Loading...
CEB Minutes 03/28/2002 RMarch 28, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY Naples, Florida, March 28, 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 9:03 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Clifford Flegal Roberta Dusek Rhona Saunders Peter Lehmann Diane Taylor Kathleen Curatolo NOT PRESENT: Kathryn M. Godfrey-Lint George Ponte ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney, Code Enforcement Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Patti Petrulli, Code Enforcement Supervisor Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: Location: March 28, 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 - February 28, 2002 4. ELECTIONS MINUTES 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BCC vs. ELKS LODGE NO. 2010 ( JOE CASSIDY, CHAIRMAN of BUILDING COMMITTEE ARTHUR L. KOZY, REG. AGENT, and HENRy LEHMAN, PRESIDENT) B. BCC vs. WILLIAM BRYAN SEWARD and HOWARD KUYPERS C. BCC vs. LLOYD BOWEIN D. BCC vs. ROCCOLACQUANITI E. BCC vs. QUAIL CROSSING PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC. INC. LOUIS ALTIER, PRESIDENT and ROBERT T. GRACEY, REG. AGENT NEW BUSINESS Request for Imposition of Fines/Lien A. BCC vs. GERALD K. DAVIDSON B. BCC vs. BONNIE L. HARROD C. BCC vs. SAINTILIEN OCCEUS and MALVEILLEAS ESTIVERNE D. BCC vs. GERALD MARTIN DWYER E. BCC vs. CLEVELAND and CAROLYN BLOCKER 7. OLD BUSINESS Affidavits of Compliance A. BCC vs. GERALD K. DAVIDSON B. BCC vs. SAINTILIEN OCCEUS and MALVEILLEAS ESTIVERNE C. BCC vs. GERALD MARTIN DWYER Affidavits of Non Compliance A. BCC vs. BONNIE L. HARROD B. BCC vs. CLEVELAND and CAROLYN BLOCKER Request for Reduction in Fines A. BCC vs. KRAMER, ANGILERI, and GRECH B. BCC vs. ENRIQUE IGLESIAS 8. REPORTS -QUARTERLY REPORT 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE April 25, 2002 '0. ADJOURN CEB NO. 2002-001 CEB NO. 2002-002 CEB NO. 2002-003 CEB NO. 2002-004 CEB NO. 2001-005 CEB NO. 2001-077 CEB NO. 2001-082 CEB NO. 2001-081 CEB NO. 2001-083 CEB NO. 2001-064 CEB NO. 2001-077 CEB NO. 2001-081 CEB NO. 2001-083 CEB NO. 2001-082 CEB NO. 2001-064 CEB NO. 2001-069 CEB NO. 2001-037 March 28, 2002 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Call the Collier County Code Enforcement Board to order, please. Please make note any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made -- we're getting a big echo. (A discussion was held off the record.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. Does that really sound loud? It sounds loud up here. (A discussion was held off the record.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Roll call, please. MS. PETRULLI: For the record, Patti Petrulli, code enforcement supervisor. I would like it noted for the record that Kathryn M. Godfrey-Lint, George P. Ponte have an excused absence, and Darrin M. Phillips has tendered his resignation to the Code Enforcement Board effective immediately. Clifford W. Flegal. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Here. MS. PETRULLI: Peter Lehmann. MR. LEHMANN: Present. MS. MS. MS. MS. MS. MS. MS. PETRULLI: Roberta Dusek. DUSEK: Here. PETRULLI: Diane Taylor. TAYLOR: Present. PETRULLI: Rhonda (sic) Saunders. SAUNDERS: Here. PETRULLI: Kathleen Curatolo. Page 2 March 28, 2002 MS. TAYLOR: MS. ARNOLD: the board. MS. CURATOLO: Here. MS. PETRULLI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: For the record, since we have two permanent members absent, Kathleen, you will participate as a permanent member today. Approval of our agenda. MS. TAYLOR: I would like to see the elections moved down further. We have all these people here, and I think that we shouldn't be doing this while we have all these public hearings coming up. So I would like that moved down. MS. ARNOLD: So you'd like it moved to replace -- right before the reports or after reports? You want it to be the last thing? Right before the reports, please. Okay. I don't know if a -- that's a decision for CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Pleasure of the board. Do we want to slide the elections down to 8 and move everything up one? That's what Diane is suggesting. MS. DUSEK: Is that a motion, Diane? MS. TAYLOR: It is. MS. DUSEK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second to move the elections down to 8 and move everything up one. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) MS. ARNOLD: I have a request for continuance for Item 5, now 4-D, and that's the only change that we have. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's 004? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. So that would be CEB 2002-004. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: So we would just continue it to the April Page 3 March 28, 2002 meeting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other changes? I'd entertain a motion to approve the agenda as changed. MS. SAUNDERS: So moved. MS. TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to All those in favor signify by saying approve the agenda as changed. aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Approval of our minutes from February 28th. Any changes, corrections? If none, I would entertain a motion to approve. MS. TAYLOR: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes as submitted. All those in favor signify by saying any. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: hearings. MS. ARNOLD: I need to make a correction. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Actually, it wasn't 004; it was actually 003 that Thank you. We'll now open our public we needed to continue. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Bowein? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, Bowein. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Page 4 March 28, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: So I guess you have to approve the agenda again. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would entertain a motion to make the correction to the agenda as recommended by the county. MS. TAYLOR: So moved. MR. LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to make the correction. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? Thank you. Okay. Now, first case, BCC versus Elks Lodge, Case No. 2002-001. I will, for the record, make a recom -- make a notation I am a member of the Elks Lodge. I have had no contact with them. I know nothing about what is being brought before us. I have asked Ms. Rawson, and I find no reason to recuse myself from hearing the case. MS. PETRULLI: For the record, I would like to ask if the respondents are present today, Mr. Joe Cassidy, Mr. Arthur L. Kozy, and Mr. Henry Lehman. MS. ARNOLD: Are there representatives for the Elks Lodge present? Okay. That's all we need. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's okay. You can sit there, gentlemen, and the county will present their side, and then we'll give you a chance to present your side. MS. PETRULLI: Let the record show that the respondents are present. This is Case No. 2002-001, the Board of County Commissioners versus Joe Cassidy, Arthur L. Kozy, and Henry Lehman of the Elks Lodge. The alleged violation is of Section 4, Subsection C7 of Ordinance No. 97-42, and PUD No. 91-95 of the Collier County Page 5 March 28, 2002 Land Development Ordinance. We provided the board and the respondent with a packet. I'd like to request at this time that the packet be admitted into evidence and marked as Composite Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would entertain a motion to do that. MS. DUSEK: So moved. MR. LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to enter the county's exhibit. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MS. PETRULLI: The violation is described, as landscaping requirements are not in compliance regarding the buffer along the eastern edge of the PUD project. The location where the violation exists is 3950 Radio Road, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 0000000384040003. The name and address of the owner or person in charge of the location where the violation exists is Mr. Joe Cassidy, chairman of the building committee, Naples Lodge 2010, 3950 Radio Road, Naples, Florida 34104; Mr. Henry Lehman, president of the Naples Lodge 2010, address 2803 Raintree Lane, Naples, Florida 34112; and Joe Cassidy, reg -- I'm sorry -- Arthur Kozy, registered agent Naples Lodge No. 2010, address 517 Whitewater Way, Naples, Florida 34112. The date the violation was first observed was July 11 th of 2000, and the notice of violation was given on October 23rd of 2000. The date by which it was to be corrected was November 22nd of 2000, and as of today the violations still exist. At this time I would like to ask that investigator Susan Mason Page 6 March 28, 2002 come forward to present the case for the county. (The speaker was sworn.) INVESTIGATOR MASON: Good morning. For the record, I'm Susan Mason, environmental specialist for Collier County Code Enforcement. This case was turned over to me when Investigator Beck left the department. The Elks had received a CO for their building on the condition of replacing a required landscape buffer along the eastern edge of the property along Donna Street within one month after the CO was received. My initial inspection of the Elks Lodge was in January 2001; ten months after the Elks received the CO for the building. The landscape buffer along Donna Street had some previously existing sabal palms and slash pines in the area; however, there was no buffer hedge planted and an inadequate number of trees to fulfill the requirement for the PUD document. My first contact with the Elks was with a member, Mr. Jim Brown. I explained what was needed, supplied him with a list of plant choices and specifications. And Mr. Brown at that time stated that the Elks would comply. Approximately ten days later I was informed that Mr. Brown would not be handling this issue and was referred to Mr. Joe Cassidy, the chairman of the building committee. Mr. Cassidy at that time stated an un -- unwillingness to comply. Shortly thereafter, I spoke with Mr. Tom Killen, who's also an Elks member, and he was taking charge of the project, and we discussed the possibility of the Elks applying for a PUD amendment to make changes to that buffer along Donna Street. I did give him time to come into an alternate route of compliance. He was working with county staff, and the Elks did submit a proposed PUD amendment. That was back, I believe, in June of 2001. Page 7 March 28, 2002 And the -- after all the hearings and everything were gone through and corrections were made, the proposed hearing was scheduled -- the proposed amendment was scheduled to go before the Board of County Commissioners on January 3rd of this year. Shortly before the hearing was scheduled, the Elks withdrew their proposal to make changes that were not related to this buffer issue. At that time it was decided to bring the Elks before this board. The proposed amendment has since been resubmitted and is currently under review. The requested change to the buffer along Donna is to the least restrictive buffer the county has in the Land Development Code. And I was told by Mr. Reischl, the planner, that Mr. Killian -- Mr. Killen had told him that the neighbors had agreed to the proposed changes. I did call the complainant. He stated that the -- what was being proposed was not what had been agreed to in their discussions. An inspection was made yesterday, and I observed that there was no new planting in the buffer. The buffer is also not being maintained. I have some photos. This is -- this is the area here. There's -- there's really no -- no buffer there at all. And on this area here, you can see where there are some shrubs, but unfortunately, those are largely of Brazilian pepper and some small ear leaf acacia that are growing up in there, and there is a fair amount of weeds as well. I did have, also, one comment about the executive summary that was submitted. We would like to modify our recommendation since that was written before they had resubmitted their proposed PUD amendment. Upon talking to Fred Reischl, the planner in charge of this amendment, he said that in 90 days it should be able to be heard before the Board of County Commissioners. So we'd like to give them 90 days to get approval of the amendment and 30 days to complete whatever the board decides is an adequate landscape buffer Page 8 March 28, 2002 in that area. MS. DUSEK: Ms. Mason, the January 3rd meeting was to be with whom? INVESTIGATOR MASON: The Board of County Commissioners were going to have the hearing about the proposed PUD amendment. MS. DUSEK: And what happened? Why didn't they hear that? INVESTIGATOR MASON: The Elks withdrew their amendment shortly before that. I didn't find out until that day, actually, when I went to check for the results of the hearing, that they had withdrawn the amendment. According to Fred Reischl, it was because they wanted to make other changes to the proposed PUD amendment that did not relate to this case here. It had to do with other parts of their PUD. MR. LEHMANN: So at this point in time, we still do not have an accepted PUD approval. INVESTIGATOR MASON: The original PUD from -- 97-42 stands at this point. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. And we still are not in compliance with that PUD. INVESTIGATOR MASON: No, we are not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The paperwork that's been submitted to date, have you seen any of this paperwork? INVESTIGATOR MASON: I haven't -- I did -- I did review the part that had to do with the landscape code with Nancy Siemion. She's the landscape architect for the county, and she's here today if you have more questions on that. But we did discuss what they were asking for in the landscape buffer. And, also, when I talked with Fred Reischl about some other issues, there were some deficiencies I guess they have to get back with them on, and it's still being reviewed. Page 9 March 28, 2002 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So what's been submitted at this point is it safe to say, is not acceptable? INVESTIGATOR MASON: There will need to be some changes and some -- the other documentation submitted, but-- and that's what I talked to Mr. Reischl about yesterday, was how long-- once all the reviews are made for them to make the necessary changes and submit the paperwork, how long would it take for them to get a hearing before the board. And that's when he told me 90 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. SAUNDERS: Yes. this, just the landscaping part? Any other questions for Ms. Mason? How big -- how extensive a project is Are we talking hundreds of dollars, thousands of dollars, tens of thousands? Do we have an idea? Between one and ten? INVESTIGATOR MASON: I guess they're saying thousands. MS. SAUNDERS: I just wanted to get a feel. MS. ARNOLD: We can tell you-- we can tell you roughly how long of-- of a frontage on Radio Road that we're dealing with approximately but -- INVESTIGATOR MASON: I don't know the -- what the cost will be. It would depend on trees that were selected and shrubs that were selected and ... MS. SAUNDERS: And how different is the -- the revised PUD that they're putting in, the amended, from the original as far as the landscaping goes? INVESTIGATOR MASON: It is -- it is very different. The original required an opaque buffer within one year of planting. I don't recall the height. I believe it might have been 6 or 8 feet in height, and also there would be trees included with that. The -- the proposed amendment was only one tree every 30 feet with no buffer Page 10 March 28, 2002 hedge. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Did I hear you right? In the beginning you mentioned that when they received their certificate in the beginning, there was some conditions on the CO? INVESTIGATOR MASON: Uh-huh, there -- there were conditions. They were to complete the landscape buffer within 30 days and also a bond issue. The bond was taken care of. They did submit the bond, but the landscape was the outstanding condition. And the building department issued a letter to them -- it was approximately five months after the CO was issued -- saying that you-all had agreed to do this, and if you don't, we'll turn it over to code enforcement. And I believe that we got it in July of that year. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So the CO was back in July of 2000 or something like? INVESTIGATOR MASON: February or March of 2000. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: February or March of 2000. So we're now 2000 -- two years into it, and they still haven't done anything. INVESTIGATOR MASON: Correct. MS. ARNOLD: On page 51 of your packet, it shows the letter from Tom Cook that indicates what needed to be done as a condition of the certificate of occupancy approval. MS. DUSEK: Susan, just so I'll understand, the CO was issued in March or February of 2000. They had a month to do the buffer. It wasn't until this January 3rd that they were presenting their plan, PUD plan. And then they re -- withdrew that and revised it, and now it's coming before the board; is that correct? INVESTIGATOR MASON: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: Ms. Mason, was there any reason in particular that the county was given that the respondent would not choose to comply with the PUD requirements? INVESTIGATOR MASON: Well, there was some discussion. Page 11 March 28, 2002 Some of it had to do with cost of it. Others had to do with time. I said I could give them time if they needed to have some volunteers do some of the work or things like that. There -- I was also told by the representative from the Elks that the neighbors didn't any longer think that that original buffer would be necessary and that the changes that they were going to propose would be agreed upon by all parties. And so we felt that if everyone could be happy with something, then there was no reason for us to go necessarily with the original, as long as all the parties agreed with the new changes. MR. LEHMANN: So are you saying the county is not pushing compliance with the PUD? INVESTIGATOR MASON: No. No. It was just -- we held the case in abeyance while they sought this alternative way of coming into compliance. MS. CURATOLO: Could you clarify how the neighbors feel about this? Are they in agreement or not in agreement? INVESTIGATOR MASON: When I had a conversation with Frank Cooper, who I believe is here -- actually, I never met him in person; I talked to him on the phone -- he said that what was being proposed was not what had been agreed upon. MS. DUSEK: Was this in the revised proposal? INVESTIGATOR MASON: It -- what was submitted. I think you got a copy of that sheet in your packet, what the changes were going to be. Page 50 in your packet is the new proposed changes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any additional questions for Ms. Mason? Thank you. Anybody else? MS. ARNOLD: Nancy Siemion is here from our planning staff if there are any questions about the landscaping. But she's just here for technical assistance, but she doesn't need to testify. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Page 12 March 28, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: Patti has another exhibit to enter into evidence. MS. PETRULLI: Yes. I would like for the record to show that the county did receive a letter from Mr. Thomas Killian (sic), trustee, and I'd like to enter this as Respondents' Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's in the back. Okay. I'd entertain a motion to accept the exhibit as Respondents' Exhibit A. MS. DUSEK: So moved. MS. CURATOLO: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the exhibit for the respondent. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Anything else from the county at this time? MS. ARNOLD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Who would like to speak from the Elks, please? (The speaker was sworn.) MR. KILLEN: Good morning. My name is Tom Killen. I am, for another week or two, a trustee with the Elks Lodge. Hopefully my tour of duty will be up April -- first part of April. I've been involved with this before, in the middle, and now I'm back involved on the tail end of it. Several years ago I volunteered to take the existing PUD that Earl Frye had of that -- that piece of property and get it revised to allow the use that the Elks required for that tract so we could buy the tract of land. At that time they had option money up on the land, earnest money up on it. They were hard pressed trying to find a financial institution that would give them the rest of the money to buy the property. Page 13 March 28, 2002 So in the -- in the meantime, we found out that the county did not allow fraternal organizations in the PUD. At that time I addressed it, we resubmitted it, had it revised to change one line in the entire PUD. And the legal staff got ahold of it, and Earl Frye's engineers got ahold of it, and several things got changed. I was aware of the opacity, but at that time we didn't want to address it because the neighbors next door were very vehement in their feeling about this PUD. It wasn't a -- it wasn't a sure thing that the Elks would be building a building there. It could be an industrial park. If you look on page 45, it shows a map of the original intended PUD, which was all industrial except for the -- it would be the northeast comer, which is required to be an office building. And the opacity was required down the eastern boundary of the site. We were successful in getting this PUD changed. The Elks were successful in finally finding the money to buy the property and build the project. I was not involved in the project. I'm not the architect or the builder or anything else. At the same time, the Elks Lodge are not a bunch of developers. They're just guys like me that fill in and do a lot of volunteer work. After it was built, I was aware of the -- of the problem with the opacity hedge. But if you'll notice in my letter, the Elks, not being developers, didn't know what anyone was talking about. They got these letters. They thought it was between their property and the property in front of us that had been developed by Richard Vetter. Anyway, there was a mass confusion over that. I was actually asked to lend a hand. I told them exactly what the problem was. We had a meeting with enforcement, went through the whole thing. At that time I contacted Frank for a meeting. And I'm just -- our whole approach is to try to get everybody happy. We've got a lovely building there, got a beautiful lake with a spring in it. I felt that since Page 14 March 28, 2002 it's not industrial, that you got a nice view from Donna Street. You're not -- you're not looking at the back end of industrial buildings; you're looking at a nice lake with a spring in it and a lovely building. Frank agreed in a way. Then he said, "No. I want -- I want the hedge." So we redid the PUD to put a softer hedge in, about 80 percent opacity. I think we asked for a 4-foot or -- I think a 4-foot hedge at that time. Since that time the planner who was handling the PUD amendment was let go from the county, and we were kind of hanging high and dry with a PUD ready to go before the Planning Commission and no planner. And we had some questions; couldn't answer the questions. About that time Richard Vetter called me. They had another problem with the -- with the original PUD, and the planning director wanted that resolved also. So we decided we'd just back up, do it over again, and roll all these items into -- into one fair - - one one-time shot and try to get everything resolved. Met with Frank this morning. We're discussing what we need to do over there. At one time -- this is the truth -- Frank told me on the phone, he said, "I don't care about a hedge. I just want that land looking nice on the other side of the berm, some plants and some grass, make it look nice." I said, "Frank, we'll do that." I went to the board. I said, "This is what we'll do. He wants it to look nice. I'll get with him, find out what all we need to plant out there to dress it up." That's why when we resubmitted, I took the -- took the hedge out, because Frank is the only one that would really be concerned with the hedge, and that's what he told me. Now, we met this morning, and we're back to a little hedge. But I think Frank and I have a way of where I could submit a precise plan to Frank for the subdivision review and get them happy with what we put -- the Elks want to put out there whatever makes everyone happy. We -- we want to keep it looking nice. We've got 3,000 members, Page 15 March 28, 2002 and we'd like to kind of keep everybody going along at a happy, friendly relationship with all of our neighbors. We're back on track trying to get it done. And if you have any questions for me, I'll be happy to answer them before I let someone else that would like to speak. MS. SAUNDERS: Are we back now to the idea of one tree every 30 feet? Is that what-- MR. KILLEN: It's either 30 or 25. MS. SAUNDERS: So that's more landscaping than a real buffer. MR. KILLEN: No. The-- MS. SAUNDERS: Is that -- MR. KILLEN: That is a buffer, but that particular property line has several trees out there, quite a number of trees. In fact, we could have put more trees there. We planted 14 trees around the -- the retention pond. We could have spent the money there, but we was trying to get this resolved first. And whatever trees we're short for the buffer, we'll be happy to add to bring it up to the county -- county requirements. But Frank and I were talking about starting with, like, 18-inch hedges, like ficus -- not ficus -- coco plums. And rather than a straight line, plant these in kind of an ungulating (sic) design with some breaks in it. Because the problem I see, to maintain the right- of-way on Donna Street, if you've got a man cutting grass, he's got a berm in his way, now we're going to add a hedge in his way, unless you go out there and beat him over the head, he'll never get outside that hedge and do any work. So that was -- that was my concern. If we leave it open, we can maintain it a little easier. But if we put a broken, ungulating hedge, which would look very attractive, from Donna Street and from the Elks Lodge also -- and not at the expense that a 6-foot hedge would cost or a 5-foot hedge. These Page 16 March 28, 2002 things get very, very expensive. That's what we're working on now. And Frank's going to come by my office Monday, see if we can work up a plan to submit and redo the PUD in that direction. The other thing he asked for is that front property on the comer, which is zoned to be an office building, that we leave the 80 percent opacity hedge on that tract of land, which I see no problem with. Someone else will buy it and develop it. It will not be the Elks' property when it's developed. We have cleaned it up. We had tons of rocks and tons of logs. We're trying to get it to look where it looks like a park up front and dress up the side of the -- we have ruts down Donna Street left over from construction, large -- large ruts in the ground. It's very difficult to do anything there. I have a friend of mine named Dwayne, who has Peninsula Paving, that's been helping me out free of charge to come in and do a lot of this work. He got pulled off on a large job. And when he's through with that, he's going to be back over helping out. We're going to address Donna Street, and then over by the building we have some tree removal to do to put some horseshoe pits in. So that brings you up to where we are. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. MS. TAYLOR: Michelle, are you working with them right now on this trying to get this resolved? MS. ARNOLD: They're working with the planning department trying to get some amendments to their PUD, including the landscaping portion of it. And what we've done is we've given you a copy of what they're requesting on page 50 of your packet. MS. TAYLOR: Well, they've said before they were going to do something, and then they didn't do it. So how are we guaranteed that -- how are we guaranteed that you're going to do all these things you're supposed to do? MR. KILLEN: We've addressed that with the board. The Page 17 March 28, 2002 board's behind it. Why it-- I don't know why it didn't happen in the first place. Well, number one, the Elks didn't have any money. By the time they finished the building, they were a million dollars in debt, so it's kind of start all over. And when this first -- first started, the Elks were almost broke. It's been a long haul to get them back up and going again. That was the primary reason, was money. Secondly, if you read my letter, this was missed. I'm not aware of anyone saying that -- that this is a conditional CO until you get this buffer in. That's -- that's never been brought up. My understanding was they were issued a CO. The buffer was never, ever mentioned, not by plan review or by the architect or by the engineer or by the landscape designer who did the project. I was aware of it, but I was not involved. And when they brought it up to me, I said, "I know exactly what you're talking about." They didn't understand what -- what the problem was. And one gentleman who was handling some of this is a little bit of a -- let's say a little hardheaded, so he takes a different perspective of-- of the world from time to time. So we've kind of stepped around him and tried to get things resolved. MS. CURATOLO: Could you clarify for me, they didn't understand, or they were never made aware? MR. KILLEN: They were made aware of a problem, but I don't think they understood what the problem was, because they did not know about the buffer itself, the 80 percent opacity. When I -- I said, "Look, we've done everything on the plans." In fact, we've spent another $18,000 because the contractor knocked some trees down or something, and we don't have any money. And in my quick calculations, that buffer at that time would probably cost somewhere in the vicinity of 15 to $20,000. That's why we're trying to work a way out where we can mitigate that and still have an attractive property, make the neighbors happy, and let the Elks keep some of the money. Page 18 March 28, 2002 The Elks is a nonprofit organization. And this year alone I know of 20,000 that we paid for a -- a van for a nurse operation for children. We give a lot of money to hospitals. We give a lot of scholarships for college and school. And our-- our job is giving away money, not keeping money and spending it. And these are all separate accounts. We have bingo and other things that we raise money for charity. Those accounts are money that we can't touch. We might have $150,000 in the bank. We can't touch that for the building. It can't be used for the Elks themselves; only for charity. At that time the account we could use was pretty well depleted. And we still have a million dollars in debt to pay off, so it's been a rough hoe (sic) for the last year. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle, is there a document available when this CO was issued conditionally? Is there some document that says these two conditions we've heard about, the bond and this other? Is there such a document? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, there is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And that document was sent to the Elks July 7th, 2000. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So it's -- the county did issue a document. So we have somebody at the Elks that didn't read it, didn't know what it said. I know the Elks has to have an attorney. MR. KILLEN: I'll let Mr. Kozy discuss that. Art, do you want to come up here and -- Art is the secretary, and he -- if anyone knows what's going on, he knows what's happening in the lodge. I was not involved at that time. MR. KOZY: Good morning. My name is Art Kozy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One moment, sir. We need to swear you in. (The speaker was sworn.) Page 19 March 28, 2002 MR. KOZY: Good morning. My name is Art Kozy. I'm the secretary of the Elks Lodge here in Naples. And the gentleman that Tom was talking about handled all the paperwork because he was the head of the building committee, and this is the way he wanted it. But, as Tom stated earlier, that most of our money is earmarked, and we're still trying to pay off a million-dollar debt. But we have done more in this community for children than any organization. We helped the children in Immokalee with shoes for school, for food, and that money is marked for that. So we can't use that money for our building. Now we have dues coming in. April 1st there's going to be a little bit of money, but this -- I guess I can say the person that was in charge either didn't understand or figured he's going to do it his way. I can't speak for him. He's in the hospital with pneumonia. But I just want you to know we're not trying to avoid anything. We were as proud of that building as the people that belong there, and we're proud of what we do. As Tom stated, we just purchased a $20,000 therapy van for children that need a therapist, and they don't pay anything. This is free. The Elks pick up the tab. So you see, we're not making money the way people think. We're giving it away for people we think that need it that can't take care of themselves. And I hope you take this into consideration when we don't finish something that you have submitted to us, "this has to be done," because when we can do it, I grant you we will do it. And that's about all I can say. And I just hope that you take this into consideration, for what we do to help others, and help us a little bit. That's all I'm asking. Thank you. MS. SAUNDERS: On that note, sir, I have a question. MR. KOZY: Yes, ma'am. MS. SAUNDERS: Can you start the cleanup and get it all clean? That's volunteer effort. Page 20 March 28, 2002 MR. MS. MR. MS. KOZY: It started, ma'am. In fact-- SAUNDERS: And when will you finish it? KOZY: Yes. We're-- we've started it. SAUNDERS: Yeah. MR. KOZY: And thanks to Mr. Killen, who's devoted a lot of his time for nothing and some of his friends that he knows in construction, we're trying to comply, believe me. MS. SAUNDERS: Can you give me a date when you think you will -- never mind the new plantings, when you will have the area cleaned up and looking good, even without the plantings put in? MR. KOZY: Well, let me ask my chairman. Tom? MR. KILLEN: When I get Dwayne back over there -- if I get my man back over with the backhoe to take the ruts out, we could get busy and plant some more grass in there and -- and adjust things around. I would say that -- I'd hate to commit anything less than 90 days. I think that 90 days would hopefully -- I'll get with Frank and find out what -- what we want to do over there, and we'll go ahead and -- and line it up and get -- get it done. And I want to get a plan -- precise plan to Nancy with the new revisions to the PUD. So this'll be part of the PUD so that it's -- there's a firm commitment from the Elks to get it done. MS. SAUNDERS: The concern I'm having -- and I -- I think the Elks are great, and I like what you do, and I've been there many times, and I admire everything. But everything's run by committee, and that takes forever. MR. KILLEN: That's right. MS. SAUNDERS: And what I would need to see, I think, is some substantial action with a time line toward it, even before going in and getting your revised PUD and the rest of it. I'm not seeing -- I'm not seeing -- MR. KILLEN: Well, that's -- Page 21 March 28, 2002 MS. SAUNDERS: -- anybody's feet to the fire. MR. KILLEN: Well, let me tell you what we have done. As I mentioned earlier, just in the last month or so, we've planted 14 trees. We've cleaned up the entire comer and started down Donna Street, and we had three of these huge dumpsters full of debris that was hauled out of that lot, rocks and logs and discarded items from who knows where, and I don't know how many bags of garbage we picked up and hauled out. Donna Street -- we have people picking up on Donna Street, but Donna Street is a pretty busy street. It's amazing the little neighborhood back behind there with all the traffic that Donna Street carries. I've always -- when I go that way on occasions to shortcut, I've got a Mercedes in front of me and a Chrysler behind me because that's where those car dealers use as their test track. They go -- they go north on -- on Airport, mm right on Radio, turn right on Donna, go down to North, and you're back on Radio (sic) and pull right back into the -- you know, the car dealership. So I understand the problem they have over there with traffic. But at the same time, the shortcut traffic goes through there, and it must be teenage kids because we get an awful lot of beer bottles and wine bottles and paper bags and six packs and things like that along Donna Street constantly. It's not the Elks doing it, because no one goes home on Donna Street that I know of. But it's -- it's just a chore, and we're working at it. And all I can say is that we've committed to get it done. We've spent so far a couple of thousand dollars just on accessory things plus the trees that we've purchased and had planted, redid the irrigation so the trees are all irrigated, and redid the irrigation to where that irrigation will go all the way out to Donna Street so when we plant the grass, it has water. This time of year is not a good time of year to be planting. In another few weeks or a month, it would be a good Page 22 March 28, 2002 time to be planting because then you don't have to worry about -- you know, if you get enough rainfall, the things set in real well. MS. TAYLOR: Excuse me. But you're saying you need to get a backhoe in there to -- to repair ruts. Now, are we talking about ruts or roots? MR. KILLEN: Ruts. Ruts. Big ruts, this deep (indicating) ruts. MS. TAYLOR: Well, that shouldn't take very long. Roots take long, but ruts -- MR. KILLEN: No. The ruts -- you need heavy equipment. We can't go out there with a shovel and just fill them. MS. TAYLOR: No. I understand that. But a backhoe could come in there and in a matter of a couple of hours could have that -- MR. KILLEN: That's correct. MS. TAYLOR: -- problem taken care of. MR. KILLEN: That's correct. MS. TAYLOR: So you're asking for 90 days -- MR. KILLEN: And he's probably got another day's work in there. But the problem was he was called off to another job that he gets paid for, because he's doing this work for the Elks for free. MS. DUSEK: I have a couple of questions, first directed to Michelle. They were given a CO in February or March of 2000. Now, I understand that you also issued a CO letter of some sort with the conditions listed on there, that they needed to get that buffer done. Was that also, that same condition, given when they were first given the CO? Because you said it was July of 2000, and yet they were given the CO either February or March of 2000. At that time did they know about the 30-day condition? MS. ARNOLD: At the time of the original CO, they were given a conditional CO, and then a letter was sent by Tom Cook, with the engineering department, to refresh that in February of 2000 they were given a conditional CO with these conditions. So it specifically Page 23 March 28, 2002 specified what they needed they have yet to do, in that July letter. So both times they were informed that they needed to get those two items done. MR. LEHMANN: Michelle, could you clarify for me, the county issued a conditional CO with a 30-day time limit. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: And it was conditioned upon both the bond being taken out and also the landscaping buffer being completed within that 30 days. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. LEHMANN: After that 30-day limit, why did the county not revoke the CO? MS. ARNOLD: I can't answer that question. That's a completely different department. We were-- we were brought into the situation -- and I'm -- I'm assuming that the county wanted to give the Elks Club an opportunity to do those things. And with no response from the Elks, this letter in July was submitted to them again, and then that's when code enforcement was brought into the picture. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The original P -- PUD stands. Let -- let's get to the basic question. You're required to do certain things until that's changed. I understand you're submitting some paperwork. And I understand all the information you've given us about all the great works the Elks do, and I agree. My question is, is there currently in your budget money to do this? MR. KILLEN: To do which part, of what? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, first of all, you have to comply with the original PUD, which you're trying to get changed, and you say you want to -- MR. KILLEN: Right. We do not have the money to do the original PUD. Page 24 March 28, 2002 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But you're going to submit a PUD to do something different. And if you don't have any money in your budget to do it, getting a PUD amended means absolutely nothing, other than you're not going to do it. MR. KILLEN: Well, there's -- there's several reasons for amending the PUD. There's about four items outstanding. One of the them is a compliance item on the -- on the property that was sold off at the front. The second is that once they sold off one tract, Collier County required that you plat the project, so it was platted. When they platted it, they changed all the nomenclature, so now the plat doesn't fit the PUD and the other items that I keep asking to handle, and I get all these different nomenclatures. So it took about a good three weeks of unraveling that to find out why all the legal -- all the legal descriptions have changed on the property because of the platting. So we had to go back and redo the PUD in that respect also to get that to comply, along with the PUD monitoring that comes up annually. So we had to go back in and redo all of that to get it back on track. We do have the money to do what -- what we're trying to do, and that's plant grass, get the thing cleared out, redo our sprinklers. And what Frank and I talked about today with the hedge, we -- we can find the money to put that in. The problem is when you go 80 percent opacity with a -- with a native tree 5 foot high or native plant 5 feet high, in this day and time in Collier County, the price has gone from a lot to outrageous. So it depends where and who you buy and how you do it. So we can -- we can likely -- within 90 days we can have it all -- the entire thing over there looking wonderful with a hedge, get that adopted into the new -- new PUD, and I think Frank will be happy with it. Frank and I are going to get together Monday. Frank is a -- more vocal of the neighborhood. I've been trying to work with Page 25 March 28, 2002 Frank. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, that-- MR. KILLEN: But I got stood up one morning. Frank forgot about me one morning. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What I'm trying to get to is in this board trying to help and determine what to do, I'm looking that if we order you to do something and then it doesn't get done, the result could be a fine. Then you're going to be back here and say, "We don't have any money." So you've asked -- you're asking the county to revise the PUD. So unless you currently have money somewhere to do what you're asking the county to give you permission to do, it isn't going to happen. MR. KILLEN: We have that money now. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's what -- I want to know that you have the money. MR. KILLEN: We don't have the money for an 80 percent opacity hedge all the way down the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But you have the money to do what you're asking the county to give you permission to do. MR. KILLEN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: I have another question for Michelle or Susan. How does the neighbor work into this revised PUD? I mean, what weight does the neighbor have in making this decision? Because I understand that they've revised it, and they were trying to get everybody to agree to it, and the neighbor doesn't. I mean, how is that going to affect them getting approval, or does it have any bearing on it whatsoever? MS. ARNOLD: I'd rather have Nancy Siemion with the planning department, because she's the one that would be accepting Page 26 March 28, 2002 or declining the proposed amendment -- or making a recommendation for approval or not. It's ultimately the board's decision. It's ultimately the board's decision. MS. DUSEK: My concern was if they're submitting this and it still needs the approval of the neighborhood, then this is just going to delay it even that much longer. So I'm not sure where all this plays in. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let's -- let's finish with them first before we bring another county person up to give us testimony. Let's get the Elks to get all their point across. MR. LEHMANN: And I think we're trying to micromanage this case a little bit too much. Basically the brunt of the case, as I understand it, is we have an organization that has a building and a site that has been on-- on an approved PUD. And part of the conditions of that approved PUD was this hedge, and that hedge is not there. It's very plain and simple. The solution at this point in time may take many different avenues, but one of the solutions is they're trying to revise the PUD. That's fine. But, again -- and with all respects to your organization, if there's any organization that provides charity to the community, it's well thought of and I congratulate you. But this board -- MS. DUSEK: I'm just trying to work in a time frame. MR. LEHMANN: This board cannot waive the county commissioners' decisions. We don't have that right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. There's a PUD in place, and they're obviously not in compliance with it. We can't change that. So basically you're guilty of noncompliance. We can't say you're not; you are. We don't have the power to say, "That's okay." Our job is to say, "Yes, you're in compliance and dismiss the case; or, no, you're not in compliance, you're guilty," and order you to do something. That's our limit. Page 27 March 28, 2002 MR. KILLEN: I understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. What we're trying, to help us make that decision as to how much time we give you or how much fine we might possibly give you, is get all the information to help us do that. We can't waive the requirements. MR. KILLEN: We should have been through the planning board and the county commissioners by now, except that we had a little upset. But it was actually due to the county, not -- not on our behalf. It was the county's problem that created problems for us at the same time we were asked to go ahead and take this other problem, redo the PUD, and roll that into it. I think there was a time -- time line of, like -- to get to county commissioners was -- what was the date? You -- you mentioned a date earlier that you were given by Fred of when we should be to the county commissioners. INVESTIGATOR MASON: MR. KILLEN: Ninety days? INVESTIGATOR MASON: He said 90 days -- -- from this point. MR. KILLEN: My feeling would be that to me it's ridiculous to plant the trees and then 90 days from now say we don't have to have the trees. There's not a whole lot of market for used trees that have already been planted. There could be. I guess maybe they grow a little higher. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Get more money. MR. KILLEN: You could resell them. You'd have to take the labor out. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand what you're saying. MR. KILLEN: But if you give us 90 days, this thing's going to be resolved one way or the other. First of all, we get our hedge in and make it look nice. After I design something that everyone seems to be happy with, we can go ahead and do that while we're -- while Page 28 March 28, 2002 we're waiting our time to go through the county commissioners. If you give us 90 days, we'll have -- we'll have it resolved one way or the other. We'll have it resolved, happily resolved, I mean, either with or without. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. You need to understand, too, as to what this board does, just so you understand. The problems's been brought to us, and we're going to resolve it, guarantee you. We're going to issue an order that says something. What it says, I don't know yet. It's going to give you so much time to do something. If you don't do it in that time limit, the possibility is we're going to fine you. Okay. And that fine will end up being a lien on your property, and it will continue until you do what we tell you. MR. KILLEN: I understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So it's going to be resolved today. MS. CURATOLO: I have a question. MR. KILLEN: The biggest - the biggest problem is on the opacity hedge, like I say, because if we put it in now and 30 -- 90 days from now the county says, "You don't have to have it" -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. MR. KILLEN: -- then we've blown a lot of money, a lot of money, that was needlessly thrown away. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll consider all that. MS. CURATOLO: I have a question here. So what will be resolved in 90 days, in your opinion, will be what you will, then, do. MR. KILLEN: We'll have two things, and that is, should have the revised PUD in one hand. And on the other hand, the landscape will be done out there where it looks very attractive and everyone -- the neighbors are happy. MS. CURATOLO: The landscaping will be done. So tell me exactly, now, what will be done within the 90-day period. Page 29 March 28, 2002 MR. KILLEN: What we're talking about now is planting coco plums that are approximately 18 to 2 -- 2-foot high -- MS. CURATOLO: I get that part. MR. KILLEN: -- ungulating down Donna Street with openings where we could get mowing equipment back and forth through it, and whatever trees we're short for the -- for the Type B buffer we'll supplement at the property line. MS. CURATOLO: That will be done within 90 days. MR. KILLEN: Within 90 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other questions for members of the Elks, or did they wish to say anything else? I think we've worked it pretty much to death. Thank you, gentlemen. MR. KILLEN: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Ms. Siemion. (The speaker was sworn.) MS. SIEMION: Good morning. I'm Nancy Siemion, landscape architect with current planning services. And I just wanted to share with you that there currently is PUD amendment in here to change the landscape buffer along Bonna -- along Donna Street, but staff does not support it because we don't have the support of the neighbors. So I think that's important to -- MS. DUSEK: How does that work in with the county ordinance, what the county requires, what the neighbor feels? That's where I'm a little confused. The county says, "You have to do this; you have to follow that plan." The neighbor says, "I don't like that plan." What-- MS. SIEMION: Well, there currently -- in the original PUD, which is the PUD that's still in effect, that is what everybody has agreed to. MR. LEHMANN: You're saying the revisions -- the revisions that are proposed are not receiving support from the neighbors. Page 30 March 28, 2002 MS. SIEMION: Correct. MR. LEHMANN: And, therefore, the county is not supporting that as well. MS. SIEMION: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. This -- this 90 -- let me ask a question about the 90-day process, so to speak, that was recommended or suggested. Without the county's recommendation to do this, is there any hope that this will occur in 90 days? MS. SIEMION: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: So what we're saying is the process they have to follow and -- first waiting to see if they're going to get this change approved, I'm -- I'm hearing from you that most likely it's not going to be approved, and so, therefore, that delays this whole process of coming into compliance; is that correct? MS. SIEMION: Unless they choose to comply. MS. DUSEK: Unless they choose to follow the original. MS. SIEMION: Correct. MS. ARNOLD: I have a question for Nancy. If someone requests an amendment to their PUD and staff doesn't agree with the proposed amendment, isn't that forwarded to -- through the process anyway, and then the board makes -- the Board of County Commissioners makes the ultimate decision? MS. SIEMION: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: So there is a possibility that they will choose to disagree with staff with respect to the landscaping portion of the proposed amendment, and then the Board of County Commissioners would make the ultimate decision whether or not to accept it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Ms. Siemion? Members of the Elks wish to say anything else? I saw somebody's hand. You need to come forward, sir. Page 31 March 28, 2002 MR. KILLEN: Frank would like to explain his -- would like to - MR. LEHMANN: Sir could you -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You need to come up front, sir. Not necessarily Frank, but-- MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Killian (sic), you have to speak-- MR. LEHMANN: Sir, unless you're at the microphone, please don't comment. (The speaker was sworn.) MR. COOPER: My name is Frank Cooper. I live at 4158 Lorraine Avenue, which is approximately -- my property line is 230 feet away from this intersection, which is right -- this intersection on Lorraine Avenue and Donna. Brief history, Earl Frye did rezone this property back, what, 10 years, 12 years ago. I was the neighborhood representative that worked with Mr. Frye to rezone the property. At the time it was agricultural, and they wished to make it into a commercial office park. We -- the neighborhood did agree, with certain conditions. One is there would be a large retaining area fronting Donna Street, approximately 200 feet wide, which is where their lake currently is. The second thing is there would be a landscape buffer a minimum of 6 feet tall solid buffer, which would not be a normal county buffer. It would be -- it was a special buffer requirement that was put in the PUD across there. The corner parcel would be an office-building site, and that required a larger and taller buffer. Somewhere down the time that rezoning was done, Earl Frye was unsuccessful selling the property and did talk to the Elks Club or they requested to buy it from him and changed the zoning to allow the Elks Club in there. The buffer requirements did remain the same. During the planning of the Elks Club, from my knowledge of what happened, so it might clear up your questions regarding the CO Page 32 March 28, 2002 -- and somebody from the county table might tell me I'm wrong; that's fine -- is they submitted a landscape plan to the county, the Elks Club after they purchased the property, and their engineer plans. As part of the planning and permitting process, you're required to maintain a certain amount of native vegetation on your property. They chose, at that time frame, to take the area along Donna Street and put that into their native buffer. Unfortunately, their landscape architect did not read the PUD requirements. He just assumed they were the standard county PUD requirements for landscaping and said you basically don't put a buffer up on a commercial abutting a street, or if you do, you put something very small. And because it was considered -- he was going to use it as his native requirements, he didn't do anything. After the construction started, somewhere down the line, the county did understand -- I know I, at one point, approached the county. But they did realize that they had made a mistake in the approval of the -- of the landscape -- original landscape plan, in fact, that there needed to be a buffer of a 6-foot height with 80 percent opacity the first year there and did go back to the Elks Club at the tail end of the project. Did that happen the week before CO? Did that happen week after CO? I do not know, but obviously the letters were written. I was aware of the letters written in July of 2000 telling them that they needed to get those buffers in compliance along Donna Street. During that time frame, the county did visit them. The county was aware of it. The Elks Club was aware of it, and nothing much happened. About a year ago I did meet with Tom Killian (sic), and we started having discussions upon this. At one point, yes, we'll go comply. We'll do this, and nothing -- we're going to change the PUD, and nothing really happens. And for the last year, we've been playing this game back and forth. During the last three months, I would say, Page 33 March 28, 2002 the Elks Club is now going back-- this is the second time they're going back to the county with the PUD. They did try to do the PUD amendment a year ago and pulled it, and then it sat for a while. And now they've started again, and this -- and maybe -- and I know in January they pulled it again for whatever reasons, and now we're trying to get it back in. My last discussions with Tom was I would -- you know, at this point, look; I want to be a good neighbor. I understand what you-all do. I just don't want to have to see that eyesore there. And, you know, so -- and maybe we don't have to have the whole 6-foot tall buffer, but we've got to do something, and I'm tired of waiting for it. And so obviously the code enforcement provision is coming forward. They're still working with the PUD. I told Tom I would meet with him several weeks ago. I have not had a chance to meet with him to discuss this, but I did not understand at the time that their PUD still required a zero-buffer requirement. And Nancy is correct, and I've written a letter to the county that, as a neighborhood, we would not accept the buffer requirements that's in the current PUD document that they have proposed to the county, at least from my perspective. I don't know if the county would accept it, but I would not accept that buffer requirement. I did tell Tom this morning I would be happy -- let's just plan to meet Monday morning at nine o'clock and start trying to come up with a plan that meets my requirements. Now, I can't say that my requirements will meet the county's requirements. This thing was an approved PUD. And it's up to the county to make recommendations to the staff-- or the staff to make recommendations to the commissioners, and also the commissioners can hear from the neighbors, and the commissioners can hear from the respondents, being the Elks Club, and they can make their decision. But I'll be Page 34 March 28, 2002 happy to go do that. And I told him this morning -- and we ultimately, instead of trying to put in the 6-foot-tall bushes, just go put the coco plums. They're 18 inches tall, 2-foot basic ones. And they do grow, provided they have an irrigation system out there, which I've been told they have installed or will install an irrigation through that area to help the stuff grow. And they'll clean up the mess. I'd like to see the mess cleaned up sooner than 90 days, would be my opinion. And I think your point was well taken. There's no reason they can't clean the mess up now. And I know Dwayne from Peninsula Paving and-- but, you know -- and you also mentioned volunteer labor. A work party on a weekend should sure cut down some Brazilian peppers and pull some weeds out. But, you know, I know, you know, they want to hire somebody, that's fine, and wait. But I don't think 90 days would be acceptable. I understand the plant -- they wouldn't go in and plant 6-foot-tall bushes and have then not have to have planted them. They'd look pretty. Don't get me wrong about that, but I understand they're dealing with dollars. But I will be happy to meet with them next week. I also suggested to Tom that maybe we ought to try to get Nancy involved, too, with this, only because it would be helpful to them if the county staff does recommend approval of the landscaping to the commissioners, and then it would become a three-way deal that we're all happy with that meets the requirements of what needed to be done in relationship to the building. But that's all I really have to say. If you have a question, I'll be happy to answer it. MS. SIEMION: I just have one clarification about the approved landscape plan. It shows along these buffer -- which is the buffer that we're talking about along Donna Street, that preservation areas were going to be used to meet those requirements. MR. COOPER: That would be correct, that they were going to Page 35 March 28, 2002 go -- they did the native, and then they have to go stay within the native, which means they could still put the buffer up. They just have to use native plants versus using nonnative plants, which would be in a nonbuffer area. So they can still put the -- pursuant to the existing PUD, they can still build the buffer in that area using native plants. MS. SIEMION: Right. They just have to fill in the -- the gaps and the voids. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any questions for Mr. Cooper? Thank you, sir. Any more questions for Ms. Siemion? Thank you, ma'am. MS. SIEMION: You're welcome. MS. DUSEK: I have one comment before we make a motion here. Violations of Section 4, Subsection C7, I don't have that in my - - my packet unless it's being considered the same part of 91-95, Section 4(d)(8). I don't know. If you could just read that. MS. ARNOLD: It is on page 3 5 of your packet. MS. DUSEK: Okay. That's what I thought you were referring to. Okay. MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to point out, too, on page 50 of your packet, that language that's being amended, there is a time frame in there for the planting within six months of approval. And we've been talking 90 days, during this hearing process, to have everything completed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I was more along the lines of 90 days were to at least get the PUD approved. Can that occur hypothetically in that period of time? MS. ARNOLD: According to Fred Reischl and the planning department -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: -- as testified by Susan Mason. MS. DUSEK: All right. I'd like to make a motion that in the Page 36 March 28, 2002 case of the Board of County Commissioners -- in the case of County Commissioners versus Joe Cassidy, Arthur L. Kozy, Henry Lehman, CEB Case 2002-01 -- 001 -- and Elks Lodge we'll put in there also -- that there is a violation. The violation is of Section 4, Subsection C7 of Ordinance 97-42 and PUD No. 91-95 of the Collier County Land Development Ordinance. The description of the violation is the landscaping requirements are not in compliance regarding the buffer along the eastern edge of the project. MS. ARNOLD: I need to point out to the board that the ordinance is 97-42, because there were two -- we provide you with two ordinances. One was appealed -- repealed, so the latest -- the one that's in effect is 97 -- no -- 97-42. MS. DUSEK: Did I not say that one? I thought I had. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MS. SAUNDERS: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second that a violation does, in fact, exist. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Order of the board. MS. SAUNDERS: My thoughts would be that we give them 30 days to clean the property, period, or a fine of a certain amount is put in there. I think that's very doable. And then we give them 90 days to come into compliance with whatever PUD is in effect. It's not our business whether they have a new PUD; they get it through or not. That's -- if they can, great. But whatever PUD is in effect they must some into compliance with within 90 days or an additional fine of so- and-so will come into play. Thoughts on that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since we've heard the testimony that Page 37 March 28, 2002 they are, in fact, trying to revise the PUD, and the county seems -- MS. CURATOLO: That would give them enough time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- willing to try to help them if they can find a -- a solution on the landscaping to be installed, I would like to see us try to give them some time to at least submit their PUD and either get it accepted or rejected. And then at that time let it kick in that they have to do whatever PUD is in effect. I think that would be MS. SAUNDERS: That's what I'm saying, within 90 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, but I don't think they can get -- if you give them 90 days to get the approval and come into compliance, the new approval gives them six months to come into compliance, so we'd be going against an -- an amendment to the PUD, which wouldn't be in our favor. MS. CURATOLO: I'd like to see cleanup within 30 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't have a problem with that part. That's easy to do. The other part, I think we need to give them a sufficient amount of time to at least try to do what they're trying to do. MS. SAUNDERS: I'm happy to give them the time that's needed to submit the revised PUD. I haven't heard anything that convinced me that it will be accepted. And if there's a fairly tight time frame, then they're going to -- I believe the Elks will do two things: First, they'll allocate a budget to put in whatever has to be put in, even if they lose. And, secondly, they'll work with the neighbors to try and get some kind of concurrence, in which case the county will go along with it. So I don't -- I'm not in favor of 90 days to comply and then six months more to -- you know, I really would like to be fairly strong on let's make them -- let's get it worked out. Yes, 90 days is fine but-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But what I'm -- Page 38 March 28, 2002 MS. SAUNDERS: Are you saying 90 days plus six months? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. Because if-- MS. SAUNDERS: I don't like that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- if they -- well, you may have to, because if it takes 90 days to get the PUD revised, if the commissioners accept the revision, the new revision says you have six months to comply. MS. SAUNDERS: Then I would say they have six months to comply from today, regardless of which -- which PUD is in effect. MS. DUSEK: I have a question for you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That wouldn't work either if they get it revised. MS. DUSEK: Jean. MS. ARNOLD: Well, the -- well, it's possible that that portion of the proposed amendment won't be accepted at all by the board. That's what they're presenting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And if-- it's likely if the board is aware of another time frame, as well staff-- staff is here that's doing the review -- they would recommend the -- that whatever time frame this board comes up with be consistent with the proposed time frame in -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, let me ask you this question then: If it takes -- let's first deal with the submission of the document to get the commissioners to approve it or disapprove it. Is that a 90- day cycle? MS. ARNOLD: They -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is that fair? MS. ARNOLD: According to Fred Reischl, it will -- they will probably have a -- an -- some sort of determination from the board within 90 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So if we gave them 90 days to Page 39 March 28, 2002 either get approved or disapproved and let's say today the commissioners say we disapprove it, we can't -- I don't think it's fair to tell them that while you're trying to get something different, plant all this stuff anyway. And then -- and then they -- let's say they win and get something different, now they've planted more than they're going to have to. So I think we need to give them some amount of time -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. ARNOLD: Right. I think. -- after the 90 days to do something. Staff's recommendation was to give them 30 days after a determination is made by the board to complete whatever the planting is that's approved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So if we give them a total of-- Phase A is -- MS. CURATOLO: One hundred and twenty days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Phase A, 30 days to do cleanup now, and then 120 days to come into compliance with whatever. MS. CURATOLO: One hundred and twenty days total. MS. SAUNDERS: Yes. MS. DUSEK: Now, my question to Jean was, if we go ahead and say that we're going to do 120 days and let's say the county commissioners approve everything they've submitted and that means they have six months from that date, how does that affect what we have mandated? Can they come back and then ask for an extension from us, or does it just cancel out what we've asked for? How would that work? MS. RAWSON: I think the county commissioners are probably going to follow the order of this board. And if they don't, I mean, they always have the right to come back before us and ask for an extension. But my guess is that if the county staff recommends to the county commissioners that they follow the same time limit that Page 40 March 28, 2002 you've imposed, that that's what the county commissioners will do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So we're at 120 days max for everything. Is that what everybody's saying now? Is that what I'm hearing? MS. SAUNDERS: Yes, 30 days cleanup and make it look as nice as you can, and 120 days total from -- starting from today for everything. MS. TAYLOR: Rhona, why don't you put that into a motion and put numbers -- money numbers with that? MS. DUSEK: But wait a minute. Rhona, you said cleanup in 30 days. Now, what do you mean by "cleanup"? You said make it look as pretty -- I mean, we can't just arbitrarily say "cleanup." Would the county go out and make the determination that they have cleaned up according to what -- MS. ARNOLD: That would include removal of any exotics that exist on the property and weeds and the like or any -- I don't know if there's any litter on it, but remove all the exotics and weeds that are along that -- that corridor that we're talking about. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me back up and ask a real basic question, because I think we got a little sideways. In the notice of violation that was issued to the lodge, was -- one of the items that they were notified that they were in violation of, was that cleaning out all these exotics and getting rid of such and such and such and such? Was that a line item? MS. ARNOLD: I'm looking. MS. TAYLOR: Excuse me. I would like these two gentlemen down here in the front to -- if you have to visit, go outside and visit, please. (Member of audience speaking.) MS. TAYLOR: Well, it's warm up here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Go out and talk to the county. We Page 41 March 28, 2002 can't help you. MS. ARNOLD: No. The only thing that we cited them for was the lack of planting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's what I thought. So let's forget the cleanup because that's not part of the notice of violation. So we can't order them to do anything as far as cleanup goes. MS. CURATOLO: We can't request cleanup? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's not a notice. We're only here to judge the violation. MS. CURATOLO: I understand, but I'm asking a question. Could we -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. MS. CURATOLO: -- request it? We cannot? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You got to get back to what the order - - what our order is going to be. Our order is a violation was brought before us because they're not in compliance with the PUD, period. That we don't like the way their property looks is immaterial to us. MS. CURATOLO: So the answer is we cannot request cleanup. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Third time. No, we can't. (Several speakers at once.) MS. SA UNDERS: I'm sorry. Michelle, is -- can we not do it in a two-part process of complying? Can we not say to comply you must do this in 30 days and this in 120 days? MR. LEHMANN: Let me be a little bit clearer for the board. Our purpose here is to -- is to achieve compliance with the codes and ordinances, period. It's very black and white. We don't have any authority to make any subjective decisions. "I don't like the way things look." Did you comply or did you not? If you did not, do whatever it takes to comply. We're not here to tell them that they -- they have to do something, to clean something up because we don't like to look at it. We are here to address solely the violation. The Page 42 March 28, 2002 violation is of this PUD problem. It is not of a cleanup problem. So we can only address the 120 days for full compliance. We can't do the 30 days for something else. MS. RAWSON: Let me remind you what the description of violation is. Landscaping requirements are not in compliance regarding the buffer along the eastern edge of the project. That's what you need to find whether they're in compliance or not. MS. SAUNDERS: If that is the case, I'm not inclined to give 120 days. I'm inclined to say that the PUD has been in existence for two years. I don't want anybody to have to spend more money than they need to. But if we are not able to do anything else, then I would be inclined to give 30 or 60 days to come into compliance with the PUD, which is not helping the Elks Club, but that's where I would need to go according to the law if we cannot break it down into two parts. MS. DUSEK: I always respect your opinion, Rhona. In this incident I -- because they are coming before the Board of County Commissioners and the staff is willing to wait and has recommended this time, I would like to make a motion, that maybe we can work on, that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and submit a landscape plan for the buffer along the eastern edge of the project to meet standards as approved in the PUD 97-42 and install landscape according to approved plan within 120 days or a fine of $75 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. MS. ARNOLD: Can I make one comment? Maybe we could put "as amended," so therefore, it will cover any subsequent amendments to that 97-42. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. DUSEK: All right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sounds reasonable. I add that to the motion. We have a motion for 120 days to Page 43 March 28, 2002 come into compliance with either the current PUD or possible amended PUD, plus costs, plus $75 if they don't, a day. MR. LEHMANN: I will second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. MR. LEHMANN: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MS. CURATOLO: Aye. MS. TAYLOR: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those against, like -- MS. SAUNDERS: Opposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. 5 to 1. Gentlemen, do you understand? We're going to issue an order. You have 120 days to either get the county to amend your plan and come into compliance, or receive a fine of $75 a day until you do. Okay? Next case, CEB 2002-002, Seward and -- is it Kuypers? I don't know if I'm saying that right. I hope I am. MS. PETRULLI: I would like to ask if the respondents, Mr. William Bryan Seward and Mr. Howard Coopers (phonetic) are present at this time. Let the record show that they are present. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. PETRULLI: This is CEB Case No. 2002-002, the Board of County Commissioners versus William Bryan Seward and Howard Coopers. The alleged violation before the board today is Section 3.9.3 and 2.7.6, Subsection 5, of Ordinance 91-102 of the Collier County Land Development (sic). We have provided the board and respondent with a packet, and I'd like to request at this time that this be submitted as a Composite Exhibit A. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the packet, Exhibit A, from the county. Page 44 March 28, 2002 MS. TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the county's exhibit. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. PETRULLI: The description of the violation is that approximately 1 1/2 acres of protected vegetation, specifically palmetto, on an undeveloped lot was removed without first obtaining a building permit. The location address where the violation exists is 77000, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 0000040350200002, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 71, Tract 3. The name and owner (sic) of person in charge where the violation exists is Mr. William Bryan Seward, address of 2220 Oakes Boulevard, Naples, Florida 34119. The lessee of the property is Mr. Howard Coopers, address 660 25th Street Northwest, Naples, Florida 34120. The date the violation was first observed was July 18th, 2001. The notice of violation was given on August 1st of 2001, and it was to have been corrected by September 7th of 2001. At this time it -- the property is still in violation. And I'd like to turn over the case to the investigator, Alex Sulecki. (The speaker was sworn.) INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, board members. For the record, Alexandra Sulecki, environmental investigator, environmental specialist, Collier County code enforcement department. This case started last July when I received a complaint about clearing without a permit being posted. I went out to the property, and I found that on a 5-acre lot, about an acre and a half had been cleared of palmetto. I looked up the owner, who was Mr. Seward, and I tried to make contact with him by going to his home. Page 45 March 28, 2002 He wasn't home, but I left a card and a door hanger explaining the violation. About a week later I received a phone call from Mr. Coopers, who stated that he was buying the property and that he had done the clearing because he didn't realize he could not do that. I explained to him the violation and the correction of the violation, which was to either obtain a building permit at double the permit fees or to replace the vegetation that had been removed. I sent a notice of violation to both the property owner of record, Mr. Seward, and Mr. Coopers. In September at the time that this was supposed to be resolved per the NOV, I checked the computer, and no permit was obtained, wasn't even in the application process at that time. I contacted Mr. Coopers, and he told me that he was still planning on buying the property. He was about a week away from it and applying for the permits; then he would request an extension. So between September and the end of December, I issued three separate extensions because I had spoken to Mr. Coopers, and he assured me that he was in the process. He was just a short period away from getting this permit. At the end of December, no permit was applied for, so I asked this case to be set for the CEB. The situation as it stands today is that a permit has been applied for. It is ready to be issued except for one thing: The septic. The health department would not issue an okay on it until the property owner of record, which is Mr. Seward, submitted a letter to them stating that J.D. Allen, the contractor, was his agent because the application had been submitted in the name of Mr. Coopers and J.D. Allen, and they -- he did a check and found that that was not the owner of record. A letter stating this was sent to Mr. Allen on March 14th, about two weeks ago. I went out to the property a couple of days ago, and what I found -- well, just to back up a minute, there was some debris on the Page 46 March 28, 2002 property as well from the clearing, all the palmetto debris, which I had not addressed initially in the notice of violation, so I later sent a litter letter. And I noted on my site visit that the palmetto debris was in the process of being burned, and Mr. Coopers had obtained a burn permit to do that, so that was good. But I also noted that -- which is the picture up on the screen now -- that there was some additional clearing. The property was already cleared, but there were natives growing back, and so there was an additional very light site work prep. You see the area up there. It has stakes for the home site located. So I was surprised that the permit wasn't issued and there was more, seeming, work being done on it. So what -- what I'd like for you -- or our department would like for you to do this morning is to order Mr. Coopers and Mr. Seward to work out their property ownership issues and somebody to pull that permit within 30 days at double the cost, and to pay the operational costs or else impose a fine of $75 per day. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: Investigator Sulecki, you say a permit's been applied for, and it's pending the subcontractor signing off. INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: Yes, sir. MR. LEHMANN: How long ago was that that the respondents have been notified that this is the only thing holding the permit up? INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: A letter was sent out March 14th. But I did speak to Mr. Coopers this morning, and he told me that Mr. Seward was out of town. I don't know about, you know, exactly who the letter was sent to, Mr. Allen or Mr. Seward. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. So within the last couple of weeks. INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The letter was required by the county; right? Page 47 March 28, 2002 INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: That's right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But we don't know whether the letter was sent back -- or a copy sent to the county. INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: Nothing has been submitted. As of this morning, I spoke to the health department investigator who is handling this, and he has not heard back. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Ms. Sulecki? Thank you, ma'am. INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Seward or Mr. Coopers, would either of you like to come forward and tell the board your side or offer some comments or ... (The speaker was sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And your name, sir? MR. SEWARD: My name is William Bryan Seward. I'm the owner of record. I did receive the letter via fax from J.D. Allen to be signed and faxed back. I believe he was in receipt of the letter regarding the health department. I was out of town all last week and part of the week prior. So I got back Monday. It is in my stack, obviously, with this notice I received yesterday. I haven't gone through it, but it is on my desk to sign and refax back, so that's the only comment I have. MS. DUSEK: Alex, is -- the only thing now is getting this letter back? INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: The only thing that stands in the way of the permit being issued, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So hypothetically, Alex, let me ask the question so we all understand it. If they -- if the county got the letter today or tomorrow, what is the next step in actually issuing the permit? INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: The health inspector would make Page 48 March 28, 2002 a note in the computer that it's been approved, and it would go to the permit department and then be issued upon payment of the permit fees. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So this is hypothetically a couple-day process? INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: I believe so. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: Can I ask a kind of a silly question? Whose name is the permit issued to, and whose name is it written in? INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: I think I have a copy of it here. Let me look at it. The owner information is listed as Mr. Seward, and the contractor, J.D. Allen. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And Seward is, in fact, still the owner of the property? INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Coopers would you like to tell us anything? MR. KUYPERS: Sure. (The speaker was sworn.) MR. KUYPERS: My name is Howard Kuypers. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sorry for the mispronunciation. MR. KUYPERS: That's okay. It's a long story that I'm not going to get into about how I'm going to acquire the property and why. Basically, I did clear the property, like they said. For the record, no additional clearing has been done. I got a letter stating that I was supposed to clean the property up, and at the time I went to the fire department and got a burn permit. And basically, if you can see the tall pile of palmettos into the back, it's pretty much filled with dirt as well as palmettos. In order to burn, what I've been doing is taking a small machine, Page 49 March 28, 2002 spreading them out across the land, which -- to get the dirt out, and then throw the palmettos in the bucket and take them back to the fire pit, that being the fire pit right there. And you can see I still have little piles of palmettos. That's where I was shaking off the dirt. So I haven't really done any more clearing. I'm just trying to clean the property up. The length of time it's taken is due to me obtaining financing, which has been a problem that I'm still in the midst of working on, and I'm guessing it's going to be about 30 days before I have a true go ahead to do it. I do have a permit in, like you said, and here's a copy of the application. I plan on building a house. I'm a fanatic about having a neat yard. I mean, it's not -- it's not like I plan on leaving it a pigsty. And at the same time, I -- I wasn't aware that I wasn't able to clear palmetto, because this is about the third house that I've built in the estates where I've done this, and I've never had a problem with this before. So it's not that I did something that I -- if I knew it was illegal, I wouldn't have been doing it. But anyway, I do plan on complying. I just -- I need time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: And the time you feel is 30 days? MR. KUYPERS: Yes. I should have my answers within 30 days. MS. TAYLOR: Do you think you can get a burn permit? MR. KUYPERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He got one. MS. TAYLOR: You have a burn permit right now? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. He said he has one. MS. TAYLOR: That's unbelievable. This time of year, as dry as it is, I can't believe you have a bum permit. Have you seen his burn permit? Page 50 March 28, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: He has one. INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: I did check with the fire department chief, Chief Kobarick (phonetic) of the Big Cypress Fire Department, and he confirmed that there is a burn permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Mr. Kuypers? MS. SAUNDERS: Yes. Sir, is going-- is paying the fee that goes -- once the permit is approved, it's approved pending payment of the fee. Is that a problem, payment of the fee for the permit? MR. KUYPERS: Well, it-- until the 30 days, yeah. MS. SAUNDERS: So even if the permit were approved in three days, it won't be an active permit for 30 days or longer. MR. KUYPERS: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Well, we have -- okay, Mr. Kuypers. Two things the board has to consider. We have a violation against the property owner, which is Mr. Seward, and I understand the permit is in Mr. Seward's name; is that correct? INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So right now obtaining the permit is up to Mr. Seward. MS. ARNOLD: We've noticed both individuals, Mr. Seward and Mr. Cooper. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. But what Rhona is worried about, he can't get a permit in 30 days. Mr. Kuypers isn't -- hasn't requested a permit. The permit is in Mr. Seward's name, so Mr. Kuypers doesn't have anything to do with the permit. MR. KUYPERS: No. The permits in my name. MS. CURATOLO: That's not what we've been told. INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: The septic -- the septic application was submitted in Mr. Kuypers' name and J.D. Allen. The actual building permit itself lists Mr. Seward as the owner. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what I thought you said. Okay. Page 51 March 28, 2002 So the building permit is in Mr. Seward's name. MR. KUYPERS: No. I -- I have a copy here of the permit application. MR. LEHMANN: That's the application. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It says applicant is J.D. Allen & Associate, and the owner is William Bryan Seward. MR. KUYPERS: Of the property, but the permit should be listed under Howard Kuypers. INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: I'll put the permit up here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Owner and contractor, Allen and Seward. MR. LEHMANN: Everything that we have here indicates that Mr. Seward would be responsible, so I guess you're off the hook, so to speak. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, that's something you -- you and Mr. Seward, I guess, need to go work out with the county, because right now Mr. Seward's on the hook for the permit. MR. LEHMANN: It may be your home you're trying to build in a sense, but as far as the legal documents are indicating to us, that permit belongs to Mr. Seward, and Mr. Seward is responsible for that permit. MR. KUYPERS: Okay. I see what you're saying here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And you also need to understand that this board, when we take an action, is going to take an action against a property owner, which right now is Mr. Seward. He owns the property, so he's the fellow on the hook. MR. LEHMANN: So whatever dealings that you and Mr. Seward may have are not of our concern at all. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Our decision here, when we order something done, we're going to order Mr. Seward to do it, so he may Page 52 March 28, 2002 take you on a short trip on a long elevator. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Seward, could you come back up? Can you accomplish this in 30 days, getting the permit? MR. SEWARD: Pay for the permit? MS. DUSEK: Yes. MR. SEWARD: Certainly. That's not a problem. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What we're looking for -- we're not trying to create any -- what we're trying to do is just get the problem resolved, and the fastest way is if we order you to get the paperwork in and then get the permit. How you two work out him reimbursing you and all is immaterial to us. It's just we want it done, so then everybody's in compliance, and the county's happy. That's what we're looking for. Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. MS. DUSEK: Now, Michelle, I have a question for you. Why are we including Mr. Kuypers? He's not the owner of the property. MS. ARNOLD: Because he is the person that admittedly cleared the property, and he's partially responsible for the violation. Now, we can cite -- my understanding, we can cite them both. MS. RAWSON: You can. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. But the problem comes in -- I guess in reality, trying to enforce something against somebody that doesn't own the piece of property. He could get in his car and leave town, and there's not a whole lot the county can do to him. MR. LEHMANN: And my comment about being off the hook was pertaining only to who owns that particular permit, not anything else. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think they're going to work it out. I don't see a problem there. MS. DUSEK: I'd like to-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions? MS. DUSEK: I'd like to make a motion that in the case of the Page 53 March 28, 2002 Board of County Commissioners versus William Bryan Seward and Howard Kuypers in the case CEB No. 2002-002, that there is a violation. The violation is of Sections 3.9.3 and 2.7.5, Section 5, of Ordinance 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation, approximately 1 1/2 acres of protected vegetation, specifically palmetto, on an undeveloped lot removed without first obtaining a building permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion -- MR. LEHMANN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that a violation does, in fact, exist. Any further discussion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. MS. DUSEK: I'd like to make a motion that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and obtain a permit or replace the vegetation within 30 days, or a fine of $50 per day will be assessed and imposed each day the violation continues. MS. SAUNDERS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second for paying the operational costs, A; B, obtaining a permit or replacing the vegetation within 30 days or a fine of $50 per day thereafter. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) You CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Gentlemen, do you understand? have 30 days to either get a permit, which would resolve the Page 54 March 28, 2002 problem, or replace everything that's been removed. If you don't do that, a fine of $50 a day is going to kick in against Mr. Seward. MR. SEWARD: Thirty-one days or thirty days? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thirty days from today. MR. LEHMANN: On the 31st day, the fine kicks in. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. The fine goes -- you know, one We're -- minute after midnight, that's day 31. Kind of like the IRS. we're going to get you. All right, gentlemen. Thank you. MR. LEHMANN: Have a good day. MS. TAYLOR: I have a question. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. TAYLOR: pictures? MS. ARNOLD: What's happened to our colored, real nice A printer problem. That's what's happened. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let's see. Case 3 is continued. Next case, 2002-004, Lacquaniti. I don't know if I'm saying that right, but I'll try anything. MS. PETRULLI: I'd like to ask at this time if the respondent is present. Let the record show that he is not present. This is Case No. 2002-004, Board of County Commissioners versus Rocco Lacquaniti. The alleged violation before this board today is violation of Section 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance No. 91-102 of the Collier County Land Development Ordinance. We have presented the board and the respondent with a packet, and at this time I would like to request that that packet be admitted into evidence, marked Composite Exhibit A. MS. SAUNDERS: So moved. MS. TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to enter the county's exhibit. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? Page 55 March 28, 2002 (No response.) MS. PETRULLI: The description of the violation is renovations to the home consisting of electrical, plumbing, and structural changes without permits. The address where the violation exists is 790 11 lth Avenue North, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as Folio NO. 0000062429080005, Naples Park, Unit 1, Block 16, Lot 48, less right-of-way. The name and address of the owner in charge of the location where the violation exists is a Mr. Rocco Lacquaniti, and I will spell that for you. It's capital L-a-c-q-u-a-n-i-t-i. The address, 606 109th Avenue North, Naples, Florida 34108. The date of-- the violation was first observed on August 20th, 2001, and the owner was given a notice of violation on August 27th of 2001. The date on which the violation was to be corrected was September 9th of 2001, and up until today, the property is still in violation. At this time I would like to turn the case over to the investigator handling the case, Mr. Shawn Luedtke. (The speaker was sworn.) INVESTIGATOR LUEDTKE: Good morning. This complaint came in through our support staff about renovations that had occurred at a location in the Naples Park area on August 20th, 2001. I did a site visit. There was nobody at the house. I could tell from exteriorly that there had been window frames removed, windows removed and replaced, and no permits were posted. I couldn't tell if any interior work had been done at the time. So I posted a stop work order with my phone number on it requesting that the owner give me a call to let me know what's going on. On August 24th I still had not had any contact with the owner, so I went ahead and mailed a notice of violation for what I observed exteriorly of the property. I got a phone call to meet Mr. Lacquaniti on site on the 27th of August, at which time I met him out there. We walked the property. I explained to him what -- what needed to be Page 56 March 28, 2002 done. He showed me the interior of the property. He had done a lot more work. He had removed walls, old electrical wires, run all new wire. Plumbing fixtures had been removed, totally renovating the property. No permits had been pulled whatsoever. At the time I went ahead and issued him a second notice of violation addressing everything, internal and external of the property, with a recheck set for September 9th, giving two or three weeks to get in and get a permit and cover everything. On the 19th I spoke with Mr. Lacquaniti on the phone, and he requested a two-week extension because he was having a problem finding a contractor that could get the permits for him. He requested two weeks. I went ahead and gave him almost three weeks, told him that he needed to have the permits by October 10th, or we'd just issue a citation. He said that shouldn't be a problem. When the 10th came, I still had no contact with Mr. Lacquaniti, so I went ahead and mailed the citation for the violation of failure to obtain building permits for all the renovations. On the 22nd I got another phone call from Mr. Lacquaniti. He had received the citation, and he was requesting an additional two weeks. He was going through a divorce, having financial problems, and still having problems finding a contractor. I went ahead and gave the extension, did a recheck on November 16th, permits still had not been obtained, violations still remained. I went ahead and mailed the CEB warning letter advising you need to get the permits. You need to come in and get in contact with me. No contact up until December 14th when he called and spoke with the supervisor, Patti Petrulli. Patti advised you have six days, or we're going to go ahead and process it for a board hearing. At the end of that six days, December 20th, 2001, he still had not obtained any permits, so we went ahead and processed it for a board hearing. And to this date no permits or applications have been submitted. Page 57 March 28, 2002 MS. SAUNDERS: Is he living in the property, sir? INVESTIGATOR LUEDTKE: No, ma'am. He lives a couple streets over. The property's on 11 lth Avenue North, and I believe he lives on 109th. MS. SAUNDERS: Is it occupied now at all? INVESTIGATOR LUEDTKE: No, ma'am. MR. LEHMANN: Is it accessible? INVESTIGATOR LUEDTKE: Not right now. He has it sealed up, and he hasn't let me back in to get photographs, and I didn't obtain photographs the first time I was out there. MR. LEHMANN: I'm talking about kids in the neighborhood. INVESTIGATOR LUEDTKE: Oh, no, sir. It's secured property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: To obtain what he needs to come into compliance, can he do all this within your recommended 14 days? INVESTIGATOR LUEDTKE: On the recommendation I -- I believe we went ahead and amended that giving 30 days to give him a chance to -- to get a contractor, because he's going to have to hire a contractor. He cannot do owner/builder to come in. MR. LEHMANN: Is it -- am I correct in assuming you've (sic) made structural changes, you said? Walls have come down? INVESTIGATOR LUEDTKE: Yeah. He's -- he's completely removed the walls, the drywall. All that was there was the exposed studs, the wood studs, with the new electrical ran. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. down. He just took the drywall off?. INVESTIGATOR LUEDTKE: He didn't actually take a wall It's hard to tell. It really is hard to tell. I mean, it was completely gutted. The ceiling was removed. Everything was exposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is this an older piece of property or-- INVESTIGATOR LUEDTKE: Yes, sir. Page 58 March 28, 2002 MR. LEHMANN: Do you think that the changes that he's made to the residence effect -- or exceed 50 percent of the value of the residence? INVESTIGATOR LUEDTKE: I would believe so. It's pretty extensive. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. So, in essence, what you'd have now is a -- a new building permit, according to the new codes. INVESTIGATOR LUEDTKE: Exactly. Yes, sir. MR. LEHMANN: So that's not a 14-day process, I would assume, because it would require engineering. INVESTIGATOR LUEDTKE: That's correct. MS. ARNOLD: Is it all interior renovations, or are there exterior renovations? INVESTIGATOR LUEDTKE: Other than the window frames, the windows, there's nothing exterior. It's all interior. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. So we're not really talking about structural issues. We're talking about just maybe electrical and plumbing and -- okay. MS. DUSEK: And in your recommendation you said, "Abate all violations." Even within 30 days, do you think this is possible? INVESTIGATOR LUEDTKE: I believe the -- he's not going to be able to, quote, abate the violations, because you can't take all the new electrical out and put that old electrical back up. He's just going to have to obtain the building permits. MR. LEHMANN: Is it not correct that by obtaining the building permit, he has then abated his violation? INVESTIGATOR LUEDTKE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. MR. LEHMANN: Jean? MS. RAWSON: That's correct. MS. DUSEK: So all he needs is the building permit? Page 59 March 28, 2002 INVESTIGATOR LUEDTKE: Yes, ma'am. MS. ARNOLD: And -- and if he doesn't go through the process and get a CO, then that would be another violation. I mean, the board has the ability to say complete the process but ... MR. LEHMANN: And it -- well, staff has not recommended that. Are you saying -- do you recommend that now? MS. ARNOLD: I'm just giving you information. MS. DUSEK: Now, I am a little bit confused. And, Jean or Michelle, perhaps you can help me, because the description of the violation is renovations to the home; electrical, plumbing, and structural changes without permits. So all you want him to do is get a permit for these things; is that correct? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I -- I don't think the board should order somebody to get a permit and do the work within X, because when you get a permit, a permit exists for -- two years? MS. ARNOLD: Well, it's good, and you need to -- you need to continue inspections every six months. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But how long is the permit good for? MS. ARNOLD: The permit's good for 18 months. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So what I'm saying is because somebody wants to put some new wiring in their house, I don't think the board should say get a permit and complete the wiring by X. Just get a permit. If he doesn't do it, then you folks will get him for something else. All we want to do is tell him to get the proper permits. And however long he takes to complete the job is between you two, because he'd be in violation of something else if he doesn't do it. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think that's where we need to stay focused. MS. DUSEK: Well, that's what I-- Page 60 March 28, 2002 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's just have him get the permits. MS. DUSEK: That's what I'm trying to understand, if that's what the violation is, just the permits. That's what he was cited for. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Can he -- and do you think it's possible if we order him to -- to obtain this permit, he can do this within 30 days? INVESTIGATOR LUEDTKE: I believe so, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. SAUNDERS: Is the property at all a safety hazard as it is now? INVESTIGATOR LUEDTKE: No, I don't believe so. It's secure. There's nobody occupying the structure. MS. SAUNDERS: Should we indicate something to the effect that until the permits -- I mean, that it cannot be occupied without permits? I'm concerned that, you know, the renovations are basically finished, and they're a home-done job, and he rents the property out. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Evidently they're not finished because you said there's no -- INVESTIGATOR LUEDTKE: Yeah. There was no walls or anything or plumbing fixtures. MS. DUSEK: I'd like to make a motion. MR. LEHMANN: One second before you make a motion. I apologize. Staff had recommended a fine of $150 per day. Tell me why you've come up with that particular number. MS. ARNOLD: Based on the electrical and the other improvements that have been done with-- because there are safety implications when you do a major renovation like this. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. Page 61 March 28, 2002 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: them -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: part. You don't -- you don't know who did -- so that's -- okay. I understand that MR. LEHMANN: I'm sorry. Please continue. And I apologize again for my interruption. MS. DUSEK: I'd like to make a motion that -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Mr. Luedtke. Sorry. MS. DUSEK: That's okay. Just trying to move things along. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I didn't want him to stand there while we were doing this. MS. DUSEK: I'd like to make a motion in the Board of County Commissioners versus Rocco Lacquaniti, however it's pronounced, in the CEB Case No. 2002-001, that there is a violation, and the violation is of Sections 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Ordinance. The description of the violation is renovations to a home, consisting of electrical, plumbing, and structural changes without permits. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that there is, in fact, a violation existing. Do I hear a second? MS. TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. MS. DUSEK: And this recommendation of $150 per day, I think that's high. All we're asking is for him to get a permit, and I think that that's too much to ask. Page 62 March 28, 2002 MS. TAYLOR: I disagree. We don't know --just like Cliff said, we don't know who did all this wiring. MS. SAUNDERS: I disagree also that it's too high. I think that it's appropriate mainly because he hasn't been responsive. That's what I tend to look at. I've seen no evidence that he's trying to correct this, and he's asked for extension after extension and been granted it and is, to me, abusing the system a bit. So he needs a stronger incentive, so I'm in favor of $150 per day. MR. LEHMANN: And I would remind my colleagues respectfully that the fine that's imposed is based on three criteria, according to the statute. It's the gravity of the violation, any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, and any previous violations committed by the violator. So the gravity of the action and the actions taken, really, would govern this particular -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would entertain a motion if somebody would make it. MS. SAUNDERS: I would move that the Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations within 30 days, or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. MS. TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MR. LEHMANN: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. TAYLOR: Aye. MS. CURATOLO: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. DUSEK: No. Aye. Those opposed? Page 63 March 28, 2002 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Five to one. Last case, 2001-00 -- is 2001 correct? MS. PETRULLI: 2002. That's a typographical error. I'm sorry. MS. TAYLOR: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, but Peter stated that he had to leave by noon. MR. LEHMANN: Yes, ma'am. MS. TAYLOR: And if we're going to have our elections -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have that covered. MS. TAYLOR: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I talked to Ms. Rawson about it, so we're in good shape. MS. TAYLOR: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: Just --just so we get some of the formalities out of the way, if the board chooses to nominate me for the position of chairman or as the vice-chairman, I'll be more than happy to accept that position. I may or may not be here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And I've asked Jean, and he -- as long as he agrees to have his name entered, he does not have to be here. MS. RAWSON: We always elect people who are not present. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: When you leave, you've had it. Okay. 2002-005, Quail Crossing. MS. PETRULLI: I would like to ask if the respondents, Mr. Robert T. Gracey, registered agent, and Mr. Louis Altier, the president of the Quail Crossing Property Owners Association, is present. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Seems to be none present, looking out over the -- MS. PETRULLI: Let the record show they are not present. (A discussion was held off the record.) MS. PETRULLI: This is CEB Case No. 2002-005, the Board of County Commissioners versus Quail Crossing Property Owners Page 64 March 28, 2002 Association, Robert T. Gracey -- that's G-r-a-c-e-y-- registered agent, and Louis Altier, A-l-t-i-e-r, president. The alleged violation before this board today is violation of Sections 3.9.6.6 and 2.4.4.12, 1 through 12, of Ordinance 91-102; violation of Section 26, in effect at the time of the development, of Ordinance No. 89-63 of the Collier County Land Development Ordinance. We provided the board and the respondent with a packet, and at this time I would like to enter that packet into evidence and be marked Composite Exhibit A. MS. DUSEK: I'd like to make a motion that we accept the county's Exhibit A. MS. TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the county's exhibit. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) MS. PETRULLI: Description of the violation is exotic trees killed and left in place in proximity to the public roadway, creating a safety hazard. The location of the violation exists at 131450 between Heritage Way, slash, Ibis Way on Cypress, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 0000068827500301, Quail Crossing, Parcel 1, drainage and conservation easement. The name and address of the owner or person in charge of the location where the violation exists is the Quail Crossing Property Owners Association, more particularly directed to Mr. Louis Altier at the address of 187 Forest Lakes Boulevard, Naples, Florida 34105 -- I'm sorry. That's for Mr. Robert T. Gracey, registered agent. I apologize to the Court (sic). The other is to Louis Altier, who is the president at the address of 444 Ibis Way, Naples, Florida 34110. The date the violation was first observed is August 3rd, 2001. A notice of violation was given on August 17th of 2001 and was to have been Page 65 March 28, 2002 corrected by September 28th of 2001. Up until today the violation is still in existence. At this time I would like to turn the case over to the investigator handling the case, and that's Alexandra Sulecki. (The speaker was sworn.) INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: This case came as a result of a complaint of a preserve area where the exotics have been killed and left in place, and the complainant was upset about that because they felt it was not aesthetically pleasing and that it would be a fire hazard. They also complained about a rock pile in the preserve. Now, unbeknownst to me when I went and looked at this property, there had been a previous code enforcement case with another investigator who required the exotics to be removed within the preserve area. Our code talks about removal of exotics. It says that they must be removed. And where they are cut and the base remains in place, they must be treated with an herbicide. Now, in some cases where people have problems with finances, we have some policies that we are allowed to put into place if the circumstances warrant, and one of those policies is that we allow people to kill the exotics and leave them in place. They can't cut them down and leave the debris laying on the ground, but they can leave them in place, and that's what occurred in the previous case. When I got there based on the complaints that were given to me, I responded to the complainant that, yes, it was probably an aesthetic problem and possibly the fire hazard was increased somewhat. But there's a fire hazard with many things, and I -- I didn't think that the -- the issue of, you know, wild fires coming through was likely to happen. So -- and the rock pile is not defined as litter. So I really could not do much, but what I could do was to require the removal of those trees within striking distance of the road because they were a safety hazard. These were very large melaleuca, and they've been Page 66 March 28, 2002 heavily girdled, so who knows which way they were going to fall. I called the association president, Mr. Louis Altier, and I advised him of the complaint and the need to remove those big exotics that were within striking distance of the roadway. I sent a notice of violation to him and to the registered agent, Bob Gracey, who's the property manager, requiring the removal of those approximately ten, but I didn't count them. I just said all the ones within 75 feet, approximately ten. And I asked them to submit a maintenance plan, which had not been submitted in the previous case. They did submit a maintenance plan in a timely manner, but the work on removal of exotics was stalled due to wet site conditions. And then it was finally done, but the debris was left laying in place. And when I went out the first time to look at it, I noted that there was an additional tree still remaining within striking distance, so I asked them to remove that tree and the debris. I went back and looked at it. They had removed that tree, but not the debris. And I found another tree that was there. I hate to do that. I hate to keep going back to people, but this tree I