CEB Minutes 08/22/2002 RAugust 22, 2002
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
PUBLIC HEARING
Naples, Florida
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 LEF~_NRE
KATHRYN M. GODFREY-LINT
ALSO PRESENT:
M. JEAN RAWSON, County Attorney
MICHELLE ARNOLD, Code
Enforcement Director
PATTI PETRULLI, Code Enforcement
Supervisor
Page
August 22, 2002
PROCEEDINGS
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Your attention, please. I'd like to
now to call the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County to order.
Please note, any person who decides to appeal a decision of this
Board will need a record of 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.
If may have the roll call, please.
MS. PETRULLI: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. For the
record, Patty Petrulli, Code Enforcement Supervisor. Rhona Saunders?
MS. SAUNDERS: Present.
MS. PETRULLI: Kathryn Godfrey?
MS. GODFREY: Present.
MS. PETRULLI: Clifford Flegal?
MR. FLEGAL: Present.
MS. PETRULLI: Peter Lehmann?
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Present.
MS. PETRULLI: Roberta Dusek?
MS. DUSEK: Here.
MS. PETRULLI: George Ponte?
MR. PONTE: Here.
MS. PETRULLI: Christopher Ramsey?
MR. RAMSEY: Here.
MS. PETRULLI: And Gerald Lef~vre?
MR. LEFI~VRE: Present.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. If we could move on to
approval the agenda. One second.
Page 2
August 22, 2002
Just before we do that, as we.do have a quorum, we're duly
called. And, also, we are one permanent member short on the Board
today, so Mr. Ramsey will be voting today. Thank you. I now move on to the agenda.
MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code
Enforcement Director. I just wanted to note for the Board's
information that we received a motion of objection to item number
5A-1 on your agenda. And you may at that time want to ask counsel
if you have any questions as to what needs to take place at the
moment.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Do we have an amended agenda?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes. There was one, I believe, provided to all
of you, continuing item 4A(1) to the September 26 meeting.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So you are withdrawing that from
the public hearing section? MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would entertain a motion to
approve the amended agenda.
MS. DUSEK: So moved.
MS. GODFREY: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion from Ms. Dusek,
a second from Ms. Godfrey. All those in favor, signify by saying
Any opposed?
Hearing none, the motion carries unanimously.
If we may move on to approval of the minutes -- or excuse me.
Are there any changes or additions or deletions to the minutes?
MS. DUSEK: No, sir. I make a motion that we approve the
minutes.
MR. PONTE: I'll second that.
Page
August 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: A motion from Ms. Dusek, a
second from Mr. Ponte. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed?
Hearing none, motion carries. Thank you.
I would now like to open our hearings for the public hearings.
Let's proceed with the first case.
MS. PETRULLI: Yes. Our first case is CEB case number
2002-020, Board of County Commissioners versus Ronald L.
Gleichman.
For the record, I'd like to ask if the respondent is present in the
courtroom.
Let the record show that the respondent is not present.
We have provided the Board and the respondent with a packet
that I would like at this time to enter as Exhibit A. The alleged
violation is of section --
MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the Exhibit A
from the County.
MR. FLEGAL: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: A motion from Ms. Dusek, a
second from Mr. Flegal. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Motion carries.
Please proceed. Thank you.
MS. PETRULLI: The alleged violation is of Sections 2.7.6.1
and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance Number 91-102 of the Collier County Land
Development Code and Sections 104.1.5.1 of Ordinance Number 98-
76 of the Building Construction Administrative Code.
The description of the violation is structure in the rear yard built
without a permit and a washer and dryer improperly hooked up under
that structure. The location where the violation exists is 541 99th
Avenue North, more particularly described as folio number
Page
August 22, 2002
6283324004 Naples Park. The name and address of the owner or
person in charge where the violation exists is Ronald R. Gleichman,
541 99th Avenue in Naples.
The date the violation was first observed was January 25th of
2002. The notice of violation was given on February 21st of 2002.
The date on which the violation was to have been corrected was
March 3rd of 2002. The date of the last reinspection was June 24th,
of 2002. And the results of the reinspection were the that the
violations still remained.
At this time, I'd like to mm the case over to the investigator
handling it, Mr. Shawn Luedtke.
MR. PONTE: Before we begin, is there any additional
information that I should have, like photographic information, that
was not -- I don't have it.
MS. PETRULLI: Yes, Mr. Ponte. As a matter of fact,
yesterday was the first time the investigator was able to actually get
some photographs. We were trying to work with the neighbors to get
some information, and Mr. Luedtke has that to present to the Board
on the screen.
MR. PONTE: Thank you.
MS. ARNOLD: And once it's presented, we'll enter it into
evidence.
MR. LUEDTKE: For the record, Shawn Luedtke, Collier
County Code Enforcement Investigator. This complaint came in on
January 25th about a washer from-- It's a duplex location. One side
is owned by one person and the other side is owned by a second. A
neighbor called in on the adjoining side of the duplex about a person
that installed a washer that was draining onto the ground, not
properly hooked up.
I went out, spoke with the tenant, and Mr. Gleichman's side of
the duplex, who let me in the backyard,/AEUPBD I observed a
Page s
August 22, 2002
washer and dryer on site with a pipe that was laying just on the
ground. It wasn't properly hooked up to drainage pipes. So I went
ahead and sent a notice of violation for
a compliance date of February 10th.
On February 21st, I received another complaint from that
neighbor that the washer was still running. No permits have been
obtained for the proper hookup of the plumbing.
I went back out on site. I wasn't able to see that the washer was
running when I was out there. But at that time I did observe that
there was a wooden structure, because I do have photographs that
were taken from the neighbor's property. What you can see here is
this from the neighbor's property, but you can see the roof here and
the supports that they have. I got a little closer picture there I was
able to get.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Luedtke, you're going to have
to enlarge those monitors. They're not working here in front of us.
MR. FLEGAL: We're not getting anything up here.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So you're going to have to at least
enlarge those so we can see on the screen here. Thank you.
MR. LEUDTKE: Right here is the fiberglass roof, and it has the
2 X 4 frame. That's the structure that I observed on the 21st. I went
ahead and posted a copy of a notice of violation and sent it certified
for a compliance date of March 3rd.
On March 4th, I went back out onto the site and did see Mr.
Gleichman. I met him out there. He requested a couple of weeks to
obtain the proper permits for that structure and the plumbing permits
to hook up that washer and dryer legally.
I issued him a citation because of the time that had lapsed from
the initial notice of violation and gave him 30 days to go ahead and
take care of the permits required. I rechecked the site on April 4th,
18th and 29th. He was not there. I posted my card on each of those
Page
August 22, 2002
occasions to try to have him give me a call for an update on the
situation. No contact whatsoever.
On May 7th, I did get a second call from the neighbor that was it
was still constantly running. I went back out and there and I did
catch Mr. Gleichman on site. He admitted to me the problem still
exists. He was working on it. He had no explanation other than he
was attempting to get everything and he wanted more time.
I issued a second citation for $255 for violation and gave an
additional 30 days.
I rechecked it on June 6th, and the violation remained. No
permits had been obtained. So it was set for CEB.
Yesterday, I revisited the site. He was not on site at all, but I
went to the neighbor and got these photographs. I also got a
photograph of the washer and dryer on site on that back lanai
underneath the structure, and that was taken from the neighbor's
property. The violation remained as of this morning as far as permits.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN' Do you have any indication why
permits are not obtainable at this point in time?
MR. LUEDTKE: He just does not seem to be taking the
initiative whatsoever on his part. He has not come down to the
office. No contact whatsoever. He keeps requesting extensions, but
he's taking the initiative to do anything.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN' Is this a situation where permits can
be obtained?
MR. LUEDTKE: I think he can get a permit. I don't think that
structure is permitable, but I think he can get a proper structure built
on the back there and get proper plumbing permits for the washer and
dryer to have it remain where it's at, yes.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So we have a situation where it can
be permitable or a similar situation can be permitable, but the
respondent just is not proceeding in that direction?
Page
August 22, 2002
MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you.
MR. PONTE: The permit is needed for the area in which the
washer and dryer are located. Is that the only area or is it the entire
structure?
MR. LUEDTKE: Well, the structure is going to need a building
permit and, also, they're going to need permits for -- plumbing for the
hookup of the washer so it drains properly and not just onto the
ground.
MR. PONTE: Okay. When I say structure, I mean the larger of
the structure. I don't mean just the housing around the washer/dryer.
We're talking about the house in which the tenant lives or the -- MR. LUEDTKE: Uh-huh.
MR. PONTE: Is that what we're talking about when you say
"structure?"
, ·
MR. LUEDTKE: No. I was referring to the structure that's built
over the washer and dryer, not the house itself.
MS. GODFREY: What about the electrical? The dryers are 220
to run that. Is that safe?
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: In answer to that question, and I
don't mean to step on your feet, but unless it's been inspected, we
don't know.
MS. GODFREY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And Inspector Luedtke had advised
us that he can't get on the property and take a look at it, and he's not
an electrical inspector.
MS. GODFREY: No. I was just wondering if the roof is
leaking, that possibly what -- if he observed that, you know, with the
220, it's kind of dangerous. So that's --
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: At this point in time that may be an
issue --
Page
August 22, 2002
MS. GODFREY' Okay. Sorry.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- because we have no way of
knowing whether it is or is not. MS. GODFREY: Okay.
MR. LUEDTKE: The concern we have is the safety issue with
this structure (indicating). It's lien 2 type structure. MS. GODFREY: Okay.
MR. LUEDTKE: It's just a fiberglass-type roof with 2 X 4
supports. It's definitely some type of safety hazard. MS. GODFREY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other questions for the
County? . Yes.
MR. PONTE: For whatever reason, I'm having a difficult time
interpreting these photographs.. Is that a curtain divider? MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, sir.
MR. PONTE: So it's just a fabric curtain that is --
MR. LUEDTKE: On that particular site, it's a fabric curtain
here (indicating).
MR. PONTE: Uh-hm.
MR. LUEDTKE: But they have -- If we could get a little bit
closer picture there (indicating).
MR. PONTE: Oh, I see. And the washer and dryer is inside, .
MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, sir.
MR. PONTE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. FLEGAL: Investigator, you stated you issued a citation for
$255?
MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, sir.
MR. FLEGAL: Okay. I'm a little confused. If I understand the
notice of violation, you have the right to do that. Why are we here?
Are we going to try to penalize him twice?
Page
August 22, 2002
MR. LUEDTKE: No, sir. He has not paid the citations in any
form. He's not showed up to court. It's still in violation, the site.
We're just trying another avenue. MR. FLEGAL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other questions?
Hearing none,Investigator, thank you. And we'll close the
evidentiary portion of this hearing and proceed with arguments.
MS. ARNOLD: If you all want to enter the photographs into
evidence as Composite Exhibit B.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN' Yes, I'd like to do so, and I'd
entertain a motion to do that.
MS. SAUNDERS: So moved.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN' I do hear a motion from Ms.
Saunders. Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN' A second from Mr. Ponte. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed?
The motion carries unanimously.
Please mark that as County Composite Exhibit A. And we'll
proceed to arguments and discussion.
MS. DUSEK: I'm ready to make a motion if that's in order now.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Please proceed.
MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of
Commissioners versus Ronald Gleichman in the case CEB 2002-020,
that there is a violation; that the violations of Sections 2.7.6.1 and
2.7.6.5 of Ordinance 91-102, the Collier County Land Development
Code, and Sections 104.1.5.1 of Ordinance 98-76 Building
Construction Administrative Code.
Description of the violation: Structure in rear yard built without
permit, washer and dryer improperly hooked up under structure.
Page ~0
August 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion. Do I hear a
second?
MS. DUSEK: So seconded.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Ms. Saunders has seconded the
motion. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed?
Hearing none, the motion carries unanimously.
We'll proceed to the order of the Board.
MR. PONTE: I'd make a motion that we follow the staff
recommendation.
MS. DUSEK: I'd second that.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion from Mr. Ponte,
a second from Ms. Dusek.
Mr. Flegal, did you have comments?
MR. FLEGAL: I just want to make sure we're not doing double
duty. I get gun-shy.
MS. RAWSON:
MR. FLEGAL:
I don't know that the double jeopardy applies.
Well, the notice of violation that the county
issues gives three possible penalties. One is coming here. One is a
notice to appear in court. And one is issuance of a citation. And
they're "ors." They're not "and/or." MS. RAWSON: Right.
MR. FLEGAL: So they've issued a citation. I mean, the man
didn't pay it nor go to court. I don't know what that means. Now
they're coming here and we're going to do something. Is that a
problem?
MS. RAWSON: Well, I don't know what happened in the court
proceedings. I mean, I think they can do one or the other. And I
suspect if you have a findings of fact and an order entered, you know,
then the court action is going to get dismissed.
Page
August 22, 2002
MS. ARNOLD: And we have the ability, depending on what
happens here today, to withdraw the citations that have been issued.
MR. FLEGAL: Okay. I just want to make sure we're not --
Since it says "or," I always get worried when you say "or," because
that means you can only do one or the other, and right now you've got
the citation. The fact that he didn't go to court is his problem. What
did the court do? Because we're getting ready to do something which
would be simultaneously with this thing hanging out there which,
really, I think you have two things going at the same time; that you're
going to withdraw after the fact could be a could be a problem. I
don't know. I just don't want us to be a problem.
MS. RAWSON: It's not a problem unless both of them are
enforced.
MR. FLEGAL: Okay. But we don't know what the Court said,
if anything.
MS. RAWSON: No, I don't know.
MS. ARNOLD: The way the citation process works is if we
issue a citation, similar to a traffic ticket, they have the ability to
appeal it -- I mean, contest it, and a court date is set. It was never
contested. If it's not paid up after 30 days, we have the ability to file
a judgment. I'm not sure of whether or not we've done that step yet.
But in any event, we also have the ability to withdraw any of those
actions. And what I'm saying is that if the Board finds -- well, you
have found in violation depending on what you all do today with
respect to trying to get compliance because that's what we're trying to
do and that's why we're here today, to see maybe if this action will
encourage him to comply with the ordinance, we can withdraw that
other action, that other citation. MR. FLEGAL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any further discussion?
Page
August 22, 2002
Hearing none, we have a motion on the floor to approve staffs
recommendation for the order of the Board. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye. Any opposed?
Hearing none,the motion carries unanimously.
MR. FLEGAL: I would like the County -- Since we've issued
an order to withdraw their citation, could you do that on the record,
please?
MS. ARNOLD: We'll be filing the -- I can't recall the dismissal
of that citation.
MR. FLEGAL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All right. If we can proceed to new
business then, please.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay. The first item is a request for imposition
of fine on case number 2001-013, which is the Board of County
Commissioners versus Phillip and Anna Maria Marrone. The case
was heard by the Board on April 26, 2001. And at that time the
Board found a violation to exist and ordered the respondent to
remove the sign and replace with a sign that meets the current code
by June 30th, 2002.
The respondent was also ordered to pay all operation costs
incurred for compliance of that case, and the respondent was
instructed that if they did not comply with the Board's request by
removal or replacement of the sign by June 30th, a fine of $75 per
day would be imposed.
The respondent came into compliance on July 9th, and we are at
this time requesting that the Board impose fines in the amount of
$600 for the period of time from July 1st through July 9th at a rate of
$75 per day, plus an additional $1,031.20 for operational costs for a
total of $1,631.20.
Page
August 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Ms. Arnold, the Board has received
a letter from Robert D. Pritt, apparently attorney for respondent. And
they are requesting -- They have an objection to imposition of fine or
lien and the request to strike notice of administrative hearing,
imposition of fine. We would like to proceed with that document
first, if we could.
Ms. Rawson, would you advise the Board on the background of
this particular document and how it applies?
MS. RAWSON: Well, apparently, it's a request for you not to
go forward with your hearing today. I can give you citations of the
applicable statutes and of your rules. As you know, 162-09 allows
you to enforce your orders by issuing fines. And all it says is that an
Enforcement Board upon notification by the code inspector, that an
order of the Enforcement Board has not been complied with by the
time set, or upon finding that a repeat violation has been committed,
may order the violator to pay a fine in an amount specified in this
section for each day the violation continues past the date set by the
Enforcement Board for compliance. That's all it says.
Your rules and regulations adopted by this Board and approved
by the County Commission basically say after an order has been
issued by the Board and a date of compliance has been set, the Code
Enforcement Board's investigator should make a reinspection to
determine compliance, files the affidavit of noncompliance. And
then when that happens, the Board shall meet to determine the
amount of fine to be imposed. The respondent shall receive a notice
of the Board meeting. So they did receive a notice of the Board
meeting.
The Board's determination to impose a fine, an operational or
prosecution cost shall be reduced to writing. And a copy of the order
imposing administrative fines shall be mailed to the violator by
certified mail. That's it.
Page
August 22, 2002
MR. FLEGAL:
MS. RAWSON:
MR. FLEGAL:
understand it --
Ms. Rawson?
Yes.
This is not a, quote, administrative hearing as I
MR. RAWSON' It's not an evidentiary hearing.
MR. FLEGAL: It's a procedure.
MS. RAWSON: It is a procedure.
MR. FLEGAL: Okay. So it's not a hearing per se.
MS. RAWSON: It is not an evidentiary hearing. What we've
always done, even though the law doesn't require it, is give notice to
the respondents since they are likely to, you know, be fined. And if
they're here,many times you have allowed them to testify, although
you don't have to. This is not an evidentiary hearing. It basically
ends. In 162-09, the Florida statutes just allows you to impose the
fine.
MR. FLEGAL: Okay. I think maybe based on what I'm reading
from Mr. Pritt, he probably -- he seems to be, from a layman's point
of view, stuck on the word "hearing." That may be as a result of the
letters that are sent out. I'll get to that when we probably recommend
we change those a little bit. But is it proper now for us to -- we have
to make a motion to, I guess, reject his objection or accept it? Is that
what he we need to do?
MS. RAWSON: Well, if you -- I don't know if you need to
make a ruling on his objection or not. You can, basically, decide
whether to go forward with your hearing. So I guess you're making a
ruling on his objection.
MR. FLEGAL: Okay. We don't need to --
MS. RAWSON: It's not a hearing. You just need to make a
decision as to whether or not you're going to go forward with the
imposition of fine.
Page
August 22, 2002
MR. FLEGAL: Right. Okay. But we don't have to do anything
about his submission formally.
MR. PONTE: Do we have to read it into the record sort of
thing?
MS. RAWSON:
MR. FLEGAL:
Noted-- well, it's part of the --
It's part of the record.
MS. RAWSON: It's part of the record. I believe that staff has
passed it out, and, you know, we can enter it into the record. We
certainly want to enter it into the record, but I don't know that it
requires a vote.
MR. FLEGAL: Okay.
MR. PONTE: And that was my real question. Is this an official
mOtion by a respondent for a request where we have to vote on or is
this just a --
MS. RAWSON: It's not a motion to continue the procedure. It's
just an objection to your making the procedure.
MS. DUSEK: It does say request to strike. Does that mean we
need to vote on that?
MS. RAWSON: Well, why don't you vote on it.
MR. FLEGAL: I would make a motion that we reject the
objection submitted on behalf of the Marrones by Mr. Pritt. MS. DUSEK: I second.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion and a second.
Before we vote on that, I would like to formally request that this be
entered into the package as evidence or a document, whatever we
need to do. Anyway, we have a motion and a second that we reject
this particular document. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Hearing none,the motion carries.
MR. FLEGAL: I would now make a motion that we impose the
fine as requested.
Page
August 22, 2002
MS. DUSEK: I second.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion by Mr. Flegal, a
second by Ms. Dusek that the fine be imposed as requested by staff.
All those in favor, signify by saying by saying aye. Any opposed?
MS. SAUNDERS: Opposed.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Ms. Saunders has voiced the only
opposition to that. The motion carries by a majority vote. If we could proceed to the next/(- thing.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay. The next item is a request for
imposition of fines on case number 2001-045, Board of County
Commissioners versus Patrick and Erin Rose, regarding violations to
91-102, the removal of vegetation from approved quarter acre --
approximately a quarter acre of unimproved agricultural property
without first obtaining required Collier County permits.
On December 17th, 2001, the Board heard the case and found
there to be a violation. At that time the Board ordered the respondent
to correct the violations by obtaining an after-the-fact agricultural
clearing permit or by obtaining an approved mitigation plan for the
revegetation of the cleared property within 120 days by June 17th.
And if the respondent did not comply with that request, fines of $50
per day would be imposed. The respondent was also ordered to pay
all operational costs incurred for the prosecution of that case.
I just wanted to note that we also have a request from the Roses,
and I believe they are present. No.9
SPEAKER: No. I'm their attorney and I'm present on their
behalf since they can't be here.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay. For a reduction/abatement of fines. So
until we impose the fines, then a request can be heard.
At this time, staff would request that the Board impose the fines
in the amount of $2,250 for the period of June 18th through August
Page z7
August 22, 2002
2nd. They also have operational costs in the amount of $1,503.75 for
a total fine of $3,753.75. I just wanted to note that they are in
compliance at this time.
MR. FLEGAL: I would make a motion that we impose the fines
as requested.
MR. PONTE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I have a motion by Mr. Flegal, a
second by Mr. Ponte. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed?
Hearing none, the motion carries unanimously.
SPEAKER: Excuse me. Is there no chance for the
representative to speak.9
MR. FLEGAL: Not at this time.
SPEAKER: But you've already got the motion.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: That's correct.
SPEAKER: What good is my speaking if you already had your
motion?
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Administratively, we cannot reduce
fines until they're physically imposed.
MR. FLEGAL: They're imposed. You'll get your chance --
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So we have opposed --
MR. FLEGAL: -- under old business.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Excuse me.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. There is an item on the agenda, sir, after
this process. I'm over here. SPEAKER: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: There is an item on the agenda for that request
to be heard.
SPEAKER: Later on this morning?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes, sir.
Page
August 22, 2002
SPEAKER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We're just trying to follow proper
procedure for this particular Board, sir.
All right. If we might move on to the next item, please.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay. The next item is request for imposition
of fines for case number 2002-008, the Board of County
Commissioners versus Jack and Elma Mae Barrs. This was a
violation for the warehousing and outdoor storage of 80 to 100 motor
vehicles, parts and other items on the subject property located at 2990
Sunset Boulevard.
The Board heard the case on April 25th, and at that time they
found a violation to exist. The Board requested that respondent come
in compliance within 60 days. And if they did not come in
compliance, that a fine of $75 per day would exist. Can you excuse me for a minute?
