Loading...
CEB Minutes 07/25/2002 RJuly 25, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD PUBLIC HEARING Naples, Florida, July 25, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., at County Commission Meeting Room, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: PETER LEHMANN CLIFFORD FLEGAL ROBERTA DUSEK RHONA SAUNDERS GEORGE PONTE CHRISTOPHER RAMSEY GERALD LEFEBRE ABSENT: KATHRYN M. GODFREY-LINT ALSO PRESENT: JEAN RAWSON, County Attorney MICHELLE ARNOLD, Code Enforcement Director PATTI PETRULLI, Code Enforcement Supervisor Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: July 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- June 27, 2002 MINUTES 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Request for Continuance 1. BCC vs. Victor & Isabel Valdes 2. BCC vs. Dov Dunaevsky, R/A, (DCM-NAPLES L.L.C.) 3. BCC vs. Carl Puchhas B. HEARINGS 1. BCC vs. Victor & Isabel Valdes 2. BCC vs. James M. Goldie, Trustee, (MADISON MEADOWS) 3. BCC vs. Dov Dunaevsky, R/A, (DCM-NAPLES L.L.C.) 4. BCC vs. Jeffrey A. Dorini 5. BCC vs. Carl Puchhas 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Request for Extension of Compliance Date 1. BCC vs. Jack W. and Elma Mae Barrs B. Request for Reduction/Abatement of Fines 1. BCC vs. Charles Hitchcock and Mc Alpine Briarwood Inc. C. Request for Imposition of Fines/Lien 1. BCC vs. Charles H. Goings 2. BCC vs. Wayne Simpson and Lester Redman 3. BCC vs. Lloyd Bowein CEB NO. 2002-013 CEB NO. 2002-015 CEB NO. 2002-018 CEB NO. 2002-013 CEB NO. 2002-014 CEB NO. 2002-015 CEB NO. 2002-017 CEB NO. 2002-018 CEB NO. 2002-008 CEB NO.2001-075 CEB NO. 2001-076 CEB NO. 2001-085 CEB NO. 2002-003 OLD BUSINESS A. Affidavits of Non Compliance 1. BCC vs. Charles H. Goings 2. BCC vs. Wayne Simpson and Lester Redman B. Affidavits of Compliance 1. BCC vs. Philip A. and Anna Maria Marrone 2. BCC vs. Charles Hitchcock and Mc Alpine Briarwood Inc. 3. BCC vs. Lloyd Bowein C. Foreclosure-Collection Authorization (Michelle Arnold) 7. REPORTS 1.Status Report from Assistant County Attorney Ellen Chadwell CEB NO. 2001-076 CEB NO. 2001-085 CEB NO. 2001-013 CEB NO. 2001-075 CEB NO. 2002-003 COMMENTS A .Motion for Rehearing/and/or Reconsideration 1. BCC vs. Philip A. and Anna Maria Marrone CEB NO. 2001-013 9. NEXT MEETING DATE August 22, 2002 10. ADJOURN July 25, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Call to order the Collier County Code Enforcement. Please note that any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining, thereto; and therefore may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May we have the role call, please. MS. PETRULLI: Good morning. For the record, Patti Petrulli, Code Enforcement Supervisor. Peter Lehmann? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Present. MS. PETRULLI: Roberta Dusek? MS. DUSEK: Here. MS. PETRULLI: Clifford Flegal? MR. FLEGAL: Present. MS. PETRULLI: George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. PETRULLI: Rhona Saunders? MS. SAUNDERS: Here. MS. PETRULLI: Kathryn Godfrey-Lint has called in with an excused absence. Gerald Lefebre? MR. LEFEBRE: Here. MS. PETRULLI: Christopher Ramsey? MR. RAMSEY: Here. MS. PETRULLI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: As we have seven members on the Board, we do have a forum. We will proceed as such. The alternate members will be voting members today, and I welcome their vote. I'd like to move on with the approval of the agenda, please. Page 2 July 25, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director. I do have a change, Item 4B-6 will be removed from the agenda. And also, I just wanted to point out some changes in the format of the agenda. We do have three continuances being requested. We've noted those first. And based on the decision of the Board whether or not to continue them, we will proceed with the case or the case will be removed. Also, there is a modification to your previous agenda that was sent to you, but you-all have the revised agenda. We did add 6B-2, which is Board of County Commissioners versus Charles Hitchcock and Mc Alpine, Inc. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other changes or alterations or comments? Hearing none, I will entertain the motion to approve the agenda as amended. MS. DUSEK: So moved. MR. FLEGAL: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MR. FLEGAL: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed? Motion carries. The agenda's approved as amended. I'd like to move on then to the approval of the minutes. I understand we don't have a set of minutes; is that correct? MS. PETRULLI: No, sir we do not. Page 3 July 25, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. So we'll pass on with that. If we can then proceed to public hearings. We'll first like to look at the first item which is Request for Continuances. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. That's the first item, Board of County Commissioners versus Victor and Isabel Valdes. I believe there are Respondents here. There was a letter that was sent and included in your packet that was addressed to Jennifer Belpedio. And the Valdes's are here if they want to speak to that continuance. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Fine. MR. GARCIA: Good morning. I'm Jordan Garcia. I'm Isabel's grandson. Victor is in prison today because he's in jail. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I'm sorry, sir, could you speak up. MR. GARCIA: Victor isn't here today because he's in jail and his lawyers are appealing for what he's in there for. I'm here to translate for her. She's Isabel Valdes, wife of Victor Valdes. And she's here today to ask for an extension of an approval for the building on her house. Normally Victor would be the one doing this, and she doesn't know much. She's under a lot of stress, and she's disorientated because of what happened to her husband. And she is really hoping that you guys will give her the extension. She's now going to take matters into her own hands and she's hoping that you guys grant this to her. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And she's looking for what term for the extension? MR. GARCIA: She says that she hopes you guys give her like 60 to 90 days. add? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Anything else you'd like to MR. GARCIA: No. Page 4 July 25, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. If you'll have a seat, please, we'll open it for discussion for the Board. MR. PONTE: I couldn't hear how many days. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: 60 to 90 days. In her written request it was 90 days. I just wanted to confirm that. MR. FLEGAL: What's the view of the County? MS. ARNOLD: Well, the investigator had been dealing with Mr. Valdes along, and I don't know where he is in the process of obtaining a permit. This case has been going on for a while. And you-all previously gave an extension for 60 days when the item was previously brought to you-all. The investigator is here, Jason Toreky. MR. TOREKY: Mr. Valdes has most of the information required to get his permit. The only thing he's lacking is getting an engineering seal on his drawings. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. MR. TOREKY: But he's lacking it this morning. MS. DUSEK: How long has he had all of the other information? MR. TOREKY: Excuse me? MS. DUSEK: How long has he had all of this information? MR. TOREKY: He's accumulated it over time. He came to the Board 60 days ago. MS. DUSEK: Um-hum. MR. TOREKY: And that was -- he was requesting a continuance because he was going to Federal Court. And he hasn't had time to get his -- to get with an engineer and get that process started. That's where we're at right now. So I was advised that the wife would be trying to take care of the issue and contact an engineer. And that's where we're at right now. Page 5 July 25, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: You do have the ability to hear it and give them the time that they feel that they could come into compliance if it's found in violation. So you have the option. You can continue it for 60 to 90 days or if found in violation, grant them 60 to 90 days to comply. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Investigator, in your estimation, how critical is Mr. Valdes's testimony to this case? MR. TOREKY: It's, I mean, it's a pretty straightforward case. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Um-hum. MR. TOREKY: I personally don't feel it's critical. It's a very straightforward case. And, you know, at this point, there's simple steps to be taken, and it could be taken care of. MS. DUSEK: And it was first initiated or you had the first complaint last August? MR. TOREKY: Excuse me? MS. DUSEK: The first time this came to your attention, was it last August? MR. TOREKY: As far as where he was at, the stage he was at? MS. DUSEK: When there was a complaint filed? MS. ARNOLD: The initial violation, when did you find out? MR. TOREKY: When did I witness the violation? MS. DUSEK: All right. Yes. Let's go with that. MR. TOREKY: July 9th, 2001, the violation was witnessed. MS. DUSEK: Okay. MR. TOREKY: And during that time, there's been a couple of issues there. He started the permitting process. He obtained a survey. But he missed the deadline as far as when the hurricane codes went into effect. So then that required him to have engineered sealed drawings. And that's what happened, you know, up to the point of the last meeting. And as of today, we still don't have those Page 6 July 25, 2002 drawings where the permit was applied for, because he doesn't have those drawings. MR. FLEGAL: Since Mr. Valdes has been incarcerated, I know we gave him an extension to try and go to court and see what happened. And obviously his wife now wants to try to resolve the problem. She probably hasn't been that involved. I would lean on the side of giving them a 60-day continuance and letting her try to get everything she needs to solve this problem rather than hear the case and issue an order. I don't have a problem doing that on this particular case because of what is happening. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other discussion from the Board? MS. DUSEK: I guess I have a slightly different feeling about it. I don't know that I'd want to give the 60 days. It's been going on. And I understand the series of events that have taken place. Sometimes if a fine is imposed, it gives them a little more emphasis to make sure that they do what they're supposed to within the time. So I think I'm on the fence about whether to give a continuance or hear the case. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Ms. Rawson, my question real quick. MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: If we do not continue the case -- or excuse me, if we do not grant the continuance, are we violating any due process from the respondent's rights? MS. RAWSON: Technically, no. He's had notice to be here. Now, he can't be here, because he is incarcerated. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Um-hum. MS. RAWSON: He doesn't have anybody here to represent him other than his wife who apparently is not that much involved. You Page 7 July 25, 2002 have the right to go ahead and hear the case. I don't know that they would bring him over here, which is a possibility. Because if he's here -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Um-hum. MS. RAWSON: -- in our local jail, I don't know that where he is, it is possible that they would bring him over here for a hearing. I mean, he's a prisoner. Prisoners have rights. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Urn-hum. MS. RAWSON: But you're not required to wait forever for them to get out of jail to hear their cases. If all we're missing, according to the Code Enforcement people, is just a seal, it seems to me that that could be done whether he's here or whether he isn't here. But it's your choice. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. MS. RAWSON: Your call. MS. DUSEK: Is the 60 to 90 days reasonable or is that a time frame that's beyond? MR. TOREKY: I would say 60 days would be reasonable. MS. SAUNDERS: I'm inclined to grant a 60-day continuance as well. I think there have been a lot of extenuating circumstances. The wife has indicated that she is prepared to step in at this point. It simply seems to me to be a process rather than a danger or anything else like that. So I would support -- actually, I'll make a motion, if you like, that we grant the continuance for 60 days. MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion by Ms. Saunders and a second by Mr. Ponte. All those in favor signify by saying aye. This is for a 60-day continuance of this case. Aye. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MR. FLEGAL: Aye. Page 8 July 25, 2002 MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed? The motion passes unanimously. Mrs. Valdes, you have a 60-day continuance. We'll rehear this in 60 days. Thank you. Good luck. MS. RAWSON: We might tell her now what the -- two months from now what is the date of our next hearing. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Can you pull that out, Michelle. MR. PONTE: Additionally, while that is being referred, if we could relate to her that she could go forward and get the CO from the engineer during the 60 days -- MS. RAWSON: Right. MR. PONTE: -- this will just all come into compliance. MS. RAWSON: So that it wouldn't even be necessary to have the hearing. MR. PONTE: Right. That's correct. MS. RAWSON: So it would be the hearing in September. MS. ARNOLD: September, I believe; it's 26th. I'm not really sure. MS. RAWSON: Maybe she can get it by September 26. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Sir, will you please translate that to Ms. Valdes, please. MS. VALDES: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. Have a good day. Let's move on to the next request, please. MS. ARNOLD: Next request is Board of County Commissioners versus Dov Dunaevsky, R/A, also known as DCM- Naples L.L.C. Again, you-all have a letter in your packet from the Page 9 July 25, 2002 firm of Miller and Hollander. And there is -- I'm not sure a representative is here for that particular case. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Do we have any representatives for this particular case? MR. FLEGAL: Since his attorney has asked for a continuance, I would make a motion that we grant a 30 -- continuance to our next meeting, rather than 30 days. MS. SAUNDERS: Ms. Chairman, since I do some work with Miller and Hollander as a consultant, I need to refuse myself from this vote. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So noted. We have a motion by Mr. Flegal. Do we hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: A second by Mr. Ponte. Motion and a second. All those in favor of granting a continuance until the next hearing, signify by saying aye. Aye. MR. FLEGAL: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. The case is continued until the next hearing date. Proceed to the next one, please. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Next is Board of County Commissioner versus Carl Puchhas. And again, you have a letter from Mr. Puchhas requesting a continuance for 60 days and he is present. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And I apologize in advance if I mispronounce this, Mr. Puchhas. Would you please advance the podium and let us hear your side. Page 10 July 25, 2002 MR. PUCHHAS: mispronounced all its life. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: MR. PUCHHAS: No. No. Hi. It's Carl Puchhas. It's okay. It's been I apologize. I purchased the house in early 2000's. And it came with the boat dock. And I heard rumors that it wasn't legal and just this and that. And found out it was illegal. But after the time that I found out -- prior to the time of finding out that it was illegal, we had a severe hardship in the family. And most of our monies have been dispersed for more important things than I felt than the dock. So I'm going to be able to come up into code. All I have to do is get a survey and then get it permitted and everything else like that. But I just didn't have the funds at the time. And I'm trying to get them now. And if you can give me a 60-day continuance, I will get the funds, get it surveyed and get it permitted. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other comments, sir? MR. PUCHHAS: No, that's it. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Thank you. If you'll have a seat, we'll discuss it on the Board. Any comments from the County? MR. REPICKY: Dave Repicky, Code Enforcement Investigator. I have no problem with the extension he's asking for. He has given us a letter stating he will be getting a survey within a couple of weeks here. And it's going to take probably another two to three weeks after that to obtain the variance and get the permitting. He does have a hardship, and we're willing to work with him on that. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Thank you. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we grant the continuance. MR. FLEGAL: I'll second. Page 11 July 25, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion from Ms Dusek and a second from Mr. Flegal. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. MR. FLEGAL: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. MS. RAWSON: Is that 60 days? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes, ma'am. MS. RAWSON: So that would be back on the September 26th docket as well? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Let me revise that, not to a 60 day, but to our next hearing, two months from now. Okay. Mr. Puchhas, thank you very much. And we got through that business. Let's move on to the public hearings, per say. I imagine our first case is actually Item Number B-2; is that correct? MS. PETRULLI: Yes. It is CEB Case Number 2001-014, Board of County Commissioners versus James M. Goldie, Trustee, Madison Meadows. For the record, I would like to ask if the Respondents are present? MR. GOLDIE: Yes. MS. PETRULLI: Let the record show that they are present. We have provided the Board and the Respondent with a packet I'd like to enter at this time as Exhibit A. MR. FLEGAL: So moved. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion from Mr. Flegal. Do I hear a second? Page 12 July 25, 2002 MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Ms. Dusek has seconded. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MR. FLEGAL: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed? Hearing none, the motion unanimously carries. Please proceed. MS. PETRULLI: The alleged violation is of Sections 3.9.6.6 and 2.4.4.12, 1 through 12 of Ordinance Number 91-102 and Section 26 of Ordinance Number 89-63 of the Collier County Land Development. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Just one second. Sir, if you'd like to have a seat. You might be a little bit more comfortable. I'm sorry, Patti, please continue. MS. PETRULLI: The description of the violation is Prohibited Exotic Plants, primarily Brazilian pepper existing in the Water Management/Conservation area. Exotics were removed from the western edge of the property to 50 feet in September of 2000, but have regrown in this area. At this time I'd like to have the investigator, Alex Sulecki, present the case for the County. MS. ARNOLD: I just want to make a correction for the record. It was noted that 8963 was the Collier County Land Development Code. That's incorrect. It was the Exotics Ordinance at the time. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So noted. Do we need to swear our witnesses in? Sir, if you'd like to stand again. I just want to swear you in for testimony. Page 13 July 25, 2002 Thereupon, ALEX SULECKI and JAMES M. GOLDIE, the Witnesses herein, having first been duly sworn, testified as follows: MS. SULECKI: For the record, Alexander Sulecki, Environmental Specialist. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just ask for one interruption and ask that the attorney, Jennifer Belpedio, just speak to who this matter is proceeding against. MS. BELPEDIO: Good morning. I'm Jennifer Belpedio. I'm with the Collier County Attorney's Office. I'm an Assistant County Attorney. I'd like to move to amend the Notice of Violation, Statement of Violation to include Mr. Goldie, James M. Goldie, in his individual capacity as the president of the Madison Meadows Homeowners Association. There may have been a conveyance of the property, the subject of the alleged violation today. And because of that, we are not going to release Mr. Goldie. But we are going to add him as the president. It's our position that in the end, if there does become a violation today found by your Board, that releasing Mr. Goldie in his individual capacity may complicate the matter. I've reviewed the Articles of Incorporation that I've received from Mr. Goldie, also reviewed the purported resolution and I'm not quite certain that there is legal conveyance. And for those reasons I ask that Mr. Goldie, in his individual capacity, be referenced in this case and cited if there is a possible violation. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Jean, do we have any problems with this amendment? MS. RAWSON: Mr. Goldie is here. He's been noticed to be here as the trustee. What the County Attorney is requesting is that he also be as president of the Madison Meadows Homeowners Page 14 July 25, 2002 change the caption Madison Meadows you make the vote, CHAIRMAN you would, please. Association. In terms of due process, it's pretty close. I don't know that you have a real problem. He's here. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. MS. RAWSON: He's been noticed. And I think her concern was that if we only have him as trustee, he might have conveyed as trustee. And if he's also here in his individual capacity as President of Madison Meadows Homeowners Association, you know, then that conveyance wouldn't make any difference. I don't believe that there's a problem with the due process. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Is there any action the Board needs to undertake to effect that? MS. RAWSON: You need to have a vote as to whether or not to from trustee to trustee and as president of the Homeowners Association. And I suppose before you should hear from Mr. Goldie. LEHMANN: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Goldie? If MR. GOLDIE: Fine. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. My name is Jim Goldie. And I supplied a packet of information to Patti, and I believe you have it. And if you do, the front page begins, Collier County Code Enforcement Board Members. And if you'd look at that, please. On that -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Goldie -- MR. GOLDIE: Yes, sir. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- all that we want to hear right now is what we are doing with this particular action in the amendment of the violation itself, not to hear the case. MR. GOLDIE: I don't understand, sir. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. Basically including you as president of the homeowners association. We don't want to hear your side yet -- Page 15 July 25, 2002 MR. GOLDIE: Okay. MR. FLEGAL: -- other than do you have a problem if we include you as president? MR. GOLDIE: As president of the homeowners? MR. FLEGAL: Right. MR. GOLDIE: No. I don't have a problem with that. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. That's all we need to know from you, sir. MR. GOLDIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. If you can have a seat again. MR. FLEGAL: I would make a motion that we include him as requested by the County. MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion from Mr. Flegal and a second from Mr. Ramsey. All those in favor signify by saying Aye. Aye. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MR. FLEGAL: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Thank you. If you would now proceed. MS. SULECKI: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Board members. Again, for the record, Alexander Sulecki, Code Enforcement Department, Environmental Specialist. Before I give you the rundown of this case, I would like to take a moment and discuss the impact of this violation on the neighborhood because I Page 16 July 25, 2002 always try to remember when I prosecute these cases. It's not just rules for rule's sake. There are reasons behind the rules. So I'd just like to go over them briefly. This is a case of exotics in a very small Water Management/Conservation area. And I'm going to put up a picture here. I apologize. It's not in color. I couldn't get it to print out this morning. But that's the area that we're talking about right there surrounded by homes. It's about an acre and a third. And it's completely infested in the understory with Brazilian pepper. And if you read the reinspection report, you also saw something about a yellow Melaleuca. That was a typo. I don't know what a yellow Melaleuca is. But -- oh, thank you. Yes. So why is this a problem? I mean, it's green. This is what it looks like from the -- the whole understory is Brazilian pepper. And why is this a problem? Well, Brazilian pepper is related to poison ivy. It causes skin rashes on some people. And it tends to, which is why it's one of our prohibited exotics, completely take over an area. And it has done this here. This little development, Madison Meadows, was developed in 1990, '91. And at that time, which is the ordinance that Michelle was referring to, the '89 Ordinance in there, existed in requiring the removal and maintenance of exotics, including Brazilian pepper. Now, if that had been done, instead of living next to a weed infested patch, those neighbors would live next to a nice little plat wood that might contain palmetto, beautyberry, marlberry, wax myrtle, gallberry, fetterbush, snagerbush and tarflower. And those things would bring in birds and butterflies. And it would be a lot nicer to live next to. So what we have here is really a quality of life issue. That's why we have these rules. Page 17 July 25, 2002 All right. So in May 2000, I received a compliant from one of the homeowners who lives next to it. And I went up and looked at it and found what you see. And I reviewed the plat to see who was responsible and determined that Madison Meadows Property Owners Association was. I looked in the state records, couldn't find any record of them. I went door-to-door to ask people who was this entity and who belonged to it? Nobody knew anything about it. So then I discovered after some research that the entity was never set up. And so I contacted the owner of record, which was Mr. Goldie as trustee. And initially I met with Mr. Goldie in July of 2000. And he agreed to provide some relief by removing the Brazilian pepper 50 feet from the complainant's home. And I agreed to this, provided-- providing him some extra time to resolve the issue of the Homeowners Association, because Mr. Goldie apparently was a developer, and it had never been set up. So it took until September. But we did get some relief for the property owner next door. And this was what happened. And this is what we folks could be living next to if the Brazilian pepper was removed. You'll see some small palmettos in there. There is a seed bank remaining of the native plants. And they would come back if the Brazilian pepper was removed. So it could be quite lovely. So he cut the exotics. And at that point I was a little concerned, because I didn't think they has been treated with herbicide. And I was told they were. I think I actually saw some blue dye. But it's been so long, I can't remember. But they have grown back to this. This is what they are today. So I'm not really sure that they were treated. So I worked with Mr. Goldie to resolve his ownership issue, and no more exotics were removed. So I gave him a Notice of Violation Page 18 July 25, 2002 in December of 2000 for the remainder of the exotics. This wasn't done. And I set the case for a CEB Hearing. Well, there was a little bit of lag time there because we were processing quite a few cases then. And so it was May before it was -- let's see. It was November to May before it was processed for CEB. And I was notified that there was a deed that showed the property was conveyed to somebody else in 1994. I looked at the deed, and the issue on the deed was that there was -- it was a Lot 1 that was conveyed. And there's -- actually, Madison Meadows has a Lot 1. But this is a Parcel 1. And so there was some confusion. And the folks processing it or CEB told me that he didn't own it anymore. So at that point you have to close the case, redo it, find out who owns the property. And I kind of went to the bottom of my pile, unfortunately. I faxed Mr. Goldie a copy of that deed and told him -- well, I told him the news. And then I started working a little bit at a time on trying to find out who owned this property. And after doing some research, I came to the conclusion that he still owned it. But I'm not a title researcher and I wanted to be sure. So I sent it to the County Attorney's Office to determine who the legal owner was. And in February 2002, County Attorney replied to my request and advised me that Mr. Goldie was the owner and trustee and to proceed with the prosecution of this case. And because it had been a long time, I sent a new notice of violation requesting compliance by March 8th. That did not happen. So I set the case for CEB and here we are. In July, I received a copy of some Articles of Incorporation for Madison Meadows Property Owner Association, a resolution that transferred property, the property to Madison Meadows Association and a Quit Claim Deed. And I turned that over to Jennifer Belpedio for review and here we are. Page 19 July 25, 2002 Normally I go out the day before to make sure the violation still exists. I've been out sick this week. I apologize. I was not able to do that. The last time I was there was June 24th, and this is what it looked like at that point. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. MS. DUSEK: Alex, I have a question. When you asked him to clear all of it and he only cleared part of it, what was the reason? MS. SULECKI: Well, my goal was to get some relief for the property owners. And it's quite expensive to do this work. So I greed. I can't waive the rules. What I can provide is a little bit of time. And I understood it was a complicated issue. And so I wanted to provide Mr. Goldie with some time to resolve the ownership issues. And I wanted to provide some relief for the property owner next door. So that was my process. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other testimony from the County? Okay. Any questions from the Board of the County's Investigator? MR. FLEGAL: Alex, if he clears the property of peppers and treats it, will that stop them from coming back? MS. SULECKI: You always have to have a maintenance, because the seeds are carried by birds and they come back. And right now you've got 12 years worth of growth in that area. So you've got quite a seed bank built up for Brazilian pepper. So you would have to pretty aggressively retreat it for several years to get to a point where you could go in once a year and just do a small cleaning. MR. FLEGAL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. Mr. Goldie? MR. GOLDIE: Yes, sir. Before I start my role here, in the County's records -- or in the County's case, if you want to, you know, we can go back to the time, what happened? How did this get to the Page 20 July 25, 2002 position it is? In your packet of the County's hearing, as a matter of fact -- or information, on page 27, and I'll just say briefly what it is. It's where the plat was recorded in 1991. In 1994, I deeded every interest I had in that plat to another person. And that's where ownership changed. Now, it was just -- and it was my full intention that I had nothing do with Madison Meadows at that time. And on that deed you'll notice, "The deed is solely to effect the change of trustee. There is no consideration." I never got anything out of Madison Meadows. And then if you would go on to the County's records on page -- in the County file on page 32 that shows me as a trustee and also shows another person as trustee. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Goldie, we don't have a page 32 in our evidence package. MR. GOLDIE: Can I pass it around? I'll just tell you what it is. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. MR. GOLDIE: It's says -- and this is with the County's notation, "Parcel 5, 6, etc., not on this deed by a technicality, Mr. Goldie may still be the owner of record." And that brings you down to how I'm here today. And I appreciate your time in listening to me. And now I'd like to go back to the package that I presented to Patti for today. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Mr. Goldie, would you like to enter this package as evidence? MR. GOLDIE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: MR. GOLDIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And a second from anyone? MS. SAUNDERS: Second. Okay. ! need your help here. No problem. We have a motion. Page 21 July 25, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Saunder's second. We will -- all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MR. FLEGAL: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion carries. We'll mark this as Respondent's Composite Exhibit A. MR. GOLDIE: May I go through it quickly with you? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes, sir. I just wanted to get the technicalities out of the way. MR. GOLDIE: I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. MR. GOLDIE: If you'll notice, it says on page 10 of the Staff's package of information delivered to you for this case is a conversation and recommendation by the County Attorney, Jennifer Belpedio, quote, "Attorney Belpedio advised that either Mr. Goldie maintain the property as required or form a homeowners association and turn the property over to the Madison Meadow's owners." If you'll go to the second page of that package, you'll see the Articles of Incorporation of the Madison Meadows Property Owners Association. If you'll go toward the back of that package, you'll see the Secretary of State Certificate of Incorporation. If you go to the next page, you'll see a copy of the deed from me as trustee to the Madison Meadows Homeowners Association. If you go to the next you'll see a copy of the Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Madison Meadows Property Owners Association accepting the deed to that parcel. And if you go to the Page 22 July 25, 2002 last page on that, you'll notice, Notice of Transfer of Property of Madison Meadows Property Association to Alex Sulecki informing the Code Enforcement Board of the action we had taken. In other words, we're following Ms. Belpedio's recommendation. And we have set up a homeowners association and properly filed it. I would like to pass this out. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Are you entering this as evidence, again? MR. GOLDIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. MR. GOLDIE: In fact, anything I give you is evidence. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would entertain a motion to enter this as evidence, Respondent's Exhibit B. MS. RAWSON: I think it's already in your packet. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I take that back. You're correct. Thank you. MR. GOLDIE: MS. SULECKI: MR. GOLDIE: deed not. Alex, do you want a copy? Sure. What I've given you is a copy of the recorded to the Madison Meadows Property Owners Association. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And how is this different? MR. FLEGAL: This is recorded in the -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: This is recorded and the other is MR. FLEGAL: I would make a motion we accept this as Exhibit B, since it is a recorded copy. MS. SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion from Mr. Flegal and a second by Ms. Saunders. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Page 23 July 25, 2002 MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MR. FLEGAL: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The motion carries. Please mark this as Respondent's Exhibit B. MR. GOLDIE: What I have presented -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: One second again, Mr. Goldie. Excuse me. You've just handed the Board a letter to Mr. and Mrs. Francis Arsenault dated-- MR. GOLDIE: That's one of the 16 property owners of Madison. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. And it's dated July 22nd. assume you want to enter this as evidence? MR. GOLDIE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Package C. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we enter it as Exhibit C. I have a motion from Ms. Dusek. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: hear a second? MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Do I Second by Mr. Ponte. favor signify by saying aye. Aye. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MR. FLEGAL: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. All those in Page 24 July 25, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed? Hearing none, the motion carries. Please mark this as Exhibit C. MS. SAUNDERS: Why don't we do them all at once. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yeah. Why don't we do them all at once then. MR. GOLDIE: Well, okay, I guess. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: You're just making us work for a living here. MR. GOLDIE: Well, I guess, ladies and gentlemen, what I'm trying to evidence to you is that we are very serious about setting up the homeowners association in a proper way, making it operate in a proper way and getting title conveyed, which we have done in a proper way and making it an operational homeowners association. I have one more thing to pass out. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: sure that the Court Reporter gets MR. GOLDIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: time Mr. Goldie, would you please make a copy of all these as well. Okay. And would you take the please to mark them as we go. MR. GOLDIE: This last-- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: MR. GOLDIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Composite Exhibit D. Thank you. Please wait. We will do both of the last as MR. FLEGAL: I would move that these last three pieces of paper, which is a letter dated July 22nd, Madison Meadows Property Association, a Rental Permit Agreement Form and a letter from Judge Murphy be entered as Respondent's Exhibits D, E and F? MS. DUSEK: D. MR. FLEGAL: However they go. Page 25 July 25, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Composite Exhibit D. MR. FLEGAL: He's given us a copy. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Excuse me. Do we have a second on that motion, first? MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MR. FLEGAL: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries. Please mark the Exhibits as such. Now, Mr. Goldie, please continue. MR. GOLDIE: Thank you. I would just like to comment on Judge Murphy's letter. The purpose of that, he was the attorney who did all the legal work on behalf of Madison Meadows. After he was elected Judge, he had to, according to law, close his law office. I talked to Vince the other day and he said, "I'11 be glad to write a letter." And I would just like to read the last paragraph to you. "It had always been my experience and understanding that the County Staff would never sign off on a plat until the developer had satisfied each and every requirement of the development code." And as Alex and I have communicated and she's been great. And I commend her. And it's been a pleasure to work with her in a situation like this. I started having various County officials trying to -- not elected officials, but Staff, where can we go? How can we Page 26 July 25, 2002 handle this? The last meeting I had, which wasn't too long ago, was the Planning Department. And I said, "Well, let's get the file out of Madison Meadows." We got the file out and low and behold in the files were the original files of incorporation of the Madison Meadows Homeowners Association. I said, "John, why didn't this get filed?" He said, "I have no idea." I talked to Vince. I said, "Vince, why wasn't this done?" He said, "I have no idea." I talked to Ferman Dias, who is with Wilson Miller because they did the engineering work. I said, "Ferman, why weren't these filed?" And he said, "Jim, I have no idea." So we have gone ahead and formally established and created the homeowners association. As you can see by your documents, we've scheduled a meeting. We've notified them in writing and we want to pursue this. And what I would like to do is, if you would, just drop me personally from it and let me operate to get these things done through the proper vehicle, which would be the homeowners association. Thank you very much. Or I'll answer any question you may have. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. Jean, have you had a chance to review any of these documents at all? MS. RAWSON: I've looked at them as they were handed to me. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Do you see any problems with them as far as clarity and technicality and what we're doing? MS. RAWSON: No. I think, you know, what you did earlier by including the property owners association in the heading of this case probably covers any problems. MR. FLEGAL: Jean, I have a question. Because they just formed this association in-- MS. RAWSON: Right. Page 27 July 25, 2002 MR. GOLDIE: MR. FLEGAL: MR. GOLDIE: MR. FLEGAL: This month. -- in July -- Yes, sir. I guess my confusion is you have all these homes in this area and now, I mean, you got Articles of Incorporation with these people. Did the homeowners have any say in this or did he just form a corporation and say, "Hey, there's an association"? MR. GOLDIE: We formed the association. MS. RAWSON: I don't have the answer to that question. You'll have to ask the Respondent. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. My problem is you start off by saying you're complying with what Ms. Belpedio said. But my problem is you formed this corporation to get a homeowners association. And I don't know how many people live in this area, you know, 50, 100, 200 or whatever. MR. GOLDIE: MR. FLEGAL: MR. GOLDIE: MR. FLEGAL: There are 16 in Madison Meadows. Okay. Did 16 people agree that-- No. -- you could form this corporation? So you formed an association without anybody's approval? MR. GOLDIE: Yes. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. So-- MR. GOLDIE: As to create a vehicle. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. I'm getting there. You formed a homeowners association on behalf of 16 people who didn't tell you to do that? So you forced them. Basically you're forcing somebody to join something they have no say in because you saw a sentence in some record. That kind of bothers me. I'm not impressed by what you've done yet because it looks like you've stepped on somebody's rights. Page 28 July 25, 2002 MR. GOLDIE: Well, I suppose in this meeting we've invited them to this organizational meeting. MR. FLEGAL: No, that's not my problem. My problem is you formed a corporation to represent 16 people and didn't ask them if they want your representation. You see my problem? MR. GOLDIE: Yeah, I do. I do. MS. SAUNDERS: I have the same concerns. It does sound to me, if I'm one of 16 property owners, that all of a sudden I'm going to be liable for a great deal of costs in cleaning up something I didn't know I was responsible for. MR. FLEGAL: Right. MR. GOLDIE: I would think that's something we would address at the organization meeting. MR. FLEGAL: Well, you should have addressed that before you formed a corporation, because they may not want to be in this corporation. You can't just say, "Oh, well, yeah, you are going to be." You have to ask these 16 people, "We need to form a corporation for some protection. Does everybody agree?" And if the majority of them say, "No," then you can't do that. See, that's where I'm coming from. MR. GOLDIE: MR. FLEGAL: Okay. I just-- I followed the -- You just can't automatically do it and then say, "Now you can all come and voice your opinion," because you've got a corporation that really doesn't mean anything. MR. RAMSEY: It also seems to me, Mr. Goldie, in your own documents that you provided, you're on the Board of Directors in Article VI, I believe it is. Then in Article XIV it provides for Indemnification if any person made a party or threatened to be made a party and so on and includes administrative or investigative proceedings. In your capacity as a director, you can go to the Board Page 29 July 25, 2002 and request indemnification. So it seems to me, and I would have to ask Jean, but your remedy lies there, not here. MR. GOLDIE: Okay. I guess, sir, we were just moving to get something created and done. MR. RAMSEY: I understand that. MR. GOLDIE: And I was notified that I had to be here today. MR. FLEGAL: I understand you're trying. But I think what you did is you tried without starting at the bottom. You just formed the corporation. MR. GOLDIE: Well, okay. If you want, then, you know, I'd be glad to come back to you after we've had our organization meeting or so and just report to you on the status or what have you. MS. ARNOLD: The County Attorney's Office has some questions for Mr. Goldie with respect to the process he's gone through to try to form this and adopt the Articles of Incorporation and those types of things. I just wanted to also note just procedural, as the developer, there's certain obligations that is expected of the developers many times prior to turning it over to the association. And I think this may fall into place with respect to the obligations of the developer to correct a problem prior to turning over property. Let me say something. Are there still vacant MR. FLEGAL: lots to be sold? MR. GOLDIE: MR. FLEGAL: No, sir. In fact-- Nothing to turn over. He's just a man who bought a piece of land, divided it into lots and sold it. MR. GOLDIE: But I had sold my interest. And just by a -- MR. FLEGAL: Okay. What I'm getting at is once you've sold all these lots, you can't, after the fact, form an association unless you get all these people that you sold them to to agree to do that. Page 30 July 25, 2002 MR. GOLDIE: It's sort of interesting, the complainant who started everything is not really a part of this Madison Meadows. But that's immaterial. MR. FLEGAL: Yeah. You know, people live across the street and that happens. MR. GOLDIE: Yeah. MR. FLEGAL: But you understand what I think you need to do if you want to do this, you're going to have to get 16 people in a room, these owners, and say, "Jee, it would be nice if we did this to give our little community some protection, blah, blah, blah." MR. GOLDIE: Okay. MR. FLEGAL: And this would all then be kind of redone. MR. GOLDIE: Okay. MR. FLEGAL: Because you've done it too early, or you need an attorney to tell you how to do all that stuff. MR. GOLDIE: Well, I used one. That's who did it. MS. SAUNDERS: My concern is, even though we may not think the process was right, that apparently a homeowners association has been formed and it has accepted, by a vote of the three board members, who were the only ones there, it has accepted the property, thereby accepting liability on behalf of all the other homeowners who have no say in this. MS. ARNOLD: But if we could have the attorneys ask a couple of questions -- MS. SAUNDERS: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: -- for verification with respect to that, it would probably shed some light on that. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I for one would like to hear what you have to say. Page 31 July 25, 2002 MS. BELPEDIO: Mr. Goldie, I read some of your paperwork regarding your meeting that was held on July 9th -- MR. GOLDIE: Okay. MS. BELPEDIO: -- of this year. Where did that meeting take place? MR. GOLDIE: In an office over on 41. MS. BELPEDIO: Who was present at that meeting? MR. GOLDIE: An attorney and I. MS. BELPEDIO: Okay. Were there any members of the Board of Directors present? MR. GOLDIE: No. BELPEDIO: Were they telephone conferenced into that MS. meeting? MR. MS. MR. GOLDIE: Yes. BELPEDIO: Both of the members? GOLDIE: One in particular. The other was not available. MS. BELPEDIO: Okay. Who was the one that was telephone conferenced in? MR. GOLDIE: Mullaney. MS. BELPEDIO: Okay. And where does he reside? MR. GOLDIE: Well, he resides in Naples and Cleveland. He was in Cleveland at the time. MS. BELPEDIO: Okay. And the other gentleman, where does he reside? MR. GOLDIE: He resides in Naples and Cleveland. MS. BELPEDIO: Okay. When was the last time Mr. Mullaney was in Naples that you recall? MR. GOLDIE: Three weeks ago, maybe. MS. BELPEDIO: Okay. MR. GOLDIE: And he'll be here again Friday night. Page 32 July 25, 2002 MS. property? MR. MS. property? MR. MS. MR. BELPEDIO: Are you aware of the address of his Naples GOLDIE: Beg your pardon? BELPEDIO: Are you aware of the address of his Naples GOLDIE: Yes, ma'am. BELPEDIO: What is that? GOLDIE: Bluebill Avenue. MS. BELPEDIO: Is that located within Madison Meadows subdivision? MR. GOLDIE: No. MS. BELPEDIO: Has he ever owned property or parcel land in Madison Subdivision? MR. GOLDIE: I'm not sure of that. MS. BELPEDIO: How about the other gentleman? MR. GOLDIE: No. MS. BELPEDIO: No, he does not live in Madison Meadows? MR. GOLDIE: Correct. MS. BELPEDIO: Okay. Now, you presented some materials to the Board today that you've sent out a notice to the owners of the parcels of the subdivision-- MR. GOLDIE: Yes, ma'am. MS. BELPEDIO: -- to inform them of a meeting to be held at a later point in time? MR. GOLDIE: Yes, ma'am. MS. BELPEDIO: Okay. MR. GOLDIE: By mail. MS. BELPEDIO: By mail. Okay. the Board of Directors? MR. GOLDIE: Yes, ma'am. How did you send out those letters? Now, you're the president of Page 33 July 25, 2002 MS. BELPEDIO: As the president, how are you planning on eradicating the exotic from the parcel in question? MR. GOLDIE: Following your suggestion of setting up a homeowners association, that's what I've done. My plan would be to have our organizational meeting. In fact, it took me a while to find a place. And we couldn't have it until, like, what is it, the 26th of August or so at Veteran's Park-- MS. BELPEDIO: Okay. MR. GOLDIE: -- is to have an organizational meeting, discuss all the issues. In fact, you're welcome to be there. Anyone's welcome to be there and if we have to address the idea of clearing it, how will it be done, who will pay for it and so forth. But I would like it to become, you know, a viable homeowners. They may want the same mailboxes. They may want to put street lights in. They might want to do a lot of things to enhance their value. That's the purpose - MS. BELPEDIO: I just wanted -- MR. GOLDIE: -- and also the purpose to clear up the legal entity of what happened with the deed and forth and so on. MS. BELPEDIO: And what sort of monies do you intend on using to pay for the removal of the exotics? MR. GOLDIE: We'd have to discuss that. MS. BELPEDIO: Okay. MR. GOLDIE: Plus establishing a budget. Every homeowners association needs a budget. MS. BELPEDIO: Have you filed a Declaration of Covenants yet? MR. GOLDIE: I have done nothing more than you see. MS. BELPEDIO: Okay. Have I ever had a conversation with you before? Page 34 July 25, 2002 MR. MS. MR. MS. MR. MS. BELPEDIO: Okay. still exotic-- GOLDIE: No. BELPEDIO: Have I ever met you before? GOLDIE: No. BELPEDIO: Am I your attorney? GOLDIE: No. Does the violation still exist? Is there MR. GOLDIE: Oh, I'm sure it does. Well, when I talked to Alex, I said, well -- as we were going through the second stage after we had discovered the deed was not totally inclusive of what was intended, I said "Well, do you want me to clear that little comer out again?" And interestingly enough, that little comer only cost like $4900 to clean up. And she said, "Well, if you want to do it, fine. But it's not going to preclude you from going before the Board." MS. BELPEDIO: Okay. I have no other questions. I'd just like to address some of the comments -- or some of the statements that were made by Mr. Goldie? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Please. But if you'd please speak MS. BELPEDIO: First of all, the potential that the property was conveyed does not excuse or absolve Mr. Goldie from the responsibility of the maintenance of the parcel. The virtue of the -- the very fact of him incorporating is not enough. There still exists exotics on the property. Currently we're choosing to keep Mr. Goldie as a violator and ask that this Board find him in violation and impose fines, if necessary, because we're not certain that there has been a legal conveyance. I've reviewed the Florida Chapters regarding homeowners associations and nonprofit corporate entities, at least preliminary. not a real estate attorney. I~m I do not feel that I'm qualified to render an Page 35 July 25, 2002 opinion at this time as to whether or not there was, in fact, a conveyance. I don't believe that it's the -- within the powers of your Board to decide whether or not. All we're asking is that Mr. Goldie personally remain responsible. I suspect or it may be possible or probable that the individual homeowners, when they attend this meeting, may not choose to become members of the association. And if they do, they may not have agreed with a conveyance of property to them that they were not aware of. And for those reasons I ask that you keep him responsible. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Any other comments from the County side? MS. DUSEK: Jennifer, I have a question for you. MS. BELPEDIO: Sure. MS. DUSEK: We don't know then right now whether this Articles of Incorporation is a legal document? MS. BELPEDIO: I can tell you what I know. I know that the Secretary of State has issued a certificate that it is a legal entity, that it is a nonprofit organization recognized by the laws of Florida. I know that the Articles of Incorporation are signed by Mr. Goldie. They're not dated. There are no other persons that have signed these Articles of Incorporation. I would be comfortable stating that it may be a legal entity. The more complex issue is whether or not it was organized properly as a homeowners association. That would certainly require more extensive research. MR. GOLDIE: May I? MS. DUSEK: Excuse me. Did your office suggest that he do this, that he form a homeowners association? Page 36 July 25, 2002 MS. BELPEDIO: What was suggested through Code Enforcement was that an association be formed to assist Mr. Goldie in eradicating the exotics. Just forming the organization and taking no further action is not enough. And, of course, he would have to form the homeowners association under the laws of Florida. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So at this point in time you really do not know, in a strict technical sense, who owns the property, whether it's Mr. Goldie, whether it's the association or some other entity; is that correct? MS. BELPEDIO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Jean, in cases like this in the past, and there haven't been a lot, but do we not have the right to pursue action against the record of owner to the point where we can establish that? MS. RAWSON: Correct. And if this was a valid conveyance, of course, the Code Enforcement violation runs with the land. But you're safe in probably naming them both. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Um-hum. MS. RAWSON: And when it all is sorted out and you know who the true and rightful owner of record is, you know, that's the person that will have to come into compliance. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And the person or entity, that may not be an owner of record, can always come before this Board and ask for a waiver of their responsibilities. MS. RAWSON: That's correct. MS. DUSEK: Jean, when you said both, are you saying as trustee and president? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. DUSEK: Okay. Page 37 July 25, 2002 MS. RAWSON: As trustee and as president of the homeowners association. And if the homeowners association members have some objection to being included, I'm sure we'll hear from them. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Goldie, do you have any other comments you wish to add? MR. GOLDIE: The documents that we filed with the State were signed. I have them here and properly notarized. No, I guess, you know, it's my belief that the property has been legally conveyed. There was an attorney who prepared it all, who filed it all, who did it all. And so I naturally assume that he's licensed in Florida. He operates in Naples. And so I'm following his instructions. And he prepared it, and I mailed it in. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Any other questions from the Board for any of the witnesses? MS. SAUNDERS: Yeah. Mr. Goldie, did you notify any of the 16 property owners that this was taking place today? MR. GOLDIE: Ma'am, I don't even know any of them. I signed that deed back in 1994, where I gave up everything I had. MS. SAUNDERS: Then I'm a little confused. Why are you trustee if you have nothing to do with it? MR. GOLDIE: Because they contend that the deed that I signed in 1994, conveying my rights as trustee had a little loophole in it and it conveyed all the property, except this little preserve. Now, why would I keep a little preserve. That was not my intention. It was no one's intention. And that's what I said, in the County's notes that I read to you on that page 31, they said, "Just by a technicality." And all I'm trying to do is step up and say, "Hey, we have a problem." I live in Naples. I like Naples. I don't get traffic tickets. I don't get picked up for DUI. I try to obey the law. All I'm trying to do is set up a vehicle by which this will maintain itself and go on and on. Page 38 July 25, 2002 I'm not trying to be illegal or I'm not trying to duck out or I wouldn't be here this morning. I don't like being here. I'm nervous. I'm afraid of you. But I am here in an attempt to honestly work out something that's beneficial to everyone. MS. SAUNDERS: When you conveyed the property in 1994, who did you convey it to? MR. GOLDIE: Clyde Quinby. MS. SAUNDERS: And where is he in this whole situation? MR. GOLDIE: He sold everything out. MS. SAUNDERS: So he was the developer? He sold it? MR. GOLDIE: That's right. We went into it together. You may recall business got terrible in '90, '91, so forth. We didn't sell a lot until after I had conveyed it. And when I conveyed it, I took no money. I got nothing out of there, except paying for the clearing on the lot so the people would have an enjoyable comer. MS. SAUNDERS: Um-hum. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. If you'd have a seat, please. I'll open the hearing to discussion for the Board and possibly a finding of fact. MS. BELPEDIO: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes. MS. BELPEDIO: May I make one suggestion? If you were to find Mr. Goldie personally responsible and in his capacity as president, you may consider giving him a reasonable amount of time to abate the violation. And in the end, if the association abates the violation, then there won't be a fine imposed, there won't be a lien running with the property and he won't have anything to be concerned about. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. So noted. Page 39 July 25, 2002 MR. GOLDIE: more comment? MR. FLEGAL: MR. GOLDIE: I didn't hear that. But I guess -- can I make one Sure. If you do give us some -- I guess I just asked for some time to see where we're going with this thing and a reasonable amount of time, knowing that vacations and it's hard to get people together for a month or two. Yes, sir? MR. RAMSEY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Please. MR. RAMSEY: Mr. Goldie, other than that parcel that we're talking about, do you own the property or do you reside in Madison Meadows? MR. GOLDIE: No. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you, sir. Discussion for the Board? MS. DUSEK: I'm ready for a motion. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Move on to a finding of fact. Ms. Dusek? MS. DUSEK: I'd like to make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus James M. Goldie, trustee and president of Madison Meadows Homeowners Association in the Case CEB Number 2001-014, that there is a violation. The violation is of Sections 3.9.6.6, 2.4.4.12, 1-12 of Ordinance Number 91-102, Sections 2.6 -- excuse me, 2-6 of Ordinance Number 89-63 of the Exotic Ordinance. The description of the violation prohibited exotics plants, primarily Brazilian pepper existing in the Water Management/Conservation area. Exotics were removed from the western edge of the property to 50 feet in September 2000, but have regrown in the area. Page 40 July 25, 2002 MR. FLEGAL: Mr. Rawson? MS. RAWSON: Yes, sir. MR. FLEGAL: Question: In forming this motion, Mr. Goldie, as trustee and president, does that give us the two entities that should the association back out, or whatever the right word is, does that give us still somebody that we can hang our hat on? Have we covered all the bases we need to cover? MS. RAWSON: I noticed he signed the deed individually. I suppose it's possible that he might still be the landowner. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. So-- MS. RAWSON: This little section. And I believe that I understood from the County Attorney that she wanted him individually. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. That's what I'm trying-- and basically our order should be to, for lack of a better word, three -- two entities and a person. MS. RAWSON: FLEGAL: Correct. MR. Okay. Mr. Goldie as trustee, Mr. Goldie as president and Mr. Goldie, period, as an individual; correct? MS. RAWSON: Because he could still own this property, yes. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. I would ask that we amend the motion to include Mr. Goldie individually. MS. DUSEK: And that's okay to do that even though he's been cited as trustee and -- MS. RAWSON: Well, I believe that when you amended the heading earlier-- MS. DUSEK: Yes. MS. RAWSON: -- it was pursuant to the County Attorney's request that he be named individually as president of this Page 41 July 25, 2002 homeowners association. And I'm sure I heard her use the word individually. MS. DUSEK: So just naming him as president doesn't include individually.9 MS. RAWSON: That's right. MS. DUSEK: Okay. Then I amend the motion. MR. FLEGAL: Thank you. motion. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Based on that, I would second the We have a motion and an amended motion from Mr. Dusek and a second from Mr. Flegal. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MR. FLEGAL: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed? Motion carries. If we can proceed to an order of the Board. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, is 60 days -- I see that you have recommended 60 days. I guess, Alex, maybe I should ask you? Do you feel that's a reasonable time? That's a pretty large area. MS. SULECKI: Well, I feel that it's rainy season right now and my concern is that the removal and herbicide application would not be appropriate in rainy season. So I don't think giving a little more time is a problem, because it really should be done in dry season. MR. PONTE: I think we also have to recognize the fact that it would take time to form the association properly, to be voted and all of that. So I think that -- I can't imagine this entire task being accomplished in much less than 120 days. Page 42 July 25, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: on this. Our case is not to form an association or to do anything. case is to find compliance of the problem. Whether they form an association or not, doesn't mean that the problem has gone away. We want the problem to go away by whatever means they choose. But the point is we want the problem to go away. And I don't care whether, with no disrespect, Mr. Goldie, I don't care whether he handles it personally, whether the association handles it or who handles it. But the point is, the problem has to go away. And that's what he Board needs to concentrate on. MR. FLEGAL: I agree with the sentiment, except that since we're citing two entities and a person, if we don't give the entities enough time to work out their problem, the person will spend all the money and never ever get it back. So you should just hammer the person to the wall in the first place. Let's get everybody to try and clean it up. The problem has been there. I don't think it's a disaster to the community, is it, Alex, at this point, if we give them another three, four, five, six months to solve his problem? It's not going to make it any worse than it is today, is it? MS. SULECKI: I would say it's most appropriate to do it when it's going to cost the least environmental problem. And for me, that would be sometime in early December would be the time to do it when rains are ceased and it's dried up. Because if he goes in there with an herbicide application now and there's standing water or water in the soils, it's not going to kill the plants anyway. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: How long of a process would that be do you estimate? MS. SULECKI: It's quite a big project. I would say it would take a good crew. And I'm not talking about just kind of rounding a Let me refresh the Board's memory Our Page 43 July 25, 2002 crew up from day labor. I'm talking about a reputable company. It would take them probably about three weeks to get in there and do that. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So would you feel that a 60-day period after December 1 st would be appropriate? MS. SULECKI: Yeah. Well, actually, a 30-day period. I think they can do it before the new year. And that would be environmentally appropriate. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Um-hum. MS. DUSEK: So they could do it in December? MS. SULECKI: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: And that's four weeks right there. MS. SULECKI: Yes. MS. DUSEK: So if we gave them five months right now, that takes you through the end of December. MS. BELPEDIO: I believe that would work. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And probably for the Board's benefit, maybe a good solid date would be by year's end, December 31st. Anyway, carrying on to the order of the Board. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we order the Respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and obey all violations by December 31st, 2002, or a fine of $50 per day be imposed each day the violation continues. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: If I may, let's visit the fine. Is a $50 fine appropriate for this particular offense? MS. DUSEK: Are you thinking of a larger fine? MR. PONTE: No. I think it might be too high. The fact of the matter is if the association is not formed, Mr. Goldie is going to bear the -- personally, the cost of clearing out this entire acre and a half. Page 44 July 25, 2002 MS. DUSEK: I think we have to remember that this has been going on for two years. And I know there have been some legal steps that had to be taken. He can always come back and ask for a continuance. But I think a $50 fine will give him the incentive to go forward. MR. FLEGAL: I agree. I think you need to keep the incentive there to get the problem solved, not that, "Jee, if we don't get it solved, it's not a big fine anyway. So what the heck." They obviously haven't solved the problem since May of 2000. So we've had a couple of years to work on this. Not a whole lot's been done, just a little back and forth. I know Mr. Goldie's been, you know, a nice fellow. But I think you need to keep the fine at a level that he or one of these entities understands that get it resolved or it's going the cost you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So noted. MR. RAMSEY: I agree with Mr. Flegal. In Mr. Goldies' own documents, it provides for indemnification. So if there is some lag or some difficulty in forming the Board, if the Board is altogether in agreement with Mr. Goldie, he can seek indemnification through the Board if, in fact, he runs over the time. So I think the fine is appropriate based upon that as well. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. MR. FLEGAL: Based on that, did somebody make a motion yet? Dusek, a second by Mr. Flegal. aye. Aye. MS. DUSEK: I did. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion. MR. FLEGAL: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. We have a motion by Ms. All those in favor indicate by saying Page 45 July 25, 2002 MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MR. FLEGAL: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed? None opposed. The motion carries. Mr. Goldie, do you understand the actions of the Board? MR. GOLDIE: I just asked her what happened. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Can I clarify that for you? MR. GOLDIE: She'll tell me in a minute. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Basically we have found that a violation does occur. We are citing all three entities, yourself included, individually, as well as the association. MR. GOLDIE: How can I be included individually? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, that's, in essence, why the Board is taking recommendations from the County Staff, the County Attorney's Office and your own testimony in determining that. But basically -- excuse me -- we are asking that the violations be corrected by December 31st, 2002, by whomever, whether it's the association, yourself or whoever. If that does not occur, then a fine of $50 per day will be incurred for each day thereafter that the violation continues, as well as operational costs in prosecuting the case and hearing the case. If you in the future, if you find out that you have resolved what's happening with the ownership of the property and find yourself not the owner of the property and wrongly cited, in a sense, for the violation, then you always have the ability to come back before the Page 46 July 25, 2002 Board and ask that your involvement be waived out of this for the grounds that you're able to prove at that point in time. MR. GOLDIE: I guess my other question then, I am-- how can I be the owner of the property when we deeded it, conveyed it, recorded it? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Um-hum. Well, apparently we're not clear about it as to whether you are or are not. MR. GOLDIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So what we're asking is that that be cleared up. MR. GOLDIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. MR. GOLDIE: Yep. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you, sir. Have a good day. Okay. I'd like to take a ten minute break. Is that sufficient for you? We'll take a ten minute break for the Court Reporter before the next case. And we'll meet back here at 10:30. Thank you. Thereupon, (A recess was had from 10:20 until 10:30 and the proceedings continued as follows.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Let's call the Board back from recess, please. If we could have order. MS. PETRULLI: Mr. Chairman, before we continue on with the next case, for the record, I would like to make you aware of the change on the agenda. In Old Business under 6-A, Number 3 the Lloyd Bowein there has been eliminated from the old business. But it will be put on to 6-B, Affidavits of Compliance of the Board of County Commissioners versus Lloyd Bowein since it is in Page 47 July 25, 2002 compliance. I just want to make notice of that change. And you do have the packets that show that change. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And, Jean, since we have an amendment to the amendment, do we need to revote the agenda to a from Mr. MS. MR. MS. MR. MR. motion? MS. DUSEK: Motion to. MR. FLEGAL: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion from Ms. Dusek, second Flegal. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. SAUNDERS: Aye. FLEGAL: Aye. DUSEK: Aye. PONTE: Aye. RAMSEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed? None opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. If we can proceed with the next case then, please. MS. PETRULLI: Our next case is CEB Number 2002-009, and that's the Board of County Commissioners versus Jeffrey A. Dorini. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Is that case 17 instead of 197 MS. PETRULLI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. So it's Case Number 2002- 017. that. MS. PETRULLI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Please let the record reflect MS. PETRULLI: For the record, I would like to ask if the respondents are present? MR. DORINI: Yes. Page 48 July 25, 2002 MS. PETRULLI: Let the record show that they are present. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. MS. PETRULLI: We have provided the Board and respondents with a packet. And at this time I would like to offer that packet as Exhibit A for the County. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I will entertain a motion to -- MS. DUSEK: So moved. MR. FLEGAL: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MR. FLEGAL: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Please proceed. MS. PETRULLI: The alleged violation is of Section 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance 91-102 as amended of the Collier County Land Development Ordinance. The description of the violation is a boat lift constructed without permits. The location and address where the violation exists is 2376 Longboat Drive in Coconut River. The name and address of the owner in charge of the location where the violation exists is Jeffrey A. Dorini -- excuse me -- Dorini, 2376 Longboat Drive, Naples, Florida. The date the violation was first observed was July 27th, 2001. The date of the first Notice of Violation was given on July 30th, 2001. The date on which the violation was to have been corrected was August 6th of 2001. The date of the last reinspection was June 20th Page 49 July 25, 2002 of 2002. And at that time the violation still remained. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Investigator David Repicky to bring the case before the Board. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Repicky, one second. If we could swear in the witnesses, please. Mr. Dorini, would you come forward just to be sworn in. And I if I could ask everybody, apparently we're having some problems with the speaker system. So if you could just speak loudly so we can all be heard. Thereupon, DAVID REPICKY and JEFFREY DORINI, the Witnesses herein, having first been duly sworn, testified as follows: CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Dorini, if you'd please have a seat. It will take a little while to get to you. MR. REPICKY: My name is David Repicky, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator, for the record. On 7/27/01, we had a compliant. There was a boat dock installed at Mr. Dorini's address that didn't have any permits. It wasn't permitted to be put in. I checked the records; there was no permit. I talked with Mr. Dorini on that day, asked him maybe who the contractor was. He couldn't remember at that time. So I was doing the research who was the contractor. Sometimes they pull the permits, forget to file them and so on. He couldn't remember anything about who did it. He didn't have a cancelled check or warranty to state. At the time we issued a Notice of Violation, had a recheck set for August the 7th. On August the 7th, Mr. Dorini stated he would try to obtain a permit. He was in the process of obtaining a survey, which had to be done first that showed the mean high waterlines. I went back on 8/17. There's some bad information from a neighbor. Mr. Dorini thought he wasn't going to need a permit. I reinformed him that he would need a permit at that time, so I gave him another extension at Page 50 July 25, 2002 that time. On 8/24, Mr. Dorini obtained a surveyor. I verified with the surveyor that he was going to perform the work. On 9/13, the surveyor conveyed to me that the survey was complete and ready and that Mr. Dorini would be submitting the survey and his paperwork to obtain a permit at that time. On 10/8, I went to recheck for a permit, no paperwork had been submitted to obtain a permit. 10/22, did another recheck, still no permits. Also on 10/8, we did submit a CB Warning Letter at that time. But after 10/22 to February 2002, the case was on hold as with other cases that we had along that street due to the County Commissioners were updating the boat dock ordinance to give the people more room. So we want everybody to be on the same playing field. So we put all the boat dock cases on hold at that time. From February to June, reviewed records trying to get in contact with Mr. Dorini, also still no permits. So we went ahead and sent in the CB, sent him to the CB to have that resolved. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of the investigator? MR. FLEGAL: The changes by -- or updating of the ordinance by the Board of County Commissioners, did that have any affect on the problem or did it make it better, worse, the same or -- MR. REPICKY: It made it better for all the boat dock owners on that street. It gave them more room. But in Mr. Dorini's case, it hasn't helped none. He still would need -- even if they were in compliance with the width out to the canal, they still needed to have a permit for what they installed at that time. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Um-hum. So it had no bearing on his particular case? MR. REPICKY: Right. Page 51 July 25, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold. I just wanted to clarify what the Board of County Commissioners did with the amendment. They amended the ordinance to allow extension further into the waterway. So it had nothing to do with the requirement for a permit. It was more granting the provision for a larger boat dock. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Any other questions from the Board? Thank you. Mr. Dorini? MR. DORINI: Yeah. Okay. I obtained a survey that showed my boat lift was in compliance with all the requirements. I brought it into the Building Department, and then it showed the boat dock across the water from it. And so that didn't work, and I could never get the surveyor back to redo it. So recently I've hired a general contractor. We hired another surveyor. Last week I find out that we're too far out by a foot and we're going to hire someone to move it back in. And we will get a building permit. I'm asking for, like, a 60-day extension, if I can. MS. DUSEK: Did you say on the first survey that you had there's a boat dock across from you and it didn't show it? MR. DORINI: Correct. And the surveyor didn't show that. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Are you, in essence, saying you have a technical error on the survey and the County is not accepting your survey? MR. DORINI: Correct. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Any other questions? MR. FLEGAL: But you're telling us, sir, that you never did You'd just like some time have any permits, so you are in violation? to resolve it; correct? MR. DORINI: Correct. Page 52 July 25, 2002 MR. FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you, sir. Discussion from the Board? MR. REPICKY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes. MR. REPICKY: Sixty days would be reasonable with the time frame of getting a permit and the time frame through the County. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Thank you. Any discussion from the Board members? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Jeffrey Dorini, in the Case CEB Number 2002-017, that a violation does occur. The violation is of Sections 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance Number 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Ordinance. The description of the violation, boat lift constructed without a permit. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion from Ms. Dusek. Do I hear a second? MR. FLEGAL: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Second from Mr. Flegal. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MR. FLEGAL: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. May we have the order of the Board, please. MR. FLEGAL: I would make a motion that we order the respondent to pay all the operational costs incurred in the prosecution Page 53 July 25, 2002 of the case, number one. Number two, that within 60 days that he come into compliance or a fine of $50 a day will be assessed until the violation is resolved. MS. SAUNDERS: I'll second that. MS. DUSEK: I just wanted to make a -- in the case of the $50, I'd like to see that to 25. MR. PONTE: I agree. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: First off, we have a motion by Mr. Flegal, a second by Ms. Saunders. Mr. Flegal would you like to amend your motion? MR. FLEGAL: Jean, can we do that after we have had a second? MS. RAWSON: Well, you have to amend the second. MS. DUSEK: Go ahead. MS. RAWSON: If you're going to amend your motion, you'll have to amend your second. MR. FLEGAL: We just amend the second? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Or do we have to just withdraw the second? MS. RAWSON: MR. FLEGAL: You can withdraw the motion and the second. Okay. I'll withdraw the motion. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Do we have a withdrawal on the second? MS. SAUNDERS: Certainly. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Then we can back ourselves back out again. MR. FLEGAL: Now, I will start all over again. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Let's start again with a new motion please then. You obviously do not need to amend your motion. Page 54 July 25, 2002 MR. FLEGAL: No. I understand that. I'm a little -- MS. DUSEK: Do you want me to make the motion? MR. FLEGAL: I'm a little torn on the $25. Yeah, Bob, go ahead. MS. DUSEK: All right. I make a motion that we order the Respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and correct the violation within 60 days or a fine of $25 per day be assessed and imposed each day the violation continues. MR. REPICKY: Mr. Chairman? MR. PONTE: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion and a second. Motion from Ms. Dusek, a second from Mr. Ponte. Just one second before we vote on that. Yes, sir? MR. REPICKY: We're asking $50 a day, basically. Also there's electric in that. And it's a more involved permit. It's also a safety issue with the electric on that boat lift. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I wish you would have told us that before we went through and did all this stuff. Do we still have a motion on the table? MS. DUSEK: I still hold the motion as $25. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All right. We still have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? MR. FLEGAL: I just think it's too light, but -- MR. RAMSEY: I agree. I think, you know, if we're going to have a fine, we ought to have a fine that means something. If we're not going to have a fine that means something, then let's not have a fine. MR. PONTE: But the fine must be reflective of the seriousness of the situation. This has existed for a long time. Page 55 July 25, 2002 MR. FLEGAL: Well, that's the problem. It is serious. It's existed for a long time and it didn't get resolved. So now we're going to give him a light fine. That's kind of backwards. MS. DUSEK: I think the problem itself, or the violation itself, is not as serious as other violations that we have. And that's why I asked it to $25. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any further discussion before we vote? Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All those opposed? Nay. MR. FLEGAL: Nay. MR. RAMSEY: Nay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All those opposed, please hold your hand up. We have a four to three vote. Motion passes, four to three. Mr. Dorini, do you understand what action we've taken here? MR. DORINI: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Thank you. MR. DORINI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We appreciate it. All right. If we can move on to close the public hearings and move on to new business. MS. PETRULLI: On the new business on Section 5-A, we have a Request for an Extension of a Compliance Date, the Board of County Commissioners versus Jack W. and Elma Mae Barrs. I'd like to ask if the Respondents are present today? MR. BARRS: Yes. MS. BARRS: Yes. Page 56 July 25, 2002 MS. PETRULLI: They are here. Let the record show that the Respondents are present. Mr. and Ms. Barrs would like to address the Board, if they could, to ask for their extension on the compliance date. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. I have a question. Since we don't have the information here, could you tell us what the order of the Board is so that we know what they're asking for. MS. PETRULLI: Yes. One moment. This case was a litter case where it was a great amount of stuff all over the property. It was located in the East Naples Estates area, off of-- east of County Barn Road. Their compliance date was June 25th of 2002, and they had 80 to 100 motor vehicles, parts, assorted metal, plastic, glass, wooden items, building materials and so forth. And because of the huge amount of material there, I was personally contacted by their contractor, Mr. Burtges, saying that they were making quite a bit of progress. But because of the huge amounts that they have to remove, that as a contractor, he felt it was really unreasonable to put that as their compliance date, that they really needed more time. And he had conferred with another contractor and he agreed with him. MR. FLEGAL: And we gave the order when, and gave them how much time to start with? MS. PETRULLI: On April the 25th the order was issued, and we gave them 'til June the 25th. MR. FLEGAL: So we gave 60 days? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Sixty days. MS. PETRULLI: Yes, sir. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. That's what I wanted to know. MS. PETRULLI: Yes, sir. And that information is in the packet with the imposition of fines dealing with Mr. Barrs. Page 57 July 25, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. All right. Mr. Barrs, would you like to address the Board? And just as a matter of procedure, if you could keep your comments or testimony or discussion limited to why we're granting that extension as opposed to trying to rehear the case and all the other things. Okay? MR. BURTGES: He just wants us to state why we want the continuance, not anything about the case. MR. BARRS: Just we need the time, we need the time to do it. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Barrs? MR. BARRS: We just need the time to finish doing what we're doing. I've been busy ever since. I was in here the last time. We've moved a lot of stuff. I've got people that had stuff there that's moved some on their own, which has helped. But there's just so much to do and I've got the contractor here. He brought his equipment in there so as to get some of the stuff out that's been in there, and it's been bogged up. We've had water and we've had the mosquitos. And there ain't nothing work for us. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All right. MR. BARRS: Everything we're doing, we're working against it. But we are moving and I'm loaded right now, in other words, to go out as soon as the boy gets off of his truck run. Then he'll run two or three loads. And I've got one outfit that's already got three cars already loaded on it. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Mr. Barrs, could you give us MR. BARRS: So we're moving continuously. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Can you give us some indication-- excuse me -- some indication as to what the progress that might have been made already? Can you tell us how much has been done, some idea of how much you've already done. Page 58 July 25, 2002 MR. BARRS: It's probably been 25, 30, maybe more -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. MR. BARRS: -- automobiles moved. Two boats has been moved. And there's two or three vehicles that didn't -- in other words, it wasn't ours -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Um-hum. MR. BARRS: -- that people's come and moved. And I got about six more that they got to come move. Some of them are supposed to come in this weekend. I don't know if they're going to make it or not. But if they do, them will be gone. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So roughly -- MR. BARRS: But they're going everyday. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All right. Roughly 40 percent of the automobiles have been moved. MR. BARRS: Yes. Yes, sir. I've got everything mostly is in the back, and I'm taking the worst as I get to it. In other words, I'm taking the worst out first. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Um-hum. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Barrs? MR. BARRS: Anything that's got wheels and tires on it, that ain't too bad. But when you got stuff that don't have rear ends, no transmissions, no front ends and this back in the peppers growed up through it-- MS. DUSEK: Mr. Barrs -- MR. BARRS: -- you got-- MS. DUSEK: -- between you and your contractor, what time frame? How much more time do you think you need? MR. BARRS: I really need about four months, five months. IfI can get six months, I'd appreciate it, because I want to take some buildings and stuff out, too. But I've got to wait until I get to it. And Page 59 July 25, 2002 we've had this water, and you can't move around out there. When this water is up, it's boggy. You stay bogged up or you're trying to snatch something out of the hole and you can't get it out of the hole because you can't make it move. MS. DUSEK: Okay. I understand. MR. BARRS: I got good headway on all of it, and I'm loaded ready to go now with some. And if I can just -- all I need is the time. But we ain't quit. We're steady moving it. And I've had pretty good luck, considering the conditions. Of course, I tore up the transmission, tore up a rear end. And now I've got, when I go in, the same one I got loaded, I blowed a tire on it. A piece of metal went down and went through the tire and gone on one of the cars. MS. DUSEK: Okay. MR. BARRS: So everything is going pretty good. It's just the time. It just seems like it just goes and goes and goes. It's going faster than I can move the stuff. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you, Mr. Barrs. One clarification, today you're asking -- Mr. Barrs? MR. BURTGES: We do have, just whatever it's worth, we got an envelope here full of receipts where he's taken some stuff to the dump, things-- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Urn-hum. MR. BURTGES: -- to the salvage yard. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We understand that. Mr. Barrs, you're asking again, in your correspondence to Collier County Planning Division, you had asked for 60 to 90 days. Today you are asking for four to five months; is that correct.9 MR. BURTGES: He's saying you need more time. MR. BARRS: I do need more time. Page 60 July 25, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So you're asking for four to five months? MR. BARRS: I need it ifI can possibly get it. MR. BURTGES: I don't think he understood the first time that he was here that he needs the total amount of time to clean it up. They said, "We'll give you 60 or 90 days." He said, "Give me that and let me see how far I can go." CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. MR. BURTGES: He had some stuff on another property. It's stated in here. That's all gone. And he's gone on to the worse things, the gas tanks and whatnot that were eradicated before but not from the property. The inspector, or whatever, may not understand. Jack's been in the salvage business since the early 70's right here, and it was kind of a thing. I don't know how much you guys are up to date on this. I've known Jack for 15, 18 years. And first he was going to get a license, because he was in the agricultural zone, and then they changed it. He was really in limbo, but we've been in touch with the County for probably the last three and a half years deciding if it was going to be legalized or not. And finally they came to the point and said, "No. It's not a good place. It's not licensed for it. Clean it up." At that point, even before he technically got advised, he had already started cleaning it up. MS. DUSEK: You're his contractor? MR. BURTGES: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And for the record, would you please state your name. MR. BURTGES: Tommy Burtges with Sunland Enterprises. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thankyou, sir. MS. DUSEK: And your estimation to clean it all up? Page 61 July 25, 2002 MR. BURTGES: I would say six months. He's got -- he had some barns and stuff out there at first. The County told him -- I think he got the permit. I think there's three of them. And I believe he got two of them permitted. And they said the third one needs to be taken down and also the things that were in it, the parts that he had salvaged out that were indeed viable, usable parts. At first, that was acceptable and has since become unacceptable. So all that stuff he needs to try to market, you know, get it to where he can get something out of it in order just to pay for the rest of the eradication of the junk. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Ms. Arnold, has anyone from your staff been out to the site to confirm the progress? MS. PETRULLI: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Cathy Vampicae (phonetic), the investigator on the case, has been out there recently. And she did say that they were making a genuine effort, that once again because of the huge amounts -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Urn-hum. MS. PETRULLI: -- it doesn't look like they are. But they have been pulling out quite a bit of stuff. There was just huge amounts of debris and automobiles. But they are making an honest effort. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments, sir? MR. BURTGES: I believe that's it. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. MR. BURTGES: I have one more question, I guess. I don't know. He had a notice here of starting to be fined as of June 25th. Has that also been withheld? MR. FLEGAL: No. No. We haven't got that far yet. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Right. MR. BURTGES: Okay. Page 62 July 25, 2002 MR. FLEGAL: The fine's cooking, because the 25th is gone. So we haven't got that far yet to talk about doing anything. MR. BURTGES: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So as of this date, he is actually We have just not addressed what's happening incurring those fines. with that yet. MR. BURTGES: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. If you'd have a seat, please. Any other questions from the Board? MR. FLEGAL: No. Mr. Chairman, I understand that they're making progress and working real hard. I lean more on the side of not changing an existing order and extending it. The fine's in place. They're working hard. I'm on the side of, let the fine run 'til they're done. Have them come back in here and ask us to reduce or waive the fine. I would be more on his side at that point. But changing the order to add another six months and then the fine kicks in, I'm not an opponent of that because now the incentive to do the work is gone. Right now the incentive's there because the fine is there. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Um-hum. MR. FLEGAL: So I'm on that side. Let's leave it like it is and have him come back when he's all done and ask us to waive the fine. I think that's -- MS. DUSEK: Ms. Rawson? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. DUSEK: Excuse me. What's the legality of changing our order? Can we do that? MR. FLEGAL: Yes. MS. RAWSON: Yes, you can. Basically his motion is a motion to extend the date of the compliance time. Page 63 July 25, 2002 MS. DUSEK: So that's changing the order then? MR. FLEGAL: Yes. MS. RAWSON: It is. It is. MS. DUSEK: I personally have no problem with that, in changing the date. It's -- it sounds like they truly are working very hard and everyday. I understand the weather problems and the others that he has mentioned today. I don't have a problem with it at all. MR. PONTE: I think we could extend the date and let's say for 60 or 90 days just so that we can get an update in 60 or 90 days as to what's going on. Well, but you've already had his contractor say So giving him another 60 days is really a waste MR. FLEGAL: he needs six months. of time. MS. DUSEK: I think so, too. I think he'd just be right back here asking us again. And if we're going to -- MR. FLEGAL: Just leave it sit. MS. DUSEK: I'm inclined to change the order and do it once. And I think that he will be in compliance by the end of that time. MS. SAUNDERS: I'm inclined to go the other way and agree with Cliff on this. As I recall this case, the reason -- one of the reasons it's taking so long is because he wants to sell all the salvage rather than just move it. And so what we're basically concurring with here is giving him a one year yard sale. And I don't go along with that. I would be much more -- I'm pleased that there's progress that has been made. If it comes back before me in the future and they say, "Look, it took us four months to do this, but we've made progress every month," I would be very inclined to reduce the fines. But I'm not inclined to give an extension at this point. Page 64 July 25, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Now that everybody except our alternates have weighed in, would you like to weigh in? Now would be a good time and then I'll speak my peace. MS. DUSEK: Shall we start with a motion and then you can -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: No. Let me weigh in first. I certainly agree with Cliff. I think this Board's position is to achieve compliance. And I think our orders are a method of doing that. We always have the right -- or the Respondent always has the right after everything is taken care of and after we have compliance achieved to come back to us and say, listen, you know, and tell his case, exactly what he's done here. And the Board has the right, at that point in time, to waive the fine in its entirety or to impose just a partial fine, as we've done many times just for prosecution costs or something of that nature. MS. DUSEK: I-- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: But I don't think it's a good idea for this Board to change its orders. And I know that we are handling this individual on a case-by-case basis. But I think just as a good procedure, I don't think we should be changing our orders until compliance is achieved. And then we can do that through the normal procedure of waiving fines and waiving the requirements of that order after compliance. That's my peace. Who's next? MR. RAMSEY: Well, since everybody has, I might as well go also. I think I would be inclined to agree with that premise for this reason, which I think has been stated, it appears as though work has been done and diligently on the property. And if it continues, I would be inclined to consider an abatement or waiving the fines at some future date provided that the work continues and it continues in a reasonable fashion. Page 65 July 25, 2002 Just to continue six months in advance and then have to look back and say, "Well, did it really need six months, was it reasonable and was that a reasonable time frame for the job," you know, that's a difficult standard for us to meet at a later date. I think with a fine imposed, it places that standard squarely on the Respondent and lets him make that determination. And we can make our determination relative to a fine at a later date. MS. DUSEK: I guess I'm trying to eliminate that step of having to come back again and -- MR. FLEGAL: But if you -- I'm sorry. If you extend the order, hypothetically, if he doesn't finish, he could be back here in December or January saying, "Jee, you know, we've been working real hard, but we're still not done. Could you give us another 60 days?" And, you know, I'm just saying, leave the fine rolling. When he's done, he's done. And if it takes six months or six years and the fine masses to whatever, he can then walk in and say, "This is how long it took me. This is why it took me this long. Could you waive the fine?" And we can say, "No, but we'll reduce it," or "Yes, we'll waive it." To just keep moving in the order I think is a bad, bad precedent, because there is now no stick. You've taken the stick away. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Right. You have to remember, as Board members, we have a responsibility to the general public of Collier County. And that responsibility is to make sure that we do have code compliance by whatever means we have available to us. I'm not debating the fact that the Respondent has not made a very valiant effort in cleaning this up. I'm very impressed with that and that certainly abodes very well. But again, I think we need to keep the pressure on and just make sure that things are done properly and right. And I don't think by Page 66 July 25, 2002 changing the order that's the best way to do that. I certainly would vote against a motion to change the order. I think the order should stand the way it is. MS. DUSEK: I feel like I'm in the minority here. But I will say one thing and I understand and I do agree with all of you. Sometimes when we do make the order -- I'm making this statement and then I will vote with my Board members, but sometimes we don't always realize the task involved and how much time it will really take. And I guess that's why I was inclined to consider giving more time. So I hope when he does come back that we will all remember his efforts and as you are stating today that you will be willing to work with him at that time. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Um-hum. Well, by taking the action and, Mr. Barrs, this is really directed towards you, if this Board chooses not to grant your extension, the end result to you is that, in a sense, nothing is changed. You should continue with what you're doing and doing very well. But you would always have that option to come back and ask for a waiver of the fines after you have achieved compliance. So in a sense, the Board is taking no action on your case. But again, you know, it has not been decided yet and it's up before the Board. MR. FLEGAL: Well, I would make a motion that we deny any request to extend our order and that the order stands as written. MS. SAUNDERS: I would second that. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion by Mr. Flegal and a second by Ms. Saunders that the motion be denied. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MR. FLEGAL: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. Page 67 July 25, 2002 MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed? MS. DUSEK: Opposed. MR. PONTE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a five to two vote, motion carries. Mr. Barrs, do you understand what action we've taken? MR. BURTGES: So that means that -- MR. FLEGAL: You just keep doing it, what you're doing. MR. BURTGES: Just keep -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Just keep doing what you're doing. MR. BURTGES: And the fine's still imposed? MR. FLEGAL: That's right. But he can come back when he's all -- date have MR. BURTGES: Right. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: today. MR. BURTGES: yesterday? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: MR. BURTGES: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: MR. BURTGES: Come back. MR. FLEGAL: -- done ask us to waive it or reduce it, whatever. MR. BURTGES: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We still have the ability at a later when everything is cleaned up -- MR. BURTGES: Oh, I understand that completely. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- and everything's fine, we still the ability to waive those fines. We've just decided not to do that But we're just like where we was at Yes. So please keep at it. Keep aggressively working on this. I think you guys are doing a great job. I think it would impress the Page 68 July 25, 2002 Board if you came back at a later date and said, "Hey, we did this and we told you six months and we did it in two." MR. BURTGES: Right. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: That's great. Okay. MR. BURTGES: I've got -- will they keep coming and taking pictures and looking at things? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. BURTGES: So you'll know that there's progress? MR. FLEGAL: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes. The County will continue doing whatever procedures they do in the case. MR. BURTGES: You know, we're going to get it done. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you very much. And we certainly do appreciate your efforts. MR. BURTGES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you, sir. Okay. If we can proceed on to the next case or the next item on the agenda. MS. ARNOLD: Next case is a Request for Reduction or Abatement of Fines. And that's Board of County Commissioners versus Charles Hitchcock and Mc Alpine Briarwood Inc. This matter is going to be discussed by the Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. You got an attachment explaining what the matter is that we wanted to present before you today. And Patrick White is here, for the record. MR. WHITE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Good morning. MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. My only point in addressing you today is to brief you, if you will, on what is essentially the unique character of this request. It's Page 69 July 25, 2002 unprecedented in my experience. I don't know about this Board that there would be a second request for abatement or mitigation of fines. And how we got here, from my perspective, is the only bit of information I wanted to share with you as well as one thought that occurred to me this morning in considering my remarks to you today. The posture of the case is one that came essentially from the division administrators request to our office to take a quick look at the circumstances of where this case was. I did that. And I felt that largely and almost completely the case had received an appropriate treatment but for I think somewhat where the last gentleman was being suggested he be some day, the idea that he would be able to explain to the Board the reasons why an abatement or a mitigation may be appropriate. And I think that's where I believe the attachment that you've received undercover, the letter from my office, is in exposition, if you will, a statement in detail from Mr. Hitchcock of the relevant factors that are appropriate for your consideration. I believe that there may not have been the fullest exploration of those factors at the last meeting. And when I was asked what remedies were available, it became obvious to me that, although I'd never seen or heard, even in my seven years in Lee and two here in Collier, that anyone had ever asked a second time. It seemed that this might be an appropriate case to do that. And it would be only because -- and I didn't feel that in considering what I heard from the last meeting that we'd done the best job that we could have given you, the information that you need to consider to reasonably reach a determination. One of the factors that's in here that may not be the most relevant but is what this morning gave me some pause is the one relevant to the actual cost of the property. Given that this is a Lessee Page 70 July 25, 2002 situation, with respect to Mr. Hitchcock, the value of the property of 4 million is somewhat irrelevant. But I think the thing that's more relevant may be the costs to actually have abated the violation. And I think if you consider those costs of abatement relative to the amount of the fines that exist, it gives you some notion of the proportion of the two and that I believe that ultimately that reflects in what the gravity of the violation with respect to just the landscaping buffer it is. I'm not advocating on behalf of the request by Mr. Hitchcock. I'm merely attempting to give you the best evenhanded consideration of the factors that are there and any thoughts that may be ones I think are relevant to your consideration. And the idea here is that, with respect to the cost of violation in terms of abatement relative to the penalty that's being imposed, it seems that the penalty may be out of proportion, given the fact that there was harm caused, that had it not been for the fact that there was an emergency hearing, there may have been a greater period of time to abate the violation. And, in fact, the dollar amount of the fine that was to be imposed might have been of a lesser dollar value, such that ultimately the offer that I understand, Mr. Hitchcock has check in hand, if you will, to pay a fine of a $1,000 of his money, that in addition to the cost of prosecution and $630 plus, seems to me to be a reasonable offer and one that I would commend to your consideration. I have had conversations with your Board attorney and with staff in regards to this. And you may wish to inquire as to their perspective on this, but I think that certainly they have no objection to it, either as to the appropriateness of making a second request or as to the offer to conclude the matter by accepting the check today. I don't know what the likelihood of actually ultimately recovering any monies would be in the alternative. Page 71 July 25, 2002 It seems to me that given all the circumstances in this case that that could be a reasonable way to conclude the matter. And certainly the County could be satisfied having gotten its cost of prosecution today. If there's any questions, I, of course, would be happy to answer them. MS. DUSEK: I have an immediate reaction-- MR. WHITE: Yes. MS. DUSEK: -- and that is I'm disappointed that you haven't come before us now, especially when Mr. Hitchcock -- MR. WHITE: I don't know if I'm glad to hear that or not. MS. DUSEK: -- was here last month, I believe it was, asking for the reduction of fines. It would have been good to have heard from someone from the -- MR. WHITE: Generally you do not hear from me individually, because my role in the Code Enforcement process is more towards the process end. And it's because of that -- MS. DUSEK: I understand. MR. WHITE: -- rather than the day-to-day operations that the case didn't actually appear in my office, if you will, literally until a division administrator had kind of suggested maybe Mr. Hitchcock and I could have a conversation and see what remedies he may have available. It's a fine line between us, if you will, advising you in terms of what we feel is appropriate under your rules. MS. DUSEK: MR. WHITE: MS. DUSEK: decisions and-- MR. WHITE: MS. DUSEK: before. I-- Well, it's good to hear your opinion. Yeah. But it's coming in after we've made a few Understood. -- it would have been good to hear that input Page 72 July 25, 2002 MR. WHITE: I'm sorry. Go ahead. MS. DUSEK: I'm also afraid of setting precedent. Now, this is an unusual circumstance where he's asking for a second time. We've made a decision. We tried last time to help him through that process and find a reason why we should have given him even more -- less of a fine. There was no help at that point coming from anybody. MR. WHITE: Well-- MS. DUSEK: So I'm a little concerned about it. MR. WHITE: Your point is well made and certainly well taken. And if I may be able to take just a few more moments of your time as a Board. We've addressed those matter, I believe, at the systemic level. And that's why it's a process concern that I'm here relating, if you will, the posture of the case. And I guess what I'm suggesting is I absolutely agree with what you're saying. And that is why you'll also find that you will never likely see one of these again. My belief is that if you've been given an analysis of what the relevant factors are that are in your rule and been given a presentation that's based upon those factors, as opposed to other issues earlier in the process, as it appears may have been the case last month, I think you then have the best information that you need to make the best decision that you can. MR. FLEGAL: Mr. White, let me ask you a question. You said before there's a good chance we'd never see the money. MR. WHITE: I can't tell you that there's any guarantee -- MR. FLEGAL: Why would you say that? MR. WHITE: Well, as you know, the remedy that this Board has available is a legal one. There's no equity. The only circumstance, if you will-- MR. FLEGAL: Okay. Why do you say there's no equity? Page 73 July 25, 2002 MR. WHITE: Because the statute limits you to a dollar fine, essentially. And that is something that attaches to the property. MR. FLEGAL: Right. MR. WHITE: And it's only in a circumstance where typically that person's looking to borrow money against the property and the lien becomes relevant. Or the -- MR. FLEGAL: Well, if he doesn't pay his lien, we can ask you to foreclose on the property. MR. WHITE: Yes, that's true. But the dollar value of the lien, if you will, may be such that the cost of getting the money ultimately is outweighed by the actual benefit. And what I'm suggesting is that's the reason why the statute creates this process so that folks may come in and have -- once they have come into compliance, actually be able to explain to you what they believe are the appropriate reasons under the factors that your rules set forth for a reduction of that fine. I've appeared here only a few times. And in each instance I thought it significant enough to say that the Board's policy, the Board of County Commission's Policy, as best as I understand it, is to obtain compliance, abatement of the violations. And you see such a small fraction of the overall number of cases that are open, because the goal that we're looking to achieve are abatement and compliance. And it's in those circumstances where, for whatever reasons, things might go off the track and we need to come to you to have a case heard and decided, that you then thereafter, once the compliance has been obtained, have the opportunity to consider the appropriateness of reducing those fines. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. I guess my thought process is that if the fine stands and it's filed and at some point since it's recorded the gentleman that owns the property decides to sell it, this lien is on his property, our lien is going to have to be settled, is it not? Page 74 July 25, 2002 MR. WHITE: Yes. But I would submit to you that under that circumstance the person that I believe this Board feels is most directly responsible may quite likely not be the person who's ultimately going to pay that money as a result of foreclosure. Here you have the gentleman present with a check to resolve it at a dollar amount, if you believe appropriate. The County will have its cost of prosecution. And we need not expend another penny of the tax payer's money in pursuant of this case. And I'm just weighing the odds. In my opinion, I would make a recommendation that you favorably consider this, because I believe that it's the old adage of a bird in the hand. It may not be a big enough bird from your perspective. But I again submit to you it's entirely reasonable under what you have before you in those factors, the facts that are there, and as I eluded to a few moments ago that it is a reasonable knowledge. It certainly isn't anything that anyone on County Staff or your Board Attorney would tell you I think is objectionable. So I leave it to your consideration. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Just for clarification, you're looking for us to reduce the fines to a $1,0007 MR. WHITE: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And incorporate $632 in change for -- excuse me, $632.20 for the cost of prosecution? MR. WHITE: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And you support that reduction and fine? MR. WHITE: Were I in your shoes, I would consider it a favorable resolution of the case. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Kind of a roundabout way of answering the question. Page 75 July 25, 2002 MR. WHITE: CHAIRMAN MR. WHITE: CHAIRMAN MR. WHITE: Well, I don't want -- LEHMANN: Do you support it in your position? I don't want to give you the wrong impression. LEHMANN: Okay. I'm not advocating on behalf of Mr. Hitchcock. But if you're asking me what my opinion is with what's been submitted and the appropriateness or not of abating the fine to the dollar amount that he's suggesting, is willing to pay today, I think the answer is my recommendation would be that it would be acceptable. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. White. MR. FLEGAL: No comment. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. MS. DUSEK: I just would state that I am just disturbed about the timing of this request. MR. FLEGAL: Well, I'm disturbed from the standpoint that it seems to be that we hear a case, we establish orders saying that there is a violation based on information given us, we establish a fine, people don't comply, a fine accrues and then all of a sudden the people say, "Hey, I don't want to pay the fine. I'll offer to pay you X or you'll get nothing." And then the County steps up and says, "Jee, you know, why don't you take X, because if we prosecute the case and do this, we're going to spend more money." I mean, why are we even issuing fines? That's all people have to do now is just come in and say, "I don't want to pay you." I think that -- why are we even here? A fine is fine. He should have complied. The order is written against a property owner and the lessee. Record the lien. If the guy ever wants to sale his $4 million property, the County's going to get their money. Page 76 July 25, 2002 I know at some point he will probably sell that property. Most people do. He's not going to sit on it for the next 200 years. I know I think our lien only lays 20 years or something. But I'm not real keen about just reducing fines because somebody walks in the door and says, "Hey, I'll give you a check for ten cents even though you're going to fine me a $1,000. And if you don't take the ten cents, to heck with you." ! have a problem with that. MS. DUSEK: I do, too. MR. FLEGAL: I'm sorry. MS. ARNOLD: If I may just add, I think that the reason why this issue is being brought back is just -- although we gave Mr. Hitchcock an opportunity to state what was stated in the document presented to you by the County Attorney's Office, I think at the time of the hearing he was nervous and he was having a hard time expressing to the Board the reasons why he felt he -- a reduction was warranted. And I think that the County Attorney's Office is merely trying to provide you that information. Those eight points or so points that are identified in your rules and regulations for the Respondent to explain why a reduction could be warranted were not expressed by Mr. Hitchcock. And we did provide those rules and regulations to Mr. Hitchcock. We did provide him a copy of the form that we request Respondents requesting reduction or abatement of fines. I did sit down personally and try to go through that with Mr. Hitchcock so that he would be prepared. But I think you-all recall at the hearing you-all were trying to help him to get some of those facts out, but it wasn't getting out. MR. FLEGAL: Well, but if you go back to when the case was there and when we set the fine, it was, I'm sure, I don't remember the Page 77 July 25, 2002 case exactly, probably based on a recommendation of the County that it be X dollars a day. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. FLEGAL: Now, we've done that. And now the County comes to us and, "To heck with the $50 a day. Just take this small check and call it a deal." I don't know. That doesn't wash with me. I'm sorry. MS. ARNOLD: I think what the County is saying is that circumstances that prevented the compliance were not expressed. And in evaluating the circumstances, it would be reasonable to reduce the fine. MR. WHITE: And if I may just interject. I apologize. I generally agree with the posture you're taking, Mr. Flegal, because that's the appropriate thing for the County to do is when folks have been less than diligent, less than forthright, failed to exhibit good faith, I think the process is designed to impose an appropriate penalty. I think that this process for mitigation and abatement of fines is one where if there is equity in the process, this is the window of opportunity to exercise that discretion. The fact that the dollar amount is something that is perceived as being owed and somehow we're settling something for less than the value isn't entirely accurate. I think the process here is one that says you're entitled at this point to reconsider, in 20/20 hindsight, whether under all of the factors that are set forth here, it's appropriate to exercise that equity balanced against the notion that you will have the funds, if you will, for the cost of prosecution and whatever you think an appropriate fine is, because this is money that's coming out of Mr. Hitchcock's pocket, not out of the property owner's. So that's all. I generally agree with your statement. Page 78 July 25, 2002 MR. FLEGAL: Well, but the property owner was also one of the Respondents. So the property owner's not throwing anything in the pot. He's just free and clear. The order was against both. MR. WHITE: CanI-- MR. FLEGAL: So poor Mr. Hitchcock is the one writing the check and the other guy is just saying, "Tough." MR. WHITE: And if you review the factors, there's an analysis of that that's provided, a set of facts that essentially say that's part of what the problem was here that the property owner wasn't comfortable going forward with the abatement of the landscaping so long as there was no assurance that the violation, with respect to the screening, hadn't been properly determined. And I submit to you that it took until the affidavit of compliance was filed, and arguably it itself isn't expressed, to reach the conclusion that the screening violation had been abated. And that's part of the problem in this case and why I think that the equities, if you are allowed a recommendation, that it's reasonable to reduce the fines in this case. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. The fine-- MR. WHITE: But I generally agree with your notion that the amounts, when properly said at hearing, should be the amounts that should be paid. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. But the fine was for, under our order, totally involved the landscaping, nothing else. MR. WHITE: That's true. MR. FLEGAL: And there's 208 days. So this thousand bucks, so we're going to fine him less than $5 a day. So the recommendation of the $50 that the County originally gave for landscaping, now they're just saying, "Nah, it's okay. Something less than five bucks a day is okay for the landscaping." Page 79 July 25, 2002 MR. WHITE: Well, part of what I think is in the factor's analysis is the notion that the time to abate may have been exceedingly short under the circumstances. That's one of the factors. In other words, as I think as stated in here, it may have been more reasonable to had given 90, 120, whatever days. And at that point you may have heard from the Respondents, either Mr. Hitchcock or the property owners saying, "Look, we're working on it. We have yet to get a determination from the County that the screening's okay. And it's difficult to get a commitment to put in the irrigation piping and the landscaping when it's literally one foot from that fence. And we may have to come in and remove that fence or do something else to make it taller." And that's why I'm saying to you that if you've reviewed all the factors, it seems to me to be a reasonable request. But as a general proposition, I agree with your-- both of your statements as Board members that the general rule ought to be that this type of request wouldn't be appropriate unless there were some equities in favor of the Respondent. MS. DUSEK: With all due respect to the County and Mr. Hitchcock, my comments are not directed to Mr. Hitchcock. I'm doing this as a general comment. We have a lot of people who come before us and some who do not speak the English language. And it's very difficult for them to understand what the process is and what they're supposed to do and they're very nervous. If I had to come before this Board, I'd be very nervous, also. So I think the fact that there was a lack of understanding at the point that he came last month should have been clarified at that time. I think we did try to help him as much as possible. And you refer to 20/20 hindsight. Page 80 July 25, 2002 We just had a case come before us where we were considering -- or two of us were considering changing our order, because sometimes we might not realize that we haven't given enough time. But we can't do this. If I were -- if I had a case personally who had come before this Board now and I'm hearing what you're asking us to do, I would definitely -- I'd keep coming back to this Board until you finally would reduce my fine or I'd go to the County. I mean, I would make every effort to follow this precedent that we may set today. So again, I'm just expressing that I wanted very much to help Mr. Hitchcock out last month when he was here. And we tried every avenue we could think of. I'm just so sorry that you're here today telling us this. I just can't get that out of my head. MR. WHITE: And again, I apologize. But I think ultimately, ma'am, we're looking at it from the perspective of we may not have gotten it, quote, right and given you the best information the first time. We've recognized that there's a better way, if you will. MS. DUSEK: Um-hum. MR. WHITE: And we're here today to present that to you. And whatever the result may be, we're doing the best we can to obtain the objective that you've just set for us. MS. SAUNDERS: If I may say, I do think the County is trying hard. And I appreciate this. And I think that Mr. Hitchcock has done a most admirable job of putting some new information in a clearly, understandable form so that we can go back. And I -- one of my guidelines in life is that foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. We may have made a mistake; maybe we haven't. Whatever it is, whatever could have been done before, I don't think we originally have to stay with it. A person has complied. They have come back with a reasonable offer. Our job as Code Enforcement is not to Page 81 July 25, 2002 collect money for the County, it is to make sure that codes are corrected. I think they've done that. Listening to the County Staff, listening to Mr. Hitchcock last month, listening to the attorney says to me, "I've got some new evidence to look at here." And I think the offer is a very good one and I would strongly support it. MR. PONTE: I think it's incumbent upon the Board to be flexible. We have a County position that has been stressed by professionals to us, and I think we must be cognisant of that position and also appear that one of the tasks before us each time we hear a case is to hear that case with an open mind and degree of flexibility. And I think that in this instance we should reverse ourselves. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, I can't find what I was looking for. But here's my comments for what it's worth. What Mr. Hitchcock has provided us today is what I personally had asked him to provide us at the last meeting, which is nothing more than the evidence. And I think our basis or our decision needs to be based on the evidence as presented to us, which they were. Unfortunately at that hearing, we didn't have this evidence. I'm certainly not a proponent of changing the Board's orders. I think it is bad business, in a sense, although on this particular case I questioned whether this might not actually be warranted due to the fact that we now have, in a sense, new evidence that should have been taken into account when we heard the last request. I'm open to further discussion. MR. RAMSEY: I may agree with the equities as presented by the County, but I have to admit I'm still somewhat troubled by procedural malaise, if you will, that we, you know, we seem to just come around and keep getting bites at the apple. I mean, you know, based upon what's been presented, I mean, I may feel for Mr. Page 82 July 25, 2002 Hitchcock and agree with the County's position, but procedurally, I guess, I still have some difficulties coming to the conclusion that seems to be equitable. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I agree. MS. DUSEK: If we were today to reduce the fines, perhaps not to the extent that the County is now asking us to do, but a compromise, I wonder if this would be acceptable to Mr. Hitchcock and to the County, a compromise from the 1,000 to the 8,000 that's owed? MR. PONTE: That sounds a lot like negotiating the fine. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes. And I don't think we should get into that MR. PONTE: framework. MS. DUSEK: the $1,000. Well, I'm trying to figure out why they came to CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Primarily because that is what Mr. Hitchcock had indicated at the hearing last time. MS. DUSEK: Well, isn't that negotiating? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Let me express a little bit more of my concerns. First off, I am very, very, very dismayed with this process and us as a Board being placed in this position, getting this information at this late date, having a second request to rehear this. Something went wrong, and it should not have gone wrong. I don't like being set into a position where the Board has to, in a sense, set a precedence or is ever asked to negotiate its orders. That's not our position. We're not here to negotiate fines and negotiate orders and whatnot. We're here to achieve compliance by whatever means we set, period. And if the Board issues an order, it stands, unless new evidence is brought forward to say that we were in error. Page 83 July 25, 2002 My problem is this evidence may fall into that line. I don't know yet. I haven't decided personally myself. But as a general rule, I'm very dismayed that we're here doing this today. I certainly don't think we should negotiate any reduction in fine. I think the Respondent's responsibility is to come forward with what he feels the fine should be reduced to and we agree or disagree, period. And it's a very black and white, very cold way of doing it. And I apologize for that. But again, we're in the business of just making sure that we have compliance. And that's what we're looking for. And in this case, we do have compliance. MR. PONTE: The difficulty is that we're in a position of finding a fact, then issuing a fine. But we're also in the appellant business as well. And the people can come and appeal to us to change that. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Right. MR. PONTE: Other procedures don't follow that. However, that's the one that's set up for us. And I think that we have to listen to this with that in mind. I hate repeating myself, but take the lead that is being provided by the County professionals and what they suggest should be done in this particular case. MR. FLEGAL: Well, I mean, it's all great information. When you read through it and you throw out all the fancy words, I mean, you got the property owner to pay for putting in the landscaping. I don't know how long that took. That's probably why it took a long time. Putting in the actual landscaping is not a 120-day deal. Sorry. Probably his negotiation with the owner to get the owner to pay the money was what took all the time. And so now we're down to just reducing the fine because his own words say that. He had to get the property owner's agreement, which was not forthcoming until he was advised that there would be a lien on the property. Page 84 July 25, 2002 I mean, he could have been working 90 days just to negotiate a deal with the property owner. So we're reducing the fine basically because he and his property owner couldn't get together, not because he needed all the time to put in the landscaping. So I have, you know -- somebody make a motion and we'll get on with it. MS. SAUNDERS: I'll make a motion that we accept the Request for Reduction and Abatement of Fines as proposed to $1,000 in a fine and plus costs. MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion from Ms. Saunders and a second from Mr. Ponte. All those in favor signify by saying aye. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed? Nay. MR. FLEGAL: No. MS. DUSEK: Nay. MR. RAMSEY: Nay. MR. LEFEBRE: Nay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All opposed, hold your hand up, please. MR. FLEGAL: One, two, three, four, five. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion is denied at a five to two vote. Mr. Hitchcock, are you out there? MR. HITCHCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: done? Do you understand what we have MR. HITCHCOCK: I understand. Michelle, do the right thing. Stand up, please. You know there was a procedural problem. Page 85 July 25, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: I know of-- MR. HITCHCOCK: Please explain. MS. ARNOLD: I don't know what you're referring to. MR. HITCHCOCK: The original meeting scheduled for May of this year was to be confirmed by you to me by a telephone call. You didn't make that telephone call. Last month you forgot to schedule me for a hearing of the abatement of the fine. You forgot. And you passed out my packet at that meeting. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Hitchcock, again, we're not here to rehear this. Again, I just asked you whether you understood what action we had taken? MR. HITCHCOCK: Yes, I have. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: It's a simple yes or no. MR. HITCHCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. Move on to the next item on the agenda, please. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. The next item is Board of County Commissioners versus Charles H. Goings. This is for an imposition of fines. This matter was heard by the Code Enforcement Board on September 27th, 2001, at which time the Board found the Respondent in violation and required the Respondent to obtain all permits and return the structure -- or return the structure to its original use within a six-month period. The expiration date for that compliance was March 31st, 2002. The Respondent did not comply with the Board's order, and consequently, a fine of $25 per day is being imposed with an additional $1,404.80 for operational costs for a total fine of $3,504.80. And at this time, Staff is requesting that the Board impose fines on this particular case. MR. FLEGAL: I make a motion that we impose fines as requested. Page 86 July 25, 2002 MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: a second by Ms. Dusek. Aye. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MR. FLEGAL: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: unanimously. Next item? We have a motion from Mr. Flegal, All those in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? Motion carries MS. ARNOLD: Next item is Board of County Commissioners versus Wayne Simpson and Lester Redman. This case was heard by the Board back on November 29th, 2001. At that time the Board found in violation-- the Respondent, Wayne Simpson, in violation and ordered to correct the violation by obtaining a building permit or removing the structure. The Board also asks the Respondent, Lester Redman, correct the violations of weeds and litter ordinance within 45 days, that if the Respondent, Wayne Simpson, did not comply, that a fine -- by January 14th, 2002, a fine of $50 per day would be imposed. And the other Respondent, Lester Redman, if not complied with by January 14th, a fine of $50 would also be imposed. Respondents were also ordered to pay operational costs until compliance was occurred. Staff is at this time requesting the Board impose fines in the amount of $8,750 for a period of January 15th through July 9th for noncompliance and an additional $1,075.12 for prosecutional costs for a total cost of $9,825.12. And that would be for both Respondents. Page 87 July 25, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would entertain such a motion. MR. FLEGAL: I make a motion we impose fines as requested. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion from Mr. Flegal, a second by Ms. Dusek. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MR. FLEGAL: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All those opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Next item, please. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. That is Board of County Commissioners -- that would be the item that was changed for compliance. Actually it's for Mr. Marrone's Affidavit of Compliance would be the next item, because we removed Board of County Commissioners versus Lloyd Bowein to the other. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So you are removing this item from the agenda at this point? MS. ARNOLD: There is -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Pushing it back. MR. FLEGAL: We have a letter saying we want fines so. MS. PETRULLI: Yes, sir, that is correct, an Imposition of Fines. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. You're not waiving the fines or anything, are you, or, I mean, requesting a waiver? MS. ARNOLD: Okay. I'm sorry for that confusion. This particular case is Board of County Commissioners versus Lloyd Page 88 July 25, 2002 Bowein. And this case was heard on April 25th, 2002. At that time the Board found the Respondent in violation and ordered to correct the violation by abating, removing the fill within 30 days or a fine of $50 per day would be imposed. Additional operational costs were assessed. At this time the Respondent is in compliance, but came into compliance May 10th. But we're requesting that operational costs in the amount of $1,086 be imposed. MR. FLEGAL: I make a motion that we impose the fine as requested. MS. SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion from Mr. Flegal, a second by Ms. Saunders. All those in favor signify by saying aye? MS. MR. MS. MR. MR. SAUNDERS: Aye. FLEGAL: Aye. DUSEK: Aye. PONTE: Aye. RAMSEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed? Motion carries. Old business? MR. PONTE: Just a little clarification. Did Cliff say a fine as opposed to -- was it operational costs imposed, not a fine? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Do you recall what was said? MR. PONTE: Can you read back what Cliff Flegal said in his motion. Imposing of fine or operational cost? MR. FLEGAL: It's still a fine. MS. RAWSON: It's costs. But I got, you know. I got it. MR. FLEGAL: I'm sure she'll write it the right way. Page 89 July 25, 2002 MR2 PONTE: Okay. MR. FLEGAL: But, in other words, whatever the County is asking us to impose, I want to impose it. MR. PONTE: Good. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. So let's move on to old business. MS. ARNOLD: There are two affidavits of noncompliance, one for Board of County Commissioners versus Charles H. Going and Wayne -- and then the other one would be Board of County Commissioners versus Wayne Simpson and Lester Redman. Those are both items that were previously acted upon in terms of the imposition of fines. So we're just noting for your information that we're filing affidavits of noncompliance. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Affidavits of Compliance? MS. ARNOLD: We have three Affidavit of Compliances. One would be Board of County Commissioners versus Philip A. and Anna Marie Marrone. The other is Board of County Commissioners versus Chares Hitchcock and Mc Alpine Briarwood Inc. And the third would be Board of County Commissioners versus Lloyd Bowein. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Next item is also mine, which is a request for authorization to forward the cases identified on both the June 12th memo and a July 12th memo. The June 11 th memo should have been put on a prior agenda, but was not. So we're bringing both memos to you for -- itself just a formal authorization to proceed with either collections or foreclosure, whichever is deemed appropriate. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Jean, the Board has to vote on this authorization? Page 90 July 25, 2002 MS. RAWSON: Have you voted in the past? I know that you just expect them to foreclose after so many days. MR. FLEGAL: Yeah. MS. SAUNDERS: I think they have to. MR. FLEGAL: I think in the past we have said that we, you know, we make a motion that it be given to the County Attorney's Office to start the process. And if they want to foreclose, fine. Or if they want to -- that's up to them. MS. RAWSON: You can make that vote. And then, of course, the County Attorney is kind enough to come back and give you periodic updates-- MR. FLEGAL: RAWSON: Right. MS. -- about how that's going. MS. CHADWELL: Can I add something before you actually -- MR. FLEGAL: Sure. MS. CHADWELL: -- move and vote on that is I'd like to also include in that authorization the ability to obtain a civil judgement if that's a more efficient means of collecting as opposed to just a foreclosure and to pursue the foreclosure to the point of actually obtaining a deficiency judgement. The statute has recently been amended to allow us to get a deficiency, which was not previously allowed. So if that could be part of your motion, that's part of Staff's request. MR. FLEGAL: But is that part of our -- do we have the authority to do that? I thought our authority was limited to recommend foreclosure, period. If they want to do something different, that's up to them. MS. RAWSON: You can -- I think in the past you've voted to turn them over to the County Attorney's Office to collect -- MR. FLEGAL: Yeah. Page 91 July 25, 2002 MS. MR. in 162, or the ordinance -- MS. RAWSON: You don't. MR. FLEGAL: -- to do different things. over to them to foreclose the lien. to them. MS. RAWSON: MR. FLEGAL: RAWSON: -- by whatever means. FLEGAL: Yeah. I didn't think we had specific authority It was just to turn it And how they choose to do it is up That's true. Okay. So that's all I remember us ever being able to do and doing in the past is we recommend -- or we make a motion you pass it on to the County Attorney's Office for foreclosure. How they want to do it, that's up to the County, you know. As long as they're comfortable with getting their money in some method, we're with them. MS. RAWSON: That would include civil judgments. MR. FLEGAL: Whatever. MS. RAWSON: Whatever the County Attorney -- MR. FLEGAL: Yeah. MS. RAWSON: -- decides to pursue. MR. FLEGAL: Yeah. Because we don't have -- at least I've never seen it in the statute or the ordinance -- MS. RAWSON: It's not in one. MR. FLEGAL: -- listed specifically foreclose or judgement or such or such or such. So I'm just uncomfortable telling you to do that if I don't have the power to do that. MS. CHADWELL: Okay. You are correct. It's not specific in the statute. I just think it's nice to be overinclusive. The worse that can be said-- MR. FLEGAL: Well, I don't want anybody to come back sometime and say, "Jee, the Board told the County Attorney to do Page 92 July 25, 2002 something that it wasn't authorized to tell them to do," and then they worm out of something. I don't want to give anybody a little loophole. MS. RAWSON: I think what he's saying is that you have the power to do whatever. MR. FLEGAL: Yeah. You've got the power. MS. RAWSON: But he doesn't want to have to be the one to tell you that. MS. CHADWELL: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yeah. Or I don't want somebody coming to you and saying, "You did this on a recommendation of a Board that didn't have the power to recommend it." MS. CHADWELL: Okay. MR. FLEGAL: And then you might get hammered in court or something because we've done the wrong thing. I don't want to put you in that position. MS. CHADWELL: Yeah. Not likely, since the statute certainly provides. MR. FLEGAL: Yeah. MS. CHADWELL: Like I said, I'm just trying to cover all my bases and be overinclusive. I appreciate your concern. And as long as you authorize -- and understand that we're -- MR. FLEGAL: Yeah. That's fine. MS. CHADWELL: -- pursuing other remedies to have available to us. MR. FLEGAL: Yeah. As long as you can get your money, we're with you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Now that we know what we're doing, does anybody have any revisions or amendments to Michelle's Page 93 July 25, 2002 letter here? Are we taking any of these items off or adding? What are we doing to it? Any changes at all? MS. DUSEK: Can I ask you a question? On June 1 lth, the very first one, Horbal, I don't understand what is or has been done. I see the total due. But then there's no C or no N by their name. MS. CHADWELL: He's in compliance. MS. ARNOLD: They're in compliance. MS. DUSEK: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: That was the Java plum trees. MR. FLEGAL: Right. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Um-hum. MS. DUSEK: I remember that case. But I just didn't see anything. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The same thing with Casteel Shadow Court -- or excuse me, Casteel. MS. ARNOLD: That is not in compliance. MS. CHADWELL: And that needs to be removed. That has already been forwarded. That was part of the original batch that came to us a couple of years ago. And that was forwarded to collection because the amount is 571. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Any other items or any other Respondents that need to be removed from the list? MS. CHADWELL: Yes, sir. Shadow Court Fuels has already -- MS. ARNOLD: That's the one -- MS. CHADWELL: Well, it doesn't need to be necessarily removed. It's been authorized already. It doesn't hurt to reauthorize. There is -- let's see, I think Casteel is the only one that's already been forwarded on to collection. CHAIRMANLEHMANN: Okay. And-- Page 94 July 25, 2002 MS. CHADWELL: So I wouldn't request that any other names be removed. I don't know if-- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Does that apply as well to the July 12th letter? MS. CHADWELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. I would entertain a motion to approve the authorization as amended. MR. FLEGAL: I would make that motion. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I have a motion from Mr. Flegal. And a second from Ms. Dusek. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MR. FLEGAL: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. MR. FLEGAL: Just for information, Michelle, I notice some of hearing dates on here, you know, being back in 2000 and early 2001 and all that. Are we -- MS. ARNOLD: We're up to date. MR. FLEGAL: I don't know how to say this. Are we fairly caught up now where we don't have them all out there? MS. ARNOLD: We are very much caught up. Patti, with her joining the Department, has caught us up -- MR. FLEGAL: Good. MS. ARNOLD: -- and cleaned up our act. Page 95 July 25, 2002 MR. FLEGAL: Great. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So are you officially saying that she's an asset to your organization? MS. ARNOLD: Definitely. MS. PETRULLI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Put that down in your record. MS. PETRULLI: Yes. Please note that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: If we can move forward. C-7, Reports. Or excuse me, Item Number 7, Reports. MS. CHADWELL: Okay. For the record, Ellen Chadwell, Assistant County Attorney. I have circulated a brief memo with an attached list as I've been using in the past that kind of just shows you the numbers and a little bit about where they are as far as the status goes. We did recently get a final judgement in one of our foreclosure suits. And that sale has been scheduled for August 14th of next month. And we did settle. We've got approval from the Board just on one agreement, on one of the other cases. So we're down to nine. We now have -- I guess Michelle will be forwarding over, as a result of your authorization, about 45. So we will -- you're laughing. I'm remembering that. So maybe Patti can come over and work with us. But we will initiate. I've already reviewed some of the files. And we will start by reviewing all the files. And we will initially send out a letter advising all the property owners that this Board has authorized enforcement to the extent of foreclosing on their property. Hopefully that will get us some results on some of these. And then we will -- I will be making my recommendations to Michelle as to whether we go for foreclosure or whether we go to some other means. Page 96 July 25, 2002 MR. FLEGAL: Ellen, can I ask you a question? MS. CHADWELL: Sure. MR. FLEGAL: Just out of curiosity, when you send letters like this to property owners, do you send to, you know, like if they have a mortgage, do you send it to their mortgage holder? MS. CHADWELL: No. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. The only reason I ask that question is sometimes if you do that and the mortgage holder knows that somebody's going to foreclose on the property, they put pressure too for somebody to ante up the money because they don't want to see the property go into foreclosure. MS. CHADWELL: Well, I will certainly consider that. I hadn't in the past. I don't know. My initial reaction is that I don't want to be accused of interfering in anyone's business relationship, because that is a tort claim. MR. FLEGAL: I don't know about that. I'm just asking if that had been done or would it help? MS. CHADWELL: And I know that there's a statute regarding the abatement of nuisances. And it recently went up to a court to dispose of the issue of whether it was appropriate to treat -- to mail out notice to the mortgagee. And the ordinance actually distinguished between certain property when the mortgagee did get notice and when the mortgagee didn't. So evidently somebody's thought of that. It's a good idea. And I will look into it and see if it's appropriate to do. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. Cool. MS. CHADWELL: I hadn't, you know, in all honesty hadn't -- MR. FLEGAL: I mean, all the pressure you can put on them would be great so that you can collect the money. Page 97 July 25, 2002 MS. CHADWELL: Sure. And they look pretty good. As far as that goes, at least the first batch, the June batch. I'm pretty confident we'll have some success with those. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. MS. CHADWELL: But next quarter before it rolls out. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, hopefully Michelle will put you to work and give you some work, job security. MS. ARNOLD: This is the July batch right here. I brought them over with me. MS. CHADWELL: Oh, thank you. Okay. Anymore questions? Would you all require or need any additional information from me in the future? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Just keep us updated on what's happening. And if there's any action that the Board needs to take to proceed, let us know. MS. CHADWELL: Okay. Very good. Thank you. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. FLEGAL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Michelle, would you like to -- I'm sorry. Would you like to proceed to Item Number 8, Comments? MS. ARNOLD: The next item on your agenda is we received a request from the attorney for Mr. Marrone for one -- let me get that, a Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration. And we received an opinion from the County Attorney's Office, which I believe I put on your tables this morning. And there is -- and Jennifer Belpedio, who drafted this, is here if you have any specific questions about it. But it was the County Attorney's opinion that they've already passed their time for rehearing and reconsideration. MR. PONTE: It says comply. The sign is down. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Page 98 July 25, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Just one second. MR. FLEGAL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask our attorney a question. Jean, if I'm remembering, 162 has no requirement at all for rehearing, only an appeal. And that's within a 30-day limit. And then the rehearing comes in our County Ordinance, as I'm remembering. And it's very specific, 10 days after signature or 20 days of the mailing date, I think, are the two days for rehearing. MS. RAWSON: That's correct. And that's also in our Code Enforcement Board Rules and Regulations. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. And this took place, I think, back in -- MS. RAWSON: About 15 months ago. MR. FLEGAL: Yeah. So the time period is gone, period. MS. RAWSON: In my opinion, it has. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. Mr. Chairman, based on that, I would make a motion we do not waste time hearing this at all, because it's not required under the ordinance or under our rules and regulations. MR. PRITT: Sir, Mr. Chairman, I think that you have an obligation to hear my motion and determine whether or not the relief should be granted. MR. FLEGAL: Mr. Chairman, I go back to my date-- MR. PRITT: -- obligation to hear my motion. MR. FLEGAL: -- of May 26, '01, the only requirement in the ordinance or our rules is either 10 days or 20 days. That puts you sometime in May '01. You are now in July of'02. I don't -- you can't say anything that can shrink the calender. I'm sorry, sir. I still stand. And I make a motion that we deny anything to hear this. This is not required. MS. DUSEK: Ms. Rawson, a question. MS. RAWSON: Yes. Page 99 July 25, 2002 MS. DUSEK: Can we make a motion without hearing his motion first? MS. RAWSON: You can listen to his motion before you make your decision. MS. DUSEK: Is it required? MS. RAWSON: It's not required. It's discretionary with you as the -- MR. FLEGAL: I mean, I don't know why we want to hear something that under the ordinance and under our rules is very specific. The dates are 10 and 20. And if you go back to '01 again, you don't hear anything. Why would you want to hear something that you're -- that is way past the date? I'm sorry. MR. PONTE: Additionally, why would we want to hear something where we all have common knowledge that the sign has been removed? MS. RAWSON: I would just suggest that if you hear from the attorney, you also hear from the County Attorney. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Right. MR. FLEGAL: I just don't know why we're going to sit here and hear something. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Right. At this -- MS. SAUNDERS: IfI may? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Sure. Go ahead. MS. SAUNDERS: I believe that we should hear this again. I believe that an injustice perhaps has been done. And while we're not required to hear this again, I don't believe I've heard anybody say that we are not legally able to hear it again. MS. RAWSON: It's discretionary with you. MS. SAUNDERS: If it is discretionary, then in my opinion, at least, this is a small business owner in Naples that I believe deserves Page 100 July 25, 2002 every right of consideration from the purpose of the Code Enforcement Board. I believe there are some reasons here that say that a hearing should be done. While we may not be obligated, we also have the right to rehear it. I strongly support that. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. You're setting a gigantic precedent. Everybody that has ever been before this Board, up to today, for the last X years the Board has been in existence, can now say, "I want a rehearing." The dates are very specific in the ordinance, 10 days after the signing, 20 days after the mailing, period. Why do you want to hear anything and set a precedent that opens the floodgate for anybody over the last, I don't know, 10, 15, 20 years that it's been in existence to come become and say, "Oh jee, I want a rehearing," and they hire an attorney and he's going to -- you're wasting time and you're setting a gigantic precedence. MS. SAUNDERS: Because if an injustice has been done. MR. FLEGAL: It's immaterial. You can't change the law. The ordinance says 10 and 20 days, period. We don't have the right to go back and say, "Oh, that's okay. We'll waive the 20-day requirement and rehear your case and issue a new order." We don't have that power. MS. SAUNDERS: We do have the right to rehear the case, I believe. Am I correct? MS. BELPEDIO: Excuse me. May I interject and just give my opinion? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes. Seeing how we, in a sense, lost all control. MR. PRITT: May I first be heard on my motion? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Just one second. Just one second. MS. BELPEDIO: Jennifer Belpedio -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Just one second. Page 101 July 25, 2002 MR. PRITT: Sir, may I be heard on my motion first? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: If you will give me -- MR. PRITT: That's part of the procedure, too. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: One second, sir. MR. FLEGAL: No. We have to vote whether we want to hear your motion. MR. PRITT: Well, but you're hearing from the County Attorney's Office. You have to hear from the -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Let me have order, please. Okay. Jean, on this one particular case, it is the discretion of the Board whether or not we hear -- MS. RAWSON: Whether or not you hear arguments about whether you should rehear it. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. MS. RAWSON: That's what you're deciding. You're deciding whether or not you're going to deny the motion to rehear it and on what legal grounds you are denying the motion to rehear it. You're not going to rehear the motion, at least not in my opinion, unless you first listen to the legal arguments and decide based on that that you want to rehear it, that it's within your legal right to rehear it. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Let me follow strict due process here. As a Board, we have two options. We can just ignore what everybody is saying and say, "The heck with it. We're not going to listen to it." MS. RAWSON: That's true. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Secondly, we can hear both sides of the case and then decide whether we're going to actually rehear the case. MS. RAWSON: Right. You're not going to the substantive part of the case. You're not rehearing what you heard 15 months ago. Page 102 July 25, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Um-hum. MS. RAWSON: All you're hearing today, if you decide to hear it, is legal arguments about why you should or should not rehear it. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any decision based on that will be what, that we reschedule the hearing of the case? MS. RAWSON: Or that it's over. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Or that the case is over. MS. RAWSON: Correct. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. Jean, tell me, if we decide to rehear the case, since the ordinance says 20 days from the date of mailing how we have the power to go back 15 months and change that? MS. RAWSON: Well, that's why if you decide to listen to these two attorneys' legal arguments, I guess, they'll have to give you some justification for that. It's my opinion that it's untimely. MR. FLEGAL: Well, I mean, I guess my problem is the ordinance says two things, "10 days from signing, 20 days from mailing." You can't change anything that can say -- that can change those dates. MS. RAWSON: You guys have a lot of power, but you can't change the law or the dates. MR. FLEGAL: Right. So, I mean, why -- I mean, how -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Listen-- MR. FLEGAL: How do we sit here and do this when these people, if they would vote to say, "Well, I want to rehear it." I mean, we don't have that power. MS. RAWSON: Well, we're not there yet. I think you're just deciding whether or not to extend the time to the two attorneys to make their arguments. MS. DUSEK: Jean-- Page 103 July 25, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: My recommendation to the Board right now is we do have a motion on the floor that basically says we do not rehear anything. MR. FLEGAL: Anything. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Let's just proceed based on that. If we choose that we do want to rehear this, then we are rehearing, in a sense, why we're going to rehear the case. MR. FLEGAL: And my motion is based on the ordinance, two specific statements of 10 days from date of signing, which took place sometime in April of'01. That's gone. Or the other statement is 20 days from the date of mailing, which it was mailed, I believe, somewhere the first week of May of'01. That's gone. So with those two dates being written in the ordinance, and you can't change time, my motion says we don't hear anything pertaining to this because the time period has lapsed. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion. And I want to refresh the Board's memory, if the Board chooses to listen to both sides in this case, you still can choose not to rehear the case based on the same facts that our associate has given us. Okay. MS. DUSEK: I'd like to -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Do I hear a second to Cliff's motion. MS. DUSEK: I'd like to second the motion. But I'd also like to say in that I have to eliminate all personal feelings when dealing with cases. And as Rhona has said, Mr. Marrone is a wonderful business person, and I accept that. But I also have to agree with Cliff that we have to follow procedure or we will be opening up a can of worms. And that's why ! am seconding the motion. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I agree with following procedure. And, unfortunately, it comes on my job to make sure that we do to Page 104 July 25, 2002 the best ability that we can. So right now we have a motion and a second that we do not hear this. Let's open it up to a vote. All those in favor signify by saying aye. MR. FLEGAL: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed? (Raised hand.) MS. SAUNDERS: Opposed. MR. FLEGAL: Five to two. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. The affirmative answers, please raise your hand. Motion carries five to two. We will not hear it. I'm sorry. MR. PRITT: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure -- for the record, my name is Robert Pritt, attorney for Mr. Marrone. And I do have a right to make a proffer of what I was going to present to the record. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Um-hum. MR. PRITT: And I will do that at this point -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Please do. MR. PRITT: -- consisting of three Exhibits. So I'll make a proffer to the record to the Clerk. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you, sir. MR. PRITT: IfI may have a minute. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: That's fine. We're about ready to adjourn anyway as your issue was the last on the item. Anything else, Michelle, that we need to bring before the Board? MS. ARNOLD: No, sir. Page 105 July 25, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Our next meeting date would be August 22nd, 9:00 o'clock here. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? MS. DUSEK: So moved. MR. LEFEBRE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MR. FLEGAL: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously, strange to say. And we will meet you back on August 22nd. Thank you, everyone, for your participation. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:00 p.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD PETER LEHMANN, CHAIRMAN Page 106 July 25, 2002 STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF COLLIER ) I, Brenda Grimes, Court Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings were taken before me at the date and place as stated in the caption hereto on Page 1 hereof; that the foregoing computer-assisted transcription is a true record of my Stenograph notes taken at said proceedings. Brenda Grimes Professional Court Reporter Page 107