Loading...
CEB Minutes 10/24/2002 ROctober 24, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida October 24, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Peter Lehmann Roberta Dusek Clifford Flegal Kathryn Godfrey Sherri Barnett George Ponte Gerald Lefebrve ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board, Michelle Arnold, Director, Code Enforcement, Shanelle Hilton, Coordinator, Code Enforcement Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: October 24, 2002 at 9:00 o'clock a.m. Location: 3301 E. Tamiami Tr., Naples, Florida, Collier County Government Center, Administrative Bldg, 3rd Floor NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD.= 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 26, 2002 MINUTES 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. HEARINGS 1. BCC vs. Victor A. & Isabel Valdes CEB NO. 2002-013 Location: Naples Manor Alleged Violation: Building Permits; adding an addition to residence and enclosing garage without obtaining required building permit. Continued from Sept 24, 2002 -Permit issued, asking for dismissal 2. BCC vs. Manatee Resort Condominium Association, Inc. CEB NO. 2001-086 Continued from Sept 24, 2002 3. BCC vs. Dov Dunaevsky, Registered Agent, DCM-NAPLES CEB NO. 2002-015 Location: Sapphire Lakes Alleged Violation: Building Permits; failure to remove trailer authorized as a temporary use; permit has expired. Continued from Sept 24, 2002, August 22, 2002 and July 25, 2002, construction trailer removed 4. BCC vs. Derya Corp and Usulu Okur, Registered Agent CEB NO. 2002-025 Location: Immokalee Alleged Violation: Parking area has been resurfaced with asphalt without permit or Site Improvement Plan approval and is lacking elements required as part of the Site Improvement or Site Development process including but not limited to landscaping parking lot striping and and drainage requirements. 5. BCC vs. Joseph and Ida Cannistraci CEB NO. 2002-026 Location: Golden Gate Alleged Violation: Four landscape buffer trees were required to be planted a result of another Code Enforcement case, only one was found to be surviving and it is not in good shape. Two Carrotwood and two loquat trees along Green Blvd have been damaged by excessive pruning and still exhibit rot underneath new growth and the required landscape hedge is not present along Green Blvd and 40th Terrace adjacent to residential properties. 6. BCC vs. Hada G. Olivella CEB NO. 2002-030 Location: Golden Gate Estates Alleged Violation: Buildings erected and utilized without first obtaining the required building permits NEW BUSINESS Request for Reduction/Abatement of Fines 1. BCC vs. Ricky Bell B. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1.BCC vs. Ronald Gleichman 2.BCC vs. Jeffrey Dorini C. Motion for Continuance 1.BCC vs. Joseph and Ida Cannistraci D. Motion to Dismiss 1. BCC vs. Victor and Isabel Valdes Bo OLD BUSINESS Affidavits of Non Compliance 1.BCC vs. Ronald Gleichman Affidavits of Compliance 1.BCC vs. Jeffrey Dorini Request for Foreclosure 1. BCC vs. Avalos 2. BCC vs. White 3. BCC vs. Lacquaniti 7. REPORTS 8. COMMENTS 1. Revising Agenda Style: i.e. grouping like cases together (those in compliance, not in compliance, etc). 9. NEXT MEETING DATE November 18, 2002 10. ADJOURN CEB NO. 2001-078 CEB NO. 2002-020 CEB NO. 2002-017 CEB NO. 2002-026 CEB NO. 2002-013 CEB NO. 2002-017 CEB NO. 2002-017 IMOL-01 CEB NO. 2002-006 CEB NO. 2002-001 October 24, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would like to proceed to call the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County to order. Please note a person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony in 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 we may have the roll call, please. MS. HILTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. For the record, I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Shanelle Hilton. I'm the CEB Coordinator. Peter Lehman. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Present. MS. HILTON: Roberta Dusek. MS. DUSEK: Here. MS. HILTON: Clifford Flegal. MR. FLEGAL: Present. MS. HILTON: George Ponte. MR. PONTE: Here. MS. HILTON: Rhona Saunders has an excused absence. Kathryn Godfrey. MS. GODFREY: Present. Or here. MS. HILTON: Sherri Barnett. MS. BARNETT: Here. MS. HILTON: Gerald Lefebrve. MR. LEFEBRVE: Here. MS. HILTON: Christopher Ramsey has an excused absence. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would like to take this opportunity to welcome our new member, Miss Barnett. MS. BARNETT: Thank you. Page 2 October 24, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Welcome, officially. We do have a quorum and all members of the Board will be voting, including our alternates, today. If we can proceed with an approval of the agenda. I would like to make a recommendation that we modify the agenda and I would like to -- we have a number of motions that I would like to move forward in front of the public hearing. And we will do the approval of minutes and then the motions and then proceed into the public hearings and hear whatever cases may remain at that point in time. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director. We do have continuance requests for Board of County Commissioners versus Manatee Resort. We did hand you a memo from the Community Development Administrator. And we do also have another request, item number five under public hearing, Board of County Commissioners versus Joseph and Ida Cannistraci. So those are the two continuances that I'm aware of. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Any other comments for the agenda? I would entertain a motion to approve the agenda as amended. MS. DUSEK: So moved. MS. GODFREY: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion from Ms. Dusek, a second by Ms. Godfrey. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. We can move to the approval of minutes, the September 26th, 2002 minutes. I would entertain a motion to approve those minutes, if there are no additions or corrections. Page 3 October 24, 2002 MS. DUSEK: So moved. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion from Ms. Dusek, a second from Mr. Ponte. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. We will proceed into the motions. I would like to address case number 2002-026. You have to help me with the name, Kenneth Cannistraci; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: Cannistraci. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Cannistraci, yes. We will entertain that motion for a continuance. MS. ARNOLD: You have a letter in your packet. And I'm not sure if the Cannistracis are here. Are they present? MR. JOHNSON: He's in New York City and I'm here for him. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. And you are, sir? You need to come up and speak into the mike. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Sir, if you could identify yourself and just spell your name for the record, please. MR. JOHNSON: Rick Johnson, owner of Rick Johnson Auto and Tire. R-i-c-k, J-o-h-n-s-o-n. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: And staff would object to that continuance because the -- waiting until the property transfers ownership will require us to initiate the case all over again. Unless we have some more confirmation from the prospective buyers that they're aware of it and they have committed to doing what the Cannistracis are saying that they have committed to. We don't have anything from those Page 4 October 24, 2002 buyers. We only have the current property owner and that is who we are obligated to pursue and provide notice to. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So noted. Mr. Johnson, do you have anything that you would like to say to support your request? MR. JOHNSON: I am the gentleman who is buying the property. I have leased it for five years. What the Code Enforcement wants us to do is put a new hedge. That died. Cannistraci told me it died back in '85, '86. Since I have been there, there's never been a row of hedges there. So I told her, Alexander is her name, that as soon as I acquired the property, which is October 31st, that I would put the hedges up. I have removed the trees. She wants the trees removed. And I would plant the trees that she wants planted. I would put in an irrigation system so the trees would stop dying. I have replaced four trees for her. Three of those died. I replaced those three. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Johnson, let me interrupt you just one second. MR. JOHNSON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Again the purpose of our discussions today is to, or at this point in time anyway in this hearing, is to decide whether a continuance should be granted or not. MR. JOHNSON: Well, if you're giving a continuance, then I will do that work as soon as I acquire the property. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other comments from the County? None? Okay. Any other comments, Mr. Johnson? MR. JOHNSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would like put the motion for continuance, entertain a motion to grant or deny, either way. MR. FLEGAL: I would like to ask Miss Rawson a question Page 5 October 24, 2002 first. Since this is a request for a continuance, Miss Rawson, if we grant.this to our next meeting, which will be in November, these people, the Cannistracis, will not be the owners at that period of time. Can we, in granting a continuance, make a request of the prospective buyer that he provide the County a letter stating that he would comply with whatever they're requiring the current property owner to do? MS. RAWSON: Well-- MR. FLEGAL: What I'm looking for is next month these people won't be property owners, so they can just say, you know, I'm leaving, you can't do anything to me. MS. RAWSON: Well, I think the problem that staff has is