I wanted to note also, and it's not in the executive summary, I
don't believe, a request to continue this particular case. A compliance
date was heard by the Board at the prior hearing, and that request was
denied.
The respondent was also ordered to pay operational costs. At
this time staff is requesting the Board impose fines in the amount of
$3,750 from the period of June 25th, 2002 through August 15th, 2002
at a rate of $75 per day, plus operational costs of $951.66 for a total
fine amount of $4,701.66.
MR. FLEGAL: I would make a motion we impose the 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.
Any opposed?
Hearing none, the motion carries.
Page
August 22, 2002
The next item, please.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay. The next item is Code Enforcement
Board Case 2001-010, Board of County Commissioners versus
Moises Castillo. And this case was a conversion of a garage into a
living area without first obtaining a building permit.
On May 23rd, 2002, the Board heard this case and found there to
be a violation and ordered the respondent to obtain all the required
building permits, inspections and certificates of occupancies for the
improvement within 60 days; and if not, a fine of $25 per day would
be incurred each day the violation continued.
The respondent was also advised that they would have to pay
operational costs for the prosecution of the case. The respondent
came into compliance by July 18th, prior to the Board's request, and
staff is at this time requesting operational costs in the amount of
$1,370.15 be imposed.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN' Who would enter a motion?
MR. FLEGAL: I would make a motion we impose the fines as
requested.
MR. DUSEK: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion by Mr. Flegal, a
second by Ms. Dusek. All --
MS. SAUNDERS: A comment please?
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I'm sorry?
MS. SAUNDERS: May I?
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes, please.
MS. SAUNDERS: If I'm reading this right, our order of the
Board says that if the respondent does not comply within 60 days by
July 22nd, then he is also to pay all operational costs. Since he came
into compliance prior to July 22nd, it sounds to me like our order
says he's not to pay.
MS. ARNOLD: You're right.
Page 20
August 22, 2002
MS. DUSEK: I would agree with that if the statement is correct.
MS. ARNOLD: That's right.
MS. SAUNDERS: It may not have been what we intended, but
that's what we said; right.
MS. ARNOLD: I think that was -- I think that -- If I recall
correctly, I think that was a motion that you made.
MS. RAWSON' I think it was what you intended.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
MS. SAUNDERS' Yes.
MS. ARNOLD: It what you intended. If they did it, then there
wouldn't be any further--
MS. SAUNDERS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Ms. Saunders, thank you very much
for the correction.
MS. DUSEK: Yes, thank you.
MR. FLEGAL: Really. I will withdraw my motion then.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion withdrawn. Do I
hear a motion --
MS. ARNOLD: And we'll withdraw the item.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We withdraw the item. Thank you.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: If we can proceed to the next item
. '
of bus~ness,respondent s request for rehearing.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay. This item is Board of County
Commissioners versus David and Zenaida Falato. And that's case
number 2002-012. The case was heard by the Board -- The case was
heard by the Board on June 27th, and the violation was found, and
the respondents were requested to come into compliance within 30
days'An appeal was registered with our office within the time period-
- or a request for a rehearing was registered with our office within the
Page
August 22, 2002
time period specified by the rules and regs. And at this time we're
placing this item on the agenda for your consideration.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Mr. Flegal, do you have a
comment?
MR. FLEGAL: I need to ask Ms. Rawson a question.
MS. RAWSON' Yes.
MR. FLEGAL: Request for rehearing based on two things?
MS. RAWSON: That's correct. His request for rehearing is
timely. He also followed our form, which is Exhibit A, attached to
our rules and regulations, which was also correct. And, basically, our
rules and regulations say that --
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The two items on--
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- our decision -- in our decision
would be contrary to evidence -- MS. RAWSON: Right.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- or we had an error on which rule
of law would apply.
MS. RAWSON: It's on page 7 of your rules. A party may
request a rehearing of the Board's order based only on the ground that
the decision was contrary to the evidences, that's one; whether the
hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental
to the decision of the Board, that's two. And that's the form he filled
out basically. And he's attached a legal brief to that too. So he's
followed the correct procedure. So you have to make your decision
based on one of those two.
MR. FLEGAL: Okay. And I guess my question to you is since
a lot of this is legalese, what I'm glancing at is constitutional law, the
Fourteenth Amendment, so on and so forth, which is -- I don't know
the right terminology but normally something that we don't get into
that deeply here or we ask your advice on things and you tell us if
Page 22
August 22, 2002
we're going astray. So my question to you now is: Based on what
he's submitted, did we err on the side of the law, which is one other
thing?
MS. RAWSON: Well, the law that he cites -- Well, he cites
three things. He talks about the constitutional law, the Fourth
Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and specific equal protection
and due process. You obviously don't have the authority to rule on
constitutional questions of law. Then he talks about Chapter 162
which, of course, is right in your province. MR. FLEGAL: Uh-hm.
MS. RAWSON: So you need to determine, basically, based
upon Chapter 162: Was there a violation? And if there was a
violation, did you have a right to tell him to comply with 1627 So
you need to determine whether or not your decision was contrary to
the evidence or that it involved an error on a ruling of law based on
162, which is your province. Was there a violation of the code
enforcement?
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Is the respondent here today?
Thank you.
I would like to proceed with this particular issue in this manner.
The Board will hear your request for a rehearing. The rehearing
needs to be based on evidence or testimony presented to us in two
very specific areas and limited only to those two very specific areas.
We're not here to rehear the case. We're here to hear those two items
specifically; how our decision was contrary to the evidence and what
error on a ruling of law we may have committed. So if you can limit
your discussions to those two areas, we will proceed with it.
It is not the Code Enforcement Board's jurisdiction to render
decisions based on constitutional amendments, as Ms. Rawson has
advised us already. We also really don't have jurisdiction on other
issues that you may or may not want to raise within the case. Today,
Page 23
August 22, 2002
this particular aspect of his case will be heard to see if we will grant a
rehearing.
The end result out of today's discussion will be whether or not a
rehearing is granted for a future date. Does that make sense? And
that's typically following proper procedure on what we're doing. So
we're not going to rehear the case. We're going to determine whether
or not we will rehear the case at a future date.
MS. RAWSON: And if I might on behalf of the Board and the
respondent read into the record why he is asking for a rehearing
based on those two reasons. The first thing says in his request is that
the decision is contrary to the evidence because respondents were
unable to attend due to emergency medical appointments, and the
Code Enforcement was notified in person via fax and via certified
mail. Then he says the hearing involved an error on a ruling on law
which was fundamental, which error on which ruling of law and why
was it fundamental, he writes, "Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth
Amendment, Chapter 162 statutes. The Board needs to see the laws
that Code Enforcement have violated against U.S. and
discrimination." I'm only going to caution you that you need to focus
on Chapter 162 rather than go off onto some constitutional discussion
for which you really don't have the authority.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. And again, Ms. Rawson, just
for procedural sake, is the County permitted to begin discussions or
the respondent begin discussions in the presentation of their request?
MS. RAWSON: Yes, but you properly described the procedure.
You need to make a determination today whether or not you're going
to grant his request for arehearing. If you grant it, then we'll set it for
another day. If you deny it, then it's over.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. But in doing so, do we not
hear a discussion or testimony from the respondents to their request?
MS. RAWSON: Yes, we do.
Page 24
August 22, 2002
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Do we need to vote to
assume that action or can we proceed?
MS. RAWSON: I don't think you need to vote to assume it,
because it's on our agenda.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay.
MS. RAWSON: It's his request and, you know, we can have a
hearing.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Thank you. Then we're
going to proceed.
Do the witnesses need to be sworn in?
MS. RAWSON: Sure.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. and Mrs. Falato, if you'd please
approach the podium, I will proceed with your request. And I'd like
to ask you be sworn in. Raise your right hand and state your name
and please spell it for us again or correct the spelling if it is not
correct, in fact.
(The respondents were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And again, I just remind you that
we're trying to limit our discussion today on those two issues that we
had discussed earlier.
MRS. FALATO: The reason that, like, we're asking for a
rehearing is because from the very beginning when this case opened
up in February, our number one intention was to come in front of the
Board. We feel that there is continuous discrimination happening
and everything through Code Enforcement and -- MR. FALATO: With us.
MRS. FALATO: -- and also a violation of our rights.
From May -- I mean from February to May, I constantly called
the inspector and asked him to notify us when the hearing date would
Page
August 22, 2002
be -- would happen. Throughout the month of February through
May, no one ever called me.
MR. FALATO: No one contacted us.
MRS. FALATO: On May 15th, I once again called Code
Enforcement and asked them when the hearing would be held. On
that day, we finally got a call from the inspector saying that the
hearing would be heard May 23rd, and our defense packet had to be
in by May 10th. It was already passed. So I went into Code
Enforcement and asked them to grant us a continuance because I did
not have enough time to get my defense packet ready. They said they
would give us a continuance.
Then we were set to go for a hearing June 27th. On June 25th,
my husband had a medical emergency. I went into Code
Enforcement and told them, "I'm sorry. We're not able to attend the
hearing because of this medical emergency. Could you please give
us a continuance till the next month?" And they said no.
That afternoon, my husband faxed over the medical information,
and I believe you have all that information. And we asked them on
that fax to please call us if there was any problem. Nobody ever
called us.
MR. FALATO: Nobody called.
MRS. FALATO: On July 3rd, we found out that the hearing
was held without us.
MR. FALATO: Right.
MRS. FALATO: And I was out in California for the whole--
the majority part of July. And so --
MR. FALATO: Most of the time that she was in California, I
was pretty much bed bound. I've got a history of back problems,
okay. I've got a ruptured disc in my back now. It happened before
she went to California. I was laid up, okay. So we didn't find out
until after -- What was it? The 3rd?
Page
August 22, 2002
MRS. FALATO: It was July 3rd that we found out.
MR. FALATO: On the 3rd that they held the hearing and we
requested that we be heard. So hey held the hearing. They imposed
some-- I guess they're imposing some sanctions on the property.
August
And, you know, we started -- When did we start repairs?
3rd?
MRS. FALATO: August the 3rd.
MR. FALATO: I started on the house August 3rd. I can only
work a couple of hours at a time during the day, okay. I can't do this
continuously. The work was in progress. We never had any
intentions not to comply, okay.
MRS. FALATO: Our intention was to come in front of the
Board and state the discrimination that we feel has been going for
years.
MR. FALATO: Seven years.
MRS. FALATO: We came in front of this Board back in 1998,
and we felt at that time that we were discriminated, and we presented
how many cases were open on our property.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mrs. Falato, again, two issues.
First, would you speak up, please. And, secondly, again, those are
issues that we can't hear or render a decision. Those are issues that
you have to take up in another venue simply because it's not within
our jurisdiction to address those issue. MRS. FALATO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Please proceed. ! apologize for
interrupting you --
MRS. FALATO: That's all right.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- but I just wanted to clarify how
we're headed here.
Page 27
August 22, 2002
MRS. FALATO: Okay. That's the reason we want a rehearing
is we want our case to be reheard. The other thing is that according
to--
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Let me back up just one second
please --
MRS. FALATO: Sure.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- to just take one of these issues
one at a time in a sense.
MRS. FALATO: Sure.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The first issue that you're saying we
should grant a rehearing on is based on contrary to evidence. What
testimony are you willing to give us now that would support that
argument?
MRS. FALATO: As contrary to the evidence?
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Correct.
