zoning -- (Ms. Taylor retires from hearing room.) MR. SPILLER: Could I note that Ms. Taylor left the hearing room and request a recess until she returns? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. We have a quorum. Keep going. Are you familiar with the zoning classifications MR. SPILLER: of the county? MR. BAYLISS: MR. SPILLER: Yes. Isn't it true that the only zoning classification other than VR that could possibly apply to this property is that of a mobile home park? MR. BAYLISS: That's not my decision. The planning board Page 97 January 24, 2002 that when MR. cannot be MR. mobile home parks. MR. SPILLER: has to make that decision, and they -- he has to apply for it for them to make that determination. MR. SPILLER: And wouldn't the application that he has to submit, as you suggest, that he rezone the property identified by zoning classification he seeks? MR. BAYLISS: It would naturally, to have what he wants, yeah. MR. SPILLER: All right. And we earlier saw that a mobile home park cannot be one for transients; correct? MR. BAYLISS: Well, that's up to the planning board to decide he petitions. SPILLER: Okay. By definition a mobile home park for transients; correct? BAYLISS: I thought we weren't going to talk about All right. Sir, what is the triggering event on this same document obtained-- retained documents? What is the triggering event that causes a property owner to get a permit -- a building permit? MR. BAYLISS: You must apply to the -- to the county for that. MR. SPILLER: Sir, let me withdraw the question so that you understand what I'm asking. MR. BAYLISS: Sure. Thank you. MR. SPILLER: If I was told that I had to have a Florida driver's license, don't you think that in order to have that requirement imposed on me, I'm going to be operating a motor vehicle? MR. BAYLISS: Well, I'm not -- I'm not in the state. I can't make that-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's not talk about the State of Florida. That's irrelevant. MR. SPILLER: I'm trying to get my point -- the question Page 98 January 24, 2002 across. Let me re-ask it. What must occur as a property owner's action that requires them to obtain a building permit in this instance? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I -- I don't think this gentleman can answer that question. He's an inspector. MR. SPILLER: If he has cited, this property owner, with certain defects in the property and you told him to obtain a required permit in order to cure that, do you have the legal authority to cure that defect -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MR. SPILLER: I'm asking MR. BAYLISS, what is the triggering event that requires a person to get a permit. MR. BAYLISS: First he must come to the county, present himself with what he wants done, and then the county will lay out the rules and regulations necessary for him to get that work performed properly. MR. SPILLER: MR. BAYLISS: Okay. If-- do you own a home in the county? No, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's irrelevant. MR. SPILLER: Mobile home? MR. BAYLISS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's irrelevant. MR. SPILLER: Do you live in the county? MR. BAYLISS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's irrelevant. MR. SPILLER: I want you to assume that you own a single- family home in Collier County and you want to replace the screen on your back lanai door. Okay? Does that require a permit? MS. DUSEK: May I ask -- may I please ask what this has to do with his testimony. And I'm not -- Page 99 January 24, 2002 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You'll get a roundabout answer. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Spiller, I'm not following you, and we have to be able to follow and understand what you're doing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's take ten minutes. We need a little break here in everybody's brain power. (Short recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We'll call our Code Enforcement Board back to order. The primary parties are here. Mr. Spiller, you're still on, sir. BY MR. SPILLER: Q. Okay. In your statement of violation and request for hearing in both cases, in the description of the violation, you are stating illegal use of land with no access to a public road. Do you agree with that? A. I agree with that because an access has to be a proper, legal access or not an access. It's just a bump in the road. Q. All right. Now, you claim, though, that there was no access, rather than the access that existed was improper. A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Do you recall your testimony at the very beginning in which you described the conditions of the road that were to be expected for a mobile home park, that is the hard surface, no dust emissions, the dimensions that you described? Do you recall that earlier testimony? A. We described the road that should have been there, correct. Q. And those standards come from what exists for approval of the mobile home park by the zoning classification; correct? A. Yes. They must be at that standard, yes. Q. Okay. Now, look at the existing zoning, VR, and inform the board whether those road standards exist or not. Page 100 January 24, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: Look at what? Where? A. Look at what? I don't quite follow that question. Q. Look at Respondents' Exhibit D-1, which is the village residential district zoning, and inform the board whether those road conditions exist in that zoning dimensions that you described CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: that does apply to the property, those in the hard road surfaces. Mr. Spiller, you're trying to get him to testify for your side. Ask him a question about his testimony. MR. SPILLER: I am, sir. That's exactly what I did. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. You're saying give testimony for what's on this page. That's not what he said before. He gave testimony on something else. Now you're asking him to change that to something about this page. MR. SPILLER: Sir, that is not what I asked him. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. What did you-- MS. DUSEK: What was the question? BY MR. SPILLER: Q. Is there a requirement in the VR zoning that the roads upon the private property be paved and have certain dimensions? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That wasn't your original question. asking? Q. A. asking? The requirements for village residential is what you're Correct. If they have specifications for a road? Is that what you're Q. Internal roads upon the property itself. MS. DUSEK: Are you asking him about internal roads or public access to them? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He just said the word "internal," and that was not talked about before. So don't tell me you didn't say that, or I'll have her read it back. Page 101 January 24, 2002 MR. SPILLER: There's two types of-- MS. ARNOLD: Please talk into the microphone. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. Stand back there. You keep wandering off. Stay there. MR. SPILLER: The two types of roads that I've -- two types of roads that I would refer to in these questions: One, is those that are public roads, and those that are the internal roads. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, internal he didn't talk about. The problem is access, if I remember what he gave testimony about. MR. SPILLER: I'll use that term, then. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Access -- talk about internal. So let's get back to access. Q. Access roads being the ones that are upon the property of the Blockers, is there any requirement in the VR zoning classification that those be paved? A. Not under the VR district. Q. Okay. So isn't it true, then, that the only requirement for paved roads access would exist for mobile home parks zoning classification? MR. SPILLER: I'm going to object to the witness referring to Ms. Arnold for assistance in his answers. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We need to -- if you can, Mr. Bayliss, when he asks you a question, again, either answer it, say you don't understand it, or say you can't answer it. Okay. And please don't ask anybody else for help. MR. BAYLISS: I didn't really ask for help. I was asking for that -- he asked for a particular mobile home park, and I don't have that here. I just have the VR here, and I was just asking do we have the mobile home. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Bayliss, then if that is your response, then please direct your response to -- Page 102 January 24, 2002 MR. BAYLISS: Thank you. I appreciate that. That's my response. BY MR. SPILLER: Q. Okay. So the only requirement that you know of for these paved roads or those dimensions would be for the mobile home zoning classification, correct, that you would impose upon the Blocker property? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. Okay. Now, earlier we had an exhibit admitted in which the definition of a mobile home park excludes transients. Do you also acknowledge that this is a transient living facility? A. Yes. Q. And do you recall also your earlier testimony, and that of Ms. Arnold, concerning state permits for that? A. Yes. Q. Do you recall that? MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Spiller, would you define for the board's pleasure the word "transient" as you are using the definition. MR. SPILLER: In my research and preparation for today's hearing, I examined both the hard copy of the Land Development Code in the county law library as well as the computer Web site for that, municcode.com, and there is no definition in the Land Development Code for transient or nontransient, in the Land Development Code of Collier County. So I have to fall back upon the common English version of that, and the common English version is what I'm relying on. MR. LEHMANN: I just want to make sure that we're not using some other reference to that. MR. SPILLER: Right. MR. LEHMANN: Thank you. MR. SPILLER: Could you read back the last question before Mr. Lehmann spoke? Page 103 January 24, 2002 MR. LEHMANN: And I apologize for the interruption. (The requested portion of the record was read.) Q. As a part of Exhibit A before the board, it has your document titled "Notice of Ordinance Violation and Order to Correct." In Case No. 03, written in apparent ink by yourself, is the property owner must rezone the property; correct? A. Not correct. I didn't write that. Q. Who did? A. My supervisor. Q. Who is that? A. Ms. Dora Vidaurri. Q. But that was a part of the order given to -- A. That's correct. Q. -- Mr. Blocker by yourself. A. That's correct. Q. Okay. So he has to rezone the property, and the only rezoning that we can identify is mobile home park; correct? A. He has to petition for a rezone. I can't identify it. He has to petition to the county for a rezoning of that piece of property. Q. And why is the use of the property under the VR designation improper that would require rezoning? A. Because it has mobile homes on it. Q. And did you see that a permitted use of VR is mobile homes, in the plural? A. Well, I saw the word plural, sure. Q. Okay. Any other reason why they must rezone, other than that they are using it as permitted for mobile homes? home. Q. A. It's not correctly permitted for VR. It should be mobile Mobile home park? It should be the mobile home section. Page 104 January 24, 2002 Q. What's your basis for concluding that it must be a mobile home park? A. If he wants to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Excuse me. He didn't say park. He said mobile home. Q. Okay. So we have a zoning classification now called mobile home? A. He must petition in order to change that. Q. That isn't my question. Are you now testifying that there's a new zoning classification in Collier County called mobile home? A. No. Q. It's mobile home parks; correct? A. There are different districts, and one of those districts is considered mobile home park. Q. Okay. Sir, are you familiar with the term "nonconforming use"? A. Yes. Q. What is your understanding of the term "nonconforming use"? A. It does not meet the laws of today. Q. Does it also include that the -- at the time that a code provision was enacted, a property was properly used, contrary to that before the effective enactment date? MS. DUSEK: Mr. Spiller, for my own personal understanding, it sounds to me that you are presenting your case now. I don't remember any discussion about nonconforming use by Mr. Bayliss. MR. SPILLER: There is testimony that is before you that -- and I'll try to get very direct on it because I'm not going to summarize it all. He said that the roads there were illegal because it was -- didn't meet the standard of mobile home parks. Page 105 January 24, 2002 MR. DUSEK: I don't-- MR. SPILLER: And his violation notice that he gave to the property owner said you got to rezone the property. MS. DUSEK: Excuse me. Mr. Bayliss, did you say mobile home park? MR. BAYLISS: No. MS. DUSEK: All right. MR. SPILLER: Through cross-examination he identified mobile home park as the zoning classification. MS. DUSEK: He did not say mobile home park. You are the only one who continues to use mobile home park. MR. SPILLER: All right. Let me -- MS. ARNOLD: And can I clarify as well, there is no zoning district mobile home park. There's a VR zoning district that permits single family, multifamily. It also permits mobile homes. And the plural version is provided for each of those permitted uses. In the VR zoning district, a unit is per-- permitted on each lot. You have -- your property owner has two parcels, so technically two mobile homes can be placed on -- one on each parcel. The mobile home zoning district -- it's not mobile home park. There's no such thing as a mobile home park district that he keeps referring to -- also permits mobile homes. And it also has different development standards or dimensional standards than the VR zoning district, and one would have to comply with the dimensional standards of that district. So the information that he's entering in is -- has no relevance to this particular case. MR. SPILLER: In response to that, two matters: First, if Ms. Arnold's going to testify, she needs to be sworn and wait her turn to testify. Number two, the question about mobile home parks comes squarely out of the Land Development Code in the Collier County Law Library. Page 106 January 24, 2002 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I'm going to tell you, sir, one more time, and this is going to be the last time. Trust me. In reading what the respondent has violated, nowhere did I find the words "mobile home park." Now, when Mr. Bayliss was standing up here, at no time do I remember him uttering the words "mobile home park." You, sir, have continually brought it up. From now on, please, sir, no more mobile home park or parks, whatever plural you want to use. That's not what you're charged -- your client is charged with. He didn't bring it up in his direct testimony. I don't want to hear it any more. You're confusing everybody. It's not what this case is about as it's been presented to us so far. Evidently, we have a long way to go because this is only the first witness for the county. It may come up later. I don't know. But right now that hasn't been brought up, so let's get off of the mobile home park. MR. LEHMANN: Point of clarification for the board. Since we're looking at this Land Development Code, Section 2.2.9, which talks about village residential districts, does, indeed, list a permitted use as mobile homes, plural; but it also lists everything else in plural. It does not say that you can stick or place more than one mobile home or more than one single-family dwelling or more than one duplex on a lot or a parcel of land. It has no reference to that. If you go further back into Section 2.2.10, that section references mobile home districts. That district does reference intent to provide lands for mobile home use. So I -- I think we do have some sort of a confusion as to what's happening in the district itself. This is a VR district. Simply because the word in the permitted use is plural, I would argue that that is not to reference the fact that we can place a multitude of dwelling units, mobile homes, single-family dwellings, duplexes, whatever, on that parcel, just as clarification for the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's just get on with questioning the Page 107 January 24, 2002 witness, but get away from mobile home park, please, sir. BY MR. SPILLER: Q. Do you understand what a nonconforming use is? A. Yes. MR. SPILLER: I ask that this document be marked as the next in order. (Exhibit No. D-4 was marked for identification.) Q. Do you see that the Land Development Code of Collier County Section-- Division 1.8 identifies nonconformities? A. Yes. Q. All right. And do you see further that in the first subparagraph, the intent of the county commission is, quote, within the zoning districts established by the Land Development Code or amendments that may later be adopted, there may exist lots, structures, uses of land, water structures, and characteristics of use which were lawful before this code was adopted or amended but which would be prohibited, regulated, or restricted under the terms of this code for future amendments. Do you see that? A. Yes, I do. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Spiller, are you leading towards something that he testified, or are you still, again, presenting your case? MR. SPILLER: I'm allowed to present a portion of my case through cross-examination of the adverse witness. And the answer to that is yes. MS. DUSEK: You are now going to ask a question that he testified. I don't remember anything about nonconforming use. You have to stay with what he testified. There may be other witnesses where you can get into it much more, but just go with what he testified so we can move on with this case and hear other testimony. MR. SPILLER: Ma'am, I am allowed to conduct examination upon the subject matters -- Page 108 January 24, 2002 MS. DUSEK: Yes, I realize you are. MR. SPILLER: -- upon the subject matters not only of his testimony, but of his written documents that are before you in the form of Exhibit A. And his written documents are saying that it's illegal land use, and I'm questioning him upon his conclusion that it's illegal land use. BY MR. SPILLER: Q. Sir, do you know anything by personal knowledge of the history of this mobile home -- or these mobile homes and the address 423 Taylor Street prior to your employment in code enforcement last year? A. Do I know -- did I have any reference to that? Q. Yes. A. No. Q. All right. Now, a part of the package that you put together, though, includes the warranty deeds applicable to these two parcels; correct? A. That's correct. Q. And isn't it true that each of those reflect that the ownership of this property was shifted from a fellow and his wife named Kenny Kemp to the Blockers in 19897 A. That's correct. Q. And isn't it true that the Land Development Code came into existence in 1991 ? A. The -- the present Land Development Code is 1991. Q. Okay. Now, what about the use of the property in 1989 and earlier years, that you're aware of, was illegal? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Irrelevant. He didn't talk about that. I don't see anything in the documents that were permitted -- submitted that says anything about prior to when he went out and looked at the property. Page 109 January 24, 2002 Q while ago q MR. SPILLER: Mr. Flegal, ifI could, in the submissions that I made to this board back in December right after we were served, I asserted what are called affirmative defenses. One of the affirmative defenses -- and I believe it's the last one that I asserted -- is that this property is in the definition of a nonconforming use, and therefore it does not have to comply with the existing Land Development Code. MS. DUSEK: But, Mr. Spiller, present that-- MR. SPILLER: As a part of that presentation of my case, I'm asking this witness -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. MR. SPILLER: -- if he knows anything about that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: When you want to present your side, you present your documents. And if you need us to call somebody up, we will do that. He did not talk about that. That's your defense. When you get ready to put on a defense, we'll be most welcome to hear that. Ask him something that he talked about or one of these documents that he submitted. He didn't submit any of that. Move on. BY MR. SPILLER: Q. Would you agree, Mr. Bayliss, that if the property was properly classified as nonconforming use, that your finding that it's illegal land use is improper? A. No, I would not agree to that. Why not? Because it's not presently under the code of'91. And that's the way you understand nonconforming use? No. I already explained nonconforming use to you a Okay. Let's look at the inspection reports that you handed to Mr. Blocker back in August of this year. Okay. Look at Unit No. 1. Do you see that the structural item there that you've identified as a defect is -- Page 110 January 24, 2002 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Spiller, I understand what you're doing and all these documents that were submitted to you. I think first you need to establish that these reports that you're going to question the witness about, which he did not bring up on testimony, that he wrote them. If he didn't write them, then I don't suspect he's going to be able to give you your answer. MR. SPILLER: Sir, I-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They were given to you by the county in a package that maybe, at this meeting which we weren't at, he happened to hand, but many people were present. So you keep saying that he gave everything. Yes, he physically may have handed them, but I don't know that he put this package together. That hasn't been established. It hasn't been established that he wrote the actual pieces of paper. I mean, we're trying to be as lenient -- although everybody's patience is getting stretched a little bit, but we're trying to be lenient. So please, sir, you know how to do this the right way. MR. SPILLER: And I do, sir, and I'm doing it that way, if I might. BY MR. SPILLER: Q. Mr. Bayliss, to go back over prior testimony, do you recall that on July 24th you were with Mr. Noonan, the, quote, housing inspector? A. That's correct. Q. And that the two of you together inspected the property? A. That's correct. Q. And that later in August you handed those prepared inspection reports to Mr. Blocker, Sr.? A. All -- all of the information was given to him at that time, yes. Q. Okay. So at that time, in July, and today, would it be true that you know what those defects are that are cited in these Page 111 January 24, 2002 reports? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Let's look at the first one: Structural, fix all roof leaks. What is the basis for concluding that there was a then-existent roof leak in Unit No. 1 ? A. Each one of these reports were written by the building inspector, Collier County's inspector. It's my job to hand them to the person who owns the property or who is responsible for the property. So I would not be able to tell you, but he would be able to tell you if you would call him as a witness. Q. Okay. Would that answer be true for each and every numbered paragraph on each and every one of these 26 inspection reports? A. These inspection reports, as I just got through telling you, were made by a county building inspector. They're his work given to me to give to the property owner or the person responsible. Q. Okay. Sir, is the -- the question I'm trying to ask you is, you have no direct knowledge that you want to impart to this board about the actual defect that's referred to in any of these inspection reports; is that correct? A. Not solely, because I was present with him measuring and also pointing out to each other things that need to be done on the property. Q. Okay. And that's what I want to find out. What things need to be done on the property? mo responsible Q. information A. Q. And I'm trying to tell you that the person who's for that answer is not me, but the building inspector. All right. So last question. I'm to only get that from Mr. Noonan, not yourself?. That's correct. Very good. Page 112 January 24, 2002 A. Is that the last question? Q. No. Afraid not. A. I didn't think so. Q. Did you have any part in the inspection conclusion repeated on each and every one of the reports, quote, there may be problems here that are not readily apparent that must be fixed? A. No. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Spiller, I didn't quite understand that. Would you please repeat the question again. MR. SPILLER: Yeah. Did the witness have any part in creating this comment on each and every one of the inspection reports, quote -- MR. LEHMANN: Thank you. MR. SPILLER: Do I need to go further? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. He answered that question twice now. Let's move on to something else. BY MR. SPILLER: Q. Earlier I asked you a question, and I think we took a break, so I don't believe we got an answer on it. What is the floor level of cost of repairs necessary to obtain repair permits to your knowledge? A. I don't know. MS. DUSEK: To me, that's irrelevant. MR. SPILLER: Ma'am, it is not irrelevant because -- MS. DUSEK: According to his testimony, it is. MR. SPILLER: Ma'am, it's relevant because he's telling the property owner in order to avoid the violation or abate the violation, he must get a permit. Now, if there's no need for a permit other than declaring to get a permit, then I would suggest to the board that there's no legal basis for imposing that upon the property owner. And specifically I'm referring to the requirement in the county code, the Page 113 January 24, 2002 building code. If we could mark this as an exhibit. (Exhibit No. D-5 was marked for identification.) MS. DUSEK: Mr. Spiller, some of these questions should be directed to another witness. MR. SPILLER: Ma'am, if he's the one who has signed the affidavit that creates the violation and has signed the actual petition to have this hearing and he's the witness testifying and he's saying "Get a permit," I'm allowed to question him on that issue of a permit. MS. DUSEK: As he told you before, there are more than one person -- there are more than one who make these decisions and who participate in this entire process. MR. SPILLER: He may have. But that doesn't mean that I'm not allowed to question the witness about his imposing upon the property owner an obligation to obtain a permit if there's none required by law. BY MR. SPILLER: Q. Sir, would you turn to page 7 of the county ordinance that I've just provided to you, which is County Ordinance 98-76 titled "Collier County Building Construction Administration Code." And on page 7 would you agree and inform the board that the permit for repair of a building is not required if the valuation of the construction repair is less than $750? A. That's correct. Q. Would you also inform the Court -- the board that there's no obligation to obtain an electrical permit if the cost of those repairs are $400 or less? MS. DUSEK: Mr. Spiller, if I remember his testimony earlier, that was brought out, and that was if a person lives there year-round, if that's his permanent dwelling. MR. SPILLER: Ma'am, his interpretation and creation of the county ordinance is not evidence. The county ordinance itself is now Page 114 January 24, 2002 before the board, and his version of what the conditions of that are are not true. It says nothing about occupying the property. It only says the owner. MS. DUSEK: So the owner must live in these -- MR. SPILLER: No, ma'am. It does not say that. An owner may repair his own property if the value of the structural repair is 750 or less or electrical 400 or less. There's no obligation that they live in it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Unfortunately, Mr. Spiller, what you haven't presented to this board is what the cost of repairs are. So questioning him as to whether a permit's required is really immaterial. So let's get on with something else. MR. SPILLER: I am still upon the subject of the permits for repair. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. MR. SPILLER: And I have got one -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're talking about permits and a dollar value, whether they're needed or not. That was not brought up. It has never been an issue. You don't have any evidence from your side stating that they are under that. So when you get to your side if you want to present that evidence, I think that would be great for us to hear. Right now there is nothing before us about that. Next subject. BY MR. SPILLER: Q. On each of the inspection reports, Mr. Bayliss, on each item, did you do a cost estimate of repair where it's called for? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Bayliss said he didn't write these reports. You consistently keep trying to drag him into these reports. Why? MR. SPILLER: I'm asking him about -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm getting-- Page 115 January 24, 2002 MR. SPILLER: Mr. Flegal, please, these questions are taking two and three times longer than necessary because of the comments coming from the board. I've got very specific points I'm trying to establish. And if you would give me the patience of letting me get to those, we could proceed on much more efficiently. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're asking -- MR. SPILLER: The next question I'm going to ask him is did he make any estimates of the cost or value of the repair that he's citing in these evalu -- these inspection reports. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Spiller, it's my understanding that he did not write these reports. MR. SPILLER: It doesn't matter, ma'am, whether he wrote them or not. The question is did he make any cost valuation estimate. MS. DUSEK: The person who wrote the report might have done that. MR. SPILLER: And he may have, but did this witness do it, and that's the simple question. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You haven't pointed out anywhere that he was required to do it under the code. You keep going to the code. Tell me where he's required to do it. MS. TAYLOR: Can you ask a simple question? MR. SPILLER: I'm trying to. MS. TAYLOR: No, you're not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, you're not. MR. SPILLER: All right. I'll try it this way. MS. TAYLOR: You are a master of-- BY MR. SPILLER: Q. Sir, did you prepare -- MS. TAYLOR: Listen to me, Mr. Spiller. You are a master of muddying the waters. That's what you are. Now, if you want to ask a question, ask a simple question and get the answer, go on. Page 116 January 24, 2002 BY MR. SPILLER: Q. Mr. Bayliss, did you prepare an estimate of the repairs for any of the items that are identified as deficiencies in these 26 inspection reports? A. I had no part of the inspection reports. And the answer is, therefore, you did not prepare an Qe estimate? A. Q. I had no part in-- Okay. Sir, did you make any notes, personal notes, when you were inspecting these mobile homes on July 24th, 2001 ? A. We made personal notes such as the number of the mobile home we were in, and I took a picture of those mobile homes. Q. Okay. And do you have any -- my question was notes. A. No. Not notes, no. Q. Sir, did you participate in a town meeting in Immokalee in December of 2001 about these site improvement plans? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm sorry. That's irrelevant. You want to do that on your defense side, do that. Do not present your case now. Ask him about what he testified to. I don't know how many times I have to tell you that, sir. He did not say anything about being in any meeting in Immokalee. Get on with something else pertaining to what he said. And it's not in these papers that were submitted. Move on. BY MR. SPILLER: Q. In the inspection reports that you've adopted in your affidavit of violations, you've identified several trailers that you claim to be undersized, that are less than 480 square feet. Do you recall that? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Now, at a meeting in December of last year in Immokalee, did you inform those trailer owners that the county was Page 117 January 24, 2002 dropping that standard to 300 square feet? A. No. They were reviewing it. Reviewing it? Yes. So the standard you would suggest that still applies is 480 square feet? A. It applies until the county has adopted another figure. Q. Okay. Where -- is the 480-foot standard from that applicable to mobile homes districts? A. Yes. Q. Look in the VR zoning and tell the board whether or not there is a minimum size requirement for the mobile homes in the VR district. A. There's not. Q. Okay. So your suggestion in the package that is before the board pursuant to your affidavit of violation that these trailers that are undersized must be removed is based solely upon a mobile home district, rather than a VR district; correct? A. It was an acceptable figure by the county for size -- minimum size for a mobile home. Q. Are you telling the board today that under VR classification that a mobile home less than 480 square feet is an illegal land use for VR classification? A. Ask the question again. MR. SPILLER: Ma'am, could you read that back, please. (The requested portion of the record was read.) A. Yes. Q. Where in the VR classification do you find a minimum floor square footage for mobile home? Sir, look at the VR classification. A. It's not in the VR. It doesn't have the dimensions -- or Page 118 January 24, 2002 the minimum dimensions in the VR. Q. So there's no dimensional requirements, minimum requirements, for mobile homes in VR districts; correct? A. That's correct. Q. But you're saying it's still an illegal land use? A. Yes. Q. Why? A. It is the history of the county that the minimum that we have adopted by the county is 480 feet as a minimum for a mobile home. Q. And where is that history, other than the mobile home district zoning classification? A. No place. Q. So that's the only place it exists? A. Yes. Q. So you're going to impose a mobile home district zoning requirement upon a different zone called VR? A. That's correct. MR. SPILLER: Okay. No further inquiry. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody else have any questions for Mr. Bayliss? MS. ARNOLD: I do, if I can. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. ARNOLD: Q. Buddy, did you make the determination as to whether or not the -- what constitutes a 480-square-foot requirement? A. No, I did not. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Thank you. If we're ready for the next witness ... CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. That'll be Dora Vid-- I'm sorry. Dick Page 119 January 24, 2002 Noonan. He's the building inspector. THEREUPON, DICK NOONAN, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: MR. NOONAN: For the record, my name's Dick Noonan, Collier County building department. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. ARNOLD: Q. Can you tell us what -- what familiarity you have with this particular case? A. On or about July -- before July 24th, as requested by Buddy Bayliss to inspect the mobile homes at 23 -- 423 Taylor Road for minimum housing violations where there were 26 units on this parcel or two parcels, whatever it is, we inspected each and every one of them -- it took over a course of two days -- and found multiple violations. Q. What is your capacity with the county? A. I'm a Collier County plumbing and mechanical inspector. Q. Are you certified to make inspections on this type of structures that we are considering today? A. By the state I'm licensed as a -- a building official. That would entitle me to inspect any and all structures in Florida. Q. Okay. Did you prepare the reports that -- A. Yes. Q. -- were being discussed? A. I have -- wrote the 26 reports -- evidently there might be a typo, I guess, on them -- on the -- for the 26 mobile homes. Q. What would trigger the requirement of a building permit for a mobile home? A. I believe they already answered that on that ordinance. Page 120 January 24, 2002 There are -- there's a dollar value for structural, a dollar value for plumbing and mech -- electrical. When you reach that -- reach that threshold, it's the value of, not the cost of. I don't know the exact wording. If I had the ordinance, I could read it to you. Q. To your knowledge, are there any permits that were issued by the county for the mobile homes that exist on the properties in question? A. No, I know of no permits to my knowledge. Q. Did you do any research to verify whether or not there were permits? A. I looked at some of the property records, the property card we got from the tax office, and we couldn't find evidence of many permits -- or any permit. Q. Did you check the building permit record? A. Yes. On the -- the building department went on a new system back in 1994, and so it's hard to check after (sic) '94. But from '94 on, I believe it is, there were no records of permits that I can think -- remember at the moment. Q. Do you have any other information that you'd like to present to the board? A. Not that I can think of. The reports pretty well -- other than evidently a typographical error about "from" instead of "form," that's about all I can think of. The -- that's about all. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Board members, questions for Mr. Noonan? MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Noonan, you had indicated that you hold a -- you hold licensing as a state certified-- MR. NOONAN: Building official. MR. LEHMANN: -- inspector-- MR. NOONAN: Building official, state licensed. I'm licensed by the state for structural, electric, plumbing, mechanical. I can do Page 121 January 24, 2002 inspections/plan review on structural, mechanical, and plumbing. I can do inspections on residential electric. I'm also licensed by the state as a building official, which the way it's worded, I might be able to do all. MR. LEHMANN: So under your current licenses, you're more than qualified to render decisions such as what we see in the inspection report for -- MR. NOONAN: I believe so, yes. MR. LEHMANN: -- for structural, plumbing, and electrical systems; is that correct? MR. NOONAN: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: Are you in any position to render decisions regarding the habitability or the structural soundness of a particular dwelling? MR. NOONAN: I believe so, yes. MR. LEHMANN: Are you under direction from the official -- the building official of Collier County to act as his agent in that aspect? MR. NOONAN: Yes, I was. MR. LEHMANN: Thank you. MS. DUSEK: Did you find any of these mobile units to be unsafe? MR. NOONAN: There were a number of them that were unsound, structurally unsound. The way I -- my criteria for unsafe is I wouldn't walk in one. I did not find that in any of these. All of them were structurally unsound -- not all of them. A number of them were structurally unsound due to rot from extensive -- or from lack of maintenance mainly and being old mobile homes. All of the -- a number of them, as I said, were unsound. I would definitely not be in them in a strong wind, but I -- I was not uncomfortable walking in any of them. Page 122 January 24, 2002 MR. PONTE: So they're basically safe? MR. NOONAN: In normal use they would be safe. If you had a strong gust of wind, I would not guarantee that. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Noonan, you are -- let me back up and clarify your testimony, for my sake. Are you testifying that -- in your capacity as an agent for the building official, in your report you are mentioning that these are unsound -- MR. NOONAN: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: -- structures. In your official position with the county, are you deeming these as unsafe buildings? MR. NOONAN: No. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. MR. NOONAN: There's a difference to me between the two. I have no problem-- there is a number of structures in Immokalee that I have deemed unsafe and we've made people move out of. These are not in that classification. MR. LEHMANN: To deem a building unsafe, you would use a particular reference document; is that correct? MR. NOONAN: Yes. There's a number of them. 76-90, I think it is. It's the unsafe structures ordinance. That gives me -- as the building official designee, I would go and take a look at the structure. If I deem it's unsafe, then it has to be turned over to the building -- or the Collier County engineer, and he would have to make a structural report on that. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. In many of the reports you had mentioned -- and please excuse me if I paraphrase -- you had mentioned that a number of these buildings were -- in your opinion, appeared to be structurally unsound -- MR. NOONAN: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: -- and, therefore, would require replacement. MR. NOONAN: Replacement or repair. I'm pretty sure I put Page 123 January 24, 2002 replacement or repair on most all of them. MR. LEHMANN: You may have. Let me check real quick. I have -- I'm just looking at Unit No. 24. And this happens to be in Case 03, page No. 12 of our package -- excuse me, page 13. Your conclusion is that this mobile home seems structurally unsound and should be replaced. MR. NOONAN: Yes. Should be. MR. LEHMANN: If mobile home is not replaced, items listed above must be repaired-- MR. NOONAN: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: -- as soon as possible. MR. NOONAN: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: Is it your professional opinion, as an officer of the county, that these buildings are habitable in their present conditions? MR. NOONAN: I would have to say yes. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Noonan, during the normal course of doing your inspections, with your qualifications, as a part of your thought process, I guess, for the lack of a better way to put it, do you make any kind of mental judgment what it might cost to make these repairs? MR. NOONAN: I -- I've been with the county for 15 years as an inspector, and in that time I've trained myself not to be involved in cost because I can't let that affect my inspections. So I do not -- I stay away from the cost of anything because I don't know enough. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Noonan, did you assist Investigator Bayliss in preparing the notice of violation and defining what the violations were? MR. NOONAN: Yes. Page 124 January 24, 2002 MR. LEHMANN: When you did that preparation, did the issue of cost come into play such as deciding is a permit required or not under a particular instance? MR. NOONAN: Yes. Because some of the work I saw, from what little I do know, I assumed would cost more than $750. MR. LEHMANN: And do you base that on a subjective assumption? MR. NOONAN: From my repairs at my house and buying materials at Home Depot. MR. LEHMANN: Is that the only basis that you -- MR. NOONAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions from any board member? Mr. Spiller. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Spiller, before you begin, I don't know whether you can define the building code about the $750. Do you have to, as an owner, occupy the residence? Do you know that? MR. NOONAN: Contractor licensing, which I'm not -- I know ofjust from being in the county 15 years, so I can't answer it definitively. I believe if you're a resident of that dwelling, you can repair it at any time. If it's a rental unit, it gets into a gray area, and I can't honestly tell whether the owner of a rental unit can repair his own. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Noonan, would these units -- if they were rental units, would they be classified as commercial buildings? MR. NOONAN: No. They'd still be classified as dwellings. MR. LEHMANN: Still as residential. MR. NOONAN: Residential. MS. DUSEK: Ms. Rawson, do you know the answer to that? l f-- MS. RAWSON: I really don't know, but maybe the county Page 125 January 24, 2002 attorney does. MR. SPILLER: The answer to that is in the ordinance itself. The ordinance which is before you at page 7 does not make any distinction whatsoever between the nature of the property. It doesn't make a distinction between residential, agricultural, commercial, or otherwise. It only indicates that there's no permit required if the, quote, valuation of construction of less than $750 does not require a permit. There's another provision on the next page, which is paragraph 104.1.4. MS. DUSEK: I don't have that in front of me, so I'm just assuming what you're reading is correct. I don't have -- MR. SPILLER: That is a correct assumption. Minor repairs: Quote, ordinary minor repairs may be made with the approval of the building official without a permit provided that such repairs do not violate any of the provisions of the technical codes and subject to, colon-- excuse me -- semicolon, one, owner's or representative's written permission. That's where the owner's phrase comes from. MS. DUSEK: It doesn't say -- MR. SPILLER: So the owner-- MS. DUSEK: -- whether the owner has to live -- MR. SPILLER: No, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: So I could own a lot of properties -- MR. SPILLER: And repair them myself. MS. DUSEK: -- and I can repair them myself. MR. SPILLER: Absolutely. MS. DUSEK: I don't have to live in them. MR. SPILLER: Correct. MR. LEHMANN: My understanding of the reference code section that Mr. Spiller's referring to does state exactly that. You don't have to live there. But what Mr. Spiller may not be providing detail to the board is that there are certain requirements under Page 126 January24,2002 structural, electrical, and plumbing repairs that specifically mandate and require a permit, and that's what we're not hearing right now. MS. ARNOLD: The reports that were provided were identifying defects. The overall -- the reason why we're here is a permit of those structures itself. The reports were added so that -- added information so that the property owner would be advised as to where there were structural defects in the structure. There were no evidence of permits for the structure itself, is why we're here today. MR. SPILLER: I'm sorry, but that is not the allegations before this board. The allegations are get a permit for the repair of these observed deficiencies. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Noonan, as an inspector, in making some of the repairs that you found deficiencies in, i.e., plumbing, electrical, and so on, would any of those repairs -- and I'm not going to sit here and say I read each and every page of this. I glanced at some of them. Would those type of repairs have to be done by licensed personnel? MR. NOONAN: Yes. Well, as I've said, an owner can do some of this, yes. It would go back to permitting because, as the gentleman read, that the building official can deem other reasons for permitting other than the dollar threshold. A number of these are structurally unsound. That's the one criteria that the building official will require a permit regardless of the dollar value, and that's where I said most of these would need a permit. (Inaudible) a number of times that he will need a permit because it's a structural portion of the building. These were rotted out comer posts and stuff like that of the mobile home. That's why they would need a permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I guess my question is more toward where you reference certain ordinances, the Standard Plumbing Code and the National Electric Code and all, in meeting those does one have to have any kind of license to do that; or can Page 127 January 24, 2002 you, as a homeowner, do whatever those codes say, since I don't know what they say? MR. NOONAN: The plumbing code, electrical code, the structural code, none of those require a contractor. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: I thought electrical you had to have a permit. MR. NOONAN: There's a dollar value. I'm not sure of that dollar value. MS. DUSEK: I didn't think it was any dollar value. MR. NOONAN: There might not be. I'm not sure. Like I said, I don't keep it real clear in my head. Electrical work can be done by anyone, if it's done by electrical code, on their property. MR. LEHMANN: My recollection of the reference codes state not only a dollar value, but also a specific requirement if certain systems are being worked on, that will require a licensed contractor. For instance, on the structural code or the building code, we can do many things to nonstructural elements that are covered under the building code if they're under 750. But once I touch a structural membrane, now that requires a contractor or a licensed professional of some sort. And that's only going off of recollection, and please take it in that context. The next point is something that Michelle had brought up. The reason we're here again, the statement of violation, is not necessarily permits on each particular repair. We're here for permits on the building itself; is the building allowed to be permitted in its use. MS. ARNOLD: Right. 1.5.6 is one of the many sections that we've cited. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other questions from the board for Mr. Noonan? I'm sorry, Mr. Spiller. Go ahead. It was your nickel. Page 128 January 24, 2002 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SPILLER: Q. You indicated that you hold a state license as a plumbing and mechanics inspector? A. Plumbing, structural, mechanical, and electrical. Q. Okay. You omitted structural. Do you also have a structural inspector's permit? A. Yes. Q. Excuse me, license? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And when did you obtain the structural license? A. When the state started licensing all of them. I got them all in about '95. I'm not sure of the exact date. Q. Okay. Can you tell the board why you did not sign any of these inspection reports? A. Never thought of it. Q. Let's look at the deficiency that you've identified on Unit 1, the first one there. Where was the roof leak? A. Can't answer. Q. What was the indicator there was a roof leak? A. When I touched it, it was wet. Q. Okay. And do you know if that roof leak had already been repaired? me A. might have It was still wet. Where did you touch it? From the inside? Inside. Okay. You don't know if it had been repaired already? No, sir. Okay. Where in the trailer was this wet area? Don't know. It might have been a number of places; it been one specific. I do not remember, after 200 mobile Page 129 January 24, 2002 homes, where each one was. Q. Okay. Now, Item No. 3 on that first trailer -- I tell you what. I'm going to ask this question on all the trailers -- A. Yes. Q. -- rather than going through -- MR. SPILLER: And I'm following your lead, ma'am. you? leaks"? Q. On all trailers were there always wet roofs? A. No. Q. Which ones did not have wet roofs? A. I'd have to read each report. I do not know. Q. Okay. Would you agree -- do you have those in front of A. Yes. Q. -- that you've cited every one of them as "fix all roof A. Then evidently they all had roof leaks. Q. And some of those, apparently, did not have roof leaks. A. I did not day that. I don't remember. I cannot remember 26 out of over 200. Q. Okay. So you can't tell the board that there was 1 roof leak or 25 roof leaks or 12 roof leaks? A. I can tell the board there were roof leaks when I mentioned it. Q. More importantly, can you tell the property owner which of these trailers has a roof leak that he's supposed to fix? A. One through twenty-six. Q. But you don't know which ones did not have roof leaks? A. When I was there, I touched wet roofs. Q. But you don't remember how many? A. One through twenty-six. Q. Now, you're either telling us that there's 26 trailers with Page 130 January 24, 2002 roof leaks, or there were not. Which one is it? A. Sir, I said I'd have to read through each and every one of these. I don't remember what's in the report. You're the one saying there's 26 of them here. Okay. Then that's -- you're the one that said it was on 26 of them. Q. Okay. For the purpose of my question-- and I've already looked at this. Every one of those say, "Fix all roof leaks." A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. So it's your testimony to this board that every one of them had a roof leak. A. Yes, sir. Q. And you detected that because there was a wet area -- A. Yes, sir. Q. -- somewhere in the trailer. A. Yes, sir. Q. But you don't remember where in any of the trailers. A. No, sir. Q. Okay. The next item I'd question you on is repair all rotted wood around doors, windows, bathrooms, and other locations. A. Yes, sir. Q. And that's -- repeats itself in every one of these 26 -- A. Yes, sir. Q. -- inspection reports. A. Because every one of those mobile homes had rot at one of those locations. Q. At one of them. A. One of those, yes. might have been one of them. It might have been all of them; it Q. Okay. So in Trailer No. 1, Unit No. 1, we don't know if it had only a rotted door or a rotted window or a bathroom or some other location. Page 131 January 24, 2002 A. No, sir. Q. What other locations could it have been? A. Floor joist, ceiling joist, any one of the above, wall joist or wall studs. Q. Okay. Now, which one of these trailers had a structural member that had rotted wood? Which one? A. Sorry. We've got to read all 26. Q. Okay. A. No. 2 -- 24, rather; No. 26; No. 3; No. 4, I can't answer that because I didn't note it; No. 5 is the same. MS. ARNOLD: I have a question for Mr. Spiller. Is it -- are you trying to say that the facts in the report are not accurate? MR. SPILLER: Ma'am, it's not appropriate for you to inquire of me at this time. I've got a question before the witness, and he's responding, and I would please ask that you not do that. A. No. 8, No. 9, 11, 13. No. 15 I asked for a fire damage report. I've not gotten that, so I honestly don't know whether No. 15 is structurally sound or not; No. 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, and 23. Q. And to make sure I understand what you just said, these are the trailers, that you just read off, that had a structural component of it that was rotted wood. A. Yes. Q. Okay. A. Now, these had rotted wood and were structurally unsound. The others had rotted wood also, but may not have been structurally unsound. Q. Okay. Now, the structurally unsound trailer inclusion, is that based upon rotted wood? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Is it based upon rotted wood of a structural Page 132 January 24, 2002 component? A. Yes. Q. What is a structural component -- excuse me. A. Floor joist or wall studs. Q. Let me withdraw that. Would a structural component include a door? A. The jacks around it, yes. Q. The jacks around the door, but not the door itself?. A. Not the door. Q. Would it include a window? A. The jacks around the window. Q. But not the window? A. No. Q. You've cited around the bathroom. A. Yes. Q. Okay. What around the bathroom? A. The wood. Q. Okay. Is that structural wood or nonstructural wood -- A. Could be both. Q. -- for example the paneling? A. Could be both. Q. But you can't remember today which of the trailers had any of those; correct? repair, why A. Q. A. Q. A. Correct. Now, if it was structural unsoundness that required didn't you specify that in your inspection report? Ease. Ease? Convenience to yourself?. Yes. Okay. Did you -- Well, can I back up there? I think I have. I told you Page 133 January 24, 2002 replace all the rotted wood, and then I told you which one was structurally unsound and which one wasn't. So, to me, I have. Q. Okay. But you haven't told the property owner, in any of these reports, where that structurally unsound wood is located -- A. Nope. Q. -- have you? Why not? A. Back to the number of units. Q. Just as a convenience to yourself?. A. No. The number of units, and it's gonna be fairly obvious when they look at it. Q. All right. Did you participate in an answer to the letter that I wrote to Mr. Bayliss in August about these reports? A. Other than the fact that I didn't go on any more of the properties, no, I did not. Q. Okay. Were you aware that the property owner had asked for specifics as to each of these inspection reports as to what was to be prepared? A. I understood there was a letter to it. I didn't see it, no. Q. Having been aware of the fact that the property owner was asking to be told specifically what has to be repaired, do you think it would have been appropriate to tell the property owner what had to be repaired? A. I thought I had. Q. Okay. If you saw that the property owner had retained an attorney to write the question -- the letter asking what are you talking about, do you think it's still appropriate that the property owner should have been told specifically what the defects were to be repaired? A. Q. under structural, No. 4, "repair floor as per," I thought my letter was detailed enough. Okay. Next item on each of your inspection reports and then you cite an Page 134 January 24, 2002 ordinance. A. Q. A. Yes. What in the world is "repair floor"? Well, if you read that section of the ordinance, it would tell you that the floor has to be sound. You'd go into the mobile home, find out what part of the floor is not sound, you'd repair it. Then you'd have to do it by the state rules 15/C2. Q. Okay. Now, let's deal with that on Unit No. 1. A. Okay. Q. How many rooms are in that unit? A. Don't remember. Q. And wouldn't you agree that the cost of just ripping out the entire flooring in order to guess as to what you're talking about would be significantly more than if you'd have specified what area that you thought was structurally -- excuse me -- that was weak that had to be repaired? A. I'm sorry? Q. What do you think it would cost to take the entire floor out of a mobile home and put a new one in? MS. DUSEK: I think he-- A. I have no idea. MS. DUSEK: I think he already testified that he did not involve himself with costs. A. I don't know. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Spillman (sic), I have to interject. I personally think that this line of questioning is irrelevant. It is not the building official's responsibility to report to each particular occupant of Collier County specifically what is wrong. He has referenced a section in the code book that basically tells him what is acceptable and not. He has testified that it -- that these defects are obvious to the naked eye when you walk into -- with a normal person, and the repair Page 13 5 January 24, 2002 procedures are under normal standards of the code itself. I think that the respond -- excuse me -- that Mr. Noonan has responded to this line of questioning. MR. SPILLER: Collier County code. MS. TAYLOR: That is not the standard that is imposed by the Specifically -- Mr. Spiller, I want to ask you a question. Are the Blockers blind? Are they blind? MR. SPILLER: Ma'am-- MS. TAYLOR: Answer my question. MR. SPILLER: Ma'am-- MS. TAYLOR: Are they blind? MR. SPILLER: Ma'am, I'm going to ask that you cease from insulting -- MS. TAYLOR: I'm not insulting anybody. MR. SPILLER: -- the Blockers by asking such a question. MS. TAYLOR: And I'm not -- I'm asking you a question. And do they have sense of touch? Because if they are not blind and if they don't -- if they do have sense of touch, they could go in where things have been reported, and they could see and they could feel for themselves. It's their responsibility to make these things corrected. It was his responsibility to point them out. (Member from the audience speaking.) MR. SPILLER: Bear with me for a moment. MS. DUSEK: While we're waiting for Mr. Spiller, as I look at each one of these inspection reports and I see that each one has been identified in the ordinance and section, state rules, if there was ever a misunderstanding, I'm sure that Mr. Blocker could have picked up the phone and called someone at staff or the building department to ask for clarification beyond what they've already written. MR. SPILLER: Ma'am, I did that in a letter to Mr. Bayliss in August. And the response I got back is a part of the package that's Page 136 January 24, 2002 before you from the county attorney that told us, first of all, refer to the depicted drawings on how to construct a gable-roofed house; and, number two, if you can't figure it out from that point, then go hire yourself a general contractor. But that's not the standard that's imposed upon the inspector who is writing a violation report. That standard is contained -- and it's in the material before you-- in the County Ordinance 89-06 on page -- of the official records -- this is recorded in the official records, the public records of Collier County -- Book 34, page 347. That inspector is required to inform the property owner, quote, a statement of the nature and extent of such repairs; extent of such repairs. He's required to tell him the extent of such repairs. These inspection reports don't even attempt that. They don't even attempt to tell the property owner the extent of the repairs that he must complete. MS. DUSEK: Well, I don't agree with you, because that states the ordinance. It states exactly where he would look to find out exactly what was wrong. MR. SPILLER: Ma'am, I would like to continue -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's not get into deliberation/debate about right or wrong. You're welcome to present your case. And when the board gets to the deliberation point, we can decide whether we think you're right or somebody else is right. Let's not do it now. BY MR. SPILLER: Q. On the repair of Trailer No. 1, what is the extent of the repair required? MS. DUSEK: Ms. Rawson, I have a question for you. MS. RAWSON: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: I don't know what Mr. Spiller's intention is, if he's going to go through each item of each one of these mobile homes, but can it -- can we ask that it be expedited by saying that he Page 137 January 24, 2002 objects to the fact -- that he feels they were not extensive or explained enough or does -- overall, or do we have to go through each one of these items? MS. RAWSON: I think it can be expedited. MS. DUSEK: Because that's what I would like to request, and I don't know whether this is the time and the place to do it. But I don't want to sit here and go through each one of these mobile homes and each -- under structural, plumbing, electric and ask him to explain what he meant. I don't want to do that. And I want you to -- if you feel like there wasn't a full explanation or Mr. Blocker feels there wasn't, then state that objection, and we'll deal with it as a whole. MR. SPILLER: Ma'am, there is two components to this problem that's been created, and I cite No. 4 on Unit No. 1 as the classic example of it: "Repair floor as per." Now, there's two problems with that. Number one is, we have no idea what he's talking about, the extent of the repair that we would have to have accomplished from the time that we received this report in early August until the first compliance date of mid-August. And during that compliance period, I wrote a letter to the county, to Mr. Bayliss, and asked him to specify, what are you talking about here? I didn't say we were blind, and I didn't say we were refusing. I was trying to figure out what we were supposed to repair. The second -- and I never got an answer to that, and this witness doesn't know either. He can't tell you. On any of these parcels, he -- properties he cannot tell you what was the repair of the floor that was needed. MS. TAYLOR: Mr. Blocker really doesn't care -- MR. SPILLER: Finally-- MS. TAYLOR: Just a minute. Mr. Blocker really doesn't care because he expressed that he was not going to do anything himself. If the county wanted these things fixed, they could do it themselves. And furthermore, any other cases pertaining to this property could be Page 138 January 24, 2002 taken in the same light. MR. SPILLER: Ma'am, that was a misquote of Mr. Blocker's words by Mr. Bayliss. MS. TAYLOR: Were you there? MR. SPILLER: I'm -- ma'am, I'm restricted by the chair's directions on the scope of my examination. I will call Mr. Bayliss back to refine that. MS. CURATOLO: However, you've repeated yourself three times on this particular matter. I'd like you to respond to the board's request in a succinct manner. MR. SPILLER: And I would like to, but the second problem that I have with this report is compliance. This board, if it does issue an adverse finding against Mr. Blocker on any of these code violations, will give him a period to comply; otherwise, a fine will begin. Now, during that period of compliance, I'm still at a loss on Trailer No. 1 as to what I'm supposed to repair on the floor, as well as everything else here. There is a need to be advised as to what you have to correct in order to correct it both prior to this hearing and subsequent to this hearing. And if I'm refused and denied the opportunity to find out what the defect is in that trailer that must be repaired, then we have gone in the wrong direction because you are not obtaining compliance with this. You're enforcing and requiring a violation. I cannot and Mr. Blocker cannot go into that trailer and spend $20,000 guessing as to what these reports are referring to. We must be told specifically what we have to repair in order to comply, both prior to this hearing and after this hearing. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Spiller, has anyone -- have you, has Mr. Blocker, Senior and Junior -- bothered to read the referenced documents that the inspector is referencing in his reports? MR. SPILLER: We have -- to answer that question, yes, I have. Page 139 January 24, 2002 And I can't find a lot of these documents, and I know how to do legal research, and I'll get to that here in just a minute. MR. LEHMANN: Well, I mean, it's pretty easy to find because most of them are actually in the evidence package. If-- MR. SPILLER: Well, let me just continue -- let me just continue with what I'm trying to do here, my examination of the witness. Rather than being -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We need to take a break just now, unfortunately, because somebody has to go to court. So let's do this: You're questioning Mr. Noonan. Did you get an answer to your question? MR. SPILLER: No, sir, I didn't. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Can you restate the question? Do we remember it or some semblance thereof?. BY MR. SPILLER: Q. I want you to tell the board, as to each of these 26 trailers, what part of the floor on each of them had to be repaired. A. I cannot tell you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you. He answered the question. Now, what we want to do at this point is we're going to take a lunch break. I think you're still waiting for a witness, unless he has showed up. MR. SPILLER: He is here now. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's great. Because of another venture, let's take one hour to -- Jean, do you think a half an hour would be enough? MS. RAWSON: I-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, she's got to go to court. It's -- MS. RAWSON: I'll try to be back by 2:45. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's ten to two. Why don't we let's say ten to three. I mean, you know, your court doesn't -- Page 140 January 24, 2002 MS. RAWSON: Quarter till. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- start till two o'clock. MS. RAWSON: Quarter till three. I'll tell the judge I've got to be back. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Roughly 55 minutes. I expect everybody from the county side to be back, and I expect your witnesses to be back, sir. Is that all right? MR. SPILLER: Fine. (A lunch break was held from 1:49 p.m. To 2:50 p.m.) (The proceedings recommenced with Ms. Rawson and Mr. Lehmann not present.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do we have a time deadline when we have to be out of the room or building? MS. ARNOLD: Five o'clock. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I think we'll be finished prior to that, hopefully. MS. CURATOLO: If not, I have to leave at 4:10 for a meeting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't know if I can get you by 4:10, but we'll try. Okay. There's five of us here, and as long as we have four, it's a quorum. So we'll call the meeting back to order, and we will make note that Mr. Lehmann had to leave. MR. SPILLER: Just as a matter of inquiry, is he gone for the rest of this hearing? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. Well, hopefully we'll end today. I mean, if we start back up some other day, then he'll probably be around. MR. SPILLER: I understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But as far as today is gone, he is gone. MR. SPILLER: Okay. I have a procedural matter to raise, and Page 141 January 24, 2002 I'll state it and then, of course, defer to the chair until Ms. Rawson returns for a -- after consultation with my two clients, at this time the Blockers would formally move to excuse Ms. Diane Taylor as a code member -- board member in the proceedings that we are conducting today on the basis of her expressed bias against the Blockers. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm not aware of any bias but -- so as far as -- I understand what you're saying, but from the chair's -- I see no bias in her comment. back just to make sure. BY MR. SPILLER: Q. break was A. Q. We'll ask Ms. Rawson when she comes So we'll proceed. Okay. The last subject matter we dealt with before the Item No. 4, structural-- Yes. -- and that -- we've covered that. The next one I go to -- and this is true for all 26 trailers, now. Can you tell the board members and the Blockers which of those 26 trailers' windows need to be repaired? A. All of them had either windows or screens that were in need of repair. I do not know which window specifically for each mobile home, but I do know all of them had at least one that had -- needed repair or screens. Q. All right. For example, on Unit No. 1, you can't tell the board nor the Blockers whether it was a front window, a side window, or a back window? A. No, I can't. Q. And that's true for all 26 trailers? A. Yes. Q. And can you tell the board and the Blockers, on those 26 trailers, which of the multiple windows on each of them needed to be replaced? A. No. Page 142 January 24, 2002 Q. Did any of them need to be replaced? A. Do not know, because they -- I gave them the option to repair all of them. On the older mobile homes, I do not know if they could get parts to repair the mobile -- the windows there, so that's why I said replace them -- or replace. Q. And the same would be true for the screens? A. Yes. Q. On all 26 trailers, you can't tell us which of the screens, multiple screens, on each of those trailers needed to be either repaired or replaced. A. Correct. Q. Now, during your inspection -- you said it covered several time periods -- you did observe that the Blockers were conducting maintenance and repairs on those trailers, didn't you? A. Yes. And do you see the man sitting in the last row on this Qe side -- A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Yes, sir. -- Jerry Raven (phonetic)? Yes. Was he the person that was doing that repair? I apologize. I cannot tell you. I don't remember. Did you see the man sitting next to him, his son? I do not know. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Somebody working on the trailers is irrelevant at this point. If you want to put that on as part of a defense, you can do that. Q. The references that you've cited on this "repair or replace windows as needed," you referred to an ordinance, Collier ordinance, and then you also refer to No. 12/I and 15/C2 state rules. What is that? Page 143 January 24, 2002 A. 15/C2 is the state rules for the repair and replacement of mobile home parts. That's part of the state statutes. They are available on the Internet. The -- go ahead. Q. Can you give us the number for the state statute? A. No. I do not know. Q. All right. You know that normally statutes are referred to as Section 672.15, comma, Florida Statutes? A. Yes. Q. Can you tell me how I can figure out what section or what chapter of the Florida law is defined in 12/1 and 15/C27 A. 15/C2 is the one that we're dealing with. You can call the Department of Community Affairs. You can call the Department of-- I'm not sure which other department. They will give you that book for free. Q. Okay. Now-- A. And alls you have to ask for is 15/C2 or 15/C1. They will mail it to you for free. Q. And you -- and you think that's a Florida Statute? A. It's covered under the Florida Statutes of mobile homes, and I'm not sure what that number is. Q. So this 15/C2 may not be a statute; rather, it may be some paragraph in some pamphlet. A. The actual title -- I don't have it with me, but that's Florida Department of Transportation Rules. 15/C2 1 believe is what it says. That's Rules of Florida Department Motor Ve -- Motor Safety -- Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Division of Motor Vehicles, Chapter 15/C2. Q. All right. Now, I'm familiar, very familiar, with Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. What is it that you're just reading from? Because it doesn't resemble either one of those. A. This is the title of the book that they use to set up mobile Page 144 January 24, 2002 homes and repair mobile homes. Q. All right. Have you provided that to the Blockers as -- A. We gave them copies of every bit of this, yes. Q. My question was, did you provide that pamphlet to the Blockers at any time? A. We gave them the pages that we quoted from, not the whole booklet, no. Q. And you did that when? A. At the time Mr. Bayliss gave them all the other information. Q. Were you there when Mr. Bayliss met with them? A. Yes. Q. Okay. You have indicated on No. 6 on this first unit to replace insulation as needed. A. Yes. Q. Can you explain to the code board and to the Blockers what area of each trailer had insulation that needed to be replaced? Am underneath. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. replace that A. Q. A. Q. The insulation that was missing when you look And that's what you were referring to. Yes. Not sidewalls, not ceilings -- No. -- not interior insulation of any form. No. Okay. And what was -- would be needed in order to insulation? To install what's not there. Just missing insulation? Yes. Okay. Do you know why the Blockers weren't informed Page 145 January 24, 2002 of that in August when I wrote the letter and asked that question? A. No. Q. Okay. Number 7, submit certificate from licensed pest exterminator that all termite infestation has been abated. A. Yes. Q. You do not have any reference there of the legal obligation to do that, unlike the others that you've referenced. that? A. Q. A. Why is I did not quote the chapter from 90 -- 86 .... 89-06. That's County Ordinance 89-06? Yes. (Ms. Rawson entered the boardroom.) Q. And you think that chapter requires the submission of a form from an exterminator that he has abated any observed termite infestation? A. Well, I'm trying to find it here. What was the question, sir? Q. What is the citation to the county ordinance that requires a form from a pest exterminator certifying that termite infestation has been abated? A. 89-06 requires no infestation. I would not know of any other way of documenting that unless they gave me that form. Q. Okay. So there's no legal requirement that you know of that a property owner provide a certification from an exterminator that he's abated the termites. A. I wouldn't know of any other way of knowing that he has. Q. Okay. Now, that being a given, how did you know that there was termite infestation to begin with? A. Evidence of-- what I saw. Q. What did you see? Page 146 January 24, 2002 A. Holes through the wood, the droppings from the termites. I saw some crawling. Q. Okay. Do you know what a wood-eating ant looks like? A. Yes. Q. How many legs does it have? A. I don't know. Q. How many does a termite have? A. Don't know. MS. DUSEK: I'd like to interrupt at this point. And now that Ms. Rawson is back to ask, we are once again going down each number of these inspection reports, and I would think that we could -- in the citing I think it says that they need to come up to standards, whatever those standards may be. I don't think we have to go through each one of these. If we do find that there is a violation, that they need to come up to standard, then I think that they could work that out with the building department, with the code enforcement department on all the little individual items. Is that not correct? MS. RAWSON: I would agree with you, Ms. Dusek. May I just remind the board that the description of the violation is illegal use of land with no access to a public road and minimum housing violations on mobile homes. I don't know that it's necessary that you go through and define every single last housing violation. MS. DUSEK: I would -- I would like -- I don't know how we can -- how we can expedite this. Do we have to make a motion that we don't go through this? I mean, I understand due process. But when you finally got to the point of asking how many legs are on a black ant or a wood-eating ant, I mean, that's really carrying it to the extreme. And going down through each one of these items is totally not necessary. Even if one of these items were correct, he's in violation. MR. SPILLER: And that's the problem, ma'am. The Blockers Page 147 January 24, 2002 weren't told before this hearing which specifics they had to deal with. And you cannot find a violation unless you find specifics. These are only conclusions that something has to be -- MS. CURATOLO: The legs of an ant have nothing to do with this. I'm sorry. MR. SPILLER: It does, ma'am, because in order for you to find a violation-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It does not. MR. SPILLER: In order for you to find a violation, there's got to be a factual basis for it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I've about had enough. My dander's getting up. Bear with me. Here's what we're going to do. We're not going to hear any more of this. Obviously there is some kind of violation. If you're not happy with them, we understand that. If you want details, then if you will let us get to making some kind of a decision, we may say -- I don't know yet -- that details will have to be provided. We don't know if there's a violation. We have that right to decide based on what we've heard. How many ants there are, what -- no interest. I'm really serious about this. No interest. There's enough other stuff here, I think, to pique somebody's interest. So let's not get this detailed. You're really, really taxing your clients' and this board's time by being this detailed. If you want specifics, they could have gone to the county and gotten them at some point. For some reason that hasn't occurred. We've ended up here. Now we're going to decide at some point what will occur, and it will occur, or there will be a fine, possibly. Now, we can help you, but we can't seem to get to the point where you might let us help you. You're trying all these details. And besides this inspection report, there are, as I said in the beginning, something like 13 or 14 violations. This inspection process is not all of them. We might throw this out. I don't know. I'm only one Page 148 January 24, 2002 person. We haven't talked about this yet. But we're getting way too detailed and referencing the statutes and all that, and I've read through them, because they're right here. And it was pretty straightforward when I read through them, so I think I understand the references. So let's get on with getting to something that's pertinent. This is really not it. You're --just keep throwing all this salt and pepper down to sand the floor. Let's get to something else, please. Now, Ms. Rawson's here. Let me ask you about your first -- I guess it was a motion -- objection. They -- MS. RAWSON: General Master Pivacek apologizes to the board that he kept me longer. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's okay. He has precedence. They want Ms. Taylor removed because of her, what was it, remarks toward the Blockers. MR. SPILLER: Accusing them of being blind. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I said that really had no bearing, as far as I'm concerned, on this, and she's here, and let's get on with it. MS. RAWSON: Unless Ms. Taylor wants to recuse herself, I don't think he has the right or the power to remove her. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let's continue. MR. SPILLER: At the beginning of this process, there was not opening statements made. And at this time I'd like to focus upon this line of inquiry that I've been trying to complete so that you can understand the context in which it occurs and how it impacts upon the decision that you'll be making. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we got the message that you're unhappy with what's written here. We understand that part of it. MR. SPILLER: No, sir. That's not what I'm trying to express to you now. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We understand that you're saying you can't understand a sentence. We got that. Page 149 January 24, 2002 MR. SPILLER: Let me express it this way: In order for a site improvement plan to be imposed upon this property, there has to be one of two things occurring. I'm reciting now from the ordinances. One is development, and the other is the obligation to obtain a permit for repair. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. MR. SPILLER: Now, we are not in a development scenario here, so the only obligation that can be imposed upon the Blockers for a site improvement plan is a permit. Now, in order for a permit to be required, we have to, first of all, find out if there is a deficiency; and, second, if there is a deficiency, whether it's of the magnitude that requires a permit, because we've already established to you that minor repairs and structural repairs of under 750 do not require a permit. Now, these detailed questions that I'm asking of these two men who have testified to you before is trying to find out what factually is the basis for a defect that requires a corrective action called a repair. And until there's evidence of a defect, there can be no required repair. MS. DUSEK: There's been testimony that there is evidence of a defect. I have counted 17 of these trailers that are considered unsound. That alone is enough for me. All these little detail things of repairs -- when a place is unsound, then you've got a real serious problem. MR. SPILLER: Well, ma'am, I would also ask that you reserve judgment upon your conclusions of this report until all the evidence is presented. And if you've already reached a conclusion of fact, then it's inappropriate for you, also, to continue as a board member, and I'd ask that you excuse yourself. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She's not going to, so we're going to continue on. Now, we're going to stop a minute because you say they don't know, they haven't got any information to tell them what's Page 150 January 24, 2002 going on. MR. SPILLER: Yes, sir. And-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Well, just a second, because I'm going to read to you -- because being an average person, I hope, I can read English. And as soon as I find the page again -- you were talking about what portion of the floor, what space, what hole, what this, and that it wasn't in this -- in this 89-06 because they didn't know what they were doing. See, it says, "Every dwelling or dwelling unit shall have a permanent floor of approved material prescribed by the building code." Pretty straightforward to me. "Every floor and interior wall shall be kept free from infestation and in good repair and shall be capable of supporting the load which normally may use -- which normal use may cause to be placed thereon." Pretty straightforward. I walk in, there's a hole in the floor, that's not going to support anything. Okay. What don't you understand? MR. SPILLER: There is no evidence that there's a hole in the floor. That's the whole problem. I have been probing for a detailed finding by this inspector and the previous one as to what and where you're talking about. And until we know what and where we're talking about, these people are going to apparently be under an obligation to spend thousands and thousands of dollars guessing as to what they have to repair to avoid a future fine. And that can't happen. That's not right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand what you're saying, but I guess my thought would have been if I would have read that sentence, that if I opened a door and walk into someplace and I don't see any holes, then I would have told the county, "Hey, there's no holes. I don't have to fix anything." MR. SPILLER: And I'm going to present that evidence to you later. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's great. Then let's get on Page 151 January 24, 2002 it with it. Quit trying to -- MR. SPILLER: But I've got to find -- I've got to first find out what I've got to prove doesn't exist. I can't -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, the way you're approaching it, you're saying none of this stuff exists because you don't know what they've said, so present your evidence and refute it. MR. SPILLER: Sir, I am going to attempt to present a proper case on behalf of the Blockers and on which this board can have a proper evidentiary foundation for determining either that Trailer No. 7 does have a window that has to be repaired or it doesn't, because that's the allegations in these inspection reports. And until we know whether or not there's a claim that Trailer No. 7, the first window to the left of the entry door is or is not defective, then I can't repair it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But, Mr. Spiller, what I'm trying to say to you, if this gentleman stands there and said and Trailer No. 1, repair the floor as per X and your man stands up there and says "I went in that unit, and there are no holes in the floors, and I don't think it needs repaired," terrific. He's told me it doesn't need repaired; he said it does. All I've got to do is, which guy do I believe? Straightforward. MR. SPILLER: That's correct. And the problem that we have with that is that if that were the conclusion of the board -- I'm sorry, we don't believe the Blockers' evidence, now fix it-- we still don't know what we have to fix. MS. CURATOLO: Well, I think it's -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're not going to decide it now. MS. CURATOLO: -- your responsibility to know. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're not going to make that decision, what you have to fix. That's not part of our requirement. We're just going to say, "Get it fixed," and you two people are going to have to work it out. Page 152 January 24, 2002 MR. SPILLER: Sir, I beg to differ. This board is an adjudicatory board that determines either a problem existed -- or it did exist; and if it did exist, whether or not we fixed it later on. If you defer to their conclusions, then you're abandoning your role as a Code Enforcement Board. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Spiller, our decisions are made on the testimony that we hear. We haven't heard any testimony from your side. We're hearing his side. And we're not going to listen on how to repair each one of these places. MS. CURATOLO: Or how many legs an ant has. I'm sorry, irrelevant. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're really not helping us get to what we need to understand. We're hearing the county. We haven't heard from your side, other than you asking a lot of questions about ants and where is there wood and is this wood rotted. Get somebody up there that's been in there, from your side, and say, "This wood is not rotted." We may believe him -- he may have a great face -- and say, "Look, this guy looks like he knows what he's talking about. He's been there." MR. SPILLER: Let me see if I can wrap it up with one question, and we can move on, as you're requesting that I do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good. Thank you, sir. BY MR. SPILLER: Q. Would it be correct, Mr. Noonan, that you -- as to every cited violation on every trailer, you cannot tell this board the what and the where within each trailer? A. Specific what and where, no. Q. One last question on the inspection reports. In No. 9 on Unit No. 1, you're telling the property owners that they have to hire an architect or an engineer to submit a complete report listing all structural deficiencies and code violations -- Page 153 January 24, 2002 A. Yes. Q. -- is that correct? A. Yes. Q. You can't tell them what the code violations are and what the structural deficiencies are, but they have to hire an architect or an engineer to figure it out themselves. A. Correct. Q. You don't cite any authority for imposing that kind of obligation on the -- on the property owners, do you? A. It would go back to the administrative code or the building official. Q. Specifically what are you talking about? A. I don't know the code number, but the administrative code gives the building official authority to require a report by a licensed architect or an engineer stating that the building is sufficient and whatever. Q. But you don't -- are you talking about new construction? A. Any construction. Q. We're not doing any construction here, are we? A. You would be if and when you get the permits. You're correct. No. Q. Okay. Because on this trailer you -- your first sentence under conclusion, "This mobile home structurally seems sound." A. Correct. Q. But you're still wanting the property owner to go out and hire an architect or an engineer to go in there and spend their money to figure out if there's any deficiencies that you haven't identified yourself. A. Yes. MS. TAYLOR: MR. NOONAN: That was the last question; right? I don't know. Page 154 January 24, 2002 MS. DUSEK: Mr. Noonan, I have a question for you as a follow-up to a question that Mr. Spiller has asked. MR. NOONAN: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: He asked you if you could identify each place for each one of these trailers where the problem exists, and you said no. But if you were to walk out there -- MR. NOONAN: Yes. MS. DUSEK: -- you could point it out. MR. NOONAN: Yes, I could. MS. DUSEK: Now, it's been a while since you've been out there, so obviously it's hard to remember each one of those; is that correct? MR. NOONAN: Correct, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Noonan, one question along the same line as Mr. Spiller just asked you. In reading Item 9, tell me what the last sentence of that means. It says, "For the site-built portion of this building." MR. NOONAN: That's the reason -- the reason I requested an architect or an engineer to certify this building, it's constructed. It's on site already. The walls are up, the roofs on, and I cannot see if it was anchored down properly. I cannot see if it had the proper joist support, foundation, footer support, or anything underneath there. I, as a building inspector working for code enforcement, cannot take any part of that building apart to look to see what's there. I can only look at the outside. That's why an engineer hired by the owner -- if the owner wants to hire him, he can go out and take some siding off. He can go out and dig underneath that building to see if the supports are proper. He can go out and take some of the ceiling down to see if the anchors are proper on the ceiling joists. He can do that because the owner's hired him to do it. I cannot destroy any of that building to make an Page 155 January 24, 2002 inspection. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay BY MR. SPILLER: Q. But you want the Blockers to destroy a part of that building by hiring an architect to take it apart to satisfy your curiosity? A. To satisfy what I'm almost positive are some code violations. Q. But you don't have any evidence that there is. A. From not being able to see any tie-downs or anchoring from the exterior of the building, I can say there is a violation of that point, yes. There are no -- I can't see a foundation under that structure. I cannot see anchoring from the slab, from the ground through to that structure. That, to me, is a violation. Q. Have you ever imposed the obligation on a homeowner to hire an architect to find out if there's any code violations inside their home? A. Have I? No. Q. So this is the first time you've tried that. A. Yes. Q. How long have you been doing this? A. Six months for the code enforcement. Been with the county department for 15 years. Q. And would you agree that you've probably inspected more than 1,000 residences? A. Easily. Q. Why are you focusing on the Blockers with this requirement? A. It was my job. Q. Any other reason? A. No. Page 156 January 24, 2002 Qo believe that zoning? A. Q. Q. Is a part of your job determining compliance with zoning requirements? A. With minimum housing. Minimum housing? Yes. 98 -- or 89-06. Okay. Are you familiar with the zoning code? Somewhat, not very much. Does your testimony before this board include that you the Blocker property is not in compliance with the VR I don't know. Do you agree that a mobile home district is not to be used by transients? A. I wouldn't know. MR. SPILLER: No further inquiry. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any member of the board have any more questions for Mr. Noonan? REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. ARNOLD: Q. Dick, were most of the inspections that you've conducted over the 15 years on new construction or types of-- A. Ninety-nine percent new construction, some housing complaints. Q. So on the new construction, some of those elements are exposed, so it's easy for you to -- A. All of them are exposed, or we make them remove whatever's covering so we can do the inspection. Q. Would you have conducted another inspection with the Blockers or representatives for the Blockers to identify specifics on the site if requested? A. I would have to, yes. Page 157 January 24, 2002 Q. Was there anybody else present at the time that you did the inspections on the-- A. Mr. Bayliss. And two people were working on some of the mobile homes, and I apologize for not recognizing them. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Mr. Noonan? MR. SPILLER: Yes, if I might. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SPILLER: Q. If you're now expressing a willingness to specify what are the defects in the property, do you have any reason to advise the board of why my letter of August 20th was not responded to with specifics? A. I have no idea. Q. And that's at page 18 of Case No. 03? A. I don't know -- I never saw a letter. I don't know anything about it. Q. Do you see where the county -- do you have available to you the package that we're dealing with? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Spiller, you're asking him about a letter that wasn't sent to him and he just said that he's never seen so -- MR. SPILLER: I understand that, but I'm now asking about another letter. A. So what is the actual question, sir? Q. Now, referring to the county attorney's letter of October 8th at page 20 -- A. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He's not on this letter either. I don't have that. Case 03. Go ahead. Why are you asking him that question? Page 158 January 24, 2002 MR. SPILLER: I understand that. If you'll let me ask the question -- I've only got him looking at the document so far. Q. Were you a part of the process that resulted in this letter being sent to the Blockers -- excuse me -- to me on behalf of the Blockers? A. I don't remember. Q. Do you see there where the county attorney is saying if you don't understand the initial violations, then here's a new set of amended violations? A. Could be. I don't know. Q. And the amended violations, to your knowledge, did they ever specify what and where the defects were? A. I don't know. MR. SPILLER: Nothing further. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good. Thank you, Mr. Noonan. MS. ARNOLD: Our next witness is Dora Vidaurri. THEREUPON, DORA VIDAURRI, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon her oath, testified as follows: MS. VIDAURRI: Good afternoon. For the record, my name's Dora Vidaurri, supervisor of the Immokalee housing initiative. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. ARNOLD: Q. Will you spell your name. A. Dora, D-o-r-a; Vidaurri, V, as in Victor, i-d-a-u-r-r-i. Q. What's your relationship to this particular case? A. The Blockers' case is made up of two parcels. I'm going to go ahead and summarize this and give you an overview, a whole picture, of the whole case. We came upon this with the housing initiative that was initiated back in January of 2000 where an Page 159 January 24, 2002 inventory was conducted, and that's where we come up with when it first started. And we took over and began processing or making the case active, at which time we began conducting inspections of what seemed to be minimum housing standard issues from outside to include the inside. Further discovery resulted in that the zoning was illegal, and further research indicated that there was density issues and increase on the property or changes made. We -- we work as a team. All the -- all the research has been thorough. We've sat down between all the staff members to discuss issues of concerns that I think the attorney here is mentioning, such as the aerial maps and things to that effect. So everything that we've done, we pretty much have researched it in a team effort. The changes made to the notice of violation were made by myself on the meeting that we had with Mr. Blocker, who was present with his son. We did have a meeting with Mr. Blocker, which I'm pretty much the one who attested to the statements that Mr. Blocker did make in regards to him not, pretty much, cooperating with the county. So that, in a nutshell, is the case. The housing initiative was -- is an effort to assist property owners to keep their density and to maintain their property where it's at, even if the zoning is illegal. Such in this case, had Mr. Blocker come into our project, he would have been able to maintain the density issue that -- that is part of the incentive of this housing project and to remain on the village residential without having to go through the rezoning process, because of the -- part of the housing initiative, that's something that we're already doing for the property owners so that it wouldn't be a burden for them. Unfortunately, Mr. Blocker declined to be part of this housing initiative, and we're here before you to get some direction and to find some findings of violations. Q. Dora, what do you mean by the zoning is illegal? A. Well, the property's zoned VR, and it goes back to 1970 Page 160 January 24, 2002 where the property didn't have any -- what appears to be about five mobile homes. And within time the property has been increased in density, and -- and trailers have been moved and have been added to the property. And going back in the research that we've done, even to the 1970s, would have required a site plan for such improvements or developments to be submitted to the county. And we have researched and have been unable to find any site plans of this particular two properties that are in question, even in the previous owner who had it. We haven't been able to find any site plans for this property or any permits. We found one permit that was a reroofing of a mobile home. And so there has been changes, and a lot of this stuff has been done illegally. And I -- you know, one of the things -- I'm going through the whole case, and I'm noticing what's happening is Mr. Spiller's bringing up the issue of the inspections, which is minute to the case, because there -- we are saying something is wrong with the units. Obviously, every unit -- I think what's going to come back or what I see's coming back is that all the -- there's really nothing there. And what's going to become of it is that there's been illegal work being done on these units. Q. In your research of the property, did you find any building permits for the 26 units that are currently on the property today? A. No. Q. And what did you check to verify that information? A. We went through the property appraiser's cards. There were some units, and we went on the dimensions on some of those. However, we haven't been able to find any permit numbers. We went through the CD-Plus system, which is on board. We weren't able to find any. We went into some old records of what existed and weren't able to obtain any permits. Page 161 January24,2002 Q. When -- when you referred back to the '70s, what was required for development on a particular property to occur? MR. SPILLER: I'm going to object. If there's going to be a summary of old code requirements, I would ask that the witness produce those code requirements rather than allow this board to make an erroneous finding that may be in conflict with those codes, especially in deference to Ms. Vidaurri's age. It may have been during a time when she was not a county employee. So I don't think we've got the proper foundation for her to go into a recitation of the legal history of codes in Collier County through this witness. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I believe that you asked that question of the prior witnesses, so I would imagine I could ask the same type of question of my witness currently. MR. SPILLER: No, ma'am. I came forward with a copied-- excuse me -- a copy of the Land Development Code that I obtained in the law library or through the Internet. MS. VIDAURRI: I think I just wanted to brush that on because I keep hearing you telling the board that -- that -- something to the effect of nonconforming, which I just want to clarify that we've covered our bases. And although it's not present, it's not going to be basis for what you're telling us today. MS. ARNOLD: I just happen to have the 1973 version of the zoning code at the time. And at that time -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, this is what? MS. ARNOLD: This is the zoning code for, actually, 1971 for the county. And this is the section of the code that is referring to the mobile home district. There was no such zoning district as village residential at the time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And this is out of the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at that time? MS. ARNOLD: Exactly. Page 162 January 24, 2002 MR. SPILLER: Could I have a copy of what you're doing, please? MS. ARNOLD: The only copy I have is this right now, and we'll gladly provide you a copy. That's why I'm putting it on the visualizer, so that everybody can see. BY MS. ARNOLD: Q. Dora, if you may read that Section 4, which is the approval requirements, for those types of developments. A. Section 4 reads, "Plan Approval Requirements: Plans for a mobile home and travel trailer park shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and construction be in accordance with approved plans and specifications. Such plans shall be processed in the same manner as a subdivision plat." And the only reason I brought this up again is for the same reason that Mr. Spiller has mentioned, the nonconforming. That's not been the case here. There was no trailers in that time, in the '70s, on this property. And by '81 there's been changes, and they have not abided by the county codes. Q. To your knowledge, Dora, has the requirement of a subdivision been in place for the county for these types of development? A. Yes. Q. Would that document need to be recorded? A. I would believe not. It's part of the ordinance. I mean, it is a recorded-- Q. Would there be a requirement to submit something to the county showing the authorization? A. Yes. MR. SPILLER: Are we talking about 19717 Is that your question? MS. VIDAURRI: It's 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, would have required a plan to be submitted on parks or on this type of situation Page 163 January 24, 2002 that we're here, of these properties having mobile homes on it. MR. SPILLER: And you're drawing that from the 1971 Land Development Code. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MS. VIDAURRI: And current. It's -- MR. SPILLER: I'm talking about 1971. Okay. BY MS. ARNOLD: Q. And my question is, is that requirement has been there since 1971. A. That is correct. Q. Did you provide -- did you prepare the exhibit of aerial photographs that was presented earlier to the board? A. Idid. Q. And how did you determine that the photographs depict the property in question? A. The aerials are adjoining -- adjoined with zoning maps and assessment maps, and we work off of those three maps. And I'm going to go ahead and place the assessment map that shows the identical Immokalee Drive on the zoning map and the actual lot and block for this parcel. I just want to show both maps, the property appraiser's and the zoning maps. And on this map right here, you're actually -- we actually go by the actual lot and block of the property, so we identify that with the property records. And this is the zoning map that is currently telling us it's VR, and that's part of your exhibit on the supplemental, which is 15 and 18. And that's how we determined where the lots are, and then we -- we work off-- with the aerials. So they're adjoining maps with the aerials that puts those two together. The assessment map actually gives the dimensions. I know Mr. Spiller was talking somewhat of the dimensions and -- and going into the math equations to figure out such and such, and I can kind of go Page 164 January 24, 2002 over some of that if that helps him out and helps you guys out. I know there was -- could have been some confusion by Mr. Spiller on the number and the calculations. Q. Dora, can you tell the board whether or not you prepared this exhibit? A. Yes, I did. Q. And what map did you -- or aerial did you take that from? A. November 1975, and that's Exhibit-- page 14 on the supplemental. Q. And what is the area that is depicted with the Blockers' property? A. Okay. I'm trying to put this all together so it makes sense and answer some of the questions that were brought up earlier. But here is the zoning map, the assessment map, and here's the aerial. And you'll see the road, the road, and then the road. Q. And what's the name of that road? A. Taylor Street. Q. And where's Immokalee Road (sic) depicted on both-- all three of those maps? A. Right here. Q. Okay. And did you prepare this exhibit? A. Yes, I did. And you'll note -- Q. Oops. Excuse me. I'm jumping myself here. How many trailers approximately did you note that were taken (sic) when that property (sic) was taken in 19757 A. Approximately five. Q. And what is this exhibit showing, and did you prepare it? A. Yes. This is a 1981 aerial. And, again, here's the property, and you'll notice all the vegetation, trees, and the road. Again, there were -- there were some improvements made here. Page 165 January 24, 2002 There's a unit that's been removed, from just going over the pictures. And, again, these are copies and not the actual aerials that we worked off, so copies tend to be a little bit -- not too revealing. Q. And what would be required of a property owner if in '75 they had five units, and then in '81 they added more units? A. To submit a plan. It would require a plan so -- to go through the county. Q. And to your knowledge, was that ever provided to the county? A. No. Q. And did you prepare this exhibit? A. Yes. Q. And what is it showing? A. This is a 1988 aerial, and here's -- again, here's the property. You'll see the road, the road that's been made, trailers and -- being laid out. And, again, they've done some -- somewhat of some moving around. Q. And how many trailers did you note at that time in 1988? A. Approximately ten. Q. What page in the packet is this? A. This is in your supplemental package, page 11. Q. And, again, did you prepare this exhibit? A. Yes, I did. Q. And can you point out for us what you believe is the Blockers' property? A. This is the parcels that join-- MR. SPILLER: If I could interrupt, what's that page number? MS. ARNOLD: It's page 9. THE WITNESS: Page 9. Q. And what -- when was that photograph taken? A. This is a 1996 aerial. Page 166 January 24, 2002 Qe there? A. aerial that Q. additional A. Q. And approximately how many units are identified on It appears that they've more than doubled from the last was taken. And what would be required for a property owner to add mobile homes in this situation? A site plan, permits, approval. And to your knowledge, has there been any of that submitted A. Q. A. to the county? No. And how do you determine that? Research. We've gotten with the planning department. Nothing's been submitted. Again, no permits. Q. Okay. And did you prepare this exhibit? And please tell the board where the property is for -- that we're talking about and the date and page number. A. This is page 8 of the supplemental. Again, this is the property, and you'll note I've made some notes of some of the changes that have been made. And, again, it appears that they've added about another eight units at this -- by this picture, from the last aerial. Q. And did you research to see whether or not any building permits were obtained between 1996 and 2000? A. Correct. And, like I said, there was one for reroof on a mobile home. Q. And was there any building permits for a site plan submitted for this area? A. No. Q. And would one have been required for the improvements that were made between '96 and 2000? A. Yes. Page 167 January 24, 2002 nonconforming. criteria? A. Q. A. Mr. Spiller had identified what he believes is Would this property meet the nonconforming No. And why? Nonconforming is defined as something that was legal by the old provisions, and in this case this has not been legal ever. Q. And what do you mean it has not been legal? A. No site plan was ever submitted as we defined it in the 1970 ordinance, Land Development Code. Q. Was there a site development plan requirement in '82? A. Yes. Q. And was there a requirement to obtain a site improvement plan when additional units are added? A. Yes. If there is an existing plan, which in this case there isn't an existing plan. Q. Did you ever receive a request for -- from the Blockers or representatives for the Blockers to identify specifics -- to do a site inspection and identify specifics regarding the minimum housing code violations? No. Which -- would that have been conducted had a request been made? A. Yes. As the ongoing housing initiative, we are conducting inspections of the community where what appears to be several trailers in a lot or parcel together -- and that's one of our phasing -- and then to move on to single units. was noted. A. Q. In the notice of violation that was issued, Section 1.5.6 Do you have that in front of you? Are we talking about the amended version or the -- Do you have that section, which is page 72 of the packet, Page 168 January 24, 2002 and it's also -- A. I have the other package. MR. SPILLER: Ms. Arnold, just bear with me for a minute while I catch up to that page. don't have a desk. Q. A. number. Q. A. Q. You have an advantage over me. I Here you go. I think I'm on the second case, so I got a different page Do you have that section in there? What is it? 1.5.6. MS. ARNOLD: Did you find it, Mr. -- okay. Q. What page is that? A. I'm on 35 on my packet. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. It's 35 on the 02 case and page 72 on the other case. MR. SPILLER: I have that. MS. RAWSON: Are you just asking her to read the ordinance? BY MS. ARNOLD: Q. Well, my question is, does that only apply to development that has occurred today, and why was that section cited? A. It includes -- anything before would have required all the provisions of the Land Development Code. MR. SPILLER: If I could inter -- I'm not following this line of questioning. Is it the witness's testimony that the provisions at 1.5.6 coming from Supplement No. 7 of the Land Development Code would apply prior to the enactment of that provision? MS. VIDAURRI: Yes, because it would require a plan since the '70s. MR. SPILLER: And do you know what the effective date of that ordinance was? Page 169 January 24, 2002 MS. VIDAURRI: Which ordinance? The 1.5.67 MR. SPILLER: Right. MS. VIDAURRI: '91. MR. SPILLER: So you're saying that a '91 ordinance could be applied to require some land owner to comply with something that didn't exist back in the '70s? MS. ARNOLD: No. My question was, does it apply to things only today or prior to today? A. Both. Q. And the ordinance that Mr. Spiller points out was adopted in '91 ? A. '91. Q. Were there any improvements or alterations to the land that you, in your research, found? A. Yes. Q. Did those occur after 19927 A. Yes. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Questions from the board? I have a couple while everybody else is looking. In the Exhibit B that you submitted, which are your photographs and such, I assume that when you are talking about Blocks 30 and 31, that those numbers come from the property appraiser's assessment map, and those are the little numbers in each of the squares. Is that where they come from? MS. VIDAURRI: Correct. And it's part of the property information that is connected with the folio number. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. DUSEK: Would-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. DUSEK: I'm sorry. Okay. Go ahead. Was your only determination on a change and the movement of the mobile units due to the aerial maps? Page 170 January 24, 2002 MS. VIDAURRI: Correct. MS. DUSEK: And the plan that you keep referring to, that's a site improvement plan? MS. VIDAURRI: In this case we would have required and currently would require an SDP, site development plan. MS. DUSEK: Prior to that, in the '70s or '80s, what sort of plan would it have been? MS. VIDAURRI: The same manner as a subdivision plat, plan. MR. PONTE: Have you ever been on the property? MS. VIDAURRI: Have I been on the property? I'm familiar with Immokalee. I have not been on this particular property. MS. ARNOLD: Have you been by the property? MS. VIDAURRI: Yes. I haven't been on the property. MR. PONTE: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions from the board? Mr. Spiller, your mm. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SPILLER: Q. Ms. Vidaurri, is it true that these photographs that have now been presented through this supplement were not provided to the Blockers at all in the year 2000? A. That is correct. Q. Okay. And there is a certificate -- A. If I can just add to that question, on the meeting of August 10th, we sat with Mr. Blocker and his son to try to go over this entire case, and it was apparent that Mr. Blocker wasn't going to be cooperative. We did have the aerials at that point to show. As a matter of fact, Mr. Blocker did not want to accept the attached documents to the notice of violation. He signed it and didn't want a copy. We instructed him that it was in his best interest to take the documents to assist him in identifying the problems with the Page 171 January 24, 2002 property. Q. Okay. Now, let's go back to my question. These photographs that have now been admitted -- is that Exhibit B? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Q. -- have a certificate of service January 8th of 2002. you see that? A. No. I'm kind of not -- what are you -- Q. Okay. I'll share my copy of that exhibit with the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Doesn't it have a page number or something on it that we can look at? MR. SPILLER: Second page. A. Okay. Q. is? Do Do you recognize who signed that, whose signature that me have been A. service we did provide, did it make it or didn't it. that. I didn't prepare the document to go out. Yes. Who? Patti Petrulli. Okay. Now, this is the first time that these photographs formally served upon the Blockers; correct? To my knowledge. I'm not sure what type of mail So I can't attest to Q. All right. Isn't it also true that the -- the now Exhibit A, which is before the board, which is the notice of violation and hearings, initially presented to the Blockers made no mention that there was a claim that they had violated the code by adding trailers without permits? That's the first time this has ever come about, through your testimony, on this January 8th document. A. Can you repeat that? Page 172 January 24, 2002 Q. Where in Exhibit A before this board are the Blockers on notice that the basis for a violation is that they added trailers over a time period without having permits to do so? A. In the amended version -- Q. Be specific, please. Page number? A. I'm going to get there. The description, which is page 8 of Case 02. In the description, or in the witness, did observe property zoned VR/mobile home park. And that's not a word that we're using for a definition. It just appears to be a mobile home park. I mean, we could say a lot with mobile homes on it. So he was notified with this amended notice of violation that there was illegal land use by having trailers on that particular two parcels. Q. Where in there does the Block-- are the Blockers told that you have to defend against a claim that you've added trailers over a time period to this land without permits? It's not there, is it? A. No. I just -- I would think that this would be specific. Village residential doesn't allow for what's been done. Q. Village residential allows mobile homes; right? A. That is correct. MR. SPILLER: Okay. At this time I'm going to have to make a formal motion to strike the witness's testimony about the claims of violations of adding trailers without permits. There was absolutely no notice to the Blockers that we were accused of that and had to defend against it. This document that came into evidence, Exhibit B, was not served upon the Blockers. It was not served upon myself, and we had no basis to anticipate that there was going to be a claim that the basis for a, quote, illegal land use was adding trailers to the land, rather than the claim that it had to be rezoned from VR to mobile home district or remain as VR but just pick up a site improvement plan. We had absolutely no notice of this. MS. VIDAURRI: 2.7 on the amended version, 2.7.61. Page 173 January 24, 2002 MR. SPILLER: No. 10. MS. ARNOLD: MS. MR. MS. MS. MR. SPILLER: What page? MS. VIDAURRI: Page 27 in Case No. 02. That's an inspection report pertaining to Unit There is -- it's 62 in the other document. VIDAURRI: Page 27, 2.7.6. SPILLER: Page 62 in Case 03 is -- ARNOLD: I mean 64. VIDAURRI: 64. MR. SPILLER: -- a pertinences requirement electrical, safety, fire protection system, stem pipes, and means of ingress. MS. ARNOLD: Page 64 in the 03, and it's also -- MS. VIDAURRI: Page 27 in 02. So what case number are you -- which package are you working off of?. MR. SPILLER: Both. Page 27 in Case 02 -- MS. VIDAURRI: And 64-- MR. SPILLER: Just a minute. -- is the inspection report pertaining to Unit No. 10. Page -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's correct. That's what I have. -- 64 in Case No. 03 is an extract of a electrical MR. SPILLER: code. MS. ARNOLD: MR. PONTE: MS. DUSEK: BY MR. SPILLER: Well, if you look on page 64 of both packets -- because I'm looking at a page 64 right now with that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And we're trying to find what? MS. ARNOLD: Section 7 -- 2.7.6. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Page 64 in the first package. Yes, it is. Yeah, it's there. Q. All right. Now, there's probably -- if we were to apply simple English to this, we can break it down in diagram and come up Page 174 January 24, 2002 with a hundred rules that are on this one page. How is the property owner told that he is accused of adding mobile homes without permits under the original citations that were issued? That verbiage is not there. MS. ARNOLD: Do you also have the notice of violation that you made reference to? MR. MS. MR. MS. mail MR. SPILLER: MS. ARNOLD: MR. SPILLER: receipt. MS. ARNOLD: MR. SPILLER: SPILLER: Which one? There's two of them. ARNOLD: On page 9. SPILLER: Which case? VIDAURRI: The amended. Which case? I think it's 03. Page 9 of 03 is a reproduction of a certified ordinance MS. ARNOLD: MR. SPILLER: and repair"-- MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Look at page 9 of 02. Is a reproduction of an original notice of violation and order to correct. Right. And-- And it says, "Obtain a site development plan No. Under the observations. The witness-- the observations that were describing what -- description of condition constituting the violation. In your -- your packet, does it read, "Property zoned village residential with mobile homes are not permitted, illegal land uses"? MR. SPILLER: That's correct. It refers to a village residential mobile home park which is not permitted, and that does not mean that there was a, quote, addition of mobile homes during a prior time period. That is very obviously an accusation that you do not have a permitted mobile home park in a village residential area. That's as simple English as you can get. And there's not one word in there that Page 175 January 24, 2002 puts the Blockers on notice that in 1970 you added two trailers, or in 1980 you added five trailers, or in 1990 you added three more trailers. That is not the accusation before this board, and that testimony is wholly irrelevant. MS. DUSEK: I-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have a question. Explain to me what 1.8.11.1.2 means. Page 67. MR. SPILLER: Of which case, sir? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm on the first one, 02. That seems to have, I guess, the logical number sequence. MS. VIDAURRI: Do you say 1.27 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 1.8.11.1.2. That's a cited violation, so explain to me what that means. MS. VIDAURRI: Telling the property owner to get a site development plan. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: For doing what? MS. VIDAURRI: Prior to issuing them a building permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: For adding additional mobile homes? MS. VIDAURRI: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. SPILLER: And, sir, I've put that in the context of those inspection reports which identify what are claimed to be unsafe -- excuse me -- structurally unsound -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: How did we get from adding mobile homes to a piece of land to inspecting them? Let's not go there. Let's stick with adding mobile homes to a piece of land. MR. SPILLER: And that's what I'm doing. The inspection report says remove the structurally unsound; and before you replace it, get a permit. And that was the accusation that we've had since August of this year-- last year. MS. DUSEK: I think the point that you just brought up was, Page 176 January 24, 2002 where has it been cited or has -- have the Blockers been informed of any additional mobile units? Now, I as a layperson am looking at 2.7.6 where it says, "No building or structure shall be erected, moved, added to, altered, utilized," so on and so forth. MR. SPILLER: I understand that, ma'am. That's very clear. MS. DUSEK: I'm also looking at Section 1.5.6, which says, "No building or structure or part thereof shall be erected, altered, or used," so on and so forth. MR. SPILLER: I agree that's the plain English -- MS. DUSEK: So, to me, they've been notified that there was some additional units. MR. SPILLER: And when we're told through the inspection reports that you've got some trailers that are structurally unsound and you have two choices: One is to remove them, or number two, to repair them. MS. DUSEK: That's not your question to her right now. MR. SPILLER: But if you remove them, then you have to have a permit to put a new one back in place, and that's the context of that citation. You can't put the new one in to replace the structurally unsound one-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, that's not the context. That's the context you're taking. MR. SPILLER: There is no other context, because until today we have never heard or seen one item of evidence of an accusation that these trailers were added to over a time period, not one evidence or suggestion that that was the accusation that we had to defend. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And that's fine. They've submitted these pictures today, and there's not a problem because today you submitted a bunch of evidence that we just saw today. So the pictures submitted today are submitted. That's that. Get on with it. MS. ARNOLD' Is this -- is this something that you attempted to Page 177 January 24, 2002 talk to the Blockers about? MS. VIDAURRI: Yes. I mean, we -- as an effort for the housing initiative, we've gone out and done public communications and to that effect to try to put this to the property owners of what could be some of the possibilities they're going to be running into with the zoning. I think here -- and we need to realize that this has been-- taken place, and it's an illegal action. And -- and the inspection reports being, to some extent, not specific enough for Mr. Spiller is not an excuse for all the other violations in existence, and it wouldn't be fair to the community for these types of violations to exist as major as they are. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. To help everybody out, because we are -- we seem to be drifting backwards, the Blockers bought this property -- MR. SPILLER: 1989. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- in '89, August. Prior to that date, I don't care what happened on that property. In all sincerity it means absolutely nothing to this case. The Blockers owned it from then on. Let's talk about from 1989 till today. That will help everybody out. MS. VIDAURRI: The same case would apply because they have improved it. In 1989 there was approximately eight units. By 1996 there was approximately 16 units, and then by December of 2000 there was 22 units. So -- MR. SPILLER: Am I in the phase of examination of the witness? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. BY MR. SPILLER: Q. Okay. Turn to the map, aerial map, dated April of'89. I believe it's page 10. First of all, you would admit that this is one of the poorest photographs that you've ever seen; correct? A. Yes. And I think I stated that for the record earlier. Page 178 January 24, 2002 Q. Okay. And it's your interpretation of this incredibly poor photograph that there are how many trailers depicted there? A. Approximately eight. Q. And you've indicated those with lines drawn to seven of them; correct? A. If that's how many lines I have, then that's what's -- Q. Can you get the exhibit up in front of you? A. I'm looking at it. Q. Okay. Well, I'm seeing seven lines. A. Okay. Q. Okay. And it's your interpretation, therefore, because in this very poor photograph you can't see other things that might be a trailer, that there were no other trailers there. A. Correct. And, again, I'll state this for the record, is that these pictures -- when we make copies off the original aerials, you're looking at something not as clear as we can see off of the aerials. Our research and our numbers come from the original aerials that we've been working off of. Q. All right. Would you agree that there's approximately one-fourth of this picture of what you've identified as the boundaries of the Blocker property that's covered with trees? A. Yes. I would say there was clearing done too. Q. And, therefore, there may be trailers underneath the trees that can't be depicted. A. Possible. Q. And would you also agree that the areas that you've drawn as reflecting probable trailers leave plenty of space for additional trailers to be present in the clearing -- the open area? A. Possibly. Q. And if the trailers were spaced evenly throughout this property, that there might be in excess of 25 trailers there? Page 179 January 24, 2002 Aw Could there Q. A. Q. Not according to our research. be 25 trailers on the property? On the photograph. Possibly, but no. Just based on the spacing. Okay. There wasn't 25 trailers. Now, if you'll look at the next one in time, more recent in time, November '96, No. 9, you've identified this also as the Blocker property; correct? A. That's correct. Q. And you see the -- what you've identified as Immokalee Road -- Do you me see A. Q. Immokalee Drive. Excuse me -- Immokalee Drive has a major dogleg in it. that? A what? A major what? Dogleg. If Immokalee Drive is east to west and the Blocker property is on the south side of the Immokalee Drive, what you're depicting as the intersection -- excuse me -- as the boundary of the Blocker property begins west of what we believe to be Taylor Street; correct? A. You're going to have to repeat all that again. Q. Okay. Let me get over to -- using that orientation, Immokalee Drive running east and west, you've depicted on this a dogleg on Immokalee Drive; correct? A. Yeah. Q. All right. Now, how long have you been in Immokalee? A. Twenty-six years. Q. And isn't it true that Immokalee Drive west of Taylor Street has been a straight road for that entire time period? A. Are we talking about this road here? Q. Yes. A. Yes. This is just a marker that you're seeing. It's -- it's a Page 180 January 24, 2002 highlighter on the copier. So it's -- it's a clearer picture, but because of our highlighting, it appears to be that. Q. Okay. Follow my depiction again. Would you agree that if that is a straight drive, that the road that comes in from the south next to one of the two Ms in Immokalee is probably Taylor Street? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Spiller, I hate to be a pest, but I'm having a problem. She didn't draw this picture. It's a picture taken by somebody else that she's using, and yet you keep saying that she's drawn in a dogleg, and she's done this with -- she didn't do any of that. It's a picture. I don't know who took this. All she did is, it looks like, draw highlighter on there. Are you trying to say this isn't the right property? Do you have evidence of that? Present it. Let's get onto something else besides a dogleg that -- I've looked at two of the exhibits that have been submitted, and they're both drawn different: One by the property appraiser which has a little curve in it, and one by somebody else that doesn't have the curve in it. So it's really irrelevant. Let's got on to something else, please. MR. SPILLER: If the chair will bear with me, I'll get to the point that I'm trying to establish. BY MR. SPILLER: Q. If this is the Blocker property, have you excluded that treed area, between the line that you've drawn here next to the number 10, from the count of mobile homes? A. No. It's included. That appears, like, for the record, there has been clearing done, and new trailers have been added to this property. Q. All right. My question was, this area right here -- and I'm drawing it out for you now -- is adjacent to Taylor Street; correct? A. I'm not sure if that's Taylor Street. But if that is Taylor Street -- I'm not looking at another map. It doesn't say Taylor Street on this map, so I'm not going to say it's Taylor Street. Page 181 January 24, 2002 Q. And you haven't counted a single trailer in that segment adjacent to Taylor Street, have you? A. No. But it's irrelevant to the fact that there's a violation here. Q. Ma'am, I'm trying to get to the conclusion that you've drawn to this board that over a period of time trailers have been added. And on this map, No. 9, November of'96, you're claiming that there was only ten trailers on that land; correct? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Spiller, can I help, I hope? We're wasting a lot of time here. If you have a person -- and I would think it would be Mr. Blocker -- that can stand up here and swear that nothing was added, we'll accept that. But for some reason you want to keep going over pictures taken by somebody that isn't here and questioning. Get to the evidence. Put somebody up there that says "I did not add trailers," and we can either believe them or not believe them. It seems a lot easier than what you're trying to do. MR. SPILLER: What I'm trying to point out is that this witness has interpreted some old photographs to conclude that trailers have been added over a time period. And I'm trying to point out through cross-examination the obvious errors of her interpretations, and I'm allowed to do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But you just said before that they didn't cite you for adding trailers. MR. SPILLER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So pick another subject. We'll take your word that they didn't cite you for that. Get on to something else. MR. SPILLER: If we're not here to defend against the claim that all these violations are based upon adding trailers during a time period, I'll move on. I'll drop the subject. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But you said you weren't cited for that, but you keep trying to defend it. If you weren't cited, why defend it? Page 182 January 24, 2002 MR. SPILLER: If the board accepts that, that we weren't cited -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. You said it's not here. We can read English. We'll decide if it's cited or not. You said it isn't. They've set out a couple of paragraphs. Get somebody up there that says, "This is a lie." It seems real easy. Get somebody to tell me, "This is not the case. We did not add trailers." If that's the case, it's real easy to say, "Okay. He didn't add anything. correct." MR. SPILLER: again -- MS. VIDAURRI: MR. SPILLER: -- He's owned it. He's there every day. Who am I to call him a liar? He must be I've said it before, and I'll have to say it If I may -- evidentiary rules don't apply in these hearings, but fundamental due process does. And since I've been confronted with a new accusation by these photographs being given -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: This is the only accusations we're interested in. MR. SPILLER: Well, sir-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's get on with those. MR. SPILLER: That's what I'm trying to focus on. Am I -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. You're focusing on something she -- MR. SPILLER: Am I required to defend against on accusation that we have to get a site improvement plan because trailers have been added in the past? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: This board is interested in these 13 deals, period. I don't care if she stands up there and says that your client's purple. It's not on this piece of paper, it wasn't on the notice of violation, doesn't interest me. Page 183 January 24, 2002 MR. SPILLER: Well, then if that's -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's get on with it. MR. SPILLER: If that's correct, then I would ask that the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Common sense tells you it's correct. You're here because of a notice of violation that was issued that has 13 items on it. Defend the 13 items. Don't get hostile and try to defend everything they want to say. You're wasting our time. We're only going to give you an order to do something, to correct, maybe, these 13 items, not something they just now brought up, because it doesn't matter. It doesn't apply. MR. SPILLER: And I interpret from that -- and I'll try to be brief-- that you agree that that evidence is not relevant to the accusations that were brought before the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We can ferret that out. We're intelligent people. We can ferret out what's applicable. We're looking for you to defend yourself, and all you're doing is trying to pick people apart who have used photographs rather than present something that says, "This is not true." I haven't heard any of that yet, and I'd sure like to hear it. BY MR. SPILLER: Q. The testimony earlier about the VR restriction -- zoning not existing in the 1971 code, do you recall that earlier? MS. ARNOLD: I made that statement. Q. Do you agree that the citations in this case make no reference to the 1971 code? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think I said before, anything that happened prior to 1989 doesn't interest this board. Mr. Blocker just bought the property in '89. Prior to '89 means absolutely nothing. Now, if you want to defend something that the county said -- I've told you straight out, prior to 1989 does not interest this board because we're here about Mr. Blocker, not something that happened when he Page 184 January 24, 2002 didn't own the property. BY MR. SPILLER: Q. In the discussions that you had with Mr. Blocker in August of last year, did he indicate to you that he was only unwilling to participate in the site improvement process, plan process, but he was more than willing to continue the ongoing repairs of his trailers? A. I don't recall the specifics to that, what you're saying. We -- we did elaborate on the project. He made, maybe, some comments to the effect that he would do the repairs, and we mentioned that such repairs would require permits. This project would assist him in getting those permits. But I -- I do recall him quoting that he wouldn't do anything with -- as a site improvement plan, that if the county wanted to do it, the county could pay for it, but he wasn't going to do it. Q. Okay. Now, on that subject do you recall the testimony of Mr. Bayliss earlier that he thought Mr. Blocker said at that meeting that -- excuse me. I'll withdraw that. Do you recall Mr. Bayliss's testimony that he said that the county would pay for two-thirds of the cost of the site improvement plan process? A. That's correct. That's an incentive to the project. Q. All right. Now, that only is the expense of drawing up the plan, not the compliance with the plan after approved; correct? A. That's correct. But -- but these -- Q. Let me just -- I'm only asking questions. So if a plan were submitted and approved, the property owner bears the full expense of doing everything that's approved in the plan; correct? A. That's correct. Q. Now, in your examination for permits, in testimony earlier you said you only found one for reroofing. In your examination of the property, did you see the power poles that were Page 185 January 24, 2002 there with all the electrical outlets on it? A. I didn't see the power points personally. Q. In the inspection reports, there's reference to repair the meter back if needed. You remember that, don't you? A. If it's in the report. Q. And did you find the permits for putting those meters in? A. No. Q. Would you agree that the service provider for electricity there is Lee County Electrical Cooperative? A. Correct. Q. And you know that they will not put a meter in unless there's a permit issued by the county for that meter; correct? A. No. There was some issues of concerns with poles in that community that were being issued. We -- there was an issue with permits as far as poles when people were coming into the permitting office to request pole replacement and permits were being given out when technically there was never a pole there, and poles were being added and-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Spiller, you haven't been cited for electrical poles or something like that. What are we doing? MR. SPILLER: She's testified that there was no permits, and we have permitted poles that -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Then present them. MR. SPILLER: I'm just probing the depth of her -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, let's not probe. Let's present something. Let's present something. MR. SPILLER: And that's what I'm doing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. You're asking her a lot of questions. If you say there's permits, when your turn comes to present your defense, get them out here. Trot them out to show that they don't know what they're talking about. Move on. Page 186 January 24, 2002 BY MR. SPILLER: Q. What is the utilization of this property, the Blocker property? Let me rephrase since it puzzled you. It's housing for migrant farm workers, isn't it? A. They're mobile homes on a parcel. Q. You have not inquired as to the nature of the use of those mobile homes? A. No. Q. So you don't know if it's unoccupied or occupied? A. At the time of the inspections, all units were vacant. MR. SPILLER: Okay. Nothing further. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does the board have any more questions for the witness? Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Arnold, do you have any more? MS. ARNOLD: No, I don't. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Spiller, a question for you. Do you have any idea how long your defense is going to take? MR. SPILLER: Several hours. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Because we have a time constraint on the room. That's above and beyond what we can do SO... MR. SPILLER: Can I ask the board's indulgence in presenting two brief witnesses so that these men can go about their other duties if they want to? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. If they're going to be -- nobody has any questions for the county or any of their witnesses? We're done with that portion? Michelle, are you done presenting? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. PONTE: Just a suggestion. If we are going to continue, if Page 187 January 24, 2002 that's what we're facing, where is a more logical time to recess or break or continue, before or after the two witnesses? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, if-- if he has a time constraint and they're here, rather than try to force them to come back, I got no objection if they can be short and get that over with. MS. TAYLOR: But you know it's not going to be short. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, that's -- that'll be to his disadvantage. MR. PONTE: I'm just thinking in terms of our recall. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Because if we stop in the middle of questioning, that hurts him. MS. CURATOLO: I have to leave. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. TAYLOR: We have the rest of an agenda to take care of also. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not until we're done with this portion of it. That'll have to be sidetracked too. We have to do our cases first. And when we finish the public hearings, if our time's up, then the rest of the agenda gets put over to the next session, whenever we meet, after we finish the public hearings. That's the way it works. MS. TAYLOR: We won't be finished with public hearings. (Ms. Curatolo left the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. So everything gets put over until whenever we decide it's going to be put over to. MR. PONTE: Can we ask Mr. Spiller what he thinks? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Spiller, trying to help you as much as we can. If you think we can get this over with, say, within a 20-, 25-minute time limit at the most, great. If you don't think you can do that on these two witnesses, then I'd say we need to stop now and just hold everything off until the next time. Page 188 January 24, 2002 MR. SPILLER: For these two witnesses only, yes, I can do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Not knowing what the county side may be, but I would suggest then -- I'm willing to go ahead if you can keep -- condense yours as much as possible. Hopefully the county's question side would be condensed and ours would be. So understand that you're going to present. We're going to ask questions, because not knowing yet -- we haven't discussed when we're going to re -- adjourn and then reconvene. Somebody is going to forget what your fellow said. And I was going to -- did I ask -- I mean, you understand the problem we're in. So if we're going to fit them in to help you, we need to try and do it as concise and brief and as direct to the point as we can. Okay? I'm willing to try that if you are, understanding that if it looks like it's going to get out of hand, I'm going to end everything, and you can start all over again, but you'll have to bring these guys back. MR. SPILLER: We call Mr. Bayliss. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SPILLER: Q. Mr. Bayliss, earlier in your testimony to the board, you may have caused one or more of the members to have the impression that Mr. Blocker, when you had the discussions with him in August of this past year, was refusing to do anything in compliance with the citations that he was being given. Did he only indicate that he was not willing to participate in the site improvement process? A. That's correct. Q. And did he indicate to you that he was willing and would always be willing to continue the repairs of the trailers? A. That's correct. Q. And during your inspections that you conducted with Mr. Noonan, in fact, there was repairs going on; correct? Page 189 January 24, 2002 me that he was A. Q. That's correct. Okay. So it is not true that he was indicating in any form not willing to repair the trailers. That's correct. Okay. Further, on the site improvement process, your testimony sounded like you were testifying that the county would pay for two-thirds of the entire expense of that process. What you meant to say was only two-thirds of the application cost, including architect fees; but once the plan was approved, then the home -- the property owner would have to undertake all the repairs out of their own pocket. A. Q. in August response? A. Yes, I did. Q. And did you ever go to Mr. Noonan and say, "Maybe we ought to go over and talk with the Blockers and explain what we're talking about here on the repairs of their trailers"? A. No, I did not. Q. Why not? A. Well, the letter that I got from you said I couldn't get on the property anymore. That pretty much stops me. Q. All right. Let's look at that letter. Look at the August 20th letter. A. I have it. Q. See there on the first page where the subject matter is generally a complaint that the allegations are vague and ambiguous? A. Yes. Q. Do you see there also where we're asking for an amended notice of violation that specifies the description and location of the That's correct. Okay. The letter of clarification that I addressed to you of this year, did you pass that on to the county attorneys for Page 190 January 24, 2002 MR. BAYLISS: MR. SPILLER: THEREUPON, claimed defective item? A. Yes. Q. All right. And you're saying that because you couldn't go back on the property, you could not come up with a description of the location of the claimed defective item? A. Yes. Q. So you didn't know at the time that the citation was initially issued ten days earlier what those locations were and what the nature of the violation was. A. I'm sorry. Ask it again, please. Q. At the time that the inspect -- at the time that you issued the ins -- the notice of violation on August 10th, you could not have answered those questions, could you? A. No. Q. Didn't know. MR. SPILLER: Okay. Nothing further. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Mr. Bayliss. Thank you. Call at this time Kenny Kemp. KENNETH KEMP, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SPILLER: Q. Sir, full name? A. Kenneth Kemp. Q. All right. And your current residence address, please. A. 95 17th Street Southwest, Naples. Q. Were you born and raised in Immokalee? A. No. Page 191 January 24, 2002 Q. Where were you raised? A. Missouri. Q. I'm sorry? A. Missouri. Q. Missouri? A. Yes. Q. Okay. When did you move to Immokalee? A. Six months later, 1952. Q. Okay. Have you lived in Immokalee since then? A. We lived there 41 years. Then I moved over here about 8 me what it is. Q. A. 1/2 years ago. Q. And during that time that you were a child growing up in the City of Immokalee, did you know of the location that we now call 423 Taylor Street? A. Yeah. I was raised across the street. Q. Okay. And did you come into ownership of that in -- about nineteen -- excuse me. Do you recall the year that you came into ownership? A. 1975. Q. Okay. And at the time that you bought the property in 1975, what was its then-existent use? I don't know if the chairman will want to hear me say Go ahead and answer it. They called it Walls Trailer Park; W-a-l-l-s, Walls Trailer Park. Q. Okay. And was that a facility for housing of migrants? A. Migrants -- basically migrants. Also they had some spaces in there. Q. Okay. Now, in the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Spiller, if you remember what I Page 192 January 24, 2002 said, prior to 1989 1 don't care what went on with that property. MR. SPILLER: What I'm establishing is an affirmative defense of nonconforming use, and that has to go back in time very briefly. Q. During the time period that you had the property, did you continue the use in the same manner, that is -- A. That's -- yes. Q. -- mobile homes -- A. Yes. Q. -- for migrant workers? A. That's correct. Q. And during the time that you had it during that time period, did you have state licenses from the department of health to -- A. Yes. I was inspected. Q. Okay. During those inspections were those inspections on an annual basis? A. No. They were month -- monthly to six weeks. Q. Okay. And were you ever inspected by any person from Collier County during your period of ownership? A. Just when I got a permit to put in some trailers. Q. Okay. And did you also obtain permits to install power poles with power meters? A. That's -- that's why I needed the permits for the trailers. When Immokalee got city sewer, okay, a lot of that land-- the reason it looks cleared out, because there's a lot of Australian pines there. It was loaded. And there was a lot of trailers underneath those Australian pines which has been taken out over the past few years, that I understand. But to answer your question, the building department in Immokalee -- Pat Tillis, who's deceased, issued me permits for-- it's been so long ago -- several services. And each service had two meters on it, and he said, "Go ahead and hook the trailers up. When Page 193 January 24, 2002 you get through, I will do the inspections and -- myself," because you can't get electricity unless the county signs off on it. MR. SPILLER: No further inquiry. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ARNOLD: Q. Do you have a copy of those building permits? A. No, I do not. It was probably '78, '79, maybe '80. It's going back before '89. Q. And when did you sell the property? A. 1989. Q. And did you do any improvements on the property between that and '89, when you obtained the property and -- A. Yes. Those are those permits that I just spoke about. Q. Did you get any building permits back-- A. Through-- Q. -- in the late '80s? A. You're asking me did I go to apply for a permit? Q. Yes. A. Yes, I did. I went to this particular gentleman, Pat Tillis, and did whatever necessary paperwork. And before you asked me, do I kept -- did I keep a record of it? No. Q. Did the -- did the -- to your knowledge, is there any record anywhere of that? A. Okay. To my knowledge, you would have to go back to Lee County Electric, because I'm sure they would have to keep a record when they turned on all those meters. And those meters would not have been turned on unless building had signed off on it. Q. Did you ever get a building permit from the building department? A. That's what it was, a building permit. Q. Now, to your knowledge -- Page 194 January 24, 2002 A. I mean, I'm not a professional. Q. Okay. But let me ask a question. A. Yes. Q. To your knowledge, is there any information in the county records showing building permits that you're saying that you got? A. Okay. To answer your question, if he did his job, there's a record of it. If he's done his job, which he's gonna -- I mean, I can tell you that for sure. But if he did the necessary paperwork-- and there's a young lady named Lu that worked there for many years. She was employed, I believe, at that time. She worked for the building department. I believe she's transferred over here now. I can't think of the last name, but Spanish lady. She helped out with the paperwork. But now to answer your question, if he did the necessarily (sic) recordkeeping, there's a record of it. Plus, Lee County Electric should have a record of it, because they don't -- they don't turn on power unless they have the county to call them to sign off on it, CO. Q. Okay. To your knowledge, is there a record in the county with building permits for your property at the time that you owned it? A. Not to my knowledge. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SPILLER: The "he" that you're referring to is the building inspector, Mr. Tillis? A. Uh-huh. And Chuck Boon. There was two at the time. Both of them told me to go ahead and get this thing set up right, come in, fill out the necessary paperwork, which I did. There was two building -- and both of them has passed away, by the way. Page 195 January 24, 2002 MR. SPILLER: CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: questions? MS. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: members of this witness? Okay. Nothing further. Michelle, do you have any more Any questions from any board MS. DUSEK: I have one, actually, kind of directed to Michelle or him. When did the county start keeping records of permits? MS. ARNOLD: We have always kept records of permits in some form that -- they have been recorded on -- in a book, and they're journal entries. And those can be -- those records can be obtained. I believe in a prior hearing that you-all have had, there was some research that was done after some time, and it was presented to you, one of the general entries that was -- or entries that was made in -- for a permit that was issued way back in the '60s. The property appraiser's office -- also when there's a permit issued, we submit a copy of the building permit to the property appraiser's office, and they make notations on the property card, and they'll put the permit number. Mr. Spiller was -- provided me a copy of one of the rolls from the property appraiser's office. There is notation of the trailers, that they-- MR. SPILLER: I'm going to have to object for two reasons: Number one, she's not a witness. It's interrupting my case; and number two -- MS. ARNOLD: She asked me a question regarding the procedures of the county. I'm-- MR. SPILLER: The second objection is that this board can make no decision based upon what might have happened in another case. MS. DUSEK: My question -- I wanted to know so I can make an informed decision-- is when permits were recorded, because if Page 196 January 24, 2002 this gentleman did get permits and they were valid, they should be recorded. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And it's very convenient to say, "I went and got permits, but the people I got them from are dead, and they probably didn't do their job." Well, what we're trying to find out is, does the county keep records? What form are these records in? Because maybe they haven't looked at something. And if there are -- is a record somewhere -- and this gentleman says he got the permits; I can't disbelieve him -- so then the county needs to go find these so we can clear these up. MR. KEMP: I'd like to add-- you're a pretty smart fellow yourself-- you don't get power unless the county signs off on it. Wouldn't you agree? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It sounds reasonable, but I honestly don't know. I'm not in that business. So, I mean, it sounds reasonable, but since I don't do that for a living -- MR. KEMP: I have no reason to come here and tell you something that's not true. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that, but I'm just trying to -- we're trying to understand the system. So if we're going to make a decision -- you say you applied. These gentleman said -- MR. KEMP: The Australian pines covered up many, many trees (sic). CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're just trying to find out, what is the system for the county? And if they have a system, you know, maybe they need to -- maybe they didn't look hard enough. I don't know. We're just trying to know what is the system. MS. ARNOLD: And I was just trying to answer that question. MR. PONTE: Question for Mr. Kemp. Did you say that Lee Electric -- MR. KEMP: Lee County Electric. Page 197 January 24, 2002 MR. PONTE: -- Lee County Electric. MR. KEMP: Yes. MR. PONTE: -- put up the poles. MR. KEMP: No, no, no, no. J. R. Orlando, he was the licensed electrician who installed the poles, and Lee County -- of course, that's where they, again, supposedly should have been inspected by the county, because they were signed off. Then Lee County came up and hooked it up. MR. PONTE: Is there a possibility that these missing permits are at Lee County? MR. KEMP: That's the hundred-dollar question. I don't know. We're talking-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The county can, I guess, research that if they want to -- MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask another -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- do something against this gentleman's testimony. We're just trying to find out how this system works. MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask a question of Mr. -- MR. KEMP: I feel offended by your remarks. Okay? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I'm-- you know, I didn't -- I'm trying to be blunt and honest about it at the same time. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, while you're doing whatever you're doing there, if someone makes an application but never gets the permit, is the application recorded? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it should have been. And then if it's not CO'd or final inspection is made, it would indicate on there that there was no final inspection by the absence of a date, for example. The document that's being distributed to you are two documents that were provided to me by Mr. Spiller today when I requested his evidentiary packet, but I guess that's not been entered into -- Page 198 January 24, 2002 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. He hasn't entered anything into evidence yet. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ARNOLD: Q. One of the documents -- Mr. Kemp, if you could turn to page 2. A. What are we -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's back up and say, is somebody going to enter this? Otherwise, it has no meaning. MR. SPILLER: What are we referring to? MS. ARNOLD: The two documents that you gave me. You indicated they were going to be evidence. Tax collector -- Collier County Tax Collector-- MR. SPILLER: Page 2 of which one? MS. ARNOLD: The one that says Collier County Property Appraiser Tax Roll, and it's for-- MR. SPILLER: Give me the folio number, and that'll be easier. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, let's start off with some basics. Mr. Spiller, are you going to enter these as defense exhibits? MR. SPILLER: Probably. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, not probably. We're not going to look at them unless they're entered. They're wasting our time. They mean nothing if they're not evidence. MR. SPILLER: Well, Ms. Arnold is pursuing an examination of Mr. Kemp now on a subject matter that I did not question him about, didn't talk-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But, you know, you-- you did this before. So don't go down that road, because I'm going to shoot you down. All I want to know is, we've got two pieces of paper that are not in evidence. Is anyone going to submit them as evidence? If the answer is no, then let's get on to something else. Page 199 January 24, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: I'll submit-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If somebody wants to submit them, submit them. MS. ARNOLD: -- them as evidence, Exhibits C and D. MR. PONTE: Which one is C, and which one is D? MS. ARNOLD: C will be Parcel No. 31, and it indicates on the Strap No. 472905031, point, which says Collier County Property Appraiser on the top. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And D would be the other document that says Collier County Tax Collector. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept Exhibits C and D from the county. MR. SPILLER: Let me just verify that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do we have a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. MS. TAYLOR: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's get on with it, because we're getting short, folks. I don't like to rush us, but we're starting to run out of time, unfortunately. BY MS. ARNOLD: Q. Exhibit C, which is the property appraiser's records, on page 2 there is some notations made on the right-hand column. What is that indicating? MR. SPILLER: Object to the witness-- A. We're going way back to 1989. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If this was done by the property Page 200 January 24, 2002 appraiser's office, I think you're asking the wrong person, personally. If they're their records, I think we need to get one of them up here to tell us. I don't know if this gentleman knows what it means. You know, I understand where you're going, Michelle, but I think to be -- in fairness this isn't his document, so I don't know that he can properly answer your question. I think you need somebody from the appraiser's office if that's where you want to go. MS. ARNOLD: No. I just want him to show that there are how many notations of trailers on there. MR. SPILLER: Well, the document speaks for itself. It's already been admitted. And now to ask Mr. Kemp to interpret -- MS. ARNOLD: And can I ask him a question and have him answer it, similar to what you've been -- MR. SPILLER: My objection is-- MS. ARNOLD: -- afforded to do? MR. SPILLER: My objection is this witness does not have a basis for answering these questions on somebody else's -- MS. ARNOLD: This witness cannot read? MR. SPILLER: -- official records. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Excuse me. Mr. Spiller, all day today you were asking people questions about documents submitted that they didn't write, but just that Mr. Bayliss handed to your client. Now we've handed something to somebody -- not we, the board, but the county has -- and you don't want any questions asked. It doesn't work one way. You either -- we're going to do it both ways or not at all. And you've already had your shot, so she gets a shot too. We got to be fair. I'm sorry. BY MS. ARNOLD: Q. How many trailers are indicated on it? A. Six. Page 201 January 24, 2002 Q. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions, Ms. Arnold? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. I'm looking at the other document. Q. On the second document-- A. I'm not too smart. I don't have page numbers. Q. I haven't referred to a page yet. The second document that says tax collector, on the third page, to your knowledge, is this Parcel No. 30? Does it say Parcel No. 30 in the upper right-hand comer of this document on the third page? A. Help me out here. It says Parcel 31. Q. No. The second document that was provided to you. There you go. On the third page -- A. Yes, 30. Q. Does -- is there any notation of trailers in the similar location on that property card? A. Is this the property card you're speaking of?. Q. Yeah. Similar to what you read and counted how many trailers there were on Parcel No. 31, is there any notation referencing trailers on Parcel 30? A. Well, you know, let's put it this way: There's a difference. Q. Is there any reference to trailers on that -- in that portion that says "Notes"? A. Oh, okay. Hang on just a second. I only see the Cabana, the one -- this 1965 model in the notes. Is that what you're asking me? Q. Yes, that's exactly what I'm asking you. So there's no reference to trailers on that? A. No. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Thank you. FURTHER DIRECT EXAMINATION Page 202 January 24, 2002 BY MR. SPILLER: Q. A. Q. legal description. A. Okay. Q. Thirty. A. Okay. Q. Mr. Kemp, bear with me while I get you oriented. Okay. On the page that you're just looking at, above that is the me six, seven. Q. Are we looking at Parcel 30 or 31 ? And do you see that from its point of beginning you go south 215 feet, west 105 feet, north 215 feet -- A. Yeah. Q. -- and east 105 feet? A. Yes. Q. Assume that point of beginning is the intersection of Taylor Street and Immokalee Drive. A. Okay. Q. At the time that you sold that land to the Blockers, did those -- that land encompassed by the 215 by 105 feet have mobile homes on it? That's correct. How many? That's the smaller of the two pieces; is that right? Yes. I'd say, if my memory's right, one, two, three -- five or Okay. Now, going to the other exhibit, which is D -- I'm sorry. So the point that Ms. Arnold was trying to make, that this thing, Exhibit D, shows that there's no mobile home trailers on it, would be inaccurate. A. If that's what Ms. Arnold's trying to get across, it's inaccurate. Page 203 January 24, 2002 Q. Okay. Going to Exhibit C, the page that she had you refer to on the notes where there's six trailers and a big X through them -- A. Are we talking Parcel 30? Q. Thirty-one. A. Oh, okay. Q. Do you see the name Robert L. Taylor there as -- A. That's correct. Q. -- the owner? A. That's correct. Q. Is that the man that you bought it from? A. It was a brother and sister, a Walls and a Taylor. Q. All right. And going to the next page after that, do you see the ownership record that shows that you purchased -- by this ownership record, you purchased it from Robert and Letha Taylor in 19757 A. That's correct. Q. And they had the property in 1958. That's what this record shows. A. It could be because they inherited it. That's correct. You know, I couldn't say one way or the other. Q. Okay. Going to the next page after that, do you see where it has a partial inventory of trailers that go up to Nos. 24 or 25? A. Yes. MR. SPILLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Mr. Kemp? FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ARNOLD: Q. So are you-- are you saying on page 2 the representation to -- on Parcel 30 from the property appraiser is inaccurate? A. It must be. Has to be. Page 204 January 24, 2002 Q. Okay. So it's inaccurate on -- A. I mean, that's not the way it was when I bought it. Let's put it that way. Q. So it's inaccurate for Parcel 30 but not 31 ? A. Wait a minute. Let me see. Q. Thirty-one, that you just noted that there's 24. A. Thirty-one looks inaccurate; thirty looks accurate. MR. PONTE: Did you say 31 looks inaccurate or accurate? MR. KEMP: Inaccurate at -- when I bought it. Q. Were you advised that you needed to create a subdivision for this when you added trailers? A. No. I was told-- Q. Did you-- go ahead. A. I was told that I had plenty of property for 24 units, but it could be called hearsay because they're not here to verify it. People that knows me know I'm not going to lie about it. Q. Did you ever obtain a site plan or a subdivision? A. No, I did not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're out of time, folks. Any more questions, Ms. Arnold? MS. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any board member have any questions for Mr. Kemp? MS. DUSEK: Yes, I do. I just want to verify that you said that 31, Lot 31, is inaccurate; is that correct? MR. KEMP: It was inaccurate when I purchased it. MS. DUSEK: So the six trailers were not there? MR. KEMP: See, I think I heard in the conversation earlier when I was in the audience that there was five or six units there. There was much more there when I bought it. To be specific, you want to know exactly how many. Page 205 January 24, 2002 MR. PONTE: Just let me explore this, finish it. So if it was inaccurate because you heard five or six trailers, what would make it accurate? MR. KEMP: When I purchased it? MR. PONTE: Yes. MR. KEMP: Again, the trees, you know, messed up the view. But when I purchased it, I get 13 -- no, no, excuse me -- 12. And the increase is when I went before the building department to get the extra meters, service poles, and purchased the trailers and put on it. MS. ARNOLD: Is that 13 total or 13 on just Parcel 31 ? MR. KEMP: No, no. On both parcels. MR. PONTE: Both parcels? MR. KEMP: Yeah, on both parcels. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thirteen total of 30 and 31 ? MR. KEMP: That's correct. Let me back up one minute. Okay. I know you're in a hurry. Parcel 31, is that just in the -- the west side of the property? MR. SPILLER: It's defined by metes and bounds description as being 660 feet east/west and -- MR. KEMP: The old memory's coming back. MR. SPILLER: -- 245 feet north/south. MR. KEMP: Okay. If you're saying -- if there was only six trailers on there, 200 by 660, that's incorrect. If you're asking me if it was on -- was there at least six mobile homes on the front section, which was approximately 200 by 140 or something of that nature, that's incorrect. MR. SPILLER: Okay. I think we've gone full circle. I'm going to try to do this one last time. When you sold the property -- MR. KEMP: Yes. MR. SPILLER: -- to the Blockers, since they're -- we're only focusing on the Blocker ownership time period-- Page 206 January 24, 2002 MR. KEMP: Okay. MR. SPILLER: -- at the time you sold the property to the Blockers, was there six mobile homes on that eastern segment, the 215-foot length going from the intersection of Taylor and Immokalee Drive? MR. KEMP: Okay. As you know, there's two deeds. Okay. I'm going to speak in terms of the deed that's on the east -- east side. MR. SPILLER: That's what I'm referring to. MR. KEMP: Okay. There was, let's see, one, two, three, four, five -- I believe there was seven. MR. SPILLER: Okay. That's fine. Nothing further. MR. KEMP: But minimum of six. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any more questions, George? MR. PONTE: No questions. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Diane, do you have any questions? Michelle, do you have any more questions? MS. ARNOLD: No. I just have to give you-all and enter in that document that was made reference to, the '71 code. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And we'll do that as -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If that's what you want to do. I know he brought that up. If you want to enter that. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. As E. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Mr. Spiller, if you bear with me, we're going to have to break now and decide when we're going to meet again because we're almost out of time and have to get out of this room. Ms. Rawson. MS. RAWSON: Our next meeting is February 28th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. To do anything prior to that would be, I guess, in essence, since we're not doing two meetings a Page 207 January 24, 2002 month anymore, is call a special meeting. MS. RAWSON: That's true. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since there's only a quorum here, which seems unfair to the other three members, is there a problem in the system if we just automatically adjourn and reconvene at our normal meeting time next month? MS. RAWSON: There's not a problem, in addition to which our court reporter will have a transcript typed, and everybody will have the opportunity to read it and to refresh their recollection as to what was presented here today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. For that reason, then, I would recommend at this point that we adjourn the public hearing on this case, along with the balance of our agenda, until our next scheduled meeting, February -- MS. RAWSON: 28th I think it is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- 28th. That's what I'd recommend to my board members. Any takers or changers or -- MR. PONTE: That's fine. But I have just a question of Michelle. Do you have any indication of what the caseload might be if this was not continued to the 28th? In other words, was the 28th looking full to begin with? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. We had-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now, we still have the option of doing two meetings a month. That's always -- you know, if you needed them, we said we would do that. So if you feel because of the caseload you need to get the board to convene for, quote, something different, that option's available to you. You just have to notify us when we have to be here. But for this particular deal right now, I think we need to, as Jean suggested, wait until we get a record to help everybody so -- because our minds will be a little fuzzy after even tomorrow. But keep in the back of your mind, if you've got cases Page 208 January 24, 2002 coming up, by all means we are available for a second meeting if you require it. You just have to tell us. MR. SPILLER: Two matters, if I could. I have a higher boss than the Code Enforcement Board, and they're -- and his name is Judge. And I would ask that we coordinate the rescheduling of the continuation of this hearing with my office so that I don't get put in the jam of being in front of Judge Blackwell or Judge Brousseau or some other judge when you-all want me here, because I know where the priorities have to go. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that. And right now our schedule is this is when I feel it's logical to do this, if my board members agree, and that's when it'll be. If a problem comes up on your end, then I guess you have to submit something to us and say that won't work, and we'll either change it to some other date or put it back, whatever. But right now it's February 28th if my board members agree. MR. SPILLER: Okay. And the other matter, very briefly, Ms. Curatolo left during the evidence presentation this afternoon, and I didn't make a comment specifically on the record just to have that indicated as to when she left. I believe it was well before the testimony of Mr. Kemp and perhaps during the testimony of-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She made a note in the record that she left. And there's still four board members here, so that's immaterial. MR. SPILLER: Well, I'm just making a record that we're down to four at this point. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: As long as we got a quorum, we can act on anything. So we're legal. Do I hear a motion to adjourn that I recommended? MR. PONTE: I'll make -- MS. TAYLOR: I'll second it. Page 209 January 24, 2002 MS. DUSEK: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Dusek made the recommendation, and Diane seconded it. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So we're adjourned until February the 28th for this public hearing and this agenda. If the county needs us for something else, you can advise us. Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:48 p.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY CAROLYN FORD AND BARBARA DRESCHER, NOTARIES PUBLIC Page 210