Loading...
CEB Minutes 04/25/2002 RApril 25, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, April 25, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the North Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIRMAN: PETER LEHMANN ROBERTA DUSEK CLIFFORD FLEGAL GEORGE PONTE RHONA SAUNDERS ABSENT: KATHRYN M. GODFREY-LINT KATHLEEN CURATOLO ALSO PRESENT: M. JEAN RAWSON, Attorney for Board JENNIFER BELPEDIO, Asst. Cnty Atty. MICHELLE ARNOLD, Code Enforcement Director PATTI PETRULLI, Code Enforcement Supervisor Page 1 CODE m. NFORCEp~.NT BOARD OF COLLI~.'R COU~Tf, FLORI~ AGENDA Date: April 25, 2002 at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Location: 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 - March 28, 2002 MINUTES 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BCC vs. LLOYD L.BOWEIN B. BCC vs. STANLEY W. and KARLA M. WHITE C. BCC vs. JOE DIMASSIMO SR. D. BCC vs. JACK W. and ELMA MAE BARRS E. BCC vs. DAVID J. and GENA P. WOLFLEY / NEW BUSINESS Request for Imposition of Fines/Lien A. BCC vs. ANNA ROSA AVALOS B. REQUEST FOR MOTION TO MODIFY ORDER BCC VS. A.L. DOUGHERTY COMPANY INC. CEB NO. 2002-003 CEB NO. 2002-006 CEB NO. 2002-007 CEB NO. 2002-008 CEB NO. 2001-009 CEB NO. IM2001-01 CEB NO. 2001-061 OLD BUSINESS Affidavits of Compliance A. BCC vs. ENRIQUE IGLESIAS B. BCC vs. ANNA ROSA AVALOS Affidavits of Non Compliance 8. REPORTS CEB NO. 2001-037 CEB NO. IM2001-01 i0..NEXT MEETING DATE, MAY 23, 2002 ADJOURN April 25, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Call the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County to order. Please note any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. Roll call, please. MS. PETRULLI: For the record, Patti Petrulli, Code Enforcement Supervisor. Peter Lehmann. CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Present. MS. PETRULLI: Roberta Dusek. MS. DUSEK: Here. MS. PETRULLI: Clifford Flegal. MR. FLEGAL: Present. MS. PETRULLI: George P. Ponte. MR. PONTE: George Ponte, here. MS. PETRULLI: Rhona Saunders. MS. SAUNDERS: Here. MS. PETRULLI: Kathleen Curatolo. (No response.) MS. PETRULLI: Show Kathleen absent today. And Miss Godfrey has an excused absence. She did call in. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. We have a permanent member missing today -- I take that back. There are no alternates. May we have an approval of the agenda, please, or reading of the agenda? MS. ARNOLD' For the record, Michelle Arnold, code Page 2 April 25, 2002 enforcement director. I do have a modification to the agenda. We are removing Item 5-E, Board of County Commissioners versus David J. and Gena P. Wolfley. And I'd like to add an item to the agenda for comment to discuss Board Member Kathryn Godfrey-Lint and her request for a leave of absence. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Entertain a motion to approve the agenda as revised? MR. PONTE: So moved. MR. FLEGAL: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: (No response.) Any opposed? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The agenda is approved. Thank you. We move on to the approval of the minutes, please. MS. DUSEK: I only have one minor comment, and that is on page 102. The spelling of my name is i-e instead of y. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All right. I'd like to have an approval of the minutes, please. MR. FLEGAL: I make a motion we approve the minutes as changed. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed? Page 3 April 25, 2002 (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The motion passes. Minutes approved. Thank you. Before we go to the opening of public hearings, I'd like to congratulate Miss Bobbie Dusek and welcome her as our new vice chairman to the board. Congrats, Bobbie, and also pass on my appreciation to the board members for placing me in the position of chairman. I hope I can live up to the expectations that Cliff has -- has led us to. If we can move on to the public hearings, please. Patti, would you proceed? MS. PETRULLI: Yes. Our first case is Case No. 2002-003, Board of County Commissioners versus Lloyd L. Bowein. For the record I would like to ask if Mr. Bowein is present today. MR. BOWEIN: Yes. MS. PETRULLI: And let the record show he is present. The alleged violation is of Section 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance No. 91-102 of the Ordinance 98-76 of the Collier County Land Development Code. We have removed the 104.1 subsection that you have there and crossed that out because of a revision to the ordinance. MS. DUSEK: Section 105 remains? MS. ARNOLD: Actually, 104 and 105 were both taken out. MS. PETRULLI: We have provided the board and the respondent with a packet. I would like to request at this time that the packet be admitted into evidence and marked as Composite Exhibit A. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the Exhibit A from the county. MS. SAUNDERS: Second. MS. ARNOLD: We need to ask the respondent if--. MR. FLEGAL: That was taken out of our rules and Page 4 April 25, 2002 regulations. We don't need their approval. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The vote passes. Thank you. MS. PETRULLI: The description of the violation is placement of fill on site without obtaining building permits. Location and address where the violation exists is 870 8th Court East, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 0000062521560009 and 62521520007, Naples Park, No. 1, Replat Blocks 4 and 5, Lot 49 and Lot 48. Name and address of the owner of the person in charge of the location where the violation exists is Mr. Lloyd L. Bowein, 10021 Gulfshore Drive, Naples Florida, 34108-0000. The date the violation was first observed was October 4th of 2001. A notice of violation was given on October 25th of 2001. The violation was to have been corrected by November 11 th of 2001. A reinspection was done on November 19th of 2002, and the results of the inspection are that the violations remain. At this time I would like to have Mr. Shawn Luedtke, the investigator for the case, come forward to present the case for the county. (The oath was administered.) MR. LUEDTKE: For the record, Shawn Luedtke, Collier County code enforcement investigator. This complaint came in on October 4th as just a weeds complaint. There was two lots overgrown with weeds. I checked the lot. They're two unimproved lots on 8th Court, which is in Naples Page 5 April 25, 2002 Park area. I took a look at it. The weeds were already 10 inches, about 20 inches. So I sent a standard weed letter requiring the owner to abate the violation and get the weeds cut and maintain the lot. On October 25th I went ahead and rechecked the lot to ensure that the weeds had been cut, and the lots had been completely filled with large amounts of fill, dirt, and leveled off. I researched the property to see if any permits had been attained for that and was unable to locate any. So I mailed a notice of violation on October 25th giving him till November 12th to get permits or remove the fill. On November 19th I did a recheck. The violation remained. I still had no contact with the owner, so we went ahead and mailed the CEB warning letter. At that time no permits had been obtained, and the fill remained. On December 3rd we received a let -- Mr. Bowein contacted my supervisor and advised her that permits had been obtained. I was still unable to find those permits, researched the property, and CD Plus and permits. I ran it by address, by name, couldn't find anything. So I called and left a message for Mr. Bowein to call me back. On December 10th I observed the violation remained, still unable to find any permits, left a message for Mr. Bowein to call me back with those permit numbers or we would process it for a hearing. On the 12th I received a copy of a letter from one of our senior engineers, Stan Kranowski (sic), denying a request Mr. Bowein had - - had submitted for a clear-and-fill permit. So at that time we went ahead and processed the case for CEB hearing. Since the case first came to us on October 25th, as far as the fill, we received numerous complaints from adjoint 7-Eleven -- and there's two improved properties on both sides of this unimproved property -- about the dirt blowing out into the road, about dirt blowing onto their properties. So we received a lot of complaints Page 6 April 25, 2002 over the last couple of months about this property. And as of yesterday the violation remains, still no permits, and fill was still on the lot. MS. DUSEK: Do you know why the permit was denied? MR. LUEDTKE' The letter we have from Mr. Stan Kranowski, which was the senior engineer, states, (as read): "We have reviewed your application for vegetation removal and site filling permit and, based upon lack of substantial evidence that the work was done for reason of public health, safety, and welfare, are denying the application." And that's all the reason that Mr. Kranowski gave. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other questions from the board? MR. FLEGAL: contact the -- end? Mr. Luedtke, you've made several attempts to MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, sir. MR. FLEGAL' -- Mr. Bowein and never any response from his MR. LUEDTKE: He did contact my supervisor on one occasion which was December 3rd, but basically that was it. MR. FLEGAL. Yeah. But since December 3rd you've tried, and he's not-- MR. LUEDTKE: Exactly, yes, sir. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. MS. SAUNDERS: Are we to possibly conclude, sir, that permit for -- after-the-fact permit for the fill, then, would not be -- probably not be granted, has not been granted? And there didn't seem to be any opening for going back and correcting that part of it? MR. LUEDTKE: The openings that I think they have is they can either remove the fill, they can apply for a building -- or a permit, or try to obtain a variance for the fill that's on site. I think those are Page 7 April 25, 2002 the options open. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. Thank you. MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other questions from the investigator? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. Mr. Bowein, do you have anything you'd like to say? (The oath was administered.) MR. BOWEIN: Just a couple comments: One thing is every time Mr. Luedtke called me, I call him back. And generally I have to leave a dozen messages before I get back -- before he gets back to me. So I don't want him saying I didn't call him or contact him. Number 2 is, I never told him there was a permit issued. I told him that I had talked to that Mr. Kranowski (sic), and I talked to his supervisor several times about, you know, what I need to do to get a permit, okay. So I just want to clear that up. Now, before I put that fill in, I reviewed that statute, and I, you know, put a search on your website and searched fill. And there was nothing in there that said there was any requirement for a permit for fill, okay, even in -- now that you've knocked out those other two, just the one, there's nothing in there that says you need a permit for fill. There was no improvement done. They got on my case to mow it, so I mowed it, and I put the fill in. The reason I put the fill in is I intend to build a house on it. These are preliminary plans here. But I wanted to put the fill in ahead of time to let it compact down through the rainy season and so forth. if you fill on That's why I put it in. But I can't find anywhere -- you know, can point out to me in the ordinance where it prohibits putting property, I would -- I would like to see that. Page 8 April 25, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Bowein, let me draw your attention to Ordinance 91-02, Section 2.7.6.5. Do you have your package? MR. BOWEIN: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Page 15? And improvement to property prohibited prior to issuance of a building permit; no site work, meaning fill; removal of protective vegetation; grading, possibly meaning fill; or improvement of property or construction of any type, again, meaning fill. MR. BOWEIN: Okay. Well, again-- again, I disagree with the site work. I mean, fill is just dirt. I mean, it did not improve the property. It just -- I put fill in, like I say, to get it to compact down, and I did do a search, like I say, of your website with the -- and they did -- they do reference specifically fill in your ordinance in reference to stockpiling in a subdivision. You need a permit for that. But there were no other hits on fill in terms of requiring a permit. Okay. Well, I guess that's subject to interpretation. But the bottom line is, if I remove the fill, I've got to put it somewhere, which means I've got to put it on another lot that, again, I would need a permit for. So what do I do? And I haven't had any complaints from my neighbor. I'm going to -- if he can let me know who complained, and I'll go talk to them. If there's some process I can do to keep the fill from blowing around, I'll be happy to do that. But I just don't think it's practical to remove the fill at this point. I mean, I have nowhere to put it. And, like I say, I do plan -- I am planning on building a house there within the year. MR. PONTE: The fill has been there for how long, and how long do you intend to keep it there? MR. BOWEIN: Well, the fill, I believe, was put in around Page 9 April 25, 2002 October, because that's pretty much when he saw it because he saw it just before that with the vegetation thing which I then had mowed down. Like I say, I've got plans now. And the architects and everybody in town were so backed up on all this, you know, the code change, so they were doing all their -- their work to get plans in before that deadline, and the code changed. So now they're going back and they're catching up on their other work. I have an appointment with the -- with the architect, I think, next month. It's mainly for my mom, so she's going to go down there and make some changes. But I would say we would be building a house there within six months. MR. PONTE: It would be -- it would have been in this raw state for almost a year. MR. BOWEIN: I may go faster. I mean, some other-- I would have already started building except some other financial things came up that prevented me from pursuing it. MR. PONTE: Before -- I just want to point out one other thing. If we look at the -- the way this is written, it simply says improvement of property prohibited prior to issuance of building permits. No site work may be commenced prior to the issuance of a permit. MR. BOWEIN: Well, when I -- MR. PONTE: That's the law. MR. BOWEIN: When I was searching, I was searching for the word "fill and dirt." So I didn't hit on that particular section of the ordinance. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Bowein, at any time did you discuss with the county Ordinance 91-102, that particular section, 2.7.6.5? Did they explain that to you that that was the violation, that you're not allowed to do the site work? Page 10 April 25, 2002 MR. BOWEIN: The main ordinance that they pointed out to me and hit on was that 104 -- 104.1.5.1. That was the main one. MS. DUSEK: Did they at any point tell you that you were not allowed to do site work without a permit ? MR. BOWEIN: They did with this package, yes. That-- that-- that item is in this package. So when I got this package, that's -- and I believe on the original complaint -- hold on just a minute. I mean, the original violation sheet, I believe that ordinance was checked off. MS. DUSEK: So did they speak to you about this ordinance, the fact that you could not do site work without a permit at any time? Did you have a discussion with the inspector, with anyone from the Code Enforcement Board, planning board, anyone? MR. BOWEIN: I'm looking at my notice of violation, and I don't see that Ordinance 92 -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: If you look at page 12, the second item listed. MR. BOWE1N: Oh, 10 -- huh? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Page 12 of the evidence package, the second item listed on the left. MR. BOWEIN: Okay. Okay. So that's part of 92. Oh, yeah, 91 -- yes, that's correct. MR. FLEGAL: And on the right side --. MR. BOWEIN: No site work, okay. It says the placement of fill on site without building permits obtained. MR. FLEGAL: Pretty specific words. MR. BOWEIN: Right, uh-huh. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: And they did, by -- by evidence right here, they did notify you. MR. BOWEIN: Oh, yeah, they notified me. Page 11 April 25, 2002 MS. DUSEK: And they explained to you that you were not allowed to do this without a permit. Did they talk to you about what your alternatives are? MR. BOWEIN: I talked to her supervisor, and she told me to talk to this Mr. Kranowski. Then I went through their procedure for applying for a permit, and then that was the letter he got back denying that permit. So I followed their instructions. His supervisor was very cooperative, and we tried to work it out, but there's nothing we can do. I mean, I don't know what else to do other than proceed to -- to get a building permit, you know, as soon as I can financially go forward with the project which I say should be within six months. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Luedtke, can I ask you a question? MR. LUEDTKE: Yes. MS. DUSEK: Did you explain to Mr. Bowein what his alternatives are since the building permit was denied or the fill permit, whichever one that was that was denied? MR. BOWEIN: Or the supervisor. MR. LUEDTKE: Yeah. December 13th was when the-- I got the letter that the -- that the permit had been denied or -- yeah, the request had been denied. And I personally hadn't speak -- hadn't spoke with him. But there is a paragraph in here that says possible options would be removal of the fill, submittal of a building permit application, or request for a variance to allow placement of fill. And that letter is dated December 13, and those are his options. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So, Mr. Bowein, at this point in time you do not have a permit. MR. BOWEIN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: You intend to build a home. MR. BOWEIN: Yes. Page 12 April 25, 2002 that. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And one of your options is to obtain the permit for the home which would allow you to then utilize the fill that's on site. MR. BOWEIN: Right. Or go -- request for the variance. I'm not sure what that process is or how much that would cost. I assume that -- I could pursue something along those lines. But I'm curious because I know like on 11 1 th, there's like -- because I noticed this before, there's like three lots there that have been filled for some time and I don't know that -- has there been any violations on those? MR. LUEDTKE: I can't speak on those. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: That is irrelevant to this particular case. MR. BOWEIN: Okay. But I observed it, and that's why I thought it would be permissible to put fill. One of the reasons, I mean, one of the factors in my decision is they were sitting there for so long filled. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Anything else you'd like to add, sir? MR. BOWEIN: That's about it. I mean, I would like, you know-- I'll go with whatever you guys decide obviously. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other questions or discussions from the board? (No response.) MS. DUSEK: I'm -- like to make a motion, if we're ready for CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: MR. FLEGAL: MS. ARNOLD: MR. FLEGAL: Thank you. Michelle -- Yes. -- two questions: First one, going for a Page 13 April 25, 2002 building permit is about how long of a process, and going for whatever a variance might be is about how long of a process? MS. ARNOLD: Okay. If he submits a bill -- an application for a building permit, the review time is taking anywhere now from two to four weeks for a single-family house. I can't say how far along he is with respect to obtaining the appropriate information that's needed to submit. With respect to a variance, it's taking probably a three-month process for a variance request. MR. PONTE: Miss Arnold, once you have a permit, how soon must you begin work? Now, is there a limit in terms of how soon work would have to begin? MS. ARNOLD: It's six months before you'd have to do a sick- - you'd have to do something within a six-month period. So once you get an application approved, you've got six months to commence construction. MR. PONTE: So this would fit Mr. Bowein's intention? MS. ARNOLD: Well, if he got a permit today, yes, and if he's intending on building-- MR. PONTE: That would be four weeks plus six months. That would be seven months. MS. ARNOLD: Yup. MR. PONTE: Thanks. MR. FLEGAL: Any -- do you have any idea on costs, Michelle, of applying for a building permit is going to cost him some amount of money, because he has to do a lot of things to get it to the county. And as far as a variance, is there anything specific he has to do? In other words, is he ready for a permit? Maybe five or ten thousand dollars -- maybe getting ready for a variance could be five hundred bucks. I don't know. Page 14 April 25, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: The variance is a matter of applying -- paying for the fee and submitting a -- filling out the application and submitting it to the planning department. So that turnaround time on his part is a lot quicker than the permit. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would entertain a motion to determine a finding of fact. MS. DUSEK: I'd make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, versus Lloyd Bowein, CEB Case No. 2002-003, that a violation does exist. The violation is of Section 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance 91-102. And the description of the violation is the placement of fill on site without obtaining a building permit. MS. SAUNDERS: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: No discussion. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The motion passes. Order of the board, please. MS. SAUNDERS: I 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 $100 per day will be imposed each day the violation Page 15 April 25, 2002 continues. MS. DUSEK: Now, the 30-day period, I'm not sure that that's enough. We're talking about -- she said two to four weeks. That would be a 30-day period, but then if he's going for a variance, that's a 90-day period. MS. ARNOLD: But he can submit the variance tomorrow. So it doesn't take 30 days to submit for a variance. MS. DUSEK: So if in abating the violation it's just submitting for a -- a building permit or a variance? Is that what you're asking in your recommendation? MS. ARNOLD: Well, technically he's not in compliance until the decision of the variance is made because you don't know whether or not it's going to be approved. Upon approval, he may still be where he is today with the fill on the property that doesn't -- can't be there until he's act-- actively doing construction. MR. FLEGAL: Jean, question. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. FLEGAL: If we used the word "abate," to me the word means it's gone. What we really want him to do is if he submits one of these actions, then however long the process is, that's really all we're interested in. MS. RAWSON: That's correct. MR. FLEGAL: He needs to move along. So abate is the wrong word we're choosing, is it not? MS. RAWSON: Well, I think you can order him to obtain something within a certain length of time. And whether or not it's complete --. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Is the verbiage obtained compliance too broad? Page 16 April 25, 2002 MS. RAWSON: Well, yes, because I don't think if he goes for a variance, he's going to be able to obtain compliance within that's -- certain length of time. What you might do is give him a certain length of time to obtain a permit or variance. MR. FLEGAL: MS. ARNOLD: MS. RAWSON: And/or variance? Remove -- remove is also an option. Correct. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Excuse me. Excuse me, Miss Arnold. Excuse me, Mr. Bowein. At this point in the hearing you no longer get a voice, so to speak. You can just sit down, please. Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to point out that we're dealing with two separate properties, and I'm not really sure whether or not it's Mr. Bowein's intent to develop one house on each lot or if he's intending on putting one house on a combined property, because we are dealing with two separate properties. That's okay. If we -- the violation is against MR. FLEGAL: two properties. MS. ARNOLD: MR. FLEGAL: Correct. If we order him to either get a permit or a variance, he's going to have to do it for both properties, so we don't care. That's his problem if he does -- if he only wants to build on one, then he better be getting a variance on the other, otherwise --. MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to bring that up. MR. FLEGAL: -- otherwise the costs are going to keep going. I think we understand that. Rhona, could you change your word "abate" to something else? MS. SAUNDERS: Well, I was reading what the staff recommended, and I'm open to other words, but I'm concerned Page 17 April 25, 2002 because I believe this has gone on for quite awhile. I believe that we're -- we're hearing conflicting evidence on who has done what. Somebody's not telling the truth on whether they've returned phone calls or not or obtained a permit or what they've said. We're hearing that there are objections from both sides of the neighborhood, and that is a problem for both lots. I think 30 days to apply for the permit -- to -- to abate the violation is sufficient, if he chooses. To me, if he chooses to be -- if he chooses to go the route of a variance and doesn't get it, then the fine should be in place. MR. FLEGAL: Well, but the problem is he can't abate because he won't get approval from the county. MS. SAUNDERS: Exactly. So that's not a good option for him. MR. FLEGAL: That's what I'm saying. The word "abate" is giving us a problem. I'm more interested in something like within 30 days he obtain a building permit or apply for a variance or remove the fill. That's really his only three options. And if we spell out those three options, he has to do one of them within 30 days. MR. PONTE: But if we start telling respondents what specifically to do as opposed to simply correcting the situation, I'm not sure that's such a good avenue to travel on. I would think we just tell him to correct the situation or face a fine. MS. DUSEK: I think the problem here is the time limit because we can say apply for a permit or a variance, and he can do that immediately. But if we want him to obtain one, then that sets a different time frame. MR. FLEGAL: He can't obtain a building permit within at least, say, four weeks from the date he gets it there. And we don't know -- Page 18 April 25, 2002 MS. DUSEK: That's right. MR. FLEGAL: -- how long that's going to take to get it there. And he can't get a variance for about three months, even if he submits it today. So he's not obtaining anything in 30 days. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, the only thing that causes a problem really is the variance, because you don't know-- if you give him 30 days to apply for a building permit, a variance application, or remove, that's -- that's all well and good. And if he obtains the building permit, then he has that permit process to go through towards compliance, and we have, like, a tracking system or a time-tracking system with that process. But with a variance, if he gets denied and we don't have a time frame attached to the decision of that variance, the order is kind of open-ended, and we have -- we don't know what to do after that. So there needs to be an additional comment with respect to after the decision's made with respect to the variance. MS. DUSEK: Well, then that leads us into at least three months MS. ARNOLD: You don't need to -- you just need to indicate how much time we want him to come into compliance after the variance decision has been made. MR. FLEGAL: Michelle, if we tell him that one of his options is to obtain a variance, if he gets denied, then that option is taken away from him. He has two left: Get a permit or remove the fill. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. FLEGAL: It's obvious if he takes the variance route, he submitted it, but our words say "obtain it" and if he doesn't obtain it, then he hasn't met our order; and, therefore, the clock's going to run on his fine. So his only other alternative is a permit or remove the fill which, as I understand it, there are only these three options. There is nothing else. Page 19 April 25, 2002 days. MS. ARNOLD: MR. FLEGAL: Correct. So all we're saying is do one of them in 30 MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. MR. FLEGAL: And if he submits the paperwork for the variance, he's met our order in -- in submitting it. If we -- you know, we can't say obtain it in 30 days because we know that can't be done. MS. DUSEK: So how are you suggesting wording it because if we're going to say obtain a building permit within 30 days or remove the fill but apply for a variance within the 30 days, he still hasn't obtained a variance. So that -- MS. SAUNDERS: The concern I have with that is we're basically playing on somebody else's time frame. We're giving him basically a minimum of 120 days to do nothing, and then he's back here again. In other words, he -- the variance is an easy thing to apply for. You apply for it. You wait 90 to 120 days; you don't get it, and he's right back here. Meanwhile it is -- perhaps presented an inconvenience, a health hazard, everything else to the neighbors. I don't think that's a good solution. MS. ARNOLD: That option was presented to him back in December with that letter that he received from Mr. Kranowski. MR. FLEGAL: And he didn't do it. MS. SAUNDERS: And he didn't do it. So I don't-- I don't believe that -- I recognize that you can't get a variance in 30 days. He certainly has the right to apply for the variance. The fine starts 30 days from now. If he gets a variance in 90 days, I would suspect that the board would be very amenable to waiving the fine. But he's gambling at that point because if he doesn't, we haven't sat there powerless. MR. PONTE: I think what we're trying to do is solve the Page 20 April 25, 2002 problem for Mr. Bowein, and that's not what we're here to do. We're here to find out whether or not he is in violation, which we have found, and then to not give him precise direction as to how to correct the violation but to order him to correct the violation and/or be fined. We're -- we're doing -- we're attempting to do what Mr. Bowein must do for himself. MS. DUSEK: But I do think you have to give him some guidance because you can't just open end it and say go fix this without giving some specifics, which the county has already done in their letter in December. MR. PONTE: That's correct. And we have done here in conversation. But it does not necessarily have to be part of the order. MR. FLEGAL: Miss Rawson-- MS. RAWSON: Yes, sir. MR. FLEGAL: -- if we stick with the word "abate" in 30 days, let's do a scenario that he submits for his permit -- of course, he either gets it or he doesn't get it, and that happens probably past the 30-day limit because 30 days from today we don't know if he can get that prepared. He has the option -- or even if he submits for a variance and it takes three months and he doesn't get it, he has the option of coming back to the board and saying, okay, I -- I tried to abate it within 30 days, but due to the county's process, I couldn't get it accomplished, and I need help for this fine. MS. RAWSON: He always has the right to come back before this board. Look at the description of the violation: "The placement of fill on site without obtaining building permits." That's the description of the violation. So whatever you order him to do, keep in mind that you're telling him to do something about the placement of fill on site without having a permit. MS. DUSEK: Okay. All right. Michelle, do you feel 30 days Page 21 April 25, 2002 is adequate time? You've given the two to four weeks for the application for a permit. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MS. DUSEK: Okay. All right. MS. ARNOLD: I think it's adequate. MS. SAUNDERS: I've made the motion, but I don't believe it's ever been seconded. MS. ARNOLD: MR. FLEGAL: 30 days. MS. SAUNDERS: Correct. MR. FLEGAL: And if not accomplished, a hundred dollars per day, is that -- MS. SAUNDERS: That's correct. MR. FLEGAL: Plus pay the operation? MS. SAUNDERS: Yes. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. That's the motion on the floor. MS. DUSEK: Does that -- that includes -- the abating is getting the building permit or removing the fill? MR. FLEGAL: Or whatever. MS. DUSEK: Well, that's more or less the description of the violation, so I think that's what we're really asking. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Do we have a second for the motion? MR. PONTE: I have a -- I'm concerned about the $100 a day. It seems overly severe to me for what has been described as dirt on a lot. So I would like to suggest a fine of $50 a day, perhaps, but certainly not a hundred. MS. DUSEK: I agree with you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Rhona, is that acceptable to you for Correct. No. The motion is to abate the violation within Page 22 April 25, 2002 an alteration? MS. SAUNDERS: If that's the concurrence of the rest of the board, I certainly will amend. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: It's your motion. MS. SAUNDERS: Can we poll the board-- MS. DUSEK: I like his suggestion. I would have made the same. MS. SAUNDERS: All right. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I'll call, once again, for a second to the original motion which was 30 -- MS. SAUNDERS: I'll amend it to $50 per day. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. We have an amended motion. Do I hear a second to the amended motion? MS. DUSEK: I second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Abate all violations within 30 days or a fine of $50 per day be imposed with the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case. Do I hear a second? MS. DUSEK: I second it. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The motion passes. Thank you very much. Mr. Bowein, do you understand what the board has decided for you? MR. BOWEIN: Could I ask for clarification? What I don't under -- are you saying I have to have a permit in hand within 30 Page 23 April 25, 2002 days or have my application in to get a permit? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: You have to have a permit in hand. MR. BOWEIN: Because it's my understanding if I put my permit application in today, which I can't do, I wouldn't get it probably within 30 days. MR. FLEGAL: You have to have the violation abated in 30 days by some man -- manner, whether you remove the fill, obtain a variance, or obtain a permit. MR. BOWEIN: So even applying for the variance doesn't do me any good. So that means I've got to have a permit within -- MS. DUSEK: Within 30 days. MR. FLEGAL: Now, you understand under the -- how the system works that this doesn't occur in 30 days, you start getting fined $50 a day. But whenever you do get the problem resolved, whatever the fine is amounted to by then, you have the right to come before us and say, gee, I tried, but for these reasons I couldn't get it accomplished, will you waive the fine. You have that right. MR. BOWEIN: Okay. Does the board generally do that? MR. FLEGAL: Case by case. You have to come back and tell US. MR. BOWEIN: But you're leaving me with two decisions. Now I can apply for the permit properly and get the kind of house I want and I am going to develop both lots or I can fast track a cracker box and probably go in and get a permit pretty quick. MR. FLEGAL: It's your decision, your land. You do what you want. MR. BOWEIN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. Let's proceed on to the next case, please. MS. PETRULLI: Our next case is CEB No. 2002-006, Board Page 24 April 25, 2002 of County Commissioners of Collier County versus Stanley W. White, Jr., and Karla M. White. The alleged violation is of Section 1.5.6 of Ordinance No. 91-102 of the Collier County Land Development Code. We have provided the board and the respondent with a packet. I would like to request at this time that the packet be admitted into evidence and marked as Composite Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would entertain a motion from the board to admit this packet marked Composite Exhibit A. MR. FLEGAL: So move. MS. PETRULLI: At this time -- MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. You may proceed. MS. PETRULLI: At this time I would like to ask if the respondents are present. MR. WHITE: Yes. MS. PETRULLI: Let the record show that the respondents are present. The description of the violation is inoperable boats, vehicles, and construction trailer on unimproved property. The location where the violation exists is 100-Block 115 of J and C Boulevard, Trade Court Way, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 0000000245160006, 114925, Lot 31 of J and C Industrial Park. The name and address of the person in charge of the location where the violation exists is Stanley White, Jr., and Karla White of Page 25 April 25, 2002 386 Ridge Drive, Naples, Florida 34108-2932. The violation was first observed on August 27th of 2001. A notice of violation was given to the owner on August 27th of 2001. The violation was to have been corrected by September 7th of 2001. And when it was reinspected on September 10th of 2001, the violation still remained. At this time I'd like to turn our case over to Mr. John Marsh, the investigator on the case, to present the case for Collier County. (The oath was administered.) MR. MARSH: For the record, my name is John Marsh, code enforcement investigator, Collier County. On August 27th, 2001, took the violation on said property of numerous boats, older vehicles, semi trucks, construction trailer in disrepair. While on the property writing up the notice of violation, I was approached by Mr. White. I tried to explain the situation to him. At that time he didn't seem to be in any state of mind to be talked to, so I left the property and decided to send a notice of violation certified mail. Notice of violation was sent back not being accepted. And, again, on September 21 st I approached the property to post the notice of violation. I was approached by Mr. White at that time who took the notice of violation but would not sign for it. And at that time he asked that we stay off his property. Since that time I've made numerous rechecks of the area, which I might add was under construction on both sides. The property runs from Trade Center Way to J and C Boulevard. And with the widening of Airport Road, also, Trade Center Way and J and C Boulevard were being widened at the same time. So at different times part of his property was blocked in by equipment and stuff that they were using to do the construction. So, therefore, things were held off giving him more time to alleviate the problem and not Page 26 April 25, 2002 coming to the board as soon as we had -- or sooner. Since then there have been many times that the areas have open that he could get on and off his property and he could have alleviated the problem. As of a recheck yesterday, the problem still exists. MR. PONTE: Mr. Marsh, is the respondent conducting a business there of some sort? MR. MARSH: Not to my knowledge. It's a vacant piece of property unimproved. MR. PONTE: But all of this, the boats and so on, must have some value. So what are they doing there? MR. MARSH: I imagine he was just storing them there on a vacant piece of property that he owns. He does own the adjoining -- adjacent piece of property which is improved. I don't know the type of business that that -- that is there. But maybe it's -- has some purpose with that. MR. PONTE: I guess the reason I ask the question is that Mr. White was present on that piece of property both times that you were there. So that led me to perhaps suggest that business was being conducted there. MR. MARSH: Not -- not on the said piece of property that we're talking about. As I say, on the adjacent piece of property, there is a -- a building. There is a business going on there, but I don't know if he runs it or what it's for. MR. PONTE: Is this particular piece of property fenced in, or is this -- all of this easily accessible from the street by children? MR. MARSH: There is a fence on the J C Boulevard area that it looks like it had a gate on it at one time. And then along the adjacent property to the west is a fence running along that property line. I don't know whose fence that is. That could be the other property; it could be his. But on the Trade Center Way side it's open Page 27 April 25, 2002 upi MR. PONTE: Okay. My concern is that it might be open to passing children and could be a danger if they play in these boats and vehicles. MR. MARSH: This is true. Somebody could easily get onto the property. Until I was asked to stay off of the property, people were able to go from Trade Center Way to J and C Boulevard by a dirt pathway/roadway that cuts through there. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. FLEGAL: Mr. Marsh, since you started in September looking at this site, has any of the material been removed, and has any been added? MR. MARSH: Yes. One of the main objects that's in one of the pictures there is a boat with a shark face on it. The boat, I had called the owner by the numbers on the boat. He had said -- I believe he had said he had given it to Mr. White. I'm not sure on that. It wasn't his boat anymore, but that boat has been removed. The box truck that is by that boat has been turned around to a different direction. There have been some burned-out -- I believe they're wave runners. They were on a trailer. They weren't there; then they were there; now they're gone. But the main objects, the semi truck cab, the construction trailer -- there have been some other smaller boats that have been removed, but those main objects are still there. There are objects in the brush that you can't see unless you're on top of it. In other words, the property really needs to be cleared to see what's actually in there. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: for Investigator Marsh? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other questions from the board No? Thank you, Mr. Marsh. Page 28 April 25, 2002 Miss Arnold, do you have anyone else presenting testimony? MS. ARNOLD: Not at this point. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. Mr. White, would you like to state your case? MR. KOMRAY: Good morning. My name is Mark Komray, and I am an attorney within the State of Florida appearing on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. white in these proceedings. Mr. White is present, has been sworn and will be expected to provide testimony as well. But as a brief overview for the board, I'd like to present a couple of material facts I believe that should be indicative of the decision which we respectfully submit should be a denial of the requested citation for violation. First of all, as Mr. White's testimony will provide, the land is under one common ownership, a deed with his name on it. There are no two parcels, as has been suggested by prior testimony. To that extent, Mrs. White, as named, is an improper party. She has no interest in these proceedings. It's unclear as to why she's named, but we would ask that she be dismissed as a matter of record on -- on those grounds of standing. Second of all, Mr. White has a business license for this property. It's been obtained. We have a copy or actually the original of it here. There's been on that premise in continuous operation for more than 20 years a business interest which Mr. White owns outright. That business over the last ten years has been the manufacturing, repair, selling, and reselling of marine boats and associated hardware and equipment. So it would be entirely natural to see boats in various states of repair to be on the property waiting to be repaired, waiting to be salvaged, waiting to be sold. And to suggest otherwise is inconsistent with his permitted use. The next issue which I think is important for the board to Page 29 April 25, 2002 consider is the zoning on this property. It's industrial. There's no dispute as to that. Under the express provisions of the industrial zoning, the activities which have been cited are clearly permitted. So it's -- it's difficult with that background to understand what is the real issue besides unsightliness. And unsightliness alone is not the grounds for any type of citation I would respectfully submit. Now from a legal perspective under the ordinance which has been cited, for the record, we have to object on it being overbroad. We also have to object to the extent this has been brought to the board -- we'll have evidence that shows there's selective enforcement being engaged. There will be evidence that's presented by way of pictures that shows adjoining or near neighboring properties have the same attributes as Mr. White's property and, to our knowledge, based on a review of records in Collier County, have not been subject to such a proceeding. So that's the -- that's the overview, and I'd like to proceed by asking Mr. White some questions to solicit direct testimony. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Proceed. MR. KOMRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. White, if you'd come to the podium, please. MS. ARNOLD: MR. KOMRAY: If Mr. White can go to the other mike. Okay. Thank you. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KOMRAY: name. A. Q. A. Mr. White, could you for the record please state your full Stanley Wood White, Jr. Thank you. And your residence? 386 Ridge Drive, Naples. Page 30 April 25, 2002 Qo and the A. Do you operate a business within Collier County? Yes. Could you please tell the board the name of that business nature of the business? World Boat Manufacturing. We do repairs. We make molds and repair boats. Q. And how long have you been engaged in that business? A. Ten, fifteen years. Q. During that 10 or 15 years, has the operation ever been discontinued? A. No. Q. Could you tell the board what type of materials you need to conduct the business which you've described you engage in? A. Fiberglass parts, resin, different things. Q. And where do you keep those materials stored or otherwise located? A. I store them, the resins, in the building. When the barrels are spent, I put them in the trailer that's out there so they don't get in the weather and rust and leak and whatever. Qe called, A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. licensed A. Q. Do you have a occupational or business license, as they're for the business you just described? Yes. Okay. And from whom did you obtain that? Collier County. Do you have a current business license from Collier County? Yes. And what is the nature of the business which has been under that -- Boat repair. And has that been the license that you obtained from Collier Page 31 April 25, 2002 County for more than one year? A. Oh, yeah. Q. Your best recollection, how long have you held -- held such an occupation or business license by Collier County? A. Twenty-five years. Q. And the property which is identified as the location of that boat repair or boat manufacturing business, do you know what is that location? A. Yeah. That's the location where it is. Q. And by that you mean, for the record, the property which is being subject to the code violation? A. Oh, yeah. That property. MR. KOMRAY: For the board's pleasure, we've brought the original one, and I'll be happy to -- we don't need -- we can't offer it into evidence because that's his original one, but we'd like to have you look at it should you be so inclined, and we can make a copy and substitute it, if that's acceptable with counsel. BY MR. KOMRAY: Q. Second of all, Mr. White, are you aware of what zoning exists on the property in question? A. Industrial. I thought you could keep anything there. I mean, I don't understand why we're even here. Q. Are you aware of any change in the zoning which has occurred during your period of ownership? A. No. Q. As to the ownership, who owns the land? A. Ido. Q. Does your wife hold an ownership interest in the land as reflected by the deed? A. No. Page 32 April 25, 2002 Q. And how long have you owned the land in question? A. I think I bought it in '75. '75 or '76. Q. Are there any other tenants on the land besides you and your-- your operation? A. No. Well, there's the one guy that parks the van there, and he lives in an area that you can't park his truck, and I let him park it there for nothing. It's the van that the guy's talking about. He's a painter, and he has no place to put it. So I said, "Park it there." And he comes, and he works during the week, and then he parks it there. He doesn't hurt anybody, and it just sits there. Q. Have you had the opportunity to look at other businesses in the industrial park area close to or in the neighborhood of your property? A. Yeah. I went around yesterday and -- and took some pictures and looked to see- MS. ARNOLD: I object to that questioning. MR. KOMRAY: You can go ahead and proceed. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: What grounds? MS. ARNOLD: As relevance. We're not talking about other properties. We're talking about Parcel 31 in J and C Industrial Park. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Conrad (sic), if you would, please, just contain your questioning to the particular parcel we're talking about. MR. KOMRAY: Yes, I will, for-- in response to the objection, if I could respond to that, we do believe it's relevant. And the reason why is it establishes a potential selective enforcement which, if sustained, would be a defense to this action. So while I agree with the premise that Mr. White's property is, in fact, the issue, not others per Se, the fact that other properties within a similar situated area may exhibit similar objections, and if there is not Page 33 April 25, 2002 a record of any prosecution, I believe that would demonstrate selective enforcement. That's the grounds of the relevancy. MS. RAWSON: Mr. Komray, if I could help, my name is Jean Rawson. I'm the attorney for the board. This board does not have the authority to determine whether or not there's been selective enforcement. Maybe a trial court does, but this board can only determine if a violation exists on this specific property. That's the -- the -- the limit of their authority. And so for that reason, if you would just pertain (sic) your questions to this one property. MR. KOMRAY: I'll be happ -- my reason for raising it is, of course, the first instance, to try and perfect the record to the extent necessary. And I understand the direction, and I'll comply with it obviously with my objections as noted. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you, Jean, for -- BY MR. KOMRAY: Q. Mr. White, in the, I believe, 25 years that you have maintained your business operations on this property, have you previously received any other notice of violation regarding the matters set forth in this notice, particularly violation of Section 1.5.6 of Ordinance 1 -- excuse me, of Ordinance 91-101 -- 127 Excuse me. A. No. Well, I -- wait a minute. I received one about six months ago, five months ago of letters saying -- maybe it wasn't that long ago. But anyhow, I received a letter that I was in code violation and that I had to move the -- the truck, the truck that bought the land, which tractor is mine because I was in the trucking business, and the boats, which I work on, and all the other stuff. And the county has the bus transits right in front of me where they park their buses. And two days before I got the letter, I had rented them some property to park their cars on -- on that land. And in this notice it said I couldn't park anything on the property. So Page 34 April 25, 2002 I went up to the county, and I told them the bus transit they had to move their cars because the county says I can't park anything on the property, and I don't understand that. And the manager told me -- he said, "Well, let me make some phone calls." I said, "Okay." I went up there the next day. He said, "Everything's fine." Well, about three weeks ago, three or four weeks ago, they moved to the county barn, and this don't need -- all their employees don't need to park on my property. In fact, it was the first of this month. A week later I get this notice to come here. Now, what happened there? Q. Any other instances of violations or citations that you recall? A. No. Q. The -- besides the one white van I believe you've described, is there any other property located on the section of land in question that is owned by anybody besides you? A. There's a-- a boat, and the guy is supposed to come get it two weeks ago. Other than that-- Q. Is that a boat that you've been repairing? A. I was supposed to, and the guy wanted me to put a transom on the boat, and it was just too costly for what the boat would be worth when it was done. He supposedly has sold the boat to somebody else, and he's supposed to come get it. Q. Besides that boat that you've described and the white van, any other property located on the land that is owned by someone besides you? A. No. Q. Okay. MR. KOMRAY: I have no further questions of Mr. White. If it is appropriate with the procedures of the board, I'd like an opportunity to cross-examine the inspector and ask questions whether Page 35 April 25, 2002 or not -- I'm not entirely sure what the administrative procedure would be. MS. RAWSON: MR. FLEGAL: You have the right to do that. You have the right to do that. MR. KOMRAY: Then, Mr. White, if you can -- MS. ARNOLD: Can we have an opportunity to question --. MR. FLEGAL: Yeah. Since we got Mr. White here, let's do one, and then -- rather than going back and forth. I think that's a little confusing. Mr. White's here. Let's get his over with, and you're more than welcomed--. MR. KOMRAY: I would only note that that opportunity of continuity of testimony wasn't afforded Mr. White when your chief witness was on the stand. MS. ARNOLD: And we weren't given information that we were going through this process. Mr.--. MR. KOMRAY: MS. ARNOLD: We had no idea, other than when Komray. -- Komray stood up at the podium that he was going to be representing -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Komray, let's proceed the way we are, if you don't mind. The county will have the right to cross- examine your witness, and then you in turn will have the right to cross-examine the county's. Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ARNOLD: Q. Mr. White, do you see on the monitor the copy of the map? A. Yes. Q. Do you see a pink property highlighted? A. Yeah. Page 36 April 25, 2002 Qo A. But it's Q. to -- to look at answer A. Q. comer A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Do you agree that that's the property in question? Well -- Do you see Trade Center-- I would assume it is. I can't see what property numbers it is. J and C. Yeah, that's probably it. Okay. Can you look a little bit closer, because I'd like you make sure? If you'd like to, you can come on over here and it. I can zoom it in a little bit further as well. You have to for the record. That -- that's the property. Do you also see a Parcel No. 114 to the lower right-hand of that property highlighted in pink? Yeah. Yes. Okay. And do you also see 114.1 above that property? Yes. Okay. Are you the owner of the parcel highlighted as 115? Yes. Are those -- is -- are you the owner of Parcel 114.1 ? Yes. Does that map depict them as two separate properties? I guess. I can't see the line. But I'm -- Is there a -- a separate number on each parcel? Yes. Okay. And if you want to come a little bit closer, you can -- you can surely do that. But do they -- does this map represent them as two separate parcels? A. Yes. Q. Okay. You were provided notice that was presented here as evidence, Composite Exhibit A, for Parcel 115? A. I don't know what the parcel was, but it probably was part -- Page 37 April 25, 2002 Parcel 115. Q. On page 23 of your -- your exhibit, it presented this deed. And I just want to zoom that in. The legal description on there is for Lot 31. And do you see that it's noting you as the property owner? A. Yes. Q. Okay. That was what was presented in the -- the packet, and it also meets the description that was provided to you in the packet for the property in question. A. Okay. Q. I just wanted to show you this information as well, which is the property information. Again, do you see that highlighted area that says Block -- Block Building? A. Yes. Q. And what parcel number is identified there? A. 115. Q. Do you see the property owner noted on that? A. Yeah. Q. And what property owner is noted? A. That's Karla Marie White. Q. And what is Karla M. White? A. My wife. Q. Okay. Can you read the block building number on this property information record? me clarify 114. And the lot unit? 001. Okay. And who's noted as the property owner there? Stanley White. Okay. I -- I put that before you-all because I wanted to the point with respect to Mrs. White being named on the Page 38 April 25, 2002 NOV. There is a conflict between the deed and what the property information says. Therefore, both parties were noted. Okay. This is the information that you-all presented for your -- and it's kind of hard to see but your occupational license? A. Yes. Q. Can you read the expiration date on that, please. A. I just found that one this morning. I have a current one. Q. Excuse me? A. I have a current one. Q. Can you read the expiration -- A. I got the wrong one. It's 2001. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN' Mr. White, could you just answer the question, please. THE WITNESS: I just did. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: No, sir. The question was, could you read that date, and would you tell us what that date says. MR. WHITE' 2001. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Of what day ? MS. ARNOLD' The expiration date. MR. WHITE' September 30th, 2001. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. BY MS. ARNOLD: Q. Can you also read on here the address for -- ? A. 2475 J and C Boulevard. Q. Is that the address where your occupational license is currently valid? A. Yes. Q. Can you read for me the address here which represents, as you read previously, Lot 1 -- 114.01 which you also are the owner of?. What's that address? Page 39 April 25, 2002 A. 2475 J and C Boulevard. Q. Is that consistent with the occupation -- the address for the occupational license? A. Yes. Q. Can you read for me the physical address for the separate piece of parcel which is in question in this hearing? MR. KOMRAY: I object to the form of the question. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Miss Arnold, would you rephrase that question, please. MR. KOMRAY: question. BY Q. address, A. Q. license? A. MS. ARNOLD: MR. KOMRAY: For the record, I object to the form of the MS. ARNOLD: Can you read for me the address, the physical street location for Parcel 115? 100 Naples area north. Is that consistent with the address on your occupational No. I have no other questions. I have a few brief questions. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Conrad (sic), just one second, please. Any questions further from the board from Mr. White? MR. FLEGAL: Well, I think board members probably have a lot. Let's let his attorney ask his, and then we'll get on with it. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KOMRAY: Q. Mr. White, the documents that you have had been asked to look at on the overhead projector, did you create any of those documents? A. No. Page 40 April 25, 2002 Qo A. MR. KOMRAY: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: Q. Do you know where they came from? A. No. Q. As part of your business, do you occupy the entire lands which you own? A. I own it. And you use all? That's the reason I bought it. I have no further questions of Mr. White. I just have one other question, if I might. REC RO S S-EXAMINATI ON BY MS. ARNOLD: Q. Have you ever obtained any permit or authorization from the county to use the lot in question for your current business? A. No. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any questions for Mr. White from the board? MR. FLEGAL: Yes. Mr. White, you have this World Boat -- whatever the company's name is. I've forgotten. I'm sorry. And you repair boats, you say, on this piece of property. MR. WHITE: Yes. MR. FLEGAL: Do you do all this work? MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. MR. FLEGAL: You said you need fiberglass and molds and all this. You do all this by yourself?. MR. WHITE: Most of the time. Sometimes I hire help when I need it. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. And you repair boats. MR. WHITE: I repair a lot of things. MR. FLEGAL: Well, you have a license to do what? Page 41 April 25, 2002 MR. WHITE: To repair boats. MR. FLEGAL: Repair-- MR. WHITE: Boats. MR. FLEGAL: -- boats. MR. WHITE: But there's a lot of things on a boat besides fiberglass. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. Whatever goes on a boat-- my question is, you repair boats; correct? MR. WHITE: Yes. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. And you did get a package from the county, a package of all this information-- MR. WHITE: Yes. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. And on this piece of property do you have an office or something ? MR. WHITE: On the vacant piece of property? MR. FLEGAL: Where you repair boats. MR. WHITE: I have a metal building. MR. FLEGAL: You have a metal building? MR. WHITE: (Nodded head.) MR. FLEGAL: And that's where you-- that's your office? MR. WHITE: Yes. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. Do you have any other buildings? MR. WHITE: No. MR. FLEGAL: Why, since you're repairing boats, when I look at the pictures of your property, do we have tractor-trailers, what looks like bodies of some kind of truck, piles of some kind of metal frames, more stuff, it looks like tom-out trucks, flatbed trucks? MR. WHITE: I don't have any flatbeds on that property. I don't have -- MR. FLEGAL: Well, I'm looking at page 17, the top picture. It Page 42 April 25, 2002 looks like some kind of flatbed truck that's been -- MR. WHITE: You mean a trailer. MR. FLEGAL: -- burned out or rusted or something. It's got a door on it. It's not a trailer, so that's a truck to me. When you have a cab and a door and a flatbed on the back, that's a truck. MR. WHITE: Are those in color? MR. FLEGAL: Yeah. It's within your package. Yeah. MR. WHITE: It's a tractor. It's used for pulling big trailers. That's what I use it to do. MR. FLEGAL: That's not a tractor (indicating). I used to own a half fleet of them, so I understand. MR. WHITE: Oh, okay. MR. FLEGAL: More tractors, this picture of this one, and there's a burnt-out hull of something. Then we have this construction-looking trailer that's -- looks damaged with broken windows and doors missing and part of the doorway missing. Why is all this on the property if you're repairing boats? MR. WHITE: It's been there since 1973. I build my -- my personal stuff there. The trailers I probably built for my own personal use. The tractors and the trailers belong to me. They were the one that bought me the land. That big utility trailer sitting there, I just came to work one morning, and there it was. So I used to have it beside the building, and I stored my empty drums in it. And some parts that are in there, molded -- small molding parts. The steel is steel I use when I'm building stuff for myself. I have another boat plant in Hialeah that builds the boats now, so I rarely do anything there except for my own personal stuff. MR. FLEGAL: But your license is to repair boats, not build stuff for your personal use. Page 43 April 25, 2002 MR. WHITE: Oh, you're not allowed to build on your own land, build your own stuff. MR. FLEGAL: I'm asking you the question. MR. WHITE: I'm asking you one. You're not allowed to do that? MR. FLEGAL: I can't answer that question for you. MS. DUSEK: Mr. White, do you know what is included in your occupational business license, what it allows you to do? For example, are you allowed to store vehicles or boats outside, or do they have to be enclosed? Do you know? MR. WHITE: No, ma'am. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I think we're getting a little offhand as far as the occupational license goes because unless I am misunder - - mistaken, just because you have an occupational license to conduct a business in some form or another does not give you the right to conduct that business on a parcel of land without a permit. I believe that's what the issue is here at hand. So I think we're getting a little off key. Am -- am I incorrect in that, Miss Rawson or Miss Arnold? MS. RAWSON: I think we need to stick to the relevant evidence and look back at the violation. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And -- and, Miss Arnold, that is a correct statement, that an occupational license is not the same as a permit to operate a parcel of land? MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. And the lot that we're dealing with would -- as far as I can see, has no occupational license for it. It's an unimproved property. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. If-- if the members of the board would please continue then. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, are we dealing with all three or just Lot 1157 Page 44 April 25, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: Just one lot, 1 15. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other questions for Mr. White? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: No questions? Thank you, Mr. White, if you'd please have a seat. Investigator Mason, would you please take the stand again? MS. ARNOLD: Marsh. Marsh. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Oh, I'm sorry. Marsh. My apologies. MR. MARSH: No problem. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Conrad, it's your show. MR. KOMRAY: Thank you very much. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KOMRAY: Good morning, Mr. Marsh. Mark Komray. How are you today? A. Q. Good morning. I think as you surmised, I'm here representing Mr. White's interest in these proceedings. And if I ask you a question, you don't understand it, let me know so I can rephrase it for you, okay? A. I certainly will. Q. Prior to citing or bringing this code violation, did you check the zoning for the property in question? A. Yes, sir, I know the zoning. Q. What is it? A. Industrial. Q. Do you know what are permitted uses on a property that is zoned industrial? A. I know that on the piece of property that we are talking about Page 45 April 25, 2002 he would have to have a permit for permitted uses on that property. Right now it's an unimproved piece of property with no permitted uses. Q. Now, my question was, do you know what are permitted uses under property that's zoned industrial? A. I understand your question, but you're talking a large area. There are a lot of permitted uses within the industrial-zoned areas. For me to sit here or stand here and try and run them down, I can't do that off the top of my head. Q. Would you agree that lands that are zoned industrial are allowed to have on them manufacturing? A. I'll agree to that. Q. And processing? A. I'll agree to that. Q. Storage and warehousing? A. If they're permitted. Q. So your answer to my question is yes? A. I said if they're permitted, sir. Q. Just for the record, is there something in the zoning code that you believe is the catch-all provision industrial, if permitted? A. I don't believe there is a catch-all. Q. Okay. So you're just adding that language? A. I'm adding that language. That's the way I want to answer the question. Q. Okay. Wholesaling and distribution activities, are those permitted in zoned lands that have an industrial designation? A. I believe the wholesaling of automobiles is permitted in industrial. Q. Okay. Do you also agree that service and commercial activities that are related to support manufacturing, processing, Page 46 April 25, 2002 storage, and warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution activities, as well as commercial uses relating to automotive and heavy equipment sales and repair are also permissible in lands identified in having a industrial zoning classification? A. I would have to see that in writing, and then I would have to look it up myself before I could answer that. Q. Well, because I think it's a pretty important point, I'm going to, with counsel's permission, allow the witness to look at what I believe is a copy of Collier County's Land Development Code, industrial district zones. It may allow the witness to refresh his own recollection. A. What would you like me to read? Q. You can read whatever you like. But I was specifically offering this document so you have an opportunity to review the first paragraph and refresh your own recollections as to what's within that designation so you may be better able to respond to the question. A. Yes, sir. This is for the purpose and intent of the industrial district. This is not for what is actually permitted. In other words, you can have the intent to do this, yes, but you have to have the permit to do it and the license to do it. Q. Mr. Marsh, the citation code violation today that you've brought is under Section 1.5.6; correct? A. It's a notice of violation, sir. It's not a citation. Q. Thank you. A. And that is correct. Q. And that's the only violation that you have cited that's at issue here today; is that correct? A. At this present time. Q. Okay. MR. KOMRAY: And for the record and the board's Page 47 April 25, 2002 convenience, I'd just like to read that in-- it's a very brief provision-- rather than asking the witness to do it. This Section 1.5.6 says (as read): "No building or structure or part thereof shall be erected, altered, or used or land or water used in whole or in part other than specifically permitted by the provisions of each zoning district in this code unless otherwise provided." BY MR. KOMRAY: Q. Now, if that is the notice of the citation, what is it that you believe Mr. White has violated under that provision? A. Again, sir, it's not a citation. It's a notice of violation, and the idea is that he has no permit for the use of that property. It's an unimproved piece of property. MR. KOMRAY: If again I may have the opportunity to approach the witness, allow him to look at this? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes, sir. MR. KOMRAY: Thank you. BY MR. KOMRAY: Q. Mr. Marsh, I have in front of you the code provision I just read into the record. And if you could look at that and please as specifically as possible identify for the board which provision of that code section you believe has been violated. A. It says "Or land, in whole or in part, be specifically permitted by the provision of each zoning district or code." He's not permitted for use on that property. It's an unimproved piece of property. May I ask you a question? Q. No. A. Thank you. Q. If I am reading this correctly -- and I want to make sure that I understand your answer -- it says, "Permitted by the provision of each zoning district in this code." That's what it says; correct? Page 48 April 25, 2002 A. That's true. And in order to be in the zoning district, you have to be permitted, and you have to have occupational licenses. You just don't own the piece of property. Q. Okay. So then is it your testimony here today that the real violation is the fact that you believe Mr. White doesn't have the proper business license? A. He is not permitted to use that property for what he's using it for. And he's already stated he doesn't have an occupational license for that piece of property. He has an occupational license for the piece of property adjacent to him. Q. Well, I know that's your opinion. You certainly are entitled to it. A. It's a fact. Q. Reviewing the Collier County Land Development Code, particularly the industrial zoning provisions, purpose and intent, do you agree that the activities that Mr. White has conducted out on the parcel in question is allowed within that zoning classification? A. I don't understand what you said by that. But, anyway, I don't think it's my decision to make that way. I cited him for one thing, and that's what I cited him for. Q. So see, that's the problem. I'm trying to understand exactly what you cited him for. A. It's already been explained to you. You don't want to understand it. Q. Well, I understand there's boats there. Are they okay to be stored there in your opinion? A. No. It's an unimproved piece of property which is not permitted for any use. So, therefore, nothing can be on that unimproved piece of property. And since it's over 51 percent mowable, then all the brush and everything should be cut down also. Page 49 April 25, 2002 Q. Okay. So it's your opinion Mr. White has no right to use the parcel in question for anything at this point in time? A. Until it's permitted for a use. Q. Prior to issuing your notice, did you ascertain whether or not there were any business licenses issued for the property? A. Could you repeat that, please. Q. Prior to signing and publishing your notice of code violation and your affidavit which is attached in the materials the board has before them, did you undertake any investigation to see if there was a business license for this property? A. Being that it was a vacant unimproved piece of property, I wrote the notice of violation up to begin with to post it. And then normal procedure would be to go and go through the records. It's only a notice of violation. It's not a citation. Q. Is the answer to my question no? A. I don't remember your question. Q. Okay. Well, let me ask it again. Prior to issuing the notice, did you undertake any investigation to ascertain whether or not there was a business license issued for this property? A. Probably with the state of mind that your defendant or your client was in at the time, if I'd have had more time, I probably would have gone back to the office and looked up something. But since his state of mind at the time -- I thought it was just proper to try and give it to him at that time since I had him in view. Q. Okay. A. Which he refused to take anyway. Q. And -- and what was the date of that incident? A. The first date was August 27th. Q. What's today's date? A. Today's date? Today's the 25th. Page 50 April 25, 2002 Q. of April. A. Okay. Q. Theyear 2000? A. And two. Q. Since that period of time, have you undertaken any investigation before appearing here today to testify as to whether or not there was a business license issued for the property? A. Yes, I have. Q. And what was the result? A. There's nothing permitted for that piece of property. I have made numerous calls not only to your client but to you which were unanswered. I talked to you for a brief time, thought we were going to get somewhere, and then all of a sudden there was no answers to my calls anymore. Q. Did you go down to Collier County and see if a business license was issued for this property? A. Sure. Q. What did you find? A. There is nothing for that piece of property. There's no occupational license for that piece of property. Q. Did you undertake the review to ascertain the legal status of title to the land in question? A. Certainly. That's why we have a copy of the deed here, sir. Q. And what does the deed reflect as to the property owner? A. The property owner, Stanley White or Stanley Wood White, Jr. Q. It doesn't say Karla White anywhere, does it? A. No, it doesn't. Q. Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And the county has no objections from Page 51 April 25, 2002 removing Karla White from the proceedings. MR. KOMRAY: Thank you. We'll accept that and have her name withdrawn and stricken from these proceedings. BY MR. KOMRAY: Q. Did you undertake any investigation to determine whether Mr. White owns other property within Collier County? A. No, sir. I was not concerned with other property that Mr. White owns throughout the county except for the piece of property next door to see if it was adjoined to this piece of property and if the occupational license covered both pieces of property, which it clearly states it does not. Q. Okay. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not there are any permitted uses for the -- what I will call the adjoining property upon which a metal building is located? A. It's not up to me to give opinions, okay. MR. KOMRAY: I have no further questions of this witness. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. MR. FLEGAL: Can I ask Mr. Marsh -- Mr. Marsh --. MR. MARSH: Yes, sir. MR. FLEGAL: -- simplify something for me. You buy a piece of land, you own it, but as I understand it and as I'm listening to you, I can't do anything with that piece of land until I get it permitted. I can't just buy a piece of land and build a house. I have to get a permit to build a house; is that correct ? MR. MARSH: Yes, sir. MR. FLEGAL: All right. If I have a piece of unimproved, quote, industrial property, I have to get something to let me do something on that unimproved piece of property; is that correct? MR. MARSH: Yes, sir. Page 52 April 25, 2002 MR. FLEGAL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: sir. You may have a seat. MR. MARSH: Thank you. Any other questions? No further questions? Thank you, MR. PONTE: I guess I have a question for Miss Rawson. I need a little guidance here. Does a business license permit you to do a specific act? In other words, if the business license in this case was for boat repair, can he -- then with the business license not going any further, not obtaining any other permits because he has a license -- MS. RAWSON: My opinion is no. But I'm going to ask the county attorney to give you her opinion. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I also would like to hear that if you please would come up and speak to us. MS. DUSEK: It's my understanding, before she comes up, that he didn't have a license for this property to begin with, so that's not even an issue. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Jennifer, would you please state your name for the record. MS. BELPEDIO: Jennifer Belpedio. I'm an assistant county attorney with the Collier County Attorney's Office. It's our office's opinion that, you know, the -- the issue of whether or not he has an occupational license is -- shouldn't be considered for this property. So it's really irrelevant. But if you were to consider that, it's also our opinion that the occupational license does not give him permission to do something that would be contrary to other provisions of the code. So if he wanted to repair his boat and put it out on the road or do something that was contrary to the code, then that would be inappropriate. But if he were to repair that, his boat, that would not Page 53 April 25, 2002 be contrary to code. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: More specific to this case, an occupational license does or does not allow me to use any parcel of land, period? MS. BELPEDIO: I would agree with that statement. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Which one? It does not? MS. BELPEDIO: It does not. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. So just because I have an occupational license to run a business doesn't mean I have a home to run that business out of?. MS. BELPEDIO: I agree. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: To achieve a proper home for that business, I need to have a permitted parcel of land permitted for that particular use that I am trying to accomplish; is that correct? MS. BELPEDIO: I agree. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you very much. Any further discussions before we entertain a motion for a finding of fact? Yes, sir. MR. KOMRAY: I would like to, on behalf of Mr. White, make a brief closing statement. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes, sir. MR. KOMRAY: The evidence is -- before the board has not established a violation of the cited section. The cited Section 1.5.6 specifically references a violation of the zoning code. The zoning code in question, the county's own witness, has indicated that he agrees that the type of actions that have been documented by photograph are permitted under this express language of the zoning. There's no doubt that this is an industrial piece of property. Page 54 April 25, 2002 As to the issue of separate parcels, this land is owned by Mr. White, was purchased under one deed. The deed is the one that's attached in the packet of materials before you. Mr. White hasn't created separate parcels. Whatever action was taken was taken by somebody other than Mr. White without his consent, acquiescence, or permission, presumably the county, for whatever reasons suits their purpose. Mailing addresses, for convenience, two streets borders both sides. But the fact of the matter is Mr. White is maintaining an operation on the land that he owns that is clearly within the scope of the exact operations permitted by industrial zoning. That being said, the issue of a business license or the issue of anything else is irrelevant for the board I would respectfully submit and mandates that the notice of violation be denied. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you, Mr. Komray. MS. ARNOLD: And, if I may, I -- I -- I would have to strongly object to the insinuation that the county or my office created any records that was presented today outside of Mr. White's knowledge. Those documents that were presented are public record. They are created by the property appraiser's office. The deed that was presented was taken out of public record. None of those documents were created by my office or created to in -- indicate that the two parcels were not, in fact--. MR. KOMRAY: For the record, I was not impugning county attorney's -- MS. ARNOLD: And let -- let me finish the statement. I think we've clearly showed that there are two separate parcels. The deed reflects Parcel No. 31, which is the parcel that we've cited Mr. White under. Mr. White has clearly indicated for the record that he has received no authorization from the county to utilize that property for Page 55 April 25, 2002 the use that he's currently using it for. We've also shown that -- and the investigator has provided testimony that unless the uses have received some authorization from the county, the -- the list of permitted uses under the industrial zoning district cannot occur on the property, and that -- that is what we've cited him for, using it without appropriately getting permits or authorization for utilization of that property. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. Mr. Komray, if you would have a seat, please. MR. KOMRAY: Yes. Just for the record I wanted to make sure, the county attorney, I was not impugning or suggesting they created documents that somehow were being used inappropriately for the proceeding. The point was Mr. White was not the author of those documents. That was all. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. I would entertain a finding of fact. MS. DUSEK: I'd like to make a motion that the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, versus Stanley W. White, Jr., in the case CEB No. 2002-006, that a violation does occur. The violation is of Section 1.5.6 of Ordinance 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation, inoperable boats and vehicles, construction trailer on unimproved property, and I might ask if I should include unimproved property without permits, correct permits? Do you feel like that's -- MR. PONTE: I do. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. FLEGAL: Second. Page 56 April 25, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The motion passes. Thank you. Do we have a -- excuse me -- an order of the board? MS. SAUNDERS: I have a comment. I'm uncomfortable with this case because I believe it's -- I believe we're correct in citing a violation. I believe it is technically correct. I don't believe that is the intent. I don't believe that there was any attempt at all to deceive or get away with something that wasn't supposed to be done, so I'm uncomfortable with penalizing somebody for using their property I -- which I will take to believe that they felt they were properly using it. It sounds to me like what needs to happen is you've got to get a permit for the -- technically the right lot on this property, and I'd like to give the property owner enough time to get that proper permit. Michelle, if I ask you, how long -- assuming this is, you know -- this is undeveloped property, unimproved property at this time, to get permitting for the industrial use to which he is putting it, how long would that permitting take? MS. ARNOLD: He would have to go through a site improvement plan process which requires an engineer to produce a site plan and the appropriate -- with the appropriate drainage and landscaping requirement. And we're -- we're talking probably many months before something like --. MS. SAUNDERS: At significant cost. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. And significant costs. MS. DUSEK: If-- if all the items were removed, then the problem is solved. Page 57 April 25, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MS. DUSEK: Also, Rhona, I might just point out that he was first notified in August 2001, and today is April 25th, 2002. So he has had sufficient time to understand that he needed to get a permit and took no action toward that. MR. FLEGAL: I think the board members need -- MR. PONTE: The business has been there since 1975. MS. SAUNDERS: That is what-- MR. PONTE: And operating. So I think we must be cognizant of that fact. MS. SAUNDERS: Miss Rawson, is there any such thing as grandfathering in something? MS. RAWSON: No. MR. FLEGAL: It doesn't exist in Florida law. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And this board does not have the right to waive anything. MR. FLEGAL: Can I say something, please? Thank you. I think we're missing the picture here. I think we've overlooked a very good word, and the word in the permitted uses is "by the provisions" -- it has an S on it -- of each zoning district. One page out of a zoning district saying that you could have X on a piece of property means nothing. There are other provisions that go along with it. A provision says you can build a house on a residential lot, but there are other things that says before you can do that, you must get permits. I think we've missed the point that we've been led to believe by Mr. White's attorney that since it is a permitted use in a zoning district, he's free and clear. That's not true. There are other provisions that he must comply with. He has not. Therefore, I don't care if his business has been there 25 years or 40 years. He was just cited. We found that he's in violation. I think we need to have him Page 58 April 25, 2002 do what is right. And whatever that takes, he needs to do it. Sorry. That's the way I feel about it. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Back to the order of the board. MS. DUSEK: In looking at the recommendation -- and I do know, by my own words, that he has been cited quite awhile ago and didn't do anything about it. At the same time it seems that there are quite a number of items on this property, and I don't know if it can -- the removal can be done within seven days. I'd like to see a little more time extended to that in the recommendation. And that could possibly be two weeks to remove everything, and I don't even know if that's feasible. You -- you're in construction. Do you have a comment on that.9 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Seven days is more than enough. MS. DUSEK: More than enough. Okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The only concern I may have on this particular case is the fine. I think the fine might be a little excessive in the fact that we have stored items other than the fact that we have a -- a respondent that's known about this for quite awhile. And I agree with our-- my colleague here, Mr. Flegal. His comments are well put with regard to permitting, licensing, and so on and so forth. The fact of the matter is that we do have a finding of fact that a violation does occur. We have a situation that is unprotected from the general public which means children can go in there. It can be, in my opinion -- and it's solely in my opinion -- removed relatively quickly. MS. DUSEK: If you can get somebody to do it. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: That is correct. MS. DUSEK: That's -- that's the problem, getting somebody in Page 59 April 25, 2002 there within seven days to do it. I think physically it could probably be done in a day. But getting somebody there is the issue. And then, of course, you do have the issue of safety. I'm not sure how the rest - - I guess what we'll do is just make a motion and see where it goes from there, so I'll make a motion. I make a motion that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and remove all items on the unimproved property within 10 days or a fine of $75 per day will be assessed and imposed each day the violation continues. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion. Do I hear a second? MR. FLEGAL: Let's say -- before I answer the question, let me ask a question. Michelle, if we order him to remove everything, I understand that, and I tend to agree with that part of it. But the other option would be for him to get, quote, unquote, a permit to use it for whatever it is he's going to use it. Is that a very long process? MS. ARNOLD: Very long process. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: I think if he removes it and then wants to go through the process -- MR. FLEGAL: I understand-- MS. DUSEK: -- of getting the plan permitted, then he can bring those back on if it's allowed. MR. FLEGAL: Back to your motion. Was your motion for -- MS. DUSEK: Ten days, $75. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. MR. PONTE: Is there any way to obtain an interim operational -- a provisional license, something that would give him time to -- Page 60 April 25, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: The -- the investigator just -- the investigator just whispered to me that he has that property up for sale. So I'm not sure he's intending on improving it for the util -- for the utilization of his business. I don't know. You'll have to ask Mr. White that. MS. DUSEK: Well, that wouldn't-- I-- MR. PONTE: Is the property for sale? MR. FLEGAL: Well, it's immaterial. MS. ARNOLD: But I mean you-all are asking to improve the property so -- I don't know if that's his intent. MR. FLEGAL: I -- I would second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. MR. FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Opposed? MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Four to one. The motion passes. MS. ARNOLD: And that was 14 days? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Ten. MS. DUSEK: Ten days, $75. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Komray, Mr, White, do you understand the order of the board? MR. KOMRAY: I -- I do. I just am compelled for the record to post an objection as to the actual language of the board's finding. It was modified from the citation or notice that brought us here, and it now includes another element that was not noticed. So for the record we have to assert a due process objection on those grounds. Other than that, I believe I understand the board's decision and Page 61 April 25, 2002 direction. Mr. White, do you have any questions -- I was asking Mr. White if he had any misunderstandings about the board's pronouncements, and I believe he's indicated no, he doesn't have any misunderstandings. He just disagrees with it respectfully. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. So noted. Jean, just a real quick question. Do we need to modify that order at all? MS. DUSEK: Was it when I put without permits? MR. KOMRAY: Yes. MS. DUSEK: That's what I thought you were objecting to. MS. RAWSON: What I -- what I had put in the order is basically I just copied what's in the code. Other than specifically permitted by the provisions of each zoning district. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. That's cool. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Do we need to modify our vote? MR. FLEGAL: No. MS. RAWSON: I don't think so, because what I did, I -- you cited him with 1.5.6. And specifically the NOV gave him that statu -- that ordinance. Then you basically on your NOV said he had inoperable boats, vehicles, construction trailer on unimproved property. And what I put in parentheses was just citing the Ordinance 1.5.6. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. We're cool. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Let's take a ten-minute break. We'll reconvene at ten after -- or excuse me, five after ten--. MS. SAUNDERS: Eleven. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Eleven. MS. SAUNDERS: It's eleven already. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Let's reconvene at eleven o'clock. Page 62 April 25, 2002 (A break was held from 10:50 a.m. to 11:04 a.m.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. I'd like to call the board back to order. Let's proceed with the next case, please. MS. PETRULLI: The next case is CEB No. 2002-007, Board of County Commissioners of Collier County versus Joe Dimassimo, Sr. At this time I would like to ask if the respondent is in the room. (No response.) MS. PETRULLI: Show that the respondent is not here. The alleged violation is of Section 2.5.12.2.5.5.2.5.1. and 2.5.13 through 2.5.13.2.5. of Ordinance No. 91-102, the Collier County ordinance. We have provided the board and the respondent with a packet. I would like to request at this time that the packet be admitted into evidence and marked as Composite Exhibit A. MS. SAUNDERS: So moved. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Do I hear a second? MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: No opposed. Thank you. MS. PETRULLI: The description of the violation, replacing a pole sign with a new sign which does not meet the Collier County sign code and without the required permit. The location of-- and address where the violation exists is 2452 J and C Boulevard, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 0000000245040003. The name and address of the owner in charge where the violation exists is Mr. Joe Dimassimo, Sr., 2452 J and C Boulevard, Naples, Florida 34109-2046. Page 63 April 25, 2002 The date the violation was first observed was November 8th of 2001. The owner was served with a notice of violation on November 8th of 2001. The date by which it was to be corrected was December the 7th of 2001. As of the reinspection on February 21st of 2002 and March 19th of 2002, the reinspection showed that the violation remains. At this time I'd like Investigator Allen Kennette to come forward to present the case for the county. Thank you. (The oath was administered.) MR. KENNETTE: For the record, I'm Investigator Allen Kennette with Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Investigator Kennette, please speak up a little, please. MR. KENNETTE: Allen Kennette, Collier County code enforcement investigator. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. MR. KENNETTE: On December 8th of-- on November 8th I was in patrol out on the J and C Boulevard, noticed a gentleman on a ladder securing a sign to Theo's restaurant (sic). I pulled in to stop and see if they had permits or what they were doing, if they were resecuring it or what the problem was with that sign up there. And the owner, Mr. Joseph Dimassimo, was present. He was watching the carpenter that he hired to install a new sign. I asked him at that time if he had any permits for the installation of the new sign. At that time he said no, he didn't think he needed one because the old sign had caught fire, and they were replacing it with a new face at that time. He said the truck -- delivery truck had backed in and pushed the lower section of the light into the sign causing the sign to catch on fire which was put out by the fire department and he was replacing it. Page 64 April 25, 2002 I informed him at that time that he would need a permit for that because that-- he's hooking up electrical wires to the sign. He's changing the copy on the sign, which is all part of being permitted that it has to be inspected for the safety of himself and the safety of the Lehigh Gas, who is right next door to him, storage for their tanks. He said that, oh, okay, that he would get a permit if he needed one. I issued him an NOV at that time which he signed. He understood that he would have to get a permit for that. On December 21 st I was -- did a recheck to make sure to see if he was in the process of getting a permit, applying for one at that time. He had not applied for one yet. I stopped by the restaurant. He was not there. I talked to one of the waitress there and gave her my card to have him call me, that he hadn't applied for a permit yet and December 8th was coming around, whether he would have to get a permit for it or remove that sign. He called me later that day. He said yes, he was going to get a permit; he just needed a few more days; he would have it by December 14, just a little extra time. I said, "That's fine." I said, "You've got time." I said, "We'll give you the extra time as long as you get that permit." On December 14th I, again, checked on the permit. He had not applied for it yet. I -- I was back in the J and C area. I stopped in. Mr. Dimassimo was there. I asked him at that time what his intentions were, if he was going to apply for the permit. He told me he was going to back on Decem -- for December 14th he would have it. He said, "Well, at this time," he says, "I don't think I need one. I didn't do anything. All I did was change the sign. I didn't -- I didn't violate any codes. I should be grandfathered in." I said, "Well, you're not grandfathered in. You did change the copy on the sign. You moved the lights from where they were on the lower hand, and Page 65 April 25, 2002 you moved them up to the top." And I had pictures of the sign which were taken back in January of 2001, as we did take signage of all business signs out in Collier County in that area. We have just about every one that was put up so we can keep track that they don't change them without getting proper permits and apply to the new codes. I showed him that. He said, "Yes, I did. I did change it." But he said, "I still don't think I need a permit." I said, "Well, my concern is that you said that you did have a fire." I had the fire incident report that I picked up from the fire department. The fire was caused by electrical short of the sign, not by a truck backing into it. I said, "You need to have all that electrical wiring inspected. You need to have a permit for all that to be done so you'll be on the safe side for your own safety and the safety of the neighbors for the health and welfare of the community." He said, "Okay. I'll go down Tuesday. I'll get it right away," which Tuesday would be -- he said this on the - - go down there on Tuesday, which would be December 17th, and apply for a permit. On the 21 st he had not come down yet for a permit. I stopped by again to see what his intentions were, and I was informed that at this time that he was -- he was in the hospital having some sort of operation, that he would be back. And I left the card again and let him know to have him call me when he returns. On the 24th of January of 2002 1 did talk to his son that was at the restaurant who was working there. And I gave him a CEB warning letter, personally delivered it to him, because he did not receive the other CEB warning letter, so I personally delivered the copy of it, had him sign a copy for us and brought it back for our records to show that I did give him a warning letter that he'd have to have it corrected. Page 66 April 25, 2002 On February 4th I received a call from Mr. Dimaggio (sic) again stating that he -- that he was not going to get it, a permit for any of that, that he feels that he does not have to because he did not change anything on the -- on the sign, that he was informed by a friend of his that he didn't have to get one. I then told him that we were going to take him to the Code Enforcement Board if he refused to get one, and he said, "Well, you have to do what you do," and he just hung up at that time. So at that point we looked up the property, because he does have a parking area to the left side of the business, not known to us at that time that that parking lot does not belong to him. He leases it from another gentleman, and he pays rent on it for parking. So his parking -- his business alone is on a frontage, road frontage of a hundred feet only. The requirement for a pole sign is 150 feet. The sign that was put up was an unimproved sign that was put up back when the stand was first opened when they were selling hot dogs without any permits at all. The sign is -- is right on the property line next to the gas company, Ferrell Gas, which doesn't meet setbacks, and he does not have the proper frontage. I then again stopped in and informed him of that, and I gave him a copy of the new codes, that the sign is illegal, he would not be able to leave the sign there, He would have to remove it. He said, well, he would take it under advisement and let me know what his intentions were going to be. I never heard back from him. We did send him a CEB letter for March -- mailed it out on March 19th, notice for the hearing for today, and we return -- we received our signed receipt on April 3rd that he did receive it, and he was well aware that he would have to come today to see if he could do something about getting the sign -- MR. PONTE: Mr. Kennette, let me just ask a question. It's Page 67 April 25, 2002 tough to operate a business without a sign. Can the sign be relocated? Can it be put on top of the restaurant or --. MR. KENNETTE: He cannot put it on top. He is entitled to have a wall sign on -- on the front of the business, which he doesn't have at present. He just has that one ground sign that's in the front. But due to the fact he doesn't have the proper frontage of 150 feet -- MR. PONTE: Yes, I understand. MR. KENNETTE: -- he's not entitled to any type of ground sign. MS. ARNOLD: Can I speak? Maybe I should be sworn because I have information with respect to this particular case. MS. RAWSON: I think you should be sworn in. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Please. (The oath was administered.) MR. PONTE: I just have one other question for the investigator. He seemed to be very cooperative at one point. What suddenly changed his mind to his saying I will not --. MR. KENNETTE: I really don't know. He was -- even when I showed him the two -- new sign that he put up versus the old sign where the lights were removed and moved up to the top and new copy. He was under the assumption from a friend that goes into his establishment that told him that due to the fact that he didn't do anything to the sign except replace it, then he didn't have to get a permit, that he was grandfathered, at which time I told him there was no such thing as grandfathering. MR. PONTE: Thankyou. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Kennette? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other questions for Thank you, sir. If you would like Page 68 April 25, 2002 to have a seat ... Miss Arnold, did you want to speak? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. For the record, Michelle Arnold. I just got off the phone with speaking to the respondent -- excuse me. And I have previously met with him earlier this week to discuss this case, and he's indicated to me that he is willing to remove the sign within two weeks, and he's meeting with the county sign specialist or permitting agent to discuss with him what he can do with respect to putting another sign for his establishment on the property. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other testimony? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, not having respondent here, let's proceed to discussions and a finding of fact. MS. DUSEK: Miss Rawson, we -- since we have the case in front of us -- MS. RAWSON: Correct. MS. DUSEK: -- we've just heard testimony from Michelle that he's planning to do these things, but we have a case in front of us. But we go ahead with this case and forget -- MS. RAWSON: You do. If you find that he's in violation, now you've heard testimony that he'll correct the violation in two weeks. So you can take that testimony and keep that in mind when you're making your recommendations. MS. DUSEK: I, also, have a question on the violation. Section 2.5.13.2.5, I don't have a copy of that, so I'm not sure what that includes. If it's somebody -- somebody can just generally tell me. MR. PONTE: I don't got a copy either. MR. FLEGAL: Our package has page 1 and page 3. I think page 2 is missing. MS. DUSEK: I have the 2.5.13 which then says the following Page 69 April 25, 2002 requirements, and then there's nothing. MS. ARNOLD: Let me see if I can get that for you. MS. SAUNDERS: Do you have a page 127 MS. DUSEK: Uh-huh, I do. But that -- it doesn't follow. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. You're right. I'm sorry. If I might say, while we're waiting, this seems like a pretty clear-cut case to me. I commend code enforcement for hopefully getting it resolved. And this is one where I would be inclined, in order to really encourage the man to change his sign and comply with the new sign code, to even waive the operational costs if he has completed -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Might I -- let me interrupt you a little bit. We don't even have a finding of fact. MS. SAUNDERS: No. I'm just giving general comments. MR. FLEGAL: Chatting. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Chatting. MS. DUSEK: If we're ready, does anyone else need to review that section? I've looked at it -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would like to proceed with a finding of fact before we discuss anything about the motion. If I hear a motion with the finding of fact ... MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, versus Joe Dimassimo, Sr., in the case CEB No. 2002-007, that there is a violation. The violation is of Section 2.5.12, 2.5.5.2.5.1, and 2.5.13 through 2.5.13.2.5 of Ordinance No. 91-102, the Collier County ordinance. The description of the violation is replacing a pole sign with new signage which does not meet the Collier County sign code and without the required permit. Page 70 April 25, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion. Do I hear a second? MR. FLEGAL: Second. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: No opposed, the motion passes. Let's move on to discuss an order of the board. MS. DUSEK: Rhona, did you want to make -- MS. SAUNDERS: Yes. I'll make a motion that the Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to remove the pole sign from the property within 14 days or pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and $75 per day as a fine will be imposed and assessed each day the violation continues. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Might I recommend that we remove the word "or" and replace it with "and." MS. SAUNDERS: Certainly. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We will -- we will pay -- order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of the case and remove the pole sign from the property within 14 days or $75 per day will be assessed and imposed each day the violation continues. MR. PONTE: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that was Miss Saunders' intention. MS. SAUNDERS: No, I -- MR. PONTE: It was? I think you wanted to do a -- to relieve the respondent of the operational costs. Page 71 April 25, 2002 MS. SAUNDERS: If he complies within 14 days, that's correct, I did. I wanted to give him an added incentive to -- in this one case to have his agreement with Miss Arnold enforced. So my motion really is if his sign is not removed within 14 days that he be ordered to pay all operational costs and $75 per day fine. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I understand. So noted. We have a motion. Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Opposed? MR. FLEGAL: No. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Order passes 4 to 1. All righty. Let's move on to the next page, please. MS. PETRULLI: The next case on the docket is CEB No. 2002-008, Board of County Commissioners of Collier County versus Jack and Elma Mae Barrs. We'd like to ask if the respondents are present. MR. BARRS: (Indicating). MS. PETRULLI: Please show that they are present. The alleged violation is of Sections 1.5.6. and 2.1.11., also 2.1.15. of Ordinance 91-102, Sections 6, 7, and 8 of Ordinance 99-51, Section 4 of Ordinance 93-64 of the Collier County Land Development Ordinance. We have provided the board and the respondent with a packet. And at this time I'd like to request that the packet be admitted into Page 72 April 25, 2002 evidence and marked as Composite Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would entertain a motion to do so. MS. DUSEK: So moved. MS. SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The motion has been second -- the motion has been made. The second has been passed. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion passes. Please continue. MS. PETRULLI: The description of the violation is warehousing and outdoor salvage/storage of 80 to 100 motor vehicles, parts, assorted metal, plastic, glass, wooden items, to include used building materials, all on the improved agricultural site in Collier County, known as 2990 Sunset Boulevard, Naples, Florida. Also, the illegal access use of Parcel No. 078.000 of Township 50, RNG 26, Section 9, of Collier County's record, to accommodate all the above-mentioned warehouse and salvage activities. The location and address where the violation exists is 2990 Sunset Boulevard, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 0000000406920001. The name and address of the owner are Jack and Elma Mae Barrs, Post Office Box 8731, Naples, Florida 31304 (sic). The date of the violation first observed was December 26th of 2001. The date the owner was given a notice of violation was December 26 of 2001. The date on which the violation was to have been corrected was January the 1 lth of 2002. Reinspections were done on January 14th of 2002 and March 27th of 2002. The results of the reinspection were that the violations Page 73 April 25, 2002 still remain. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Investigator Cathy Van Poucke and to represent the county. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Please swear her in, please. Mr. and Mrs. Barrs, if you would please stand and be sworn in as well. I assume that both of you intend to give testimony? (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. You can please have a seat again wherever you'd like to sit. MR. FLEGAL: You can sit down, sir. Thank you. MS. VAN POUCKE: For the record, my name is Cathy Van Poucke. I'm an investigator for Collier County Code Enforcement. This case was initiated from a citizen complaint. I made my first visit to the location on December 26, 2001, when I met with the property owner and walked the property and observed approximately 80 to 100 inoperable vehicles on the property, along with other items such as used vehicle parts, metal, aluminum, different assorted items. I also observed that the -- Mr. Barrs was using the neighboring unimproved property, driving across it to access his rear yard where he was storing a majority of the vehicles. I did a rein -- at that time on December 26th I served Mr. Barrs with a notice of violation, explained the violations to him in the order to correct. On January 14th I -- I did another site visit and did observe approximately 15 to 20 vehicles that had been removed. I did a reinspection on March -- March 27th and observed that little progress had been made, and, in fact, it appeared that additional items such as vehicle parts had been brought onto the property. And my last visit was there yesterday, and the violation still remains. MR. PONTE: Miss Van Poucke, is a business going on here? Is that what we have? Page 74 April 25, 2002 MS. VAN POUCKE: I think that was probably his intent at one time but not now. MR. PONTE: How much -- how big is the piece of property? MS. VAN POUCKE: I believe it's a couple acres. MR. PONTE: Eighty to a hundred vehicles have significant value, in whatever shape they're in. So if there's no business going on now and yet vehicles are coming and going -- MS. VAN POUCKE: Mostly coming. MR. PONTE: Mostly coming. I see. Any explanation at all from the Barrs as to what's going on? MS. VAN POUCKE: I believe at one point he was trying to make money doing this, but there's no money in it right now, and he's just been stuck with these vehicles. I mean, his intent is, you know, he'd like to make money getting rid of them, but there isn't any money in that right now. MR. PONTE: He's obviously buying new vehicles or New wrecks. MS. VAN POUCKE: I don't believe that he's buying them. I believe that they're basically being donated. MR. PONTE: Do you think people are dumping on the property, that is, without his being aware of it? MS. VAN POUCKE: Well, I'm not saying all of the vehicles. But I know Mr. Barrs had indicated to me that he'll get up in the morning, that there will be another vehicle there. MR. PONTE: I see. MS. DUSEK: Now, this is not allowed on agricultural property. Would it -- or is -- is that the main concern, or is it just not allowed, period, whether it be industrial or agriculture? MS. VAN POUCKE: It's not allowed at -- at this location. MS. DUSEK: Okay. And even if it were permitted, it still Page 75 April 25, 2002 would not be allowed. MS. VAN POUCKE: Correct. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other questions ? MR. FLEGAL: This property is in the estates, is it not ? MS. VAN POUCKE: No. It's zoned agricultural. It's off of County Barn. MR. FLEGAL: Oh, okay. MR. PONTE: Is it enclosed, Miss Van Poucke? MS. VAN POUCKE: No. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. Miss Arnold, do you have anyone else you wish to have testimony given? MS. ARNOLD: No, not at this time. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. Mr. and Mrs. Barrs, if you would come to the podium and -- just for the record, could you tell us your name and spell it for us, please. MR. BARRS: I'm Jack W. Barrs, and this is my wife, Elma Barrs. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Please proceed. MR. BARRS: I would like to know one thing: The property we're on is agriculture property. Zoning has let me do a little bit of stuff whenever I was able to work. I haven't been able to do very much in the last two, three years. My wife -- me and my wife were in and out of the hospital over and over and over and over and over which is year-round on that deal. In fact, she's working for the state here, and she had to quit that because she wasn't able. Now, I know I've got to clean up out yonder. I've been going at Page 76 April 25, 2002 it doing the best I could, and I've not quit, but I did fall -- the lady come out there and seen me one going around. I had the whole driveway loaded with stuff going on the truck to get out of there where just a few days -- I think the second day after she was out there, I took a bad fall on concrete, got both elbows -- I got wore-out knees, and I took braded one of them pretty bad. In fact, when they put me down, I wasn't able to get out, do no work or nothing for about a week. I am getting up and moving around, and I've not quit cleaning it up. I'm trying to do what I can. She's had me to move some cars here a while back. I got them out. I've got a poor way of getting stuff out right now. I got my stepson, Stumper Incorporated, they're with us, and he's been hauling -- he has clear off of his truck and deal. Then he hauls a car or two out for me, and that's the way I've been getting them out. Right now I've been kinda at a standstill where I had a bunch of alumnium (sic), old generators, old starters been laying there for four, five, six, seven years, and that's what I've been cleaning up trying to get out. And I've been almost at a standstill. But as time goes on -- if I can keep going like I'm going, I'll catch up with it, but I can only do so much. I'm only one person. I'm trying to do what I can. The wife can't do very much either. MS. BARRS: I apologize I'm not able to do -- any help with him. And at this time he's taking me to my doctors in Fort Myers. I've been pretty ill for the last five years, so I don't want you to think that I'm not wanting to do my -- what is respected (sic) of us, but I'm not much help to him, but he does have to transport me because I don't no longer drive. And we would appreciate the kindness of this department that we are trying our best. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Anything else? Page 77 April 25, 2002 MR. FLEGAL: Mr. Barr (sic), are you -- when you get rid of some materials, are you -- are you selling it off, or are you having it hauled to a dump or something, or where is it going? MR. BARRS: I'm not trying to haul it to the dump. IfI carry it out there, it costs me a pretty good little bit to go to the dump if I can carry it across the scales and get the -- the cost to where I can keep 'agoing. Bank auction, anywhere from 17 to 23 dollars if I have to cut something up to load it. And I'm trying to get enough out of it, try to keep the costs -- to keep the gas -- gas has done got out of the question. And I'm not trying not to move anything. I'm trying to get what I got to move, but I do --. I would like to know one thing now, while I'm here at the board and talking with you-all. What am I allowed on industrial property? I've got a deed in the bank with a $60,000 mortgage on it that's right across the middle of it, no land title deed restrictions, wrote right across the middle of it. I've been on the property for 29 years, and I've had it bought in the early '60s. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, Mr. Barrs, this board--. MR. BARRS: So where do I stand with this? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: This board could not answer this question for you. What we're here to do today is just to -- to look at the violation and determine whether a violation does -- does or does not exist. MR. FLEGAL: That's beyond our scope, sir, and we cannot help you. MR. BARRS: Well, there's something that don't seem quite right, you know. I'm getting rid of stuff that I was let keep I -- for -- I had a hobby. In other words, I done mechanic work all my life, other than a little bit of fishing, and fishing is out. So the mechanic work is out, too, now, in other words, other than getting rid of this here stuff Page 78 April 25, 2002 that I still got stuck around out there about probably a hundred tons. MS. SAUNDERS: Sir, how long do you believe it will take you at the present rate to clear the property? MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask him a question? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: First I'd like to have an answer. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I think this would help him. Mr. Barr (sic), are you willing to work -- work with a contractor that might remove some of the metal at no cost to you? MR. FLEGAL: Would you be willing to work with somebody who might come onto your property and haul some of that stuff off and not charge you anything? I mean, you're not going to make anything. He's just going to come and take it off. MR. BARRS: Well, I'm not -- I'm not really -- I'm not all here. I'm trying to be, but I ain't. MR. FLEGAL: That's okay. MR. BARRS: I would like to work-- what I've got, I'd like to work it out myself -- MR. FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BARRS: -- as much as I can. I would like if there's any way coming out of it and not being in the hole. And that's where I'm at now. In other words, I -- I drove 500, I think at $9 a month to live on on my part, and that's no money. That don't even buy your groceries. But when you're on a income, permanent income, that's what you got to count on. So I've got to watch every dollar that comes -- that I get in my hand. I got to watch it -- . MS. DUSEK: Mr. Barrs -- MR. BARRS: -- so I can make it out to the end of the month. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Barrs, do you make any money when you remove this from your property and get rid of it somewhere? MR. BARRS: If I carried the stuff to the scales, yes, I'll get Page 79 April 25, 2002 money. But I'm turning right around and buying the oxygen and the gas and the stuff-- to get the stuff to where it can get gone, and it's just about taking everything you can get. And if you got a few more dollars in your pocket, you're going to dig that out and put that in there too. But you need every bit of it in order to do what you are doing. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, Miss Arnold's question to you was, if she could arrange for a contractor to come and take that material away -- MR. BARRS: Right. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- free of charge to you, would that be an acceptable solution? MR. BARRS: Well, I've got -- I got -- I got a problem with -- when you've got other people's stuff. I've got quite a few vehicles that don't even belong to me that then when you take this here -- hold it for me a little bit until I can get it fixed. The neighbors down the street got something they want -- can you carry this down there -- in other words, if you got a little spare time, will you look at it and see if you can fix it. Well, it sits there and sits there. After a while, it's a permanent object. So you got -- try to see the neighbor or see whoever this here belongs to. And I like to be polite. If you gave me something, it's going to stay right there. I ain't going to get rid of it if it belongs to you. I ain't going to give it to somebody else that belongs to you. I want to deal with you. I want you to have what belongs to you. I don't care how it works out. It's still yours. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Barrs --. MR. BARRS: And I know-- go ahead. MS. DUSEK: Would it be difficult for a contractor to come in and separate -- I mean, are these items that belong to other people Page 80 April 25, 2002 that you want to preserve separate from the other items that a contractor could come in and remove and get most of this off of your property? MR. BARRS: I wouldn't -- the way I'm tied up there, it's hard to put somebody else in there to work. I've got one driveway -- I'm not all here today. I can't think half my -- I've got one driveway to work out of, and that's -- our zoning lady right there, she'll tell you that's the worst-looking place I got. But when I put a truck in there, that's where I got to load it at. I've got to load it right there. So if I bring anybody else in there, I've just got another problem. I've got to watch that too. I don't want some little something tore up for somebody that ain't worrying about what the object is that they're working around but -- I am trying myself, and I don't think she can say I've quit. I think she -- when she comes up there, I think she pretty will say she caught me doing something. Right? MR. PONTE: Mr. Barr -- Mr. Barr -- right here, Mr. Bart (sic). How many of these vehicles, the 80 to a hundred vehicles -- MR. BARRS: No, I don't--. MR. PONTE: -- are owned by others? MR. BARRS: I don't know. I'd have -- when I see one sitting there, I know -- then I know whose it is, whose it's supposed to be. MR. PONTE: Those vehicles that -- those vehicles that you did remove, did you return them to the owner? MR. BARRS: I've done returned some already. I got one -- I got rid of one the other day. Of course, come out and seen me the last day, I just got rid of one, just got rid of it. I had one down that belonged to Roy Curry, the contractor that died. I finally got rid of that. I got rid of that since then, but she told -- she asked me to work on the front. I'll have to say this much; I didn't altogether work on the front. Page 81 April 25, 2002 If I had a chance to getting rid of something back there in the back and they could get it out, I sent it out. I -- I know -- MS. DUSEK: Mr. Barrs --. MR. BARRS: -- I need to work in the front. I know that. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Barrs, do you have any control over new items coming onto your property? MR. BARRS: I ain't taking no new items. I had -- one of the neighbors called me the other day because they knowed I was always getting rid of the old junk cars. I've done that for many of the neighbors or the people that got -- ain't got no way of getting rid of it. I used to take and have -- even put -- needed salvage and all that used to be working. I used to have them take and come -- I would get the cars ready. They'd put two on the side of the road. And the zoning -- way back. Well, I couldn't put them on the side of the road until the guy was going to come out and pick it up. So then I had to keep -- if they brought one in and it would sit there, I had to house it up in the yard or in the back somewhere until this here truck going to come tomorrow; it's going to be day after tomorrow. Then I had to sneak it out there. You're going to be there at ten o'clock, so you wait pretty close to the time for it to come, and you sneak it out there on the road right quick. And when he'd come through, he'd take one on the truck and one in tow. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Barrs, you realize -- it sounds as though you have a violation here. MR. BARRS: Right. And I'm working on it. MS. DUSEK: Do you understand that it may cost you money if we find you in violation? Now, the county would like to work with you. MR. BARRS: I would appreciate every bit of the working with yOU. Page 82 April 25, 2002 MR. PONTE: MR. BARRS: to the hospital. MS. DUSEK: Well, they would like to have somebody come out and help you remove these items. You have to be willing to have them come out. They will work with you. Do you understand that it could cost you money if you don't get rid of these items within a certain period of time? MR. BARRS: Well, it wouldn't-- if you-all -- if you-all let me work with it and you-all work with me, I can get it out. I will work it out. MS. SAUNDERS: That was my question initially, sir. MR. BARRS: I'm trying -- I'm try -- I'm trying to work both ways. I'm trying to work with you-all here and work with myself and with the other neighbors, the ones that's got stuff. I've got to get around and get odds and ends cleared. MS. SAUNDERS: Mr. Barrs, the answer-- the question is how long do you think it will take you to do this on your own? The way he is, never? MR. BARRS: IfI can -- ifI could stay working pretty good. But I'm not where I can. In other words, I'm -- I'm up and down. But I think -- if you talk to the little blonde lady over there -- she's a pretty nice lady -- when she asked me to do something, I usually try to do it. I don't think she's out -- think that I -- not doing what she asked me to do. I've just been slow because I've been in bad shape myself, and I'm still in bad shape. Do you live--. Half the time I'm running up and down the road MR. FLEGAL: Do you live on the property, Mr. Barrs? MR. BARRS: Yeah. I've been on the property ever-- ever since -- I think about '73 -- . MR. FLEGAL: Okay. Page 83 April 25, 2002 MR. BARRS: -- I've lived on the property. I owned the property before then, but I've been there since then. I've been in there -- I think I've been there 28, 29 years. we'll like. right CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: go forward with the discussion. Any other questions for Mr. Barrs? None? If you'd please have a seat, You can sit right there if you'd MR. BARRS: I don't hear good. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, if you'd like to have a seat there --. MR. BARRS: MS. BARRS: Can I turn it up? You can sit down, Jack. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Just sit down. Thank you, sir. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, could you clarify for me Section 4 of Ordinance No. 93-4 -- 64? ls that on page 18 of our packet? I'm not sure. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. It's on the bottom of page 18. MS. DUSEK: This is to dig, excavate, obstruct, or place? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Any construction or other material or perform any other work which disturbs the existing structure -- let's see. And any -- and/or compactment of soil in the right-of-way provided the -- provided for public use. And-- and it goes on. MS. DUSEK: And so is this mainly for public right-of-way because I'm not clear is there a sec -- is there a part of this property that's a public right-of-way? MS. ARNOLD: I believe that some of the objects were stored in the right-of-way and that-- no? What is the -- MS. VAN POUCKE: The reason that ordinance is referenced is him crossing the right-of-way on the neighboring unimproved Page 84 April 25, 2002 property. The crossing there, there's no swale left. He just -- he basically has made a road across the right-of-way into the neighboring property. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: If there's no further discussion, I'd entertain a finding of fact. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in -- with the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, versus Jack and Elma Mae Barrs in the case CEB No. 2002-008 that there is a violation. The violation is of Sections 1.5.6, 2.1.11, 2.1.15 of Ordinance No. 91-102, Sections 6, 7, and 8 of Ordinance 99-51, Section 46 Ordinance No. 93-64 of the Collier County Land Development Ordinance. The description of the violation: Warehousing and outdoor salvage/storage of 80 to 100 motor vehicles, parts, assorted metal, plastic, glass, wooden items, to include used building materials on -- all on the improved agricultural site in Collier County, known as 2990 Sunset Boulevard, Naples, Florida. Also, the illegal access use of a Parcel No. 078.000 of Township 50, Range 26, Section 9 of Collier County record, to accommodate all of the above-mentioned warehouse and salvage activities. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: MR. FLEGAL: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Do I hear a second to the motion? We have a motion and a second. Hearing none, all those in favor Opposed? (No response.) Page 85 April 25, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The motion passes. May we proceed to an order of the board? MR. PONTE: I would like to just ask Miss Poucke (sic) or Michelle, in looking at the recommendation, the recommendation is a rather unusual one. The time period is 120 days. What's to lead us to believe that we can clear this in 120 days? I would -- I guess that has to come from Miss Poucke. Is that your recommendation, Miss Poucke? MS. ARNOLD: I think that we had to look at what would -- what would be reasonable for the respondent but then, also, considering the impacts on the adjacent properties and the neighboring properties, not to extend it out too long, but giving him some -- a good amount of time that would be a reasonable amount of time for him to remove some of that. MS. DUSEK: If you had the contractor go in and work with the Barrs, do -- have -- do you have any assessment of how long that would take? MS. ARNOLD: Well, I know that we've done this on another piece of property that we've -- the county has acquired, and that was a 5-acre lot, and it took the contractor about a week to remove the items that were -- metal or something of-- of that nature so -- MR. PONTE: Can we direct him to remove property that he doesn't own and to where? MR. FLEGAL: I guess that's a question we need to ask Miss Rawson. MS. RAWSON: Yes, you can because it's -- the citation or the violation is against the land. And it doesn't really make any difference whose property it is that's on the land that's violating the land. The violation runs with the land. MS. ARNOLD: In the case of the other property that we Page 86 April 25, 2002 removed items, what -- what the county did was we put a special notice in the paper advising the community that we were going to be going in and removing items. And if anybody had items on there that belonged to them, that they had an opportunity, a window of opportunity, to remove those items. MS. DUSEK: Now, they-- a contractor cannot go in there without the permission of the Barrs; is that correct? MR. FLEGAL: Wrong. If it's the order of the board, the contractor can go; correct, Miss Rawson? MS. RAWSON: That's correct. You can assist in abating this violation however you want. MR. PONTE: What would be the cost of having a contractor -- just a -- I know you can't give me a cost, but just so I have a feel as to what costs might be assessed for removing eighty to a hundred vehicles and all of the other debris that's there? MS. ARNOLD: I can't answer the question with respect to the other debris. But the -- I know that they have contracted with someone at no cost to the county to remove metal and aluminum items. So all the other miscellanenumb -- miscellaneous items I wouldn't be able to give you an estimate of that. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: My recommendation for the board is not to get involved in -- in the actual costs of removal or anything of that nature. MR. PONTE: Just in wording the recommendation, Mr. Chairman, so that we don't have a rather standard recommendation that results in the respondent being assessed costs that he can't afford, just obviously. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Uh-huh. Well, again, I think the board really has -- has two options here, either to order the respondent to take care of it and then impose a fine if that does not Page 87 April 25, 2002 occur or to order the respondent to take care of it and, if it does not occur, then order the county to take care of it at whatever cost the county incurs, and that cost unfortunately typically gets turned back over to the respondent. Either way we have to achieve compliance one way or the other. MS. DUSEK: I think, my personal feeling is that I am sympathetic to the health of the Barrs and their situation, but I always am empathetic to the neighboring homes. I think that the recommendation that the county has offered is generous, and they have also offered to help. And so I think that we could go ahead with the recommendation that the county and the Barrs work together immediately to get this removed. MS. SAUNDERS: I think in this case -- and this is unusual for me, but I think in this case the county has been too generous. I think 120 days is really--. MS. BARRS: The shape we're in-- MR. BARRS: 120 days? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Sir, please. We're in discussion right now and -- thank you. MS. SAUNDERS: Because there is another solution, which is to have somebody come in at no cost and do it, this -- this becomes a -- the reason for the homeowner or the property owner maintaining the right to do it himself is only have the opportunity to make money. And I believe 120 days is too long to grant him for that right. So I would be in favor of maybe 60 days, and that might encourage him to work with the county as well or pursue whatever options they want to on the property. MR. FLEGAL: I like Rhona's recommendation. I would probably change it a little in that -- keeping in mind we've just had a similar-type case. Page 88 April 25, 2002 MS. DUSEK: Uh-huh. MR. FLEGAL: I understand the health. But at the same time I put that into perspective with the county's offer to try and do something for these people by getting a contractor at no cost to -- I think shortening up the time period. But I also at the same time think the fine should be in line with the violation. one, and it was for $75. MS. SAUNDERS: Uh-huh. We've just processed MR. FLEGAL: And it wasn't near the amount of stuff. I don't like to see us get in a position where for-- and I don't know how else to say this other than the defendants' personal problems we start reducing fines. I think that's the wrong way to do that. MS. DUSEK: Of course --. MR. FLEGAL: You either have a violation of this nature and it's X, or that's it. MS. SAUNDERS: I do agree with you. I think you're right. MR. FLEGAL: So I like the 60 days, but at the same time I would change the 25 to 75 and let the county do whatever they can to help these people. I think that's a great offer. And since it's at no cost to the people, I think it should be pursued vigorously, and however we have to state that in the order, I think that should be a part of it. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, this -- ! think I understood it earlier. Maybe I'm wrong. The contractor is not going to go in there and be able to remove everything. It's only certain types of items; is that right? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MS. DUSEK: So the onus would still be on the homeowner to remove those cars or whatever belongs to other people. MR. FLEGAL: Well, we don't know what the contractor will Page 89 April 25, 2002 take; right? MS. ARNOLD: They make take some of the vehicles. MR. FLEGAL: There may be some building stuff, whatever is out there that a contractor wouldn't take that the owner would have to dispose of. But you would be reducing it probably greatly? MS. ARNOLD: Probably. I would -- and it would be difficult for us to give that assistance to the property owner unless they want us to do it, if it's not in your order. MR. FLEGAL: We need to put it in the order. That way it's not left to the owner's option. MS. DUSEK: I-- MR. PONTE: What is the situation with the contractor gets involved, and the contractor agrees to take away certain material, obviously the material that he probably can sell, and leaving half of the problem still there? MR. FLEGAL: Well, I mean-- MR. PONTE: Then if we make it a 60-day -- I mean, I think 60 days is correct. But I think we won't have solved the problem. MR. FLEGAL: Well, but the owner has to do something. You could give him 120 days and he could do nothing, so you haven't solved anything. I think getting a contractor, even if we can only get rid of 50 percent of the stuff, you've at least made 50 percent progress rather than zero progress in 120 days. So let's -- let's make all the progress we can. And the owner's still going to have to get off his -- you know, and get some help from somewhere. He's got to do it, I mean, or he's going to get fined. You can't just let him sit in perpetual motion and say, "Gee, I'm sorry I'm sick ." And I feel sorry for him that he's sick. But there's a violation. At some point it's got to get resolved somehow. Page 90 April 25, 2002 And maybe the only way to do that is, the worst-case scenario, if nothing happens at the end of the 60 days, the county could come back and say, "Look, he can't do anything. We've done all we can. This is never going to be resolved." We could then amend the order, I'm pretty sure, and have the county remove everything. And whatever it costs we assess to him as a lien on his property. That's probably the worst scenario down the road. But let's give him the option to at least try if we can get him some help. MS. DUSEK: Also I want to be remind -- remind everybody that we look at each case case by case so that we don't just automatically stamp just because a case is similar to another one. And -- and the reason I'm saying that, the $75, I would like to compromise and say $50 on that rather than the 75. And the 60 days, somehow I'm feeling that it's not going to be accomplished within 60 days. I -- I mean, I'd like to compromise. The county has proposed the 120. I'd like to say 90. But this is my feeling about it. I'm looking at the circumstances. We want to see it accomplished and by giving every opportunity to the person to accomplish it. MR. PONTE: I think 90 days is realistic, too, in that we're dealing with a contractor, and we don't know how quickly that can be obtained, those services can be obtained. I think that's realistic, given the vagaries of the situation. MS. SAIYNDERS: I -- my im -- my thought is that we need to show our determination to have this problem cleared up and to do that by putting a short period of time on and some incentive to solve it, and that's why I'm in favor very much of the 60 days and $75 fine. There is a solution to this, and I empathize with everybody involved, but I think I want that solution if-- in place if the property owner doesn't have his own. Page 91 April 25, 2002 MR. PONTE: Do you want to make that a motion? MS. SAUNDERS: Sure. Unless there's more. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: No. I was going to suggest, if no further discussion, let's have a motion. MS. ARNOLD: And you have the ability to -- as Mr. Flegal said, to give them so much time and then, if not done, order the county to do it after that time. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Correct. MS. SAUNDERS: I move that the Code Enforcement Board order the respondents to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and remove all items on the unimproved property within 60 days or a fine of seventy -- and a fine of $75 -- I'm sorry. Remove all prop -- property within 60 days or a fine of $75 will be assessed per day. I also move that the county be instructed to move forward on obtaining the removal of the prop -- of-- of the litter -- of the warehousing and outdoor salvage of vehicles after the 60-day period has evolved. MS. DUSEK: So what you're saying is you've given the homeowner 60 days. If they don't correct it within 60 days, the county goes in and removes everything and, also, the $75 fine will begin? MS. SAUNDERS: Until the property is completely cleared. So if the county is only able to remove 70 percent of it, the rest of it is still the problem of the owner. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. Rhona, what I -- what I understood your motion, you didn't say that during the 60-day period the county could remove it. MS. SAUNDERS: No. After 60 days. MR. FLEGAL: But I want During the 60 days -- you can help Page 92 April 25, 2002 get rid of it during the 60 days by getting a contractor? MS. ARNOLD: If they allow us to. MR. FLEGAL: If we order it done, they're going to allow you; that's a given. Do I understand that, Miss Rawson? If we order, that's a given? MS. RAWSON: If you find that there has been a serious threat to the public health, safety, and welfare or if the violation is irreparable or irreversible in nature, you can certainly do that. MS. DUSEK: Then I have a question before we go on to Cathy. Do you feel this is a threat to the health and safety of the public -- MS. RAWSON: Or the other part, it could be irreparable or irreversible in nature. MS. VAN POUCKE: I don't see where it would be a threat, and I don't see where it would not be reversible because all the items can be removed. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Thank you. MS. SAUNDERS: Then that--. MR. FLEGAL: Well, I have a question for Miss Rawson. MS. ARNOLD: I would -- I would find that there is a public safety concern because ofjust the storage of the amount of vehicles and the fact that, you know, there are rodents and everything else that -- that could be attracted by the continual storage of these vehicles. So I would have to disagree with Miss Van Poucke. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Do we have residents in the vicinity of this property? MS. VAN POUCKE: There's one residence on one side, and the other side is an unimproved property, and there is nobody on the other side of the street. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. Page 93 April 25, 2002 MR. FLEGAL: Miss Rawson-- MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. FLEGAL: -- if-- in ordering the respondent to remove the items within 60 days, can we also order that during the 60-day period, since the county has made the offer, to assist him at no cost that they be ordered to accept that assistance? MS. DUSEK: We have conflicting testimony that says, according to the ordinance that you just read, that -- depending on which testimony you're going to accept, whether we can do that or not, is the way I -- MS. RAWSON: I don't know whether you can order them to accept the assistance. I think you can order that the county has the right to come on the property, because if they don't agree for the county to assist them during the 60-period -- 60-day period and you don't find that there's been a serious threat to the public health, safety, and welfare or that the violation is irreparable or irreversible in nature, I'm not sure you can make them do that. I think you can order that they correct the violation within a certain period of time; and if they don't do that, you can fine them, and then you can order the county -- we do that all the time -- to go and make the correction for them. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. And then that other paragraph doesn't apply, if they don't comply in 60 days? MS. RAWSON: Right. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We still have a motion before the board, and that is that the respondents are ordered to pay all operational costs and remove all items within 60 days or a fine of $75 per day will be imposed, and the county will be ordered to remove the articles; is that correct? Page 94 April 25, 2002 MS. SAUNDERS: Yes, that's correct. Better said than I did. MR. FLEGAL: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. MR. FLEGAL: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Opposed? MS. DUSEK: Nay. MR. PONTE: Nay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Rhona, are you an aye or nay? MS. SAUNDERS: I'm an aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Three to two, the vote passes. Mr. and Mrs. Barrs, do you understand what we've just voted on? MR. BARRS: I was -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Could you come to the mike or the podium again so we could hear you on the microphone? MR. BARRS: I say, I was trying to hear you, but I'm not very good. I'm just about out of that hearing, but -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The board has ordered you to remove all of the debris or articles that are there within 60 days. If that does not occur, then a fine of $75 per day will be assessed to you. Additional to that is if it is not accomplished within 60 days, the county will be ordered to remove it for you to the extent that they can. You always have the option to work with the county right now and have them assist you during the 60-day period, and that may or may not be in your best interests, however you govern that. MR. BARRS: Well, I would like -- I would like-- like to work Page 95 April 25, 2002 with the vehicles that don't belong to me. I'd like to go ahead and try to contact each one of these individuals and get them -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Uh-huh. MR. BARRS: -- out of the way. I can get them out of the way; then I can figure what I can do, and then I'll get ahold of the boys and stuff. Maybe when they're -- they're not working, they got a day off, maybe they can come give me a little hand and -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, you certainly have --. MR. BARRS: I'll do everything I can within the 60 days, and they will be improvement. The first -- my driveway was the biggest thing because I got -- and that will be probably the last thing cleaned up because that's where most the stuff will load out at through that driveway. Once that's cleared, then I'll be clear of a lot of the stuff behind me. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Good. MR. BARRS: The biggest thing that I got, I got concrete blocks that I'm storing for -- to build a house, another house. I hate to get rid of them. If you-all order me to get rid of them, I got to get rid of them, but I've got them all stacked up neat around the trailer. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Good. MR. BARRS: I also got some I-beams to build trailers with. I guess I got to get rid of them too. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, you have 60 days to make whatever arrangements, whatever you'd like to and call whoever owns whatever and make --. MR. BARRS: All right. I'll do everything I can. In other words, I'm not trying to butt horns with you. I'm just trying to do what I got to do. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I understand. Thank you, and have a good day. Page 96 April 25, 2002 MR. BARRS: All right. Thank you now. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, I would like to ask if you would take a -- 15 minutes or so to contact them and just explain that the county would be willing to help. MS. ARNOLD: Sure. MS. DUSEK: Make sure they understand. MS. ARNOLD: And the investigator will assist in that as well. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All right. I'd like to close the public hearings right now and move on to new business. Imposition of fines, Avalos. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, this item has been heard before the board back in November 29th of 2001, at which time the board heard the case and found Anna Rosa Avalos in violation of the placement of a mobile home on estates property without proper permits. They -- the board ordered the respondent to remove the structure within 90 days, by February 28th, or a fine of prior $25 per day would be imposed. The board also ordered the payment of operational costs. I'm here to report to you today that the violation has been abated in accordance with the board's order. However, we still need to impose fines for the operational costs of $542.70. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would entertain a motion from the board to do so. MR. PONTE: I would like to have a little discussion here. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. MR. PONTE: We have operational costs of $542 probably against people who have come into compliance before the fining mechanism came into operation. MS. ARNOLD: And that's what your order indicates. MR. PONTE: Then we have to revise the way we're doing the orders because it seems to me that the cost of operation is what we're Page 97 April 25, 2002 budgeted to do, to bring them into -- people into compliance. MR. FLEGAL: No, there's -- MR. PONTE: May I finish? They're in compliance. They came into compliance prior to the period where a fine would be imposed. It would seem to me that we would be paying the 542. There hadn't been at that point a violation beyond our order. MR. FLEGAL: I disagree. They should have came into compliance before the case was brought to this board. They had that opportunity, and they failed to do it. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I agree. MR. FLEGAL: They could have resolved the problem and not ever come in this room. They did not do that. They were -- chose to come here and have us issue an order to force them to do something. Therefore, they need to ante up the money to prosecute them. Sorry. They had the opportunity prior to getting here to resolve the problem, and they chose not to do it. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I agree with my colleague. If simply the respondents get the idea that all they need to do is just ignore code enforcement in everything they do except to wait to come before us, that takes away some of the incentive of listening to code enforcement and working with county staff like every other respondent on every other case that happens that we never hear of. The county usually goes through about 2,000 cases a month, from my understanding. We hear six, eight cases, ten cases maybe. So there is a vast majority of the general public that are just working with the county and -- and achieving this. I think if we reduce or eliminate the operational costs involved in the prosecution, then we take one more step backwards in trying to undermine the purpose of why we're here and what we're doing. MR. PONTE: You're both very persuasive. Page 98 April 25, 2002 MR. FLEGAL: I make a motion we impose the fine. MS. SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: No opposed? The motion carries. Let's go on to Item No. B, new business. MS. ARNOLD: This is a request for a motion to modify the board's order. The case was heard by the board -- hmm, let's see, oh, on July 16th. And that was for the removal of vegetation without prior authorization. The respondent was found in violation. The current owner wasn't the owner at the time, but there was a representative for the owner that discussed the issue with the board to come up with an appropriate time frame for revegetating the property, because at that time there was the intentions of developing the -- the site. There is an attorney for the re -- the property owner here today. We have had discussions with respect to this case. And one of the options that was afforded to the property owner prior to the hearing was the payment of replacing vegetation on the property, and that payment would go towards vegetating public lands. And the cost for that was estimated at $11,000. At the time that the board passed their order, that option was not included in the order. The order simply said to come up with a mitigation plan, I believe, to revegetate the property in question. But at this point I believe the attorney would like the order modified to -- to include the other alternative to the property owner. And-- and Mr. grant is here to speak to that. Page 99 April 25, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Just one second, sir. Miss Rawson, do we have the right to modify the orders? MS. RAWSON: We do, nunc pro tunc, which means that it would go back to the date of the order, which was July 23rd, 2001. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. Miss Arnold, does the County have any objection to anything that the respondent is offering today? MS. ARNOLD: I believe you-all received a letter from the attorney. I think the only thing that we're not in agreement on is whether or not we want to change the compliance date. The compliance date was April 1, 2002, and if we don't change the compliance date, a fine of $50 per day will accrue to the point where any other alternative that's entered into the order as an option for compliance is made so if-- if the board amends their order to say that you can pay the equivalent costs for revegetating public lands, the $11,000, when the county receives that check, that was -- that would be when compliance is achieved. And the fines from April 1 st to whatever that date is would accrue. MR. FLEGAL: Michelle, are you -- I remember a lot of this case. MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. MR. FLEGAL: I don't remember that them paying an $11,000 fee was presented as an option to this board when we made this order. MS. ARNOLD: It was not. It was presented to the respondents prior to this case coming to this board. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. But it wasn't presented to this board? MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MR. FLEGAL: That makes a big difference. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: It was discussed at the hearing, and it was discussed in the effect of saying the value of this is about Page 100 April 25, 2002 $11,000. MR. FLEGAL: But it wasn't presented to us as you can have them submit a mitigation plan or submit a check for $11,000. That wasn't given to us as an option. MS. ARNOLD: That wasn't presented as a recommendation, no. MR. FLEGAL: It's a big difference in -- I think, in making a decision on whether we amend or not. MS. DUSEK: Do I understand that you discussed this option with them before it came before our board? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Investigator Sulecki is here who is the investigator for that case. The question is whether or not we discussed the $11,000 option with the respondent prior to the case coming to the board. MS. SULECKI: For the record, Alex Sulecki, environmental specialist, code enforcement department. I did write a letter to the developer who had an option to buy the property at the time, and I outlined that as an option. And at that point -- after that point -- I believe it was several weeks -- he stated that he was choosing not to pursue that option. That's why it was never in the recommendation. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Mr. Grant? MR. GRANT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Richard Grant. I am the attorney. I represent the current owner, and I represented the party who was then the contracted buyer of the property back in July when this matter came before your board. The reason I represented it as opposed to the owner is because my client didn't then own the property, and because my client as the buyer had agreed with the owner of the property from whom it was buying the property, it would address this problem with the county. So that's the reason for Page 101 April 25, 2002 the continuity. Let me just put something in context for you here, if I might, because what I asked the board to do in the letter that I wrote asking to have this matter considered was something we'd love to have you entertain. I don't think the county staff supports it. We're prepared to pay the $11,000. I have a check here today that can conclude this. But let me explain the background to you -- for you very briefly. It matters to my client; I hope it matters to you. This property is raw land. It's in north Naples, north of the Wiggins Pass Marina. It is prime development property. It will be developed some day. It's been approved for development. It's a part of the Cocohatchee PUD. Last summer when this came up, there were some trees that had been cut. They had been cut quite some time before our client ever got involved. We don't have any idea who did it. The owner of the property at the time denied having done it. That's irrelevant. Nobody contested the fact that this was something that we would address with the county. We did make the point, I believe, that fault was an element. But we didn't contest it because we didn't want to get into it. We wanted to resolve it. At that time the client was expecting to be starting development of a very high-end golf course on this and some adjoining property. It was expecting at that point to start development of that sometime last fall, which led to why the April 1 compliance date was in there because the plan of mitigation involved planting some added vegetation as a part of that. The client has every intention of doing that. But plans to begin construction got put on hold for a variety of reasons -- it is not a money problem, but it is due to the fact that they simply were not generating the level of interest in golf club memberships that one typically wants to have to justify beginning Page 102 April 25, 2002 construction. So it didn't start. As a consequence, that's why compliance hasn't been achieved. The staff is absolutely correct that the staff offered the opportunity to my client to make payment of an amount of money at the time to provide equivalent vegetation somewhere else in the county. It wasn't entirely a case of the client resisting that as much as the client preferring to solve the problem with vegetation on its own real estate. That's what 31ed to what you ordered. That's what we asked you to order, and that's what you agreed to order. Because of the fact that it hasn't been done, I wrote a letter at the client's request back in the early part of March-- I wish I had written it in January, but I wrote it in March because that's when we did it -- asking to appear before this board at your hearing last month to ask the board to extend the date for compliance. It's a sensible plan. It will get done. There is absolutely no harm resulting from the fact that the replanting hasn't occurred. But I understand all things need to come to an end. If extending the date for compliance until sometime in the future when the golf course is built is not satisfactory, we are perfectly prepared to pay $11,000. There's been discussion with the staff and the county parks department about where it would be done in the new Bluebill Park which is just down the road, and we can resolve the matter, and that's all we ask you to do. Either one would be entirely satisfactory to us, paying -- paying the $11,000, extending the time for compliance. The only thing I would ask is that you not impose the fine going back to April the 1st, the reason being it isn't a case of not having made an effort and not having acted in good faith. We asked to come before the board last month before the 1st of April. Your schedule was too busy to accommodate, and that's why we're here today. MS. DUSEK: Has any work been done on the property? Page 103 April 25, 2002 MR. GRANT: No. The only work that's been done on the property is of an environmental nature that is testing. There is an eagle's nest on the property or at least there was that necessitated going onto the property and take measurements and scope things out. But no, there's been no work on the property at all. MR. FLEGAL: Michelle, the -- what's the county's position? In lieu of a mitigation plan, is receiving a check for the $11,000 acceptable to the county? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it is. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. MS. SAUNDERS: Michelle, is it also correct that they did ask to be on the schedule in March and we couldn't accommodate them? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Miss Rawson-- MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- the -- the offer to modify the order, if the County accepts that, does the respondent then come into compliance? Does the ordinances allow -- MS. RAWSON: Well, it depends on what you do about the April 1st date because there's two parts to this. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Uh-huh. MS. RAWSON: Can you modify the order nunc Pro Tunc to allow, in addition to the mitigation plan, the 11,0007 That's one part of it. And the other part is, are you going to modify the second paragraph of the order which says they have to come into compliance by April 1st, 2002, or a fine ensues? You have the power to do one, both, or neither. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, my question is, it sounds to me -- and correct me if I'm wrong. It sounds to me as if the respondent is asking us to accept an offer on something that may not Page 104 April 25, 2002 be permitted to do by ordinance. In other words, if we are -- if the ordinance is requiring that either the plantings be placed back in place, now what we're doing is accepting $11,000 to place plantings in some other location. of that nature? MS. RAWSON: Do the ordinances allow us to accept an offer It's a mitigation plan, and it seems to me that that's what you do in mitigation. Don't you put the plantings on some other property? Isn't that what mitigation is? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Typically not with this board. With this board we are dealing only with the property -- the subject property. MS. RAWSON: We should probably ask the county about that. MS. ARNOLD: The ordinance does provide for that as an option, and that's why that was presented to them as an option previously. The problem is, your order doesn't give them that as an option, so even if they were to present the check to us today, they will not be in compliance. MR. FLEGAL: We didn't include it because it wasn't presented to us -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. FLEGAL: -- that that was an option for us. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So the concern I have is if the board goes ahead and approves this, then we won't have any problems on down the road trying to go in areas where we have no authorization to go into. We have the authorization to approve a mitigation plan, and this is a county-accepted mitigation plan in a sense. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Right? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. And the costs that we're talking about Page 105 April 25, 2002 with respect to the $50 per day is about $1200, in addition to the eleven hun -- $11,000. MR. FLEGAL: What's the county's position on that? MS. ARNOLD: Our position is $11,000 plus the cost per day. MS. DUSEK: I would agree with that because this came before us July 16th. I understand that he did submit a letter to come on the docket last month, but I think it could have been done sooner than that. MS. SAUNDERS: ask to be on the docket. I have to disagree with that. I think they did They may, indeed, have held off on accepting the offer because they plan to build -- whether we want another golf course or not, that's not our responsibility. They did not -- to me, it seems they were within their rights to wait the six months and see where they were. And the fact that they asked to get on in March says to me that it's our responsibility not necessarily to hear it in March but to reflect -- accept the fact that they did ask it in a timely manner. So my impress -- my recommendation would be that we accept the mitigation plan and we waive the fine. MR. PONTE: I agree. I think that's correct. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any further comments, Mr. Grant? MR. GRANT: The only other comment I have -- and I don't to complicate anything -- is the replanting of the trees could be on this property. The problem is it doesn't make a lot of sense want done to do that because there's no irrigation system on the property currently. It just doesn't make any sense. It would be a waste. doing it alternatively is really the better course. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. MR. FLEGAL: Thank you. So MS. DUSEK: Well, I'm going to make a motion, and then we can work with the motion --. Page 106 April 25, 2002 MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. MS. DUSEK: -- that we accept the mitigation plan of $11,000 modifying our original order but that the respondent pay the $1200 fine. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion. Do I have a second? MR. FLEGAL: Miss Rawson, in making that motion, which is accepting the $11,000 mitigation offer, is Item 1, do we actually -- we don't need do any more than that. We don't need to say anything about the $1200. MS. RAWSON: MR. FLEGAL: Correct. Because Item 2 would still automatically stand thereby automatically imposing the fine; correct? MS. RAWSON: Correct. MS. DUSEK: Then I modify my motion. Thank you, Cliff. MR. FLEGAL: That's okay. MS. DUSEK: So the motion is that we modify our original order to accept a mitigation plan of $11,000. MR. PONTE: And that would mean that the fine stays in place. MR. FLEGAL: Yes. MS. SAUNDERS: I can't support that. MR. PONTE: I can't either. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, I have a motion. Do I have a second? MR. FLEGAL: I'd second it. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. MR. FLEGAL: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. Page 107 April 25, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: MR. PONTE: Nay. MS. SAUNDERS: Nay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: thank you very much. paid; MR. GRANT: right now. MR. FLEGAL: Opposed? Motion passes 3 to 2. Mr. Grant, MR. GRANT: May I ask a question? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes, sir. MR. GRANT: I assume that the fine stops when the $11,000 is is that correct? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: That's my understanding. Okay. I'm going to hand Miss Arnold the check You have to work that out with the county. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Proceed to old business, Item No. MS. ARNOLD: That is two -- Item 8 is Board of County Commissioners versus Enrique Iglesias. That's Code Enforcement Board 2001-037, and that's for an affidavit of compliance. The respondent is now in compliance for that code case. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: The next item is a similar item, affidavit of compliance for Board of County Commissioners versus Anna Rosa Avalos, which is the prior case that we had under the imposition of fines, and that's Code Enforcement Board Case IM 2001-01. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Any reports? MS. ARNOLD: The only other item we have on here is under comments with respect to a request that's been made by board member Kath -- Kathy Godfrey-Lint. She's requesting a leave of absence for two months, and we discussed or mentioned that to the board office who handles the advertising and-- and administration of Page 108 April 25, 2002 MR. FLEGAL: MS. ARNOLD: MR. FLEGAL: meetings? MS. ARNOLD: the advisory boards for -- to the Board of County Commissioners, and they recommend that we have this discussion with the board and see what -- whether or not that's something that you-all would agree with, and if so, then no additional notice will be put in, and we would have an understanding that she would be absent, excused, for two months. MS. SAUNDERS: Is that two months starting now, or is this -- how many meetings is she going --. An additional two meetings after today? Yes. Okay. Now, she's already missed three or four That's correct. MS. SAUNDERS: Was there any reason given for the request? MS. ARNOLD: There were personal matters, family matters. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Miss Rawson, is there any consideration that we need to give to either granting or hearing -- I mean, is that within our power? MS. RAWSON: If you look at your bylaws -- I can't remember whether we have a --. MF. FLEGAL: I think the thing is we -- if we can recommend if somebody misses two meetings out of three without a valid excuse, we can recommend that their appointment be withdrawn I think is the way it reads. MS. RAWSON: And I think the commissioners appoint, and the commissioners can withdraw. MR. FLEGAL: Uh-huh. MS. RAWSON: So whatever you decide today would be the recommendation; that's correct. MR. FLEGAL: Understanding that, you know, Katherine is Page 109 April 25, 2002 having some problems, some of the meetings she's missed, I know that she's called and said that she would attend the night before and then did not appear, for whatever reason. We need to get some people who are going to show up and be here to help us. We've had a couple recent members resign. So I -- I think it's in the board's best interest to try and get service. There's -- MS. SAUNDERS: I would agree. MR. FLEGAL: We have nothing to say that after two more meetings things don't get ironed out, Katherine may be in a position to ask for either an additional extension or say she's going to have to resign. I think unfortunately at this point my recommendation would be that we just recommend to the county commissioners that they withdraw the appointment and find somebody else. MS. DUSEK: Do we have to make a motion to that, Jean? MS. RAWSON: I think you probably ought to vote on what your recommendation to the county commissioners is. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Or -- our rules --. MR. FLEGAL: Well, I'll let some other people talk. That was my only comments, so-- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Our rules under Article 5, our rules, Section 5-B, if a member misses two out of three successive board meetings without a satisfactory excuse, he or she -- he or she may forfeit his or her appointment. And the operative word is "may forfeit." MR. FLEGAL: Right, because we don't have the right to do that. Only the commissioners can do that. But I think under these circumstances -- like I say, I know personally a couple of meetings she's missed she's called me the night before and said she would be here, and then I was surprised when she didn't show up so -- MS. DUSEK: Well, if you're making that a motion, I'll second Page 110 April 25, 2002 it. MR. FLEGAL: I guess, you know, I'll turn it into a motion. I would make a motion that the board recommend to the county commissioners that they withdraw her appointment and find us another body. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And you will second; is that correct? MS. DUSEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion passes. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, I have a question. Is -- are the county commissioners seeking two more board members? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, they are. It's a minimum of 45-day process, so it takes a while to get. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And, Michelle, whatever you need to do in your department to assist them to speed that up, whatever -- whatever has to be done, please do it. MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted, also, to mention that on your May agenda we had an item that we discussed, the Manatee Resort, previously that was continued to that agenda. My understanding is that the date for the variance is not going to occur until June. So the item will be on your agenda, but we'll probably further request a continuance to the June hearing because that will be after the -- the item's heard by the Board of County Commissioners. MR. PONTE: We don't have to lug all this stuff that I have in Page 111 April 25, 2002 storage. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. That's why I wanted to let you know. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. The very next meeting is scheduled for May 23rd, nine o'clock in this room. I would entertain a motion to adjourn if there's no further business. MR. FLEGAL: So moved. MS. SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: very much. All opposed -- or all in favor-- all I was trying to trick you guys there. The motion carries. Thank you There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:40 p.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD PETER LEHMANN, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RMR, CRR Page 112