MRS. FALATO: We feel that the inspector trespassed onto the
property and took pictures that were not legal. And so we feel that
presenting those pictures to you, the case should be dismissed
because they were not -- they did not get our consent --
MR. FALATO: They didn't follow proper procedure.
MRS. FALATO: -- to come onto our property. They did not
get a warrant to come onto the property. So we feel that --
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Uh-hm. So you're alleging that
they violated trespass --
MRS. FALATO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
MRS. FALATO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
Ms. Rawson?
MS. RAWSON: Yes.
-- in obtaining the photographs?
Okay.
Page 28
August 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Do we have any type of guidelines
in which to follow to assess that particular assertion?
MS. RAWSON: I don't think so. There's nothing in the statute
or the rules that would help you with that.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: A photograph is a photograph as far
as this Board is concerned regardless of how it was obtained; correct.
And if it was obtained under different means than what are alleged
legal, then that would be taken up in another area. MS. RAWSON: It would.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Would that constitute any
action -- or any issue that would be contrary to evidence that we
would address in this particular rehearing?
MS. RAWSON: Well, if you can remember the evidence that
was presented on the day of the hearing -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Uh-hm.
MS. RAWSON: -- you had to base your decision on the
evidence that was heard that day. And if that included a photograph,
you probably wouldn't have known whether-- how it was taken. It
was just taken by Code Enforcement Board, it is my recollection of
the testimony. So you have to decide based on the evidence that was
presented to you on the day of the hearing whether your decision was
contrary to that evidence.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
MR. FALATO: Also, the--
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
Okay. Thank you.
If you'll please proceed.
MR. FALATO: -- repair time. You know, 30 days -- 30 days is
not enough to repair that house. It's simply not enough time to repair
a house, okay. And I'm not --
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: An issue such as that that you're
raising now would be addressed more on a waiver of fines as opposed
to a request for a full rehearing. What you're asking us on that
Page 2 9
August 22, 2002
particular issue is that the time you were given to accomplish the task
was too short and the fines were imposed too speedily upon you.
You can address that in a request for reduction of fines in that venue
in a sense but not in the venue of a rehearing. MRS. FALATO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And I'm not trying to stub each
individual issue that you're bringing forward, but I'm trying to
proceed in a very organized manner according to our own procedures
so that you have due process as well as everything is followed
properly.
MRS. FALATO: Okay. What I might add is your -- Does Code
Enforcement --
Michelle, does your staff go through training and have they used
this as their training booklet (indicating)?
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Ms. Falato?
MRS. FALATO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hold on a second, please.
Ms. Falato, again, if we can confine what we're talking about to
the two main issues that we're here for. If we get off into other areas,
it'll take us forever.
MRS. FALATO: Okay. Well, according to the training --
According to this legal aspects of Code Enforcement, okay, it states
on here that the most important thing for a Code Enforcement officer
to remember is that neither Chapter 162 of the Florida statutes nor
local ordinances adopting Code Enforcement regulations can
authorize what would otherwise be an unconstitutional inspection.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Uh-hm.
MRS. FALATO: So what I don't understand is you guys --
MR. FALATO: It's unconstitutional in how we got here.
MRS. FALATO: And it states here that--
MR. FALATO: They have rules and regulations to follow that -
Page 30
August 22, 2002
MRS. FALATO: -- Chapter 162 does not over rule an
unconstitutional inspection.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All right. And your grounds for
saying that are specifically what?
MRS. FALATO: Why is it--
MR. FLEGAL: She's reading from a document that has nothing
to do with this Board.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, and again, your grounds for
stating that are specifically what?
MRS FALATO: That Chapter 162 does not -- does not oversee
breaking the Fourth Amendment. Code Enforcement --
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Ms. Rawson, what is the -- what is
your opinion about the argument?
MS. RAWSON: Well, in theory, certainly agree with her.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Uh-hm.
MS. RAWSON: We certainly don't want to do anything that
violates the constitution. However, today, unfortunately, our focus
has to be on whether or not the evidence that you heard on the day of
the hearing was contrary to the evidence. Your decision on that day
was contrary to the evidence that you heard.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Thank you.
And again, I don't mean to belabor the point, and I don't mean to
constantly snub you on various avenues in which you're trying to
approach this issue. But as Ms. Rawson said again, our purpose here
today is extremely limited in scope. We're here just to hear whether
or not the evidence we received was flawed, and our decisions were
based on evidence that is contrary to the case in a sense.
So again, we need to limit discussions on that particular issue.
Once that's done, we'll proceed with the other issue of whether or not
we had an error in the ruling of law or so on and so forth. But I want
Page
August 22, 2002
to be very clear on the first issue that you are requesting a rehearing
on.
MR. FALATO: You know, the inspection was done on random
patrol.
MRS. FALATO: On staff patrol.
MR. FALATO: On staff patrol. And the day that he came out,
he had to pass this house to get to our house. This house to get to our
house.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I understand that, sir. Again-- And
I apologize again. And I'm really -- I'm trying very hard to follow
our procedures and make sure you have due process in your request.
But again, how is any of that supporting the fact that we have
contrary evidence--
MRS. FALATO: The evidence is --
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- or rulings based contrary to the
evidence, I should say.
MRS. FALATO: The evidence is contrary because the evidence
should have never been submitted. If the evidence is not legal, then
you can't make a ruling on something that is --
MR. FALATO: It's illegal, and it was done -- It was done
unlawful.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. So your argument on this
issue is the fact that the evidence was acquired in an illegal manner?
MRS. FALATO: Correct.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Are there any other
arguments or issues --
MR. FALATO: I want to make it clear to the Board --
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- you wish to apply to this
particular-- Sure.
MR. FALATO: We want to make it clear that we have no
problems fixing the house, okay, in coming to code. We haven't had
Page 32
August 22, 2002
any problems in the past. We have always complied. We have
complied when we did not have to comply, okay.
MRS. FALATO: Back in '98, the same house --
MR. FALATO: We had--
MRS. FALATO: -- was brought before the Board and, at the
time, we weren't found in violation. And we were asked to
esthetically get the house fixed and that the Board, here, would
remember if we kept the promise, and we did.
MR. FALATO: Word for word --
MRS. FALATO: We did at the time.
MR. FALATO: -- word for word, "It would greatly be
remembered if you remembered that you kept your promise and
esthetically fixed this house to satisfy certain individuals." And we
did this, okay, and we had an adequate amount of time to do this.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And I understand. I understand
what you're saying. But bear in mind again, this -- a future Board is
not -- I take that back. A past board does not have the ability to
commit the decisions of this present Board, nor do we have the
ability to commit decisions of a future board, okay. I understand
what you're saying.
MR. FALATO: Okay. Can I ask how you came about putting
sanctions --
MRS. FALATO: Sanctions on the house.
MR. FALATO: -- on the house, for what reason?
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: What sanctions are we speaking of?.
MR. FALATO: It says that we're going to be fined if it wasn't
finished being repaired by the 27th.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. According to Florida Statute
162, the Board has that right to take as an action, as an -- MR. FALATO: But is it--
Page 33
August 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: -- order of the Board to achieve
compliance.
MR. FALATO: All right. Are you supposed to -- Does that
follow under the rule of if that house had previous violations?
MRS. FALATO: No.
MR. FALATO: These are first-time violations, and the house
has never had a violation in the past.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I understand what you're saying.
But again, that doesn't bear on what we're talking about, okay.
Again, we're looking to find out what the arguments to support your
allegation that we have based our decision on evidence that's contrary
to the case. So far, the only issue that I can understand -- And correct
me if I'm wrong. The only issue I understand is the fact that the
evidence was allegedly obtained illegally; is that correct? Or are
there other issues that we need to apply to that particular argument?
MRS. FALATO: For what it's worth, I don't know -- I don't
know if this falls in what you're looking for, but Code Enforcement
and you, the Code Enforcement Board is here to -- they are supposed
to protect the public from harassment or discrimination. And quite
honestly, we don't feel that we are being protected. And this case --
MR. FALATO: We're constantly being violated.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And let me explain kind of the
purpose of why we are here in a sense. MRS. FALATO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We are here to render decisions as
to whether a violation of the code exists or not. Very limited scope
of work. If a violation is found to exist in any particular case, then
we have the authority to issue an order in a manner to prompt
correction of that problem.
MR. FALATO: Can we ask why --
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We are not here --
Page 34
August 22, 2002
MR. FALATO: -- our rehearing was denied?
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We are not here as a Circuit Court.
We do not have the powers that you are envisioning that we have.
We do not have the powers to hear discrimination cases, harassment
cases, other issues. We are very limited on our scope. If you have
issues such as that, then you have to take those in other avenues other
than what we are sitting here as this particular Board, okay. And,
again, I tell you that as a polite reminder as opposed to maybe a snub
of some sort, but we are very limited to what we can hear and what
we can act upon.
MRS. FALATO: The other thing is because we didn't -- We
weren't here at the hearing and sanctions were imposed. And the
majority of the month that the repairs were supposed to be fixed, my
husband was not capable to do so, and I was out of state. So we ask
that the date of when the property was to be fixed be extended.
MR. FALATO: Be extended to a reasonable amount of time.
We ask that the fines be lifted until we come into compliance within
the 30 days from today. We'll have the house finished within 30
days of today.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Let me move on. It seems
like we've kind of explored the issue of a decision contrary to the
evidence anyway. Let's move on if you have any arguments
supporting the case that an error occurred in the ruling of the law.
MRS. FALATO: I believe I presented it to you. There was
pictures submitted of what Code Enforcement took. It shows the
property. It has no trespassing, no post signs on it. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Uh-hm.
MRS. FALATO: He had to pass those no trespassing signs to
take photos that were submitted to you.
MR. FALATO: We have well over 150-some violations,
alleged violations; 99.9 percent of them are no violations found,
Page 35
August 22, 2002
okay. The house hasn't had any previous violations on it. So at this
time, again, we're going to ask that the fines be lifted, give us 30 days
to comply with the house. We'll get it to where you need it so it's up
to code.
MS. DUSEK: You're here right now before us to ask for a
rehearing.
MRS. FALATO: Correct.
MS. DUSEK: And I think that our chairman has pretty well
explained to you that part of the reasons for coming before the Board
on your part are issues that we cannot entertain; a trespass issue. All
we can do here is make a decision on evidence that was presented
that day. And as Ms. Rawson, our attorney, said how that evidence
was obtained, we don't know, but that's not our jurisdiction. Do you
understand that?
MRS. FALATO: That I understand.
MS. DUSEK: All right. So we looked at those pictures and that
was part of our reason for making the decision we made that day. So
your issue of trespass is not an issue today for rehearing.
MR. FALATO: May I ask, why didn't they continue it for us
that day? Why did they just make the decision that this is it, it's final,
and not give us the opportunity? I mean, the first hearing was
postponed due to their negligence of getting a hold of us. The second
hearing was due to my medical issue, and we didn't get a chance to
come before the Board.
MS. DUSEK: Are you saying that you were not properly
notified?
MRS. FALATO: Yes.
MS. DUSEK: Do we have evidence of that, Michelle?
MS. ARNOLD: Excuse me?
Page
August 22, 2002
MS. DUSEK: I don't have the case in front of me from
previously how notification was made. But they' re saying that they
were not given timely notification of the hearing before our Board.