had not seen before was right directly over a bike rack, and so I felt like I had to address that. So I asked them to remove that final tree and the debris, at which point we had some discussions about the disposal of the tree -- the debris. Again, finances came into the picture, and they asked me if there was anything else they could do other than actually haul that debris out of there. So considering that the circumstances fit a South Florida Water Management District melaleuca guideline paper that we have used as a policy in some situations where it applies -- I have a copy of that if you'd like to see that. MS. DUSEK: Can you briefly summarize it? INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: I can. This basically requires Page 67 March 28, 2002 that in preserves of 5 acres or more -- this preserve is 4.81 acres, a little bit less but not that much less -- where there's a lot of melaleuca and it's not cost-effective to pull it out and damage other vegetation, that you can cut the melaleuca and stack the debris in the interior of the system, but it has to be farther away than a hundred feet from the edge of the preserve. And the way it's stacked is carefully defined. It has to be in certain formation, and these piles have to be located a hundred feet from each other. So in an effort to work with the property owner as far as costs were concerned, I said, well, I would accept -- if that's what they chose to do, I would accept that. So I went back to examine the -- oh, well, before that I faxed a copy of the guidelines to Mr. Gracey, and I also talked to the contractor who was doing the tree removal, and I faxed a copy to him so that they would all know, you know, what the options were. They could remove that debris, or they could move it back to within a -- you know, farther than a hundred feet from the property line and stack it in these neat piles and so forth. And the whole idea behind this is to remove the debris from the forest floor, because it's a preserve. It's for native plants. If you have debris laying all over the floor, you're not going to get re-growth. That's the idea. And then stacking it in these certain piles is supposed to increase the -- the rate of decomposition and also provide habitat. That's why South Florida allows it. So I went back to look, and what I found when I got there was something that had never been discussed with anybody, was they had chipped it in place and left these huge mulch piles. There were four of them, each approximately 250 square feet within between 5 feet and 10 feet of the edge of the preserve. Nobody had ever called me and said, "Can we do this?" Because I would have said, of course, "No." It was not discussed. I did speak to Mr. Gracey yesterday and asked him who had Page 68 March 28, 2002 decided to do that and why. His response to me was that the board had decided to do that because they had seen another pile that was in there. And, in fact, when I first got to the property a long time ago when I started the case, I did see this pile. It's an old mulch pile. And I remember discussing with the -- either Mr. Gracey, who says I didn't but -- or Mr. Altier that, "Oh, by the way, I'm not going to make a big deal out of it, but you can't do that either. You can't put your mulch piles in there." It was pretty small, and it was old, and it was decomposing, so I did not formally address it as litter. So apparently there's a new board, and they saw that and thought they could do that. Okay. So what I'm asking today is that you -- is that you require the property owner to come into compliance by removing the debris within -- that has been generated by those trees being cut down, request that they pay operational costs, and abate the violation within 30 days or a $75 fine per day. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Alex, are we down to now all we have is piles of chips other than actual trees or trees down? Are we down to just -- INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: Well, not exactly. This is -- this is what the ground looks like around the piles and not a hundred feet from the property edge; more like 80 feet. There's still a lot of debris. They did push the bigger pieces into some piles. They're not a hundred feet apart. It's kind of like asking your child to clean their room, and they clean half of it and say, "Mom, is it done yet. Can I go?" No. It's not quite done yet. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: So what -- what you want them to do is to remove the debris and the mulch piles? INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: Yes. Within a hundred feet -- remove all the debris, within a hundred feet of the roadway, that they Page 69 March 28, 2002 have generated-- or 75 feet. Sorry. MS. DUSEK: Now, are they also supposed to treat the trees, the stumps? INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: They've already been treated. That was part of the original removal. They were treated. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And these piles of mulch that they've generated, are they within the 75-foot limit, or are they -- INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: They are. They're with -- they're 5 -- 5 to -- between 5 and 10 feet-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: -- from the edge. And the -- the whole amount that they take up together is, like, a thousand square feet, so nothing native is going to grow there. And that's the whole point of removing the debris and the South Florida Water Management guidelines that allow, you know, a slightly less expensive way but still trying to get that open space on the ground to regenerate native plants. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Are they -- to order them to remove the debris, what I want to make sure is that they know, quote, unquote, what the debris is. So do they know specifically what they have to remove if we order them to remove, quote, the debris? INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: Well, my original order in the notice of violation asked them to physically remove all of those trees that have been girdled and left standing, killed in place, within 75 feet of the roadway. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So if we say remove all the debris within 75 feet of the roadway, will that do what you need done? INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Because when I say "debris" and then they come back and say, "Well, gee, we moved one pile, and Page 70 March 28, 2002 now she says there's another pile." And then, you know, it gets back to who says what. So I want to make sure that they're going to understand what our order might say. INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: The code is to remove it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. SULECKI: At that point it was not considered litter on the ground because they were standing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: Okay. So they were supposed to remove all of that stuff. They have not come into compliance, because I -- they could either remove it by hauling it out or remove it by complying with these guidelines, and they have done neither. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: and left little piles. MS. SULECKI: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Neither. They've just chipped it up So you could-- Or big piles. INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: I mean, you could probably say something like physically remove the debris remaining from the trees that were standing within 75 feet of the roadway. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I just want to make sure we can get a description that directs them to do something constructive. MR. LEHMANN: Investigator Sulecki, you have to educate me here. I'm a little bit confused. The case originally -- the description of violation is to -- that you had exotic trees killed and left in place. You've told us that that's taken care of. All we have now are mounds of chipped debris. MS. ARNOLD: There were two different cases. INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: I said physically removed. MR. LEHMANN: No. There were -- there was an original case, in which case code enforcement has allowed them to -- to abate the violation simply by killing the trees and leaving them in place. Page 71 March 28, 2002 INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: Uh-huh. Which is a policy. MR. LEHMANN: Now you've come back and said a new violation exists, and that violation is that you have all this chipped debris now. INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: No. The violation was that there was a safety hazard because the trees that were killed in place were within striking distance of the road. And, in fact, that is part of the policy of allowing exotics killed in place, and why it was not done on the earlier case, I can't say. But I did respond to a complaint, and I felt like it was a legitimate safety issue. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: That's why the policy is -- MR. LEHMANN: The code section that we're referring to in -- in the statement of violation says nothing about hauling debris away. INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: Well, the code section says that the exotics have to be either removed, which means picking them up by the roots and removing them, or chemically treating the -- the stump and hauling the debris to an appropriate waste facility. MR. LEHMANN: So what you're saying is that by chipping them, they haven't removed them. INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: Right. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. I understand. educate me. MS. Michelle, sections? MS. MS. plus I told you you'd have to DUSEK: In this section of violations, it's 3.9.6.6. is that all of that, 3.9.6.6, and then there are individual Are we just doing all of that as one? ARNOLD: Let's see. DUSEK: In that Ordinance 91-102. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. That's correct. All of Section 3.9.6.6 2.4.4.12, Sections 1 through 12. MS. DUSEK: Okay. Page 72 March 28, 2002 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Ms. Sulecki? Thank you. INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: Thank you. MS. DUSEK: I'd like to make a motion, unless someone else would like to. MS. SAUNDERS: You do it very well. MS. DUSEK: In the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Quail Crossing Property Owners Association, Robert T. Gracey, registered agent, and Louis Altier, president, in the CEB Case No. 202-005, that there is a violation. The violation is of Sections 3.9.6.6 and 2.4.4.12, Sections 1 through 12, of Ordinance No. 91-102; violation of Section 26, in effect at time of development, of Ordinance No. 89-63 of the Collier County Land Development Ordinances. Description of the violation is exotic trees killed and left in place in proximity to public roadway, creating a safety hazard. MS. TAYLOR: I'll second it. MR. LEHMANN: Is that an appropriate description of the violation? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: At the time the notice was issued, yes. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Order of the board. MS. SAUNDERS: I think staffs recommendation makes a lot of sense, unless there's any other discussion. MR. LEHMANN: I think the -- the amount of the fine might be a little heavy for the gravity of the situation on this one. MS. SAUNDERS: I can agree with you on that. Page 73 March 28, 2002 MR. LEHMANN: My recommendation would be $25 a day. MS. DUSEK: When it says "abate all violations," do we need to be specific in saying "remove all debris and mulch within 75 feet of the road"? MS. RAWSON: I believe that's what Ms. Arnold was recommending. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. I think we need to be very specific in this case because if we -- if we just say "abate," they're going to say, "Gee, the trees aren't standing anymore. We abated it." And that's obviously not what the county requires. MS. DUSEK: All right. I'd like to make a motion that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and remove all debris and mulch within 75 feet of the road within 30 days or a fine of $50 per day be imposed each day the violation continues. MS. TAYLOR: That's an amendment; right? Didn't we just -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. This is the first. MS. DUSEK: This is the first. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: This is the order of the board. MS. TAYLOR: I'm reading. Sorry. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Rather than -- you said "roadway." Do we need to say "right-of-way"? Isn't that what -- right-of-way is in the ordinance; is that correct? So we need to change the word "roadway" to "right-of-way" to be specific? MS. DUSEK: That's fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Because I -- the right-of-way may extend past the roadway. MS. DUSEK: Right-of-way. MR. LEHMANN: And your fine was how much? MS. DUSEK: $50 per day. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And it was still -- Page 74 March 28, 2002 MS. DUSEK: And 30 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you. MS. TAYLOR: Is that it now? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. TAYLOR: I second all that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second, and I'm not going to try to repeat it. Ms. Rawson, you have it, I hope? MS. RAWSON: I have it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That closes our public hearings. You need a break? Okay. Let's take ten minutes. Is that enough? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Take ten minutes and give our court reporter a chance to get her breath. (A break was held.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll call the board back to order, please. Under new business, imposition of fines, this is an administrative process. We'll make note to the board we have, under new business, two requests from two of the parties to speak. Since this is not a public hearing portion, it is at the will of the board to let them or not let them speak. MS. TAYLOR: I-- I think not. MS. DUSEK: I-- MS. ARNOLD: Who are -- who are the two that are -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Davidson and Mr. Dwyer. Page 75 March 28, 2002 MS. SAUNDERS: I'm in favor of giving anybody that comes three minutes to five minutes to speak. I think that's just a courtesy, but I do think the time should be limited. MR. LEHMANN: My comments regarding this is just as our chairman says. This is an administrative task. Fines haven't even been imposed at this point in time. So I think we need to go through the administrative process and just follow the protocol. MS. TAYLOR: I agree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So is it a motion of the board to or not to permit? MS. DUSEK: I'd like to make a motion that we permit them to speak a limited time. MS. SAUNDERS: MS. CURATOLO: I would second that. Could you specify that time in the motion? MS. DUSEK: Three minutes? MS. SAUNDERS: Three minutes is what you get in front the county commission, I believe. MS. DUSEK: That's fine. Three minutes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to permit the gentlemen to speak for three minutes each. All those in favor signify by saying aye. MS. SAUNDERS: MS. DUSEK: Aye. MS. CURATOLO: Aye. Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MR. LEHMANN: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. TAYLOR: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. CURATOLO: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? Kathleen, were you for it? So that's 3 to 3. Ms. Rawson, in that Page 76 March 28, 2002 case we do the right thing; right? MS. RAWSON: I think a tie means it passes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's what I thought. Okay. The first one is Gerald Davidson. MS. ARNOLD: Should I go ahead and read through our -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. Tell us what we're doing first, so we know why he's here. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. This is a request for imposition of fines, Code Enforcement Board Case 2001-007, Board of County Commissioners versus Gerald K. Davidson, regarding violations to the Land Development Code of Sections 1.5.6, 2.1.15, 2.6.7.1.1, and of Ordinance 99-51, Sections 6 and 7. The violation was illegal storage of inoperable vehicles, illegal accumulation of litter. And on the 27th of September, 2001, the board found the respondent in violation and ordered that the respondent correct all violations of the sections cited and that if the respondent did not comply with that request within 90 days, fines of $50 per day would be imposed each day the violation continues. The board further ordered that the respondent pay all operational costs. Staff is requesting at this time that the board impose fines for the amount of $2,450, which reflects the period of December 27, 2000, through February 13th, 2000 (sic), and that operational costs in the amount of $553.90 be also imposed, for a total of $3,003.90. There's also an item on your agenda that's -- indicates that we will be filing an affidavit of compliance reflecting February 13th as that date of compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Mr. Davidson. MR. DAVIDSON: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you. That's gracious of you, three minutes. First of all, I'd like to repeat that -- or state the fact why I was at Platt Road. First of all, I don't live there. I bought this property a couple years ago, and a Page 77 March 28, 2002 fellow approached me that -- who wanted to live on the property, a homeless guy which I rescued out of the -- out of the woods and took him out there. And he had no way to support himself, so consequently I said, "Well, why don't you get some items" -- you know, "I'11 get you some items. We'll get some items. You can repair these things," you know, various and sundry things. And so we accumulated a number of things, including cars and so on. And then I also had some friends that wanted to park their old cars there, and they forgot about them, so I got stuck with them. So we tried to clean up everything, and we ran into high water. We had a water problem out there, and we couldn't move around anything. The water was high. We also tried to contact the guy about removing the cars. His car wasn't -- his truck wasn't working right at the time, so we had a few delays in there. But by and large, we still accomplished it. What we should have asked for was an extension of time. Now, I'm still helping these people. I'm a humanitarian. I continue to help these people. And-- and, as a matter of fact, they have another homeless guy that wanted to live out there and basically wanted to do something, you know, out there too. So other than that, all I'm saying is we didn't -- I'm a good neighbor. My neighbors go through my property all the time with high water. I don't know where the original complaint came from because everybody considers me a good neighbor. I have no problems. And I'd like to also remind you that I'm in a very isolated area, dead-end road, doesn't have anything -- it doesn't harm anybody in any way, anything that we've done there. It's not like we've cut down trees or done anything that would harm the environment whatsoever. So we just accumulated a few too many flea market items. And, consequently, now I've inherited-- he has no way of making any money now and has four grown dogs. So I have to feed Page 78 March 28, 2002 his dogs, and I have to do a few things for him, which is okay and that. But I'd like to use the money on the homeless people rather than just be fined some, you know, arbitrary number there which I don't think -- in view of the work that I do all the time working with people that need help and that, it would just be a slap in my face. I think you're slapping the wrong guy, to really be honest with you. I don't think there would be any real justice out of the county getting $3,000 out of me, which I just got to mm around and take care of some other people with. So I just ask you to drop the fines, period, and let me continue my good work and-- and to help the county. It's somebody you don't have to take care of, the people I take care of. So other than that, I think you've pretty much accomplished your -- your aim of the fact that all I got to do now is build a building out there and put these things in it. The same things will be out there, but it'll just be in a building, you know. And, you know, so -- so I -- you know, so that's about it, really. I don't really have anything else to say. I'm working with the guys -- right now I'm presently working with the guys on crack and also one guy trying to kill hisself (sic), suicidal kind of-- type of guy, and others. So I consider myself a -- a person that's -- just like I said, I work with these people every day. I live around them and all that and try to help them. So I think you -- it would be a total injustice if you fine me. I really do. I think it would be. I think -- and I think my long record of-- of help that I've done to the community for years and years of service, being in the Air Force and the Army -- I've never been in front of this board before, and I never will be in front of the board again. I just ask you to drop the fines and -- and give somebody a break once in a while. You got any questions? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, sir. I will inform you that while your statements sure are appreciated, unfortunately until we impose a Page 79 March 28, 2002 fine, we can't do anything with it. MR. DAVIDSON: Oh, okay. I feel like the hatchet's coming, you know. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, the process is -- that's why it's administrative. We have to impose fines. If you'll -- and on our agenda later on, we have a section called "reduction in fines," which there is a process. You fill out a form and give us certain information, and you can ask us to reduce them. But until we impose them, we can't reduce them or waive them. MR. DAVIDSON: So I'm jumping the gun. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MR. DAVIDSON: But I just wanted to let you know the type of person I am. I rescue people along the highways. I do all kinds of-- I'm just the wrong guy. I mean, I received a silver medal from General Motors for my community service work. I don't know if I can cash that in today or not, but keep that in mind. Thanks a lot. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. Okay. Imposition of fines as the county requested on Mr. Davidson. MS. TAYLOR: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion to impose the fines as requested. Do I hear a second? MS. SAUNDERS: Second. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: imposition of fines. MS. ARNOLD: Those opposed? Case 2001-082, Bonnie Harrod, Yes. This case was heard by the board on Page 80 March 28, 2002 November 29th, 2001, and at that time the board found the respondent in violation of Section 4A of 91 -- I'm sorry--of 93-64; Sections 6, 7, and 8 of Ordinance 99-51, and that was for prohibited parking of recreational vehicles; prohibited outdoor storage of litter consisting of wood and plastic and metal, etc.; and the unlawful growing of vegetation in the right-of-way. The board ordered the respondent to come into compliance with all of the ordinances and sections cited within 14 days, and if not in compliance by that time period, a fine of $50 per day would be imposed. The board further ordered that the respondent pay all operational costs incurred. Staff is requesting that the board impose fines in the amount of $4,550 for a period reflecting December 14th, 2001, through March 15th, 2002. That's 91 days at an amount -- a rate of $50 per day, plus operational costs in the amount of $504.70, for a total fine of $5,054.70. As of-- MS. TAYLOR: So moved. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Go ahead, Michelle. MS. ARNOLD: I was going to indicate that the -- as of the last check, that this particular case still is not in compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion to impose fines as requested. Do I hear a second? MR. LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 2001-081. MS. ARNOLD: Those opposed? Mr. -- is it Occeus and Estiverne, Okay. That -- this case was heard by the board Page 81 March 28, 2002 on the 29th of November, 2001, at which time the respondents were found in violation of Section 1.5.6 of Ordinance 91-102. The violation was operation of an auto repair shop in a residentially zoned area. The board ordered the respondent to cease all operations of the repair business and pay operational costs. At this time staff is requesting that the board impose fines of $493.30 for the operational costs. MS. TAYLOR: So moved. MS. SAUNDERS: Second. MR. LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Dwyer, and Mr. Dwyer is a gentleman who asked to speak. MS. ARNOLD: This case was heard by the board on November 29th, 2001, and the respondent was found in violation of Section 104.6.1.2 of the Land Development Code for the existence of an abandoned construction with expired permits. The board ordered the respondent to correct the violations by obtaining a valid permit or removing the structure within 60 days; and if the respondent did not comply with that order, fines of $50 per day would be imposed. The respondent was further ordered to pay all operational costs. Staff is at this time requesting that the board impose fines in the amount of $1200 for the period reflecting January 29th, 2002, through February 21st, 2002, and operational costs of $528, not the amount stated in your executive summary, for a total of $1428.70 (sic). The board has on its agenda that this particular case is in compliance, and I just wanted to note that the respondent had actually Page 82 March 28, 2002 submitted for their building permit prior to the compliance date, so we'll probably have a request for a reduction of fines because the -- the time of issuance of-- the date was out of that respondent's control, and I think probably that's what he's got to offer to you-all today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Mr. Dwyer, you have three minutes, sir. MR. DWYER: Do I have to swear in? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, sir. Just have at it. MR. DWYER: The reason I didn't apply in time before the deadline for the permit, Mr. Ed Perico of the planning department said as long as I was in the computer, it-- it complied because the -- under the new rules, the board of health has to -- has to approve the drainage system, state board of health, before you can apply for a -- before you can get the permit. So I had to wait for him to approve the design plan, which I had made by an engineer, and he took over two weeks to do it. He said they were backlogged and so forth. But the -- the deadline was on the 28th, and I got the permit application here with the permit number on the -- January the 23rd. And this Ed Gillman (phonetic) of the state department of health, I told him about the deadline. He says, "Look,I don't know nothing about your building," except he -- this is the state board of health, and that's all he wanted to know. It took him 2 1/2 weeks to approve the design plan, which I paid 525 bucks for, and I've got all the papers. And then prior to that, the code department had me make the -- the building safe before I could apply for a permit, which was removing the old roof boards. And we did the whole thing rather than -- they said a third of them were bad. We did the whole roof. And then we had to get -- couldn't put the shingles down, the new shingles, until I had the permit. So that's been done up until now. But, I mean, it took about three or four weeks to get the -- the Page 83 March 28, 2002 building safe, what they called safe, in order to apply for the permit. Then when I applied for the permit, the board of health held it up. So I did everything I could to get it on time. I started working immediately after that date we were in here. I think it was in November 29th, wasn't it, something like that? But anyway, the board of health -- and the design field, after he looked at the -- the plan, I had to have a second plan with an update -- with a pump tank which is -- the first tank was 1100 gallons. The second plan had to be a pump tank with an elevated drain field. Seven thousand bucks that cost me. That -- that was just done this past weekend -- past week. And that -- that's because the old rules were one -- I think the design of the drainage field was 1 -- 1 foot above the road level. The new one has to be 3 feet above the road level. So I wound up with having to put stone in a 500-cubic-square- feet area plus 4 feet deep of this new type of perc sand, instead of a powdery sand, for-- for percolation of the fluids. So I -- I want the -- I did everything possible, and I was working all the time, and that's where it stands right now. You know, I've got the permit, but the five days' deadline there was because of the -- the state board of health had to approve it before I could even get the permit. And I've got all the papers if you want to see. The engineers CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, sir. We don't want to see them. I need to tell you what I told the other gentleman. The board needs -- this is administrative. We need to impose a fine. Then we have a process later on where you're allowed to request a reduction in fine. But until we oppose -- impose something, we can't reduce it or waive it. We must first impose it, so that's what we're here to do today. So this is all great information, but there's another time when you need to come back and ask us to do this. Page 84 March 28, 2002 MR. DWYER: How do I make the application for that, then? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Arnold can tell you how to do that. We have a process that you're supposed to go through. MR. LEHMANN: And, sir, this is not out of disrespect to you or anything. It's just following proper protocol, which is probably why the board had such a -- an even vote on whether to hear you speak or not, because typically this is just an administrative task. We need to get through this task before you can do what you really came here to do, which is ask that we waive that fine. That has to be at another date. MR. DWYER: I can understand it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think you've got good information to come back to us and ask us to do something. But there's a time to do that, and unfortunately, it's just not now. Thank you, sir. MS. DUSEK: Jean, I have a -- MR. LEHMANN: You're getting the cart in front of the horse a little bit. MS. DUSEK: I have a question to ask you. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. DUSEK: Do we ever make a change in this before we -- I mean, they're coming before -- MS. RAWSON: Have we ever not imposed fines before you imposed them? MS. DUSEK: At this process? MS. RAWSON: I don't think so. MS. DUSEK: Okay. MS. RAWSON: I think usually they come back and ask that you reduce them or abate them. MR. LEHMANN: Well, even the new rulings has a very specific -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. Our new-- Page 85 March 28, 2002 MR. LEHMANN: -- protocol about -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- rules and regulations are very specific. We went through all this. MS. RAWSON: Before you make your vote, could I have those numbers again? You said it's different from -- MS. ARNOLD: Yes. It's $1,200 for the fine amount, which is January 29th, 2002, through Janu-- through February 21st, 2002. And the operational costs are $528. MS. RAWSON: Thank you. MS. SAUNDERS: I understand the procedures. Is it possible for staff-- MS. ARNOLD: And 70 cents. MS. SAUNDERS: Is it possible for staff to change their request for the imposition of fines? In other words, there's -- there's -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. MS. SAUNDERS: -- mitigating circumstances? Staff cannot correct something that -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. Our order says you have to do something by a certain date, or a fine starts. Now, if you do it, then the fine doesn't start. Once the fine starts, we're obligated to impose the fine. And then after we impose it, we have the authority to do something about it. But you just can't arbitrarily say, "Oh, the order was issued, and now the -- now the county has circumstances, so we're not going to ask you to impose a fine." It doesn't work that way. They have to do what our order tells them to do, period. Then after we do that, we can then vote to change it, if we so desire. But we first must follow all the rules, you know. We said, "Do it by a certain date, or you get fined." That date came and went. We now must fine him. After we fine him, we then have the power to do something about the fine. Page 86 March 28, 2002 MR. LEHMANN: And this is a very regimented process. It is done to protect the rights of the respondent just as well. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Otherwise, why issue the order if you're just going to give the county the arbitrary authority to say, "Oh, that's okay. Your order didn't count"? That's not the process. MS. SAUNDERS: I'm just trying to find a way so the person doesn't have to come back again and go through the process again, out of respect for their time and energy. MS. TAYLOR: Well, they could have had it done in the time they were supposed to. Then all this would have been -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. There wouldn't be a fine. MR. LEHMANN: Under the current guidelines of how this board has to operate, they unfortunately don't have that option. They have to go through the proper steps. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a request from the county to impose a fine. MS. TAYLOR: So moved. MR. LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Mr. Lehmann has to leave. He has a commitment to attend. (Mr. Lehmann left the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Blocker, 2001-064. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. This case was heard by the board on July 16th, 2001, and the respondents were found in violation of Section 104.1.1 of 98-76 and ordered to obtain compliance by December 31 st, 2001. The particular violation was alterations to a structure Page 87 March 28, 2002 without first obtaining all required permits. The respondent was also ordered to pay operational costs, and if not in compliance by the-- the January 31st deadline, they would pay fines of $50 per day. Staff is requesting the board impose fines for $2,150 for a period reflecting February 1, 2002, through March 15th, 2002, and operational costs of $657.40, for a total cost of $2,807.40. To date the respondent is not in compliance. There is also a letter that was provided to you-all from Vince A. Cautero, who's the representative for the respondent, explaining some of the -- the things that the Blockers are intending to do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Again, good information on their behalf for something that can occur later. I'd entertain a motion to impose fines as requested by the county. MS. TAYLOR: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose fines as requested. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That finishes new business. Old business, affidavits of compliance. That's, again, an administrative procedure. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. We are requesting the filing of affidavits of compliance for three cases: Board of County Commissioners versus Gerald D. Davidson, Code Case 2001-007; Board of County -- is that me? (A discussion was held off the record.) MS. ARNOLD: Sorry. There's also a request for affidavit of compliance, Board of County Commissioners versus Sanan-- Saint-- whatever. Page 88 March 28, 2002 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think we get the message. MS. ARNOLD: It's Code Enforcement Board Case 2001-081. And, finally, Board of County Commissioners versus Gerald Martin Dwyer, Case 2001-083. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, do we have to make a motion on accepting the affidavits, or are they just submitted? MS. RAWSON: No. Not on the compliance ones. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's what I thought. Terrific. Affidavits of noncompliance? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. We have two. Board of County Commissioners versus Bonnie L. Harrod, Code Enforcement Board Case 2001-082. At last check February 14th, that case was still out of compliance. And the Board of County Commissioners versus Cleveland and Carolyn Blocker, 2001-064, and the last check of February 19th, that case was also out of compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And we just imposed fines on them, so the fines are still -- MS. ARNOLD: Accruing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. ARNOLD: Exactly. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- accruing. Okay. Next item is request for reduction in fines, Kramer -- I hope I say this right -- Angileri, and Grech. And I believe Mr. Kramer is here and Mr. Angileri. I hope I pronounced that right. Are you both here? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted -- I just wanted to note, we -- we do have a-- a formal application process, but because we hadn't formally executed the -- our rules and regulations, we haven't started implementing that process. But from today forward we will be doing that. Page 89 March 28, 2002 sir? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Who's first? And yourname, MR. KRAMER: My name is Wendell Kramer. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. KRAMER: And I was here and spoke to you on August 23rd, if you remember. I know it's difficult for you to remember all the things that we talked about because you have so many other cases. But at that time I tried my best to get you to give us a little more time. I wanted 120 days because I knew it would take longer than 60 days to get done the things that needed to be done, but you told me that we could come back later. If it took longer and fines were imposed, we could come back and explain to you why it took longer, so that's why we're here today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. KRAMER: We wouldn't be here today if a couple of other parties had done their job correctly to begin with. And the Racetrac was supposed to do these things correctly at the very beginning. They didn't, and the county inspector signed off on it and approved it. And, therefore, later on the violations came up, and somehow the Racetrac got themselves removed from this, and it got dumped on the owners. So I'm -- we had to go ahead and try to sort this thing all out and make the necessary corrections. Because the trees and shrubs were planted incorrectly, it took longer because it wasn't a matter of just replacing. We had to take those all out and replace with new -- new things. And so that's what we did. It took longer. But the main thing that -- that held us up the longest was that the water meter was in the Racetrac's name, because it was in their name because they were responsible for the watering of the trees for 90 days. When we had that meeting on August 23rd, I opened up a line of communication with Racetrac's attorney, and we thought we were Page 90 March 28, 2002 making progress because they asked us to give them estimates and all of this, and we thought they were going to possibly help us out in the cost of getting these things replaced. We went along for a while, of course, back and forth and finally came down -- a memo came down from headquarters saying that since the county was not holding them responsible, they didn't feel obligated to help out, so they dumped it on our lap. So we then had to proceed to try to get the water meter put in our name, and the attorney, again, said he would write a letter to the water department and get the necessary authorization to have that done. We waited and we waited and still didn't get any reply. We called him. He said, "I'll get on it right away" and all of this. Well, by that time the 60 days has already gone by. We had the next hearing on December 17th. We came to that meeting fully expecting to explain to you why the delays, but we weren't allowed to speak. For some reason, we just -- we weren't given permission to speak. And so we left that meeting feeling pretty bummed out because we were being fined $50 a day, and we didn't even have the water meter. We couldn't plant anything because we had no way to water them. So my partner and I went down to the water department and explained to them the situation. And they looked on their computer, and they checked all their files and find that there was no record of receiving any letters or any correspondence authorizing them to change the meter. We went and got a copy of the letter, took it to the water department, got them then finally to put the meter in our name, and that's when we begin to plant. Two days later we planted a hedge along the wall. Before that time, however-- before -- before that time we did some other things. We didn't just sit back. We had a meeting with three of the staff members, Alex and Michelle Arnold and Allen. We Page 91 March 28, 2002 had the meeting down at the property on December 10th. We had them down there because we wanted to get their input on what we could do to do this right. We didn't just want to replace things, but we wanted to make sure that we did it right. They were very helpful. Alex was very helpful. She gave me information about native plants and so forth and what we could put there that would be more -- what they had put there before was not the right type of plant. They were - - they didn't do well out of sunlight and so forth, so we didn't want to replace it with the same thing. She gave me the information of what we could plant that would be appropriate for that particular setting, and that's what we did. We followed her directions on that, and we put those in and called in after we had that done. We also had -- got the water meter. We had to have that checked out by Collier irrigation people, come down and go through it. It was broken lines. It was a mess. They had to go through the whole system. They finally got it working. We planted the hedge, and we called in for an inspection, only to find that Allen was on vacation, wouldn't be back until after Christmas. Well, we're being fined $50 a day. So Alex was nice enough to come down and inspect it, and she said that it looked all right. And we -- Michelle Arnold also had-- we had made a call to her later on, and she had said that as far as she knew, everything was okay. We waited to get some kind of a letter or something telling us that -- of what -- the outcome of that inspection, but we didn't get anything. We didn't get anything. We waited. Finally I decided to call in. I called Allen Kennette, who was the person who started all this. And he says, "Oh, I'm no longer involved with this. It's been turned over to the attorney." And I said, "Attorney? Why didn't you let us know something? We would have -- we want to do what's right." So anyway, I started communicating then with Janet Powers, the attorney, and she told me what I needed to do. Page 92 March 28, 2002 Some of the trees that -- that needed to be replaced were in -- dormant. They were red maple, and they looked like they were dead. We were afraid -- we didn't want to take them out because we didn't know if they were or weren't. And it's a good thing we didn't because most of them are coming back now. That was -- there's so many dates, it's hard for me to give you all the dates on it. But anyway, we -- we finally found out that -- that we had to also hydro seed. That was never mentioned in the original violation papers. There was nothing said about hydro seeding, but then that finally came up. So I had to find a guy that did -- there's only one in this area that does that, and his equipment was broke down, and his truck was in the shop. We finally got him to do it. I finally got a guy to come out and plant 16 more trees. We went overboard. We went more than what we needed, but we did that because we wanted to make sure if any of the other ones die, we wouldn't be out of compliance again, and so we did that. And the day that we had the hydro seeding done, I called in for an inspection, and they sent Allen down to inspect it. And he said we were in compliance, so I guess we're in compliance, as far as I know. I have not received any kind of notice that we are in compliance. I didn't even receive a notice of this meeting. If I hadn't have called in and asked -- so it's like there's a lack of communication going on between somewhere. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let me ask you a couple questions. First question is, what are you asking this board to do? MR. KRAMER: I'm asking you to reduce our fines and possibly drop them all together. We -- we feel like we have been penalized enough, because this was not our responsibility to begin with. This was something that was done wrong by a party that was ordered to do it by the county commissioners on the PUD. The Racetrac was ordered to do it before they could open up. The county Page 93 March 28, 2002 inspector, Ron Nino, signed off on it, came in, and approved it. And these violations then show up later, and they come back to us to -- the owners, when we weren't responsible. They were responsible to do it. So we feel like we're being penalized for what a county com -- what the -- a county inspector did, not do his job properly. And then we've been -- we've had to go in and replace all this stuff. It -- it was a great expense, and now we're -- fines on top of it is like a slap in the face. We feel like we've been penalized enough. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. A couple points need to be cleared up. I remember when you were here before, and you weren't allowed to speak. And that reason was we hadn't imposed anything yet. Just like these two gentlemen we let speak today, there's nothing we can do for them until we impose the fine, and that's why you weren't allowed to speak last time. We hadn't done anything. Until a fine is imposed, then you can come back, like you're doing now, and asking us to do something. That's what happened then. I remember that. MR. KRAMER: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Secondly, you three gentlemen were picked. You were the owners of the property. The owners of the property are responsible. That you and Racetrac and whatever didn't work out, I remember the case, and we talked about it then. You're the owners. You're responsible. The buck stops with the owners, so that's why you were cited. MR. KRAMER: I understand that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now, you just said a little bit ago that you were asked to hydro seed, and you were never told that. Our order that was issued back in August states replacing the dead vegetation, comma, hydro seed the retention area. So it shouldn't be any surprise. Sorry. That excuse doesn't work with me when you Page 94 March 28, 2002 said you weren't told. MR. KRAMER: No. I -- I have it right here, and if you can find it on my thing, I'd be happy to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What our order says -- this is like an order from a judge. You need to do what we tell you to do. What they told you to do in the beginning, once they bring it here, they don't count. We count. MR. KRAMER: All right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay? MR. KRAMER: I understand that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And we told you to hydroseed, so that excuse, unfortunately, isn't going to work with me. MS. ARNOLD: And I'd like to correct the record too. I met personally with these gentlemen on the property with Alex Sulecki and Allen Kennette, and we told them all of the things that you ordered them to do on that occasion as well. So ... CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So just so we -- everybody understands, and we can keep the playing field level. I mean, I don't mind trying to help people, but everything's got to be -- MR. KRAMER: Well, I apologize if I overlooked that. I didn't -- I was -- I was referring more to the papers that were sent in the original thing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. You need to pay attention to the order of the board because that's -- unfortunately, I guess the easiest way to put it, that's the law. Once we issue that order, what they told you in that little piece of paper doesn't count anymore. You need to do what we told you to do. Okay? So now that you and I are square, do you have anything else to tell us? And we'll let your partner get up and tell us something too. Do you not want to tell us anything, sir? MR. KRAMER: Unless you have questions about anything. I Page 95 March 28, 2002 just -- we just feel like that this was a situation where we were -- it was dumped on us. We realize we're the owners. But at the same time it would be sort of like if you had a house built by a contractor, and it was inspected by an electrician, and then later -- six months later you found out the electricity was bum. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, I think you -- didn't you say in the beginning that the 60 days time we gave you, you felt, was insufficient and that if you had it, like -- did you say an additional 60? I can't remember. MR. KRAMER: Well, I tried-- I tried to get 120 days. I wanted longer than that because it took -- it took over 60 days just to get the water meter put in our names. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. KRAMER: Once Racetrac realized they weren't going to be responsible, they didn't really care to help us. That's just -- that's plain and simple. We tried through letters and telephone to get authorization to get that water meter put in our name, because we -- we could not plant -- it would be ridiculous to plant a hedge and not have the ability to water it. We didn't want that. We had to get that first. So that's what held us up until -- the second meeting, December 17th, when we came to that meeting, we were going to, like, explain to you that so we could get additional time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any questions for Mr. Kramer? Thank you, sir. MS. DUSEK: I -- having listened to Mr. Kramer, except for that one discrepancy about what you were required to do, it sounds as though you did move along from the very beginning. And I know it isn't always easy to get things accomplished when you have to depend on other people. Michelle, do you feel these people have worked diligently to come into compliance within the -- a reasonable time frame? Page 96 March 28, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: I -- I'm not aware of any of the delays that they're speaking about with respect to the changing over of the service. But I know that my staff has been out there a couple times after your order, and we had been communicating with them explaining to them exactly what they needed to do. And each time that we went out there and they weren't in compliance, we communicated that to -- to staff. I'm not aware of all of the -- the things that -- that were noted today so... MS. DUSEK: Alex, I have a question for you. You went out there and inspected the property at one point. And he said that, if I remember correctly, you felt that he was in compliance at that time? INVESTIGATOR SULECKI: No, ma'am. I did not say he was in compliance. What I did was while Allen was on vacation around Christmas, he had planted some material, and I went out to make an inspection of what he planted. At that time I did not have the case file or the plans, so I didn't go any further than looking at what he had out there and making a record of it for Allen when he returned. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any recommendation from the board on to reduce or not to reduce? MS. DUSEK: I'm inclined to reduce the fines. I just haven't figured out exactly what that should be but... MS. SAUNDERS: I -- I agree with you. And actually, I'm inclined to waive the fines except for the operational costs. I do recall this case. I think they got caught in a legal situation that we weren't able to fix and anybody else wasn't. If-- if our objective is to bring people into compliance rather than raise money for the county, I think we've tried -- we've done that. Yes. Maybe it look a little bit longer than I would have liked it to, but I do think they tried. So my recommendation would be simply to ask them to pay the operational costs, which is a penalty, but I think it's a fair one. MS. DUSEK: Is that a motion? Page 97 March 28, 2002 MS. SAUNDERS: I'll move that. So moved. MS. DUSEK: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to waive the fine but maintain the operational costs incurred. All those in favor signify by saying say. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MS. CURATOLO: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? MS. TAYLOR: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. 3 to 2. Okay. Sir, the fine's been waived. You will pay the operational costs. It looks like $928.06. Is that correct, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next one is Iglesias. You can come forward, sir. All right, sir. Who wants to speak? THE INTERPRETER: Sir, I am here as a translator. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, okay. That's fine. (A discussion was held off the record.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You need to tell us what he wants to tell us. You want to tell us, sir, why you want us to do something? THE INTERPRETER: He thanks the board for giving him the opportunity to speak and to reduce the fine. He said he admitted he made an error when he cleaned his land. He just acquired land. He went ahead and cleaned a little bit of-- part of it. He wasn't aware that he needed a permit to do so, and he now comes to you for reducing the fine, which he has been notified. MS. ARNOLD: For the board's information, there is an executive summary that kind of walks you through the whole process and what happened. And at the time that the board heard this case, there wasn't the ability to correct the violation the way he's done so, Page 98 March 28, 2002 and we're in agreement with his request. The respondent is offering to pay $870, which is equivalent to the corrective action, so to speak, that -- he's actually paid it already. MS. SAUNDERS: And you're also saying something about also paying the prosecution costs? Are you suggesting that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He's paid the 870, and he's willing to pay, as you say here, the operational costs also? MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. Okay. Which is the 1155.20. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: the 870, plus the 1155.207 So the county would be satisfied with MS. ARNOLD: That's right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we go -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Tell him to -- thank you, and he can sit down, and we're going to make a decision. We understand him, and the county has recommended that we help him. You can sit down, sir. Thank you. We understand. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we waive the fines, except he has already paid the 870, and that he pay the operational costs of 1155.20. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson, to be correct, since he's paid a piece of a fine, in changing our order, I guess what we need to say is we need to reduce the fine to the 870 amount plus the operational costs. MS. RAWSON: He's paid 870. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 870. So we need to reduce the seventeen -- MS. RAWSON: By 870. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- down to 870, because the board is Page 99 March 28, 2002 going to rec -- is going to recommend waiving everything but the 870 plus the operational. MS. DUSEK: Right. So CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. DUSEK: -- the fine CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. DUSEK: -- plus the CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: would be it. I need to, instead of waive, reduce -- Reduce the fine to -- to 870-- Plus -- operational costs of 1155.20. Right. And that's -- and then that MS. SAUNDERS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does everybody understand on the board? Okay. We have a motion to reduce the fine as stated. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right. We've reduced the fine, sir, to the 870 he has paid; plus he still owes $1,155.20. Okay? All right, sir. That concludes old business. We're down to reports, and we have a report from Ms. Chadwell. MS. CHADWELL: Good morning -- or good afternoon, I should say. I assume in the agenda package you did get a copy of a -- a memorandum from my office. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. CHADWELL: Okay. And there is a listing attached to that with the current status of the cases in our office. I don't know what all there is to say. We have currently seven of these matters pending in foreclosure. The Keiser case, which I don't know if you-all are familiar with that -- that's an old one; it's been abated for almost 18 months now -- we finally got a mandate and a ruling from the Page 100 March 28, 2002 appellate court, so we will be reviewing that and proceeding likely with foreclosure on -- on that one. But I'll be reporting back to Michelle on that with my evaluation as to whether we should go forward with foreclosure. MS. ARNOLD: And by "abated," you mean the case in the courts have been abated. MS. CHADWELL: It was -- by "abated," I mean I put it on hold, basically. The prosecution with foreclosure, I put it on hold until we got a ruling from the appellate court. So now that that's all been resolved, we can go forward, I think, appropriately with foreclosure. I just need to look over -- maybe have a title commitment performed and see what -- if it's recommended that we do foreclose on it. I -- I can't imagine that we probably wouldn't, but right now we're reviewing that, and we'll make a recommendation to Michelle as to whether she decides to go forward or not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm just curious about the Robinson one. MS. CHADWELL: That was -- yeah. We didn't initiate that foreclosure. No action has happened on that for over a year. I don't know if the -- the bank foreclosed on the property, so we -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But my question was going to be, does that fall into -- was that a case before we got moved up in our position? So even though if the bank forecloses, is the county still in a good position, or are we going to get left out? MS. CHADWELL: The county will only recover if-- if there's a surplus. So if the bank-- if the property goes for sale and there's a surplus over what is owing on the mortgage, then we'll be next in line for some of that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So this happened before we had our position changed by the -- Page 101 March 28, 2002 MS. CHADWELL: We have no superpriority on this one. And it -- usually when these cases sit out there without any action, there's something going on behind the scenes where the bank is trying to work with the property owner. So it may very well be that the case is dismissed, and then we're back to filing our own foreclosure suit, but that's how those go. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Good. MS. CHADWELL: I'll entertain any questions if anyone has any. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. I'm -- I'm excited that the county is moving forward. I think you guys have done a great job in trying to collect all these things that have been laying out there. MS. CHADWELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other reports? I don't see any. Next item will be our election, which we moved down, as our annual meeting, which takes place in March. This is the time when we elect a new chair and new vice-chair. I would like to place our vice-chair's name, Mr. Lehmann, in the position of chair. And I understand from Jean I can do that even though he's not here, because he agreed to accept it. MS. RAWSON: Yes, you can. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm not trying to get him because he's gone. Are there any other nominations besides Mr. Lehmann? All those in favor of making Mr. Lehmann chair signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. SAUNDERS: Those opposed? Terrific. Vice-chair. I'd like to nominate Bobby Dusek. Page 102 March 28, 2002 MS. TAYLOR: I would like to nominate Cliff Flegal. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. This happened once before. I hate to do this part of it, but anyway, a process is a process. Everybody has their own way of-- we have two names. So we don't get the ayes and nays, I'll have to ask everybody to raise their hand, please, to make it official. All those in favor of Ms. Dusek being vice-chairman signify by raising their hand, please. (Ms. Saunders, Ms. Dusek, and Ms. Curatolo raised their hands.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good. need to go on. All those opposed? (No hands were raised.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good. vice-chair. I think that's great. MS. ARNOLD: here but We have three votes. We don't We have a new chair and a new Congratulation to both; Mr. Lehmann's not MS. SAUNDERS: I'd personally like to thank Cliff, who I think has done a fabulous job for a long time. MS. DUSEK: He certainly has. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I appreciate it greatly. I'm glad to do whatever I can for the board and the county, and I have a great group on the board. The board only works because of the people. It doesn't work with one or two. It takes everybody. MS. DUSEK: Well, we've had strong leadership. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There is another section, but since we have a -- a new vice-chair, you can continue on. MS. DUSEK: Oh, what am I supposed to do? MS. ARNOLD: Actually, before we adjourn I need to get some dates. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we have some -- we didn't do the comment section yet. Page 103 March 28, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And I think there's probably a comment or two. You have three items. You have comments, the next meeting, and adjournment. MS. DUSEK: All right. Are there any comments? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would like to ask the question, if I might. We were scheduled to have a workshop, and that got canceled. I think the reason that was given to me over the phone was something about notice. And I'm curious because we brought up in our February meeting that we were going to have a workshop, so there was almost a month to get notice out. Why didn't that occur? MS. ARNOLD: Well, we didn't have the actual date that was mentioned in the meeting. I -- that's my recollection. And when I talked to the county attorney's office, unless we had specifically said the date and put in a week's notice prior to the meeting, there wasn't sufficient notice given to the public. We did not put a notice up. There's no excuse. It was, you know, a miss -- something that was missed on my department's point. It should have -- it should have been notified. There's no excuse. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Because when it happened I went back and looked in my notes, and then when I got the minutes, I looked too. And on page 42 and 43, the date of the 25th was picked, SO -- MS. ARNOLD: Oh, was it? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- back then in the meeting, we announced a date. That's why I didn't understand where the problem came from. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. Well, I thought that we didn't specify the date. Had -- had I done a thorough job of checking that, we could have proceeded. Page 104 March 28, 2002 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I was just curious. MS. ARNOLD: But I didn't think that we said that date. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Because we needed a -- we need a workshop, and I was just curious as to why, once we got everybody to agree, it didn't occur. So you've answered my question. Thank you. MS. DUSEK: Shall we set a date now for another one? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we've got a lot of people absent, so I think that's probably hard to do, because Mr. Ponte's absent. Peter's now absent, who is your chairman, and -- MS. TAYLOR: Katherine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- Katherine is absent. MS. ARNOLD: Well, if we can get some dates, at least I could look at availability of-- of the location for those dates. MS. DUSEK: And then would you be able to contact each of the parties -- MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MS. DUSEK: -- and see what the majority feels? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean how is your schedule? I'm not trying to jump in, but she's very important to us. MS. RAWSON: Because I want to be on the program. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. RAWSON: Well, I guess it depends on what day we're looking at. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Plus you'll have to check with the county attorney's office, won't you -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- just to make sure that they're available? Because they're a major -- MS. ARNOLD: They're another part of the program as well. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- part of it so -- Page 105 March 28, 2002 MS. RAWSON: MS. ARNOLD: MS. RAWSON: MS. ARNOLD: We're talking about April; right? Yes. That's next week. We can -- we can try again for the Monday prior to the board meeting, which -- I don't know what everybody's Monday's look like. MS. SAUNDERS: Which would be the 22nd. Monday's a good day for me. The 22nd, trial docket sounding. Probably the MS. TAYLOR: MS. RAWSON: would work. 15th CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does that give anybody a problem? Because that's also IRS day. MS. SA UNDERS: It's also Tourist Development Council day, and they're going all day. MS. RAWSON: It's too late for the IRS by then. MS. DUSEK: What about the 23rd? How -- that's a Tuesday? Is that too much before our meeting? MS. ARNOLD: Tuesdays for me are bad because it's the Board of County Commissioners day. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, that's county commissioners meeting. Plus I think it might squeeze some people who are trying to read up and get ready. MS. SAUNDERS: If we do the 15th in the morning and it ends by 11 or 11:30 or something like that, I can do that, because my other meeting doesn't start until two. Just give me an hour for relaxing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's a Monday. MS. CURATOLO: Better. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: How's that for -- MS. TAYLOR: The 23rd, did you say? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. The 15th. MS. TAYLOR: That's a Monday? That's good. Page 106 March 28, 2002 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, how does that work for you? MS. RAWSON: The 15th is fine. I'm also available on the 18th. MS. SAUNDERS: I'm not. MS. DUSEK: And, Michelle, you'll check with the county attorney? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MS. DUSEK: Okay. So there are five of us now that can come and -- MS. SAUNDERS: In the morning, Michelle, please. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Nine o'clock. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Tentatively. MS. TAYLOR: At the library again? MS. ARNOLD: I'm going to try to get it there. MS. TAYLOR: Oh, shoot. Can't you get it closer out here? I'm That's a long way. At that time in the morning up Airport? spoiled. MS. DUSEK: You can do it once, Diane. MS. TAYLOR: Yeah, I guess I can. MS. DUSEK: Okay. Are there any other comments? All right. The next meeting, April 25th at nine o'clock. And now we just need to adjourn this meeting. Do I hear a motion? MS. TAYLOR: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would second. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Vice-Chair at 12:37 p.m. Page 107 March 28, 2002 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA DRESCHER, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 108