MS. ARNOLD: They were given timely notification. She
indicated to you when she started discussion this morning that she
requested a continuance of the hearing that it was originally
scheduled for. So she was given over 30 days notice of the heating
that, it was presented to you.
MS. DUSEK: For the original one.
MR. PONTE: You're talking about the May situation.
MR. FLEGAL: When she requested the continuance and we --
MS. DUSEK: That was notification.
MR. FLEGAL: -- granted it -- we granted it, so that was
notification. Is that normally what we do, Ms. Rawson? MS. ARNOLD: No.
MR. FLEGAL: That's how I remember it.
MS. ARNOLD: No, it wasn't even on your agenda. It was -- we
sent out a notice, and they came into the office and requested that it
not be heard on that date. And it wasn't scheduled for that date. It
was scheduled for the prior hearing.
MR. FLEGAL: So for the -- But when it was brought before us,
did they receive some kind of notification saying it's going to be
heard on this date?
MRS. FALATO: Verbal notification when they gave us the
continuance in May. But because we had the medical emergency, we
weren't able to come.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
notified --
MRS. FALATO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
until a future date?
You're saying you were verbally
-- that the continuance was granted
Page 37
August 22, 2002
MRS. FALATO: Yes.
MS. ARNOLD: I'm being told by the investigator that they
received a posted notice of the hearing date -- MRS. FALATO: In May.
MS. ARNOLD: -- that was posted on their property.
MRS. FALATO: Yes, and that was posted May 15th. The
notice of the hearing, the original was set for May. We got a
notification from the inspector May 15th. It was taped to our door.
And our defense packet had to be in by May 10th. And that's --
MR. FALATO: So they notified us five days after you needed
our defense package.
MRS. FALATO: And that's why --
MR. FALATO: So, therefore, that was the reason for the first --
MRS. FALATO: First hearing.
MR. FALATO: -- continuance, due to their negligence, okay.
We requested the second hearing be reheard because of my medical
issue, okay, and it was denied. And the sanctions were imposed and
we're here now.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Michelle, do we have copies of the
minutes from the hearing, the
second hearing in which we actually heard the case?
MS. ARNOLD: That would be the June hearing. And, no, I
don't have anything.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: You don't have anything available?
Okay.
MS. GODFREY: I can recall, Mr. Chairman, that he did have a
notice from his doctor that he had an appointment that day or
something.
MS. ARNOLD: Right. There was a request for continuance,
and it was submitted to you all for consideration, and you denied it
and you heard the case anyway.
Page 38
August 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Uh-hm. I was just trying to refresh
my memory as to why the motion was denied. I know the Board did
take that action at this time, so.
MR. FALATO: Well, the reason they gave me was that--
When was the hearing supposed to be? On the 26th?
MRS. FALATO: The 27th.
MR. FALATO: On the 27th. On the 26th, I was scheduled for
an MRI. I was heavily sedated that morning to go through the tube
(sic). They give you medication to go through that. The following
morning, I had another follow-up, an appointment with my surgeon.
They said that the hearing was at nine o'clock. My appointment, I
believe, was at eleven. I have to be there at least a half hour early.
I'm still groggy from the medication they gave me the day before, and
it was impossible for me to be here at nine o'clock in the morning.
We didn't have the agenda, knowing that we were the first to be
heard on that morning, okay. So we feel that it was a legit reason to
have -- to be reheard, and the --
I have information --
-- County notified us on the 3rd that it was done
MS. ARNOLD:
MR. FALATO:
and over with.
MS. ARNOLD:
I have information on the hearing, the notice of
hearing. And what happened was a notice was sent out in February,
it looks like. And the post office attempted to make a visit on a
visited on, I guess, in February and then another one March 4th and
another one March 14th, and it wasn't picked up. And we didn't get
confirmation of that but -- Oh, we got the returned, unclaimed notice
in our office, and the packet was picked up by the Falatos on May
16th. Yes, May 16th.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Again, my -- go ahead, sir.
MR. FLEGAL: Mr. Chairman, I -- as far as the rehearing or the
denial of the request for continuance is foggy, but what I remember is
Page
August 22, 2002
part of the information given to us that day were copies of a
scheduled MRI from his doctor, and it was dated something like a
week or so before he was to go have the MRI, but our contention then
was, well, he knew when the hearing was. And it would have been
easy to say, "Gee, on that particular day, can I have my MRI moved
to tomorrow?"
It wasn't that he was getting medicated. It was he was notified
of the hearing like the month before. He was then told a week or so
before the hearing he was to have an MRI. And I think what we
discussed was since he had that time in there, he could have asked his
doctor to reschedule his MRI. And for whatever reason, that didn't
occur, so we denied the request for a continuance. I think that's kind
of the way it went. Not exactly, but I think that's what I'm
remembering.
MR. FALATO:
MS. FALATO:
MR. FLEGAL:
I don't believe that's correct.
No.
I don't have the information in front of me, but I
do remember seeing something from your doctor scheduling an
appointment.
MR. FALATO: Those are my appointments. I don't plan and
schedule those appointments, okay. They do it, all right. I have no
control --
MR. FLEGAL: Sir, I understand. I go to the doctor too.
I can't make it, I call and I say, "Reschedule it." And they say,
"Fine." So, I mean, I've had MRIs, been the whole route, so --
MR. FALATO: These were my --
MR. FLEGAL: -- anything's reschedule able.
MR. FALATO: These were my original appointments. There
was nothing rescheduled.
MR. FLEGAL: I'm telling you what we based our decision on.
MR. FALATO: Okay.
And if
Page 40
August 22, 2002
US.
MR. FLEGAL:
MR. FALATO:
You asked, and I'm telling you.
Okay. I just didn't believe that that was fair to
MRS. FALATO: Well, I have the original copy of what I faxed
over and what we sent via mail. And these were -- These were faxed
on the 25th. And nothing on these forms says that he knew about it a
week prior.
MR. FLEGAL: I don't have the package from last month,
ma'am. I'm just telling you what my memory is going.
MRS. FALATO: I understand that, but this is what we
submitted for the --
MS. GODFREY: My memory, ma'am, is that he had a -- from
NASA, and that he had an appointment at 2:30, I believe, or 3:30 that
afternoon of the hearing.
MRS. FALATO: No, it's 9:15. I have -- I have the copy that I
sent.
MS. GODFREY: I have the minutes at home. I read the
minutes. I've got two years. I've been on the -- I remember seeing
you before.
MRS. FALATO: Well, can we resubmit the NASA MRI
appointment times? I don't know where you've got the 2:30
appointment from, but I've got the original, and that's what we gave
to Michelle and to Patti.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, again, I don't think that's
necessary.
MS. FALATO: It's not. It's all -- It's your decision.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes. What we are trying to do at
this point in time, and it tends to get convoluted sometimes, is just
determine whether or not the hearing that we had originally was done
properly or whether or not we had evidence that was presented to us,
and our decision was based on a decision on -- contrary to the
Page
August 22, 2002
evidence or whether or not we had some ruling of law that might
have overturned something we would have done.
I understand that you have brought up issues of trespass and
issues of discrimination or harassment and issues of notification and
things of that nature. Many of these issues are beyond our purview to
address.
The issue of not being properly notified, it is my understanding
that you have been properly notified of the rehearing date -- or the
hearing date, I should say, not the rehearing date but the hearing date.
Now that your contention is the fact that you had commitments
medically, that we have not in a sense properly addressed, I would
assume. And I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm trying to
understand the issues. Am I correct in these assumptions or is there
something else that I need to understand?
MRS. FALATO: Well, what we don't understand is the first
rehearing was --we were granted a continuance, um, you know,
because --
MR. FALATO: You granted a continuance for the first hearing
due to their neglect, but we weren't granted a rehearing due to my
medical issue --
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, a continuance was --
MR. FALATO: -- because you were more concerned on your
policy.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- granted based on a technicality in
a sense.
MR. FALATO: Sorry?
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: It was based on a technicality in the
fact that we need to provide you with proper notification to follow
our procedural law or procedural rulings. And it was granted based
on the fact that those rulings and procedures were not followed.
Therefore, you had not been given proper notification and an
Page 42
August 22, 2002
extension was granted to you on your behalf, period. And it was
done just to protect your due process and protect your interest.
MS. ARNOLD: The notice was sent. They did not pick it up.
They did not claim it. And they came into our office and picked it up
on the 16th. And because we knew we had evidence that they didn't
physically get the packet until the 16th, we granted their request for a
continuance for 30 days. The item wasn't placed on yom agenda.
They were notified at that point when the next hearing was going to
be.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Ms. Rawson?
MS. RAWSON: Yes. Before you ask your question, !,
basically, think that we are the second part, the second prong now,
and that is whether or not your order, your ruling was contrary to any
law.
Now what we're talking about a notice rather than whether or
not you decided there was a violation and found a violation. So I
think you need to probably just focus your decision on whether or not
you think that they received proper notice. Well, they did, I mean, I
think by their own testimony.
You, apparently, as a board denied their continuance. I mean, so
you have the right to decide whether or not you should have denied
the continuance. You can rehear it if you want to rehear it. But I
think that we're down to, basically, whether or not they were denied
any due process rights because they were not able to be here and
whether you were contrary to the law when you denied the
continuance. I really think that
that's, basically, where we are. So it's up to the Board whether you
want to rehear it or stick with your original decision. And, I'm sorry,
you were going to ask me a question.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: No, and that's -- I mean, you've,
basically, preempted me in a sense.
Page
August 22, 2002
MS. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Ms. Saunders.
MS. SAUNDERS: As much as I don't especially want to rehear
the case, and I do believe that we followed all due process and were
correct, I can understand the concern of a medical emergency and
perhaps we were--
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Ms. Saunders, let me interrupt you
for just one second. Let's close the testimony section of the case --
MS. SAUNDERS: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- and then we'll open it for
discussion.
MRS. FALATO: One more thing?
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes, ma'am.
MRS. FALATO: Chapter 162 entitles us to a fair treatment by
local government. And, unfortunately, we don't feel that it is a fair
treatment by the local government.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. So noted.
Any other comments or discussion you wish to enter?
MRS. FALATO: No.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Thank you. I'll close the
evidentiary portion of this particular action. If you'd like to have a
seat and be happy to sit up front there, wherever you'd like, okay.
And now I'll open this to discussion and entertain discussion
from the Board.
MR. PONTE: I'll lead with my chin and simply say that I think
there are many factors here that should encourage us to rehear this
case. If we want to go into all of them, we could do that, but we've
heard them all. And I think that it is only fair to the respondents that
we rehear the case.
MS. SAUNDERS: I concur.
Page 44
August 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Would you elaborate on your
reasons, please?
MR. PONTE: Certainly, and we can go to 162, and the
allegations that they did not get fair treatment by government agency.
MS. DUSEK: Explain that.
MS. ARNOLD: We want to hear that, yeah.
MR. PONTE: We can go to the fact that the evidence that we
did unknowingly accept and use was allegedly illegally obtained.
MS. ARNOLD: I would have to object to that --
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Ponte?
MS. ARNOLD: -- because there's no proof--
MR. PONTE: I said allegedly.
MS. ARNOLD: -- of that.
MR. PONTE: I said allegedly --
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Order, please, because --
MR. PONTE: -- and that the evidence was flawed in that way.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Ponte, just one second, please.
Let's restrict our comments to one person at a time. The court
reporter can't listen to four of us at once. If you would proceed, Mr.
Ponte.
MR. PONTE: I think there's also a question about the amount of
reasonable time that they said that they needed to prepare their initial
defense packet. That's the one in May. So that's a third question. I
think that there are others that we've all read. I'm looking at the
doctor's report for the appointment date of June 26th. I don't know
why we have confusion about that. It clearly says the appointment
for Mr. Falato was at 9:15 that morning. I think we should rehear the
case.
MS. DUSEK: If I might address each one of those issues
contrary to what Mr. Ponte has said, proper notice was given the
month before when they were given a continuance. Well, I guess it
Page
August 22, 2002
wasn't legally a continuance, but they asked that the case be
postponed, and the county did postpone it for a month. On that day,
that was notice, and that was more than a month's notice for them to
prepare their defense package. A notice, I understand, was also
posted in a timely manner on their property, timely manner. So the
notice issue to me is not an issue.
The trespass for the photographs, I can't address that. I don't
know. I know that they have said that that was a trespass issue. But
a trespass issue is not this jurisdiction. So, to me, that is not an issue.
The medical issue, I agree with Cliff, that you can rearrange
your appointments knowing that you had something else that was
quite apparent that you should attend. And the timely notice, I've
already addressed. And those are the issues I heard today, none of
which I think were reason to rehear the case.
MR. PONTE: I just need a point of
clarification. I thought the notice was posted on May 16th and --
No. They picked it up that day.
And the date that the defense packet had to be
MS. DUSEK:
MR. PONTE:
received was --
MS. DUSEK:
The 10th. May 10th.
MS. ARNOLD: June, because they requested a continuance the
day they picked up the packet. We agreed to not put the item on the
agenda for May and put it on the June agenda and advised them what
the date was of that hearing. And we advised them when their packet
had to be in for that June hearing, and they complied with that.
MR. PONTE: So, really, what we were saying is everything
was on track and going along smoothly. They were granted a
continuance. We didn't know about it. And then when the request
for a continuance based on medical grounds was made, it was --
MS. ARNOLD: The item was placed on your agenda.
Page
August 22, 2002
MR. PONTE: Yes, but were they told before that, verbally, that
the continuance would not be granted?
MS. ARNOLD: We have no way of knowing what your
decision is going to be.
MR. PONTE: No, I understand.
MS. ARNOLD: We told them that we would put the item on
your agenda and that it would be your decision whether or not to hear
the case. I personally explained to Ms. Falato that the possibilities
did exist that the case could be heard without her being present.
MR. PONTE: Okay.
MR. FLEGAL: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes.
MR. FLEGAL: Back to focus on the two conditions for a
rehearing based on the evidence presented the day of the hearing.
Memory serves me, based on that evidence we made a decision. I
haven't heard anything today that says the evidence presented that
day was wrong. It was presented. We heard it. It was given under
oath. Therefore, we assumed it's legal information. We based our
decision on that. End of story on that. I haven't heard anything to
refute that.
Second point, ruling of law. I have heard nothing that said we
violated 162. The constitution, unfortunately, isn't part of our
purview. Specifically, 162, they gave us no chapter and verse on any
paragraph in 162 that we violated. I see no basis for a rehearing.
The fact that they want more time can be covered under
something else. They have that right. We give that right to
everybody. But on the two points that permit a rehearing, I have
heard nothing for us to grant a rehearing. And, you know, again,
being focused, what you may have in a gut feeling didn't count. The
law states there are only two points, and I haven't heard anything to
change those two points.
Page ,~ 7
August 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Ms. Rawson, am I correct in
assuming hypothetically, of course, that if a respondent legally
determines that the evidence was obtained illegally through some
other venue, would that then be grounds for our decision based on
that evidence to be contrary to law?
MS. RAWSON: You would have to hear evidence. And the
proper motion -- and I understand that they're not attorneys, and that's
okay. The proper motion would be a motion to suppression that
evidence.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Uh-hm.
MS. RAWSON: But you haven't heard any evidence to lead
you to decide one way or another whether or not there was
trespassing or whether or not the pictures were illegally taken. You
don't have anything before you to make that decision.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, I understand
what Mr. Ponte is saying and I certainly understand what Mr. Flagel
is saying. And the problem in my own mind is, quite frankly, I
believe, I agree with Mr. Flagel. If we are looking at this in a very
strict sense, which, unfortunately, this Board is bound by, this, again,
seems to be one of those cases where your heart is telling you one
thing but the rules and regulations we have to follow are maybe
saying something different.
The evidence that was presented, I, again, see no decision that
was based contrary to the evidence. As Mr. Flagel had stated, it was
under oath, and I believe it to be proper evidence. Whether it is
obtained illegally or not is not for us to decide simply because we
have no evidence to make that decision.
MS. DUSEK: Are you ready for a motion?
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And, secondly, as far as a ruling of
law, I, again, agree with Mr. Flagel. We do not have anything,
unfortunately, that would tell us that we have violated any of the
Page 48
August 22, 2002
MS.
presented
MR.
MS.
MR.
heard.
articles of chapter 162 or any of the laws or rules governing this
particular Board in the transaction of its business with regard to this
particular case.
MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we deny the hearing.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: One second.
MR. PONTE: Before a motion is made --
Ms. DUSEK: I was--
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would like to -- Just for the
Board's knowledge, I really would like to hear the discussions on this,
because I really want due process to be followed in this particular
case as well as all others. So please proceed with your position.
MR. PONTE: The phrase that keeps coming up here amongst
Board members and others is that I haven't heard, fill in the blank,
haven't heard it because we really haven't heard the case. We've
heard one side of the case. The County's side. It's incumbent upon
us to hear both sides of the case.
DUSEK: There are many times when we have cases
before us where the defendant is not here --
PONTE: That's true.
DUSEK: -- and we make our decisions.
PONTE: That is true. But these people are asking to be
MS. SAUNDERS: Yeah. IfI may also, I think perhaps we
could have been a little more understanding or compassionate in
granting a continuance. That wouldn't have cost us anything. So
there's nothing harmed by going back and giving a continuance.
The other thing I heard, which doesn't officially enter into our
deliberations, is that they could get the house fixed in 30 days.
Nothing would please me more than if this was -- their rehearing was
scheduled for a month from today and Michelle came back to us and
said they're in compliance, there is no hearing.
Page
August 22, 2002
Why are we being -- nitpicking this to death I think we spent a
great deal of time on it. I don't believe Code Enforcement did
anything wrong. I think we followed the procedures completely. But
I'm hearing a consumer, a citizen, saying give me a chance to at least
have my day in court. I don't think it hurts us to do that.
MS. DUSEK: Rhona, if I might repeat what was repeated
earlier, I believe, by Mr. Flagel -- MS. SAUNDERS: Uh-hm.
MS. DUSEK: -- and, that is, if they can come into compliance,
we fine them. They come back to us and ask that the fines be abated.
That's the procedure I think that should be followed. I don't think
rehearing the case is the proper procedure, because what we have to
look at are the facts. We can't go on our emotion. We must follow
the facts, and that's how we make our decision.
There will be many times, if we followed our emotion, that we
would make different decisions. And I think you have to look. Did
they violate? Was the evidence presented correct? Was our decision
correct? Yes. And I think it's yes to all of those.
And if they come into compliance, they want to come back to us
then and ask for a reduction of fines, then we address it that way.
MS. SAUNDERS: I think one fact that is pertinent is looking at
the medical request for a continuance. And we made a judgment up
here that that could have been postponed, and perhaps we shouldn't
have made a medical judgment.
The second fact that I would say we didn't look at is that we
have not -- I believe we did make a judgment based on the facts we
heard. When somebody says there may be other facts to be heard, I'd
like to hear them.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Ms. Rawson, a point of
clarification. Hypothetically, if this Board decides to grant a
Page 5o
August 22, 2002
rehearing, we need to grant that rehearing based on the two issues
that we have.
MS. RAWSON: One or the other; correct.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: If we cannot find grounds to grant it
on either one of those two issues, then our--
MS. RAWSON: Then you can't grant it.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- then we technically can't even
grant it, .
MS. RAWSON: You need to follow your own rules.
MS. DUSEK: That's right.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN:
there in a sense.
MR. FLEGAL:
MS. RAWSON:
MR. FLEGAL:
So we're in violation of the law
Ms. Rawson?
Yes.
The only thing that gives us the power to grant
a rehearing is the ordinance. One sixty-two has nothing about
rehearings. It's only appeals.
MS. RAWSON: That's right.
MR. FLEGAL: And under 162, it says the only basis -- the only
ground is that our decision was contrary to the evidence. And that's
the evidence presented that day, period, not what might have been
presented. It was the evidence presented that day; is that correct?
MS. RAWSON: That is correct.
MR. FLEGAL: Okay. So based on that, I don't see any basis
for granting a rehearing. We made a decision on evidence that day,
period.
MS. DUSEK: If I might just make an addition that might make
Ms. Saunders feel a little more comfortable about the medical
decision: Remember, they were notified a month ahead for that
particular hearing. That was ample time to have a defense package
put together in their absence.
Page
August 22, 2002
MR. FLEGAL: Okay. Again, let's get back to the two bases.
I'm having a real problem. Everybody keeps saying, well, we made a
decision not to continue. That has no bearing unfortunately.
MS. DUSEK: I realize it has no bearing, but it's just a comfort
level --
MR. FLEGAL: I understand.
MS. DUSEK: -- for one of the Board members, and that was
my reasoning.
MR. FLEGAL: But we need to get rid of that and get down to
these two facts: Contrary to the evidence presented on the day we
issued our order or an error on a ruling of law. Only two things.
Again, our gut feelings or sympathy or whatever have no bearing.
We have those two points. Give me something to hang my hat on,
and I may side with you. Right now it's zero.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Let me extrapolate on what our
esteemed member had indicated. It is very important for this Board
to base its decision solely on those two issues.
Basing your decision on any other issue may be in violation of
our own rules and regulations and so on and so forth. This job that
you are sitting here doing is not an easy job. The pay is lousy. And
it's very difficult sometimes. You have to divorce yourself from the
emotions of the case and follow strict proceedings and logic and so
on and so forth. Your decision today must be based solely on the two
issues.
Any other discussion before we place it to a vote?
MS. DUSEK: I did put a motion on the floor earlier.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I'm sorry. I apologize.
MR. FLEGAL: All right. I'm sure it got overshadowed. Do it
again, please.
MS. DUSEK: I make a motion to deny the rehearing.
MR. FLEGAL: I would second that.
Page
August 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And we are -- Just to clarify that
motion, you are making a motion to deny the rehearing based on the
decision that we have not the heard sufficient evidence to show us
that our order was decided upon or our order is decided contrary to
the presentation of evidence or that an error on which the ruling of
law would apply. Is that correct? MS. DUSEK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion. It is a motion
by Ms. Dusek, seconded by Mr. Flagel.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Any opposed?
MR. PONTE: Opposed.
MS. SAUNDERS: Opposed.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have two opposed, Mr. Ponte
and Ms. Saunders. The motion carries by a majority vote.
Mr. and Mrs. Falato, would you please approach the podium
again?
It's very important for me and, I'm sure, the rest of the Board
that you understand what we are doing here today and what has
transpired. We are here for a very limited purpose, and that is to hear
your request for rehearing, which we have done. And we have
decided that a rehearing would not be warranted based on the
evidence presented today and the two issues that we have to govern
our vote in.
You have other issues that, I'm sure, are a concern to you. There
are other avenues that you have to address those issues. This Board
is not the place to do that. I know that this is an issue that concerns
you greatly, and we recognize that.
The other issue is fines. You have the ability and the right, and
correct me if I'm wrong, Ms. Rawson, but at this point in time you
still have the ability to come before the Board after everything is said
Page 53
August 22, 2002
and done, the violations have been abated and you have achieved
code compliance, to come back before the Board and have a motion
to request those fines be reduced or waived based on evidence you
present at that time, again, governed within the rules and regulations
and limitations of what we're able to listen to that evidence.
MS. RAWSON: That's correct. It's my understanding that we
don't have an order imposing any fines yet.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: That's correct.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. So it's just -- Again, what we
are trying to do, what I'm trying very hard to do is not only follow
strict procedure of what this Board can or can't do in how we do our
business but also protect your due process and your rights. We're
here today just to do a little bit of that whole process that you're
trying to accomplish. Although you may be unsuccessful in the
rehearing aspect of it, you may be successful in going forth with any
other issues that you have concerns with. I have no idea what the
outcome of those would be.
MRS. FALATO: Okay. A question for you.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes, ma'am.
MRS. FALATO: There was fines imposed and the place had to
be done by the 27th of July. It's now -- It's the 22nd. We've been
waiting for this rehear- -- We have been waiting for, today, to see if
our case would be reheard.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Uh-hm.
MRS. FALATO: Now, those are accruing until we come into
compliance; am I correct?
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Ms. Rawson, how does the fines
work in the rehearing?
MS. RAWSON: Well, you have to impose them. They're not
imposed yet.
Page
August 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All right. But are they accruing?
MS. RAWSON: Well, you gave them a date in which they need
to come into compliance.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay.
MS. RAWSON: If they don't come into date (sic) by that
compliance date, you know, according to 162, you can bring it back
when you find out that they're not in the compliance and impose the
fines starting on that date. That is correct.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All right. So to answer your
question, yes, they are accruing at this point in time. And again, I
just would reiterate what our counsel has advised you just now.
MRS. FALATO: Okay. Now, you based you decision that at
the last hearing you were presented evidence that is not contrary to
what your decision was on the -- on the case.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The decision for the vote here was
based on two issues; again, whether or not we have based our
decision or our order--
MRS. FALATO: Right.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- contrary to the evidence, which
the decision of the board was, no, we have not based our decision on
something that would be contrary to the evidence; and, secondly,
whether or not a ruling of law had been in error. And again, we
based our decision on the fact that no ruling of law was in error. And
we are very limited into what we can address and how we can
approach each particular issue and case.
MS. DUSEK: I believe you will get a copy of this so you'll have
it and you'll know exactly why. MS. FALATO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. And I appreciate the time
you've taken. I hope you appreciate the time this Board has taken in
trying to hear your case and try to --
Page
August 22, 2002
MRS. FALATO: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- help you in any way we can.
MR. FALATO: All right. At this point in time, can we ask that
the fines not start until 30 days from now if the house isn't --
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: No.
MR. FALATO: -- in compliance from 30 days from now?
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: No. The proper procedure would
be for us to impose the fines. And then after the fines have been
imposed, much like a case we heard earlier this morning -- MRS. FALATO: Okay. They come back.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- then you have the right to come
back at that point in time. /AEUPBD I caution you, after you have
achieved compliance would be an appropriate time then to request a
reduction. Now, bear in mind that reduction may or may not be
granted.
MRS. FALATO: We understand that.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And that's based on evidence and
testimony supporting your request at that time.
MRS. FALATO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay?
MRS. FALATO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you very much for your
time.
I apologize. Let's take a break for the court reporter. Let's
return in 10 minutes, please.
Is that sufficient time?
THE REPORTER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The Board is adjourned for 10
minutes.
(A short recess was taken.)
Page
August 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would like to proceed with item 5-
C on the agenda, a request for reduction or abatement of fines.
MS. ARNOLD:. The next item on the agenda is a request for
reduction/abatement of fines. It's Board of County Commissioners
versus John Danks, Code Enforcement Board case 2000-031.
This item was heard by the Code Enforcement Board on
September 28, 2000. And the respondent was ordered to comply
with a finding of facts and conclusion of law and ordered to correct
by November 12, 2000.
And, basically, what the violation was was improvements on
commercial property without first obtaining proper permits. I believe
Patti provided you with a copy of the order as well as failure to have
an occupational license.
The respondent came into compliance on March 9th, 2001, and
you have received a packet from the respondent requesting waiver of
fines because of the reasons stated in that document. I don't believe
anyone is present representing the defendant.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any discussions?
MS. ARNOLD: The investigator is here that provided evidence
for that particular case, Cathy Van Poucke's case. So if you do have
any questions with respect to the contents of that request --
MR. FLEGAL: Michelle, could you just tell us since I don't see
it anywhere? Tell us what kind of money we're talking about so we
at least know what they're asking us to reduce or abate.
MS. ARNOLD: This particular case has actually been
forwarded to the County Attorney's Office, too, in June. It's one of
the cases that was forwarded for foreclosure action. I'll give you the
amount in one minute.
MR. FLEGAL: Oh, okay. Let me ask another question then.
Ms. Rawson?
MS. RAWSON: Yes.
Page 57
August 22, 2002
MR. FLEGAL: If we've directed the county attorney to proceed
with foreclosure, since we made that determination and this is now in
their hands, do we have the power to waive the fines? I mean, we've
turned it over to the County Attorney's Office. I would think we're
out of the loop.
MS. RAWSON: You are out of the loop. According to your
rules and regulations, Article XII, Reduction/Abatement of Fines,
Section 1, about the third paragraph: "A request to reduce/abate fines
may be made after a violation has been abated. Under no
circumstances may a request to reduce/abate fine be made after the
Board has authorized foreclosure by the County Attorney's Office."
MR. FLEGAL: Okay. So--
MS. DUSEK: So we don't have to do anything.
MR. FLEGAL: -- this shouldn't even be before us.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. And the only reason why we put it on
the agenda is because of the timing on it, and the Board only in June
forwarded the matter to the County Attorney's Office. I'm not sure if
she's done anything to notify the respondent at that particular time. I
may be wrong. I'm not sure.
MR. FLEGAL: Okay. But I think the deal is that once we say
the County Attorney's Office has it, then we're done. Whether
they've done anything is immaterial. MS. ARNOLD: Okay.
MR. FLEGAL: We've turned it over, so we're out of the picture.
MR. RAMSEY: A question. It appears as though that there are
two -- well, there's only one respondent but there are two parties.
One is the owner. One was the tenant. The owner, obviously, is the
foreclosure issue, but the tenant is no longer there. Do the fines still
apply against the tenant?
MR. FLEGAL: Well, the tenant--
MS. ARNOLD: It is the tenant.
Page
August 22, 2002
MR. FLEGAL: The tenant is also the owner. The owner owns -
MR. RAMSEY: Oh, okay.
MR. FLEGAL: -- the majority of shares in the company. So it's
like you own the property and then you put your consulting business
on the property. And then you come up and say, well, it's my tenant,
I don't have any rights and that, and you own the business. It doesn't
work that way.
MS. ARNOLD:
MR. RAMSEY:
MR. FLEGAL:
MS. ARNOLD:
The business owner is the tenant.
Is the tenant. Okay.
Right.
Not the property owner. And the order has
been filed against the business owner, Mr. Danks.
MR. FLEGAL: I would make a motion that we deny this
request and from the fact that we have already turned it over to the
County Attorney's Office.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So noted. Do I hear a second?
MR. PONTE: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion from Mr. Flagel
and a second from Mr. Ponte that the request be denied on the
grounds that this has already been turned over for foreclosure
proceedings and, thereby, would violate our own governing rules.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Hearing none, the motion passes unanimously.
Let's please proceed to the next item on the agenda.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay. The next item is another request for
reduction/abatement of fines. It's Board of County Commissioners
versus Patrick W. and Erin L. Rose, Code Enforcement Board case
2001-045.
You just, today, authorized the imposition of fines in the amount
of $3,753.75. And that particular case, as noted in the Executive
Page
August 22, 2002
Summary, was for vegetation removal without authorized permits,
and a representative for the Roses is present to speak to that request.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. If you would like to proceed,
sir.
MR. FRANCEOUR: Yes, sir. My name is Philip Francoeur,
the law firm of Samouce, Murrell and Francoeur. My client just sold
some property and asked -- and he had to go back to Washington, so
he asked me to be here this morning. And tried to get as many facts
from him as I could to try to represent him. And I may not have all
of them, but I have -- I hope I have most of them.
My understanding is that this is a hearing on our part strictly for
the consideration of our request for an abatement of the fines fine of
$50 a day, which is a total $2,250, which is currently being held in
escrow, along with the $1,503.75 for the cost to comply with the
order on December 18th by the Board. That money is not -- That
amount of money is not being questioned or challenged by my client.
He understands that he has to pay that. He's paid the mitigation. It's
strictly the fine that he wanted me to address with regard to the
possibility of abatement.
I could go back over all the facts, but from what I understand
this morning, you really like to have people stay on point and not talk
about the past and the fact that he came in voluntarily to find out
whether he was supposedly to have the permit. And there was an
employee, he said, at the front desk at Code Enforcement who said he
didn't need a permit. So we went and removed it. And he's talking to
his neighbors. His neighbors said, "Hey, I think you do need a
permit." He comes back in voluntarily a second time, and they said
yes, and it went on and on and on.
And-finally, there was a hearing. I had a whole bunch of things
I was going to say. Since we're trying to stay on track here, I won't
mention them. But anyway, finally, there was a hearing on
Page 6o
August 22, 2002
December 18th. I'm not really even sure whether my client was here
for that hearing, but he was given till June 17th to comply with the
mitigation. And he was instructed to call someone named Steve. He
didn't know the last name. Why, I don't know but Florida Water
Management for the mitigation process, and the paperwork was
started.
And after two or three months, Susan Mason from the Code
Enforcement Board asked him, "Well, how is it going?"
And he says, "I don't know. I haven't heard a thing. I don't
know where we are on that."
So she told him, according to my client, "Why don't you work
with Code Enforcement. We'll work on mitigation, us and you
directly."
So it was decided -- This was in May of this year. And so it was
decided at that time, and I don't know whether it was mid-May, late
May, I really don't know, that he should come and plant some trees
on his property.
So he flew down in June, I assume relatively early June, since
the deadline was the 17th. And he got here and found out that he was
going to need not only to plant them but to maintain and nuture the
trees for a six-month period, which is not an unreasonable request,
but he lives and works in the State of Montana. That was kind of a
problem, and he mentioned that to the Code Enforcement Board.
And they said, "Yeah, you're right." And the Code Enforcement
Board had been most pleasant and courteous with Mr. Rose.
So they decided to contact the Rookery Bay. And they finally at
some point in time -- now, I'm not sure when. I suppose the timing
could be pretty critical here in this decision -- that he would be to
contribute $3,672. Now, I don't know how that amount was figured,
but I'm not challenging that or questioning that. And that was paid,
finally, on August 2nd. And a letter on August 2nd from a guy called
Page
August 22, 2002
Tad Bartareau to Susan Mason. A letter with a copy of the check was
sent indicating that he had received it, mitigation was done, and at
least he received the check and they were going to use it for some
purpose of mitigation in the future.
And my point is that through this process, he's been working
with Code Enforcement all along, and there have been problems with
Water Management, and he's been delayed in his ability to find
closure on the mitigation. And so the deadline went by and he wasn't
able to finalize this mitigation until he heard, I guess, from Rookery
Bay, and I'm not sure whether July 2nd, July 15th, I don't know the
date unfortunately, that he needed to contribute the money to them.
So he did on August 2nd.
And so I'm requesting on his behalf that the fine be abated
because he's tried his best to try to do the mitigation. And because of
problems with Florida Water Management and working with Code
Enforcement, and no reflection on them, it just got past the deadline
to get his mitigation check in, and it didn't happen until the 2nd of
August.
MS. DUSEK: I can remember a little bit about this case and the
Florida Water Management and who was in charge of doing certain
things, but I can't remember it exactly. Can we hear from the
County's viewpoint on this request, because it sounds from the
representative for Mr. Rose that he has been working diligently to get
this taken care of.
MS. ARNOLD: Do you want to have her sworn or anything?
MS. RAWSON: I think we should.
(The oath was duly administered.)
MS. MASON: For the record, I'm Susan Mason, Environmental
Specialist for Code Enforcement. This was my case.
In regards to methods for compliance, there are a variety of
different ways that Mr. Rose could gain compliance on this property.
Page
August 22, 2002
One of them was the permitting route. He originally stated he did the
clearing for agricultural use. So I talked with him at that time about
going through the process with both the State and Federal
Government, to obtain their permits first, and then I'd be able to issue
a County, an after-the-fact County permit. After those were obtained,
he did make some contacts with the State. And on numerous
occasions, when I would talk with Mr. Rose, I would give him the
numbers and the names again to try to make sure I sent numerous e-
mails over to South Florida Water Management, had some meetings
with them on site to discuss the problems that we had and what they
would require for their issues.
No progress was really made on that, and I talked with Mr. Rose
about doing on-site mitigation, which he said, originally, he wanted
to do, because that's another method of compliance when we did
discuss it. And I know, earlier, the attorney had mentioned it was six
months for maintenance. It's actually a five-year maintenance
afterwards for surviving -- monitoring for surviving of the plants.
And he does live out of state. He thought that that probably
wasn't the best compliance method. I talked to him about doing a
donation of funds for off-site mitigation. I did explain to him that
that would comply with the County requirements but would not
necessarily help him in the future with any State or Federal violations
that might come. But he decided to go with that route.
He submitted the -- The way it works is the person submits, in a
way, a theoretical mitigation plan to come up with the costs, because
the donation of funds is based on how much it would cost to mitigate
for what was lost, including installation, the actual materials and
maintenance of the property for the period of time.
He did come up with a plan which he submitted to me on July
24th of 2002. I reviewed it and approved it that day, and I called him
on the phone. We talked briefly. I told him I approved it and gave
Page
August 22, 2002
him the contacts for DEP, Rookery Bay, because that was the entity
he decided to donate the funds to. I gave him that information that
day.
He did call me a couple of days later and said he lost that
information, asked for it again. Then I did receive on the 2nd a copy
of the check and the letter from DEP that the funds had, indeed, been
paid, which did bring him into compliance with the original order of
the Board.
MR. FLEGAL: Okay. Michelle, could I ask you question?
Since this is an acceptable procedure, I think what we're down to is
his client is willing to pay the operational cost, but there seems to be,
I think, $2,200, he mentioned. I don't know if-- MS. ARNOLD: Uh-hm.
MR. FLEGAL: -- that is -- Is the County willing to say, gee, his
$3,600, or whatever this check is, $3,672 is acceptable in lieu of the
$2,200?
MS. ARNOLD: I don't particularly have a problem with it. I
would ask to defer to --
MR. FLEGAL: I mean, I think that's what we're here to decide.
If you say the County doesn't have a problem with it, I think we can
get on with this.
MS. ARNOLD: I don't particularly.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: My understanding is the $3,600
check was a substitute means of a compliance. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Right.
MS. MASON: Right, a substitute for off-site mitigation and that
was donated to public land.
MS. ARNOLD: Uh-hm.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And that is within the boundaries of
the code ordinances and so on and so forth?
MS. ARNOLD: Uh-hm.
Page 64
August 22, 2002
MS. MASON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So whether we like that position or
not, that's an acceptable method to comply with the code.9
MS. MASON: Right.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
MS. MASON: He's in compliance. He came in as late.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. Basically, what, I mean, we typically
look at is whether or not there was some communication and some
progress being made, you know, from the date of your order till the
compliance. And I know that on our part, we had kept
communication with Mr. Rose and we were able to have
conversations to see what he was willing to do for compliance.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So you're saying from the County's
side, that there are extenuating circumstances that would support a
waiver of fines because of an extended period of time that was
beyond his control?
MS. MASON: I personally did have conversations with Mr.
Rose and, apparently, there were some family problems that were
taking place. And plus, he did rather, at least with your demand,
unexpectedly had to move from Naples to Montana. So it does make
it more complicated when you're trying to work through issues via
fax, telephone.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, and the reason I ask that is,
for me, it seems very clear the two funds are not related. MS. MASON: Right.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The $3,672 check was a method of
achieving compliance.
MS. MASON: Right.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Now what we're looking at is the
reduction of the fines that go along -- that were assessed until that
compliance was met.
Page
August 22, 2002
MS. MASON: Uh-hm.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. So, again, do we have
extenuating circumstances in that time period that would justify a
reduction in those fines? And again, I think what I'm looking for is
something obviously beyond the respondent's control that he's not
able to handle.
MS. ARNOLD: Well, I think it sounds like the respondent was
attempting to come into compliance. And, you know, with the
illness, you know, personal problems, plus coordinating with the
various agencies, it probably required a little bit more time than we
granted him for the Board's order. So I wouldn't object to reducing
the$2,250.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So you would not object to
eliminating the fine, keeping the operational cost -- MS. MASON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- as the respondent has requested.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Thank you.
MS. DUSEK: And I make the motion that we --
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Before you made a motion? Sorry?
Any--
MS. DUSEK: I'd just like to keep moving.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any further discussion?
None?
Hearing none, please make your motion.
MS. DUSEK: I would like to make a motion that we abate the
$2,250, is it?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
MS. DUSEK: And keep the operational costs.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion. Do I hear a
second?
MR. FLEGAL: Second.
Page
August 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion from Ms. Dusek,
a second from Mr. Flagel.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Hearing none, the motion carries unanimously.
MR. FRANCOEUR: Thank you for your time and
consideration.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you very much. And thank
you for your patience in waiting to hear.
All right. Let's move on to old business, item 6-A.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay. The first item is an affidavit of
noncompliance for case number 2002-008, Board of County
Commissioners versus Jack W. and Elma Mae Barrs. The item is just
an administrative item. We'll be filing that document.
And the next item is for filing of affidavit of the compliances for
the Board of County Commissioners versus Moises Castillo, and that
case number 2002-010.
We'll also file an affidavit of compliance for Board of County
Commissioners versus Patrick W. And Erin L. Rose, and that's case
number 2001-045.
And lastly, affidavit of compliance for Board of County
Commissioners versus Ricky L. Bell, case number 2002-078.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Very good.
Any other comments from the Board?
MR. FLEGAL: Yes, sir. Since we had a -- Back on the
gentleman that was raising a question about administrative hearing
versus procedure and all that, I would like to recommend that the
Board recommend to the Board's secretary who is obviously the one
that puts out these letters, which really come from Code
Enforcement, it's titled "Notice of Administrative Hearing." I think
we should eliminated the word "hearing." That doesn't apply. That's
Page
August 22, 2002
not in the statute. Let's call it "administrative procedure,"
"imposition of fine and lien." And also, in the first line where we say
"Notice of an Administrative Hearing," change that to "procedure." I
think that will eliminate future questions as to whether people have
the right to come before us and speak. It's just paperwork, but I think
it's something we ought to do.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. I wonder, too, if there's anything that
needs to kind of be clarified in the rules and regulations as well.
MR. FLEGAL: I didn't read through those real quick.
MS. ARNOLD: But maybe what we can do --
MR. FLEGAL: But if we just change this --
MS. ARNOLD: -- instead of going through the whole minutes -
- the amendment process is just to do a letter of clarification on that
particular section.
MR. FLEGAL: Yeah. I think if those two words are changed in
the letter that's mailed out to people, it will eliminate any more
confusion. Probably the layman, when he sees "hearing" on a piece
of paper, he thinks, oh, God, I've got to go, I've got to hire an
attorney.
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
MR. FLEGAL: And he really doesn't have to do that, and we
don't need the grief.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I take offense to that.
MS. RAWSON: I would agree with that suggestion.
I've got one thing just for everybody to be thinking about.
Technically, the fourth Thursday in November is our meeting, and
that's Thanksgiving. So I'm sure we don't want to be here. MS. ARNOLD: Are we planning ahead?
MS. RAWSON: I'm always planning ahead. And so I just
assume that maybe we'll meet on the 21 st, but my assumption may or
may not be correct based on the availability of this room.
Page
August 22, 2002
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. We'll check that and report back to the
Board for the next meeting.
MS. RAWSON: Next month is fine.
MS. SAUNDERS: I'll let you know in advance.
MS. RAWSON: Thank you.
MS. DUSEK: I have one question just for housekeeping.
Wasn't there one month of minutes that we never received.
MS. ARNOLD: Two, actually.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Two.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. We're still trying to get that from the
clerk's office.
MS. DUSEK: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: One of these days we'll be able to
approve those.
MS. DUSEK: Once we get them, we'll put them on the agenda
and approve them.
MS. ARNOLD: I just had one item for you all. I know we have
been asking you to take your binders with you. We're going to
change that again and ask for the binders and take any loose
paperwork that you want to keep with you, and then we'll give you
the binders and your packets together again for future hearings. So if
you want to turn in your binders today, we'll turn the binders in,
unless you don't want to do that. That's fine.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: It is very important, though, that if
we have a case that has been continued or we have -- MS. ARNOLD: Right.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- evidence packages from previous
cases, that they be included in the case on the hearing date that we're
in.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay.
Page
August 22, 2002
next
MS. RAWSON: The one was from today that was continued to
month, we need to retain that packet.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. Just leave it in, yeah.
MR. FLEGAL: I didn't bring my binder, but I'll --
MS. ARNOLD: Oh, okay.
MR. FLEGAL: -- bring it with me because I'll keep that.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any further discussions?
Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to adjoum.
MR. FLEGAL: I make a motion we adjourn.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: A motion, and a second
somewhere?
MS. DUSEK: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Now, do we have -- Michelle, the
next meeting date, you're going to advise us by what method? Are
we meeting
on the 26th or are we changing that?
MR. FLEGAL: No, that's not till November.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Oh, I'm sorry.
MS. ARNOLD: No, Thanksgiving.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All right. The next meeting date is
the 26th?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Sorry. I'm getting screwed up.
We have a second somewhere. If not, I'll second it.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Okay. I hear no one opposed.
Page 70
August 22, 2002
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:20 a.m.
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
PETER LEHMANN, CHAIRMAN
STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF COLLIER)
I, SHARON A. SULLIVAN, Registered Professional Reporter
and Certified Shorthand 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 tree record of my Stenograph
notes taken at said proceedings.
SHARON A. SULLIVAN
Registered Professional Reporter
Certified Shorthand Reporter
Page 7~.