that if we continue it, it's not going to be continued as to the Cannistracis, because they would have to now do a whole new affidavit and petition against the new owner. Since there's no violation that has been found, it's not going to run with the land. They're going to have to really redo all of their paperwork if it's continued. I understand what their procedural problem is. Now, I don't know what can be done. Maybe Mr. Johnson would be willing to be added as a Respondent. If he would be willing to be added as a Respondent, and we could put, his name on the next motion, you know, maybe that would work. Otherwise they're going to have to do all of the paperwork again. MR. FLEGAL: Well, that's my problem in continuing something until next month, next month these people don't own the property. MS. RAWSON: That's right. MR. FLEGAL: So they have no reason to even show up here and say okay. I mean, they can just say go away, I don't own that. So we're continuing something -- requesting to continue something Page 6 October 24, 2002 that -- against somebody that doesn't own anything next month. MS. RAWSON: Well, if he would add his name as a Respondent and if he would waive formal notice and we set it for the next meeting, hopefully all of the work would be done. MR. JOHNSON: This work will be done by November the 15th. I mean, you have my word. I have four locations here in town. MR. FLEGAL: I understand. MR. JOHNSON: My slogan is fair and honest, tell a friend. So, I mean, that I'm not up here to tell you that I'm not (sic) going to do something and it not happen. There's no need to refile any papers or anything. As soon as I own it, Leo Junior, which owns a big land maintenance, he's going to do the work and it's going to be done properly. MR. FLEGAL: Would you object to the County adding your name? MR. MR. and speed MR. MS. JOHNSON: Not at all. FLEGAL: Okay, sir. I think that would help everybody things along. JOHNSON: No problem. RAWSON: And if he would waive service of process. MR. FLEGAL: What that means is getting notice that you -- this was going to take place next month. MR. JOHNSON: No problem. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. Terrific. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Michelle, does the County have any problems with that arrangement? MS. ARNOLD: Okay. So we're adding -- MR. FLEGAL: Add Mr. Johnson with the Cannistracis. Okay. So you now have Mr. and Mrs. Cannistraci and Mr. Johnson. MS. ARNOLD: And we're continuing it to the November 18th hearing? Page 7 October 24, 2002 MR. FLEGAL: That's right. MS. RAWSON: And he's going to waive notice. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And, Miss Rawson-- MR. JOHNSON: If the work is done, then I don't really need to be here, right, because the code enforcement will see it and they will report that? MR. FLEGAL: You work that out with Miss Arnold, okay? Based on that, I would make a motion we continue this until our next meeting. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Miss Rawson, in doing this procedure, in a sense we legally have both the tenant and the present owner on the hook? MS. RAWSON: That's correct, by his agreement. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Right. When the property transfers, we still have a past owner and a present owner? MS. RAWSON: That's right. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Very good. MS. DUSEK: I have one question with that. If by any chance the property doesn't close, how does that affect Mr. Johnson? MS. RAWSON: Mr. Johnson is still a Respondent. MS. DUSEK: So he would still be responsible even if he didn't close on the property? MS. RAWSON: Well, he would be one of the responsible parties. MR. PONTE: I make a motion to second Mr. Flegal's motion. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion by Mr. Flegal, a second by Mr. Ponte that the continuance be granted. All those in favor signify by saying -- MS. DUSEK: Excuse me, but may I just say, the continuance as amended with Mr. Johnson's name being added. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes. Thank you. Page 8 October 24, 2002 We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none, the motion carries unanimously. Mr. Johnson, thank you. If we can proceed on to the next motion, I would like to take case number two thousand -- or 2002-013. This is Valdes, I believe. MS. ARNOLD: That's a motion for dismissal. That particular one, the County's position is that we have gone through the process and expended the time to bring this to you-all for several hearings, because there were a total of three continuances. The state statute allows us to still hear the case and if the Board finds in violation, charge for operational costs. And our recommendation would be at least to recover the operational costs for preparation of the case for the Code Enforcement Board. MS. DUSEK: So your suggestion is that we hear the case? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Do we have anyone from the Respondent here at all? MR. PONTE: Can we hear the case if the permit has already been issued? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes. Miss Valdes, is there anyone? And, again, Miss Arnold, the County's position is they are not in favor of granting the dismissal? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN LEHMAN-N: Miss Valdes, I assume? MS. GONZALEZ: She does not speak English. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. And you're her translator? Page 9 October 24, 2002 MS. GONZALEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: If you would just ask her why she is asking for the motion to dismiss. MS. ARNOLD: Can we first have your name for the record and then-- MS. GONZALEZ: Sure. Aixa Gonzalez. Aixa Gonzalez. A-i-x-a and then G-o-n-z-a-l-e-z. She has the permit already. So, I mean, we're just waiting for the owner to inspect her. And that's it. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Anything else that you would like to add into that? MS. GONZALEZ: No. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. If you would have a seat then. MS. GONZALEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: For the Board's consideration, my recommendation on this particular case is I would not want to see the case dismissed. We do have operational costs involved in that and those should be recovered naturally. The only way to do that is to actually proceed and hear the case. Whether we have a finding of-- or an order of the Board where there's any fine imposed, it's regardless, but at least that gives us the opportunity to recover the operational expenses involved in the case. Any other comments? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we deny the dismissal and hear the case. MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion to deny the dismissal from Miss Dusek, a second from Miss Barnett. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? Page 10 October 24, 2002 MR. FLEGAL: No. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have all in favor with one negative. Motion carries. Miss Valdes, do you understand? Would you explain to Miss Valdes what we did. MS. GONZALES: Not dismissing the case? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We are not going to dismiss the case. We would like to hear the case just to go through the procedure of hearing the case and all that relates to that, okay? MS. GONZALES: And when you hear the case? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We're going to hear it today. MS. GONZALES: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Thank you. If we can proceed with case number 2001-086, BCC versus Manatee Resort Condominium. That's not actually a case, that's a continuance. MR. WHITT: Good morning. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Good morning. MR. WHITT: It's not actually a case, it's a nightmare. My name is Michael Whitt, W-h-i-t-t, with the law firm of Becker and Poliakoff, P.A., representing Manatee Resort Condominium. We have a motion for continuance that we have filed. I was here last month. We asked for a continuance because we were set to have the case heard before the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. Tuesday the County Commission met. Tuesday the County Commission continued our matter until their meeting set for November 19, 2002. So we're here again asking for a continuance until a date after that. I understand there's been a letter submitted. I received a copy this morning from Collier County. They do not object to the Page 11 October 24, 2002 continuance. And, again, the arguments are the same. There's really no useful purpose to be served in going forward with an adversarial Code Enforcement Board hearing which will certainly end up in Circuit Court on an appeal by the losing party, because the case would be resolved if the County Commission approves the amendment to the site development plan. And if the variance is granted, it's going to resolve all issues. It would change the use to residential. So there's that issue with respect to the hotel transient use going to be resolved. The licensing issue gets resolved. And then the variance petition with respect to size, that likely goes by the wayside if it's approved residential use. So we ask that it get rolled to a date past the time that the County Commission gets together to hear the matter. And hopefully they will hear it next time it comes up. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Do you have a time limit on when that hearing is scheduled? MR. WHITT: It's set on November 19th. MR. PONTE: Which is the day after our next meeting, so we're talking about continuing to December? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes. Anything else, Mr. Whitt? MR. WHITT: No, that's all. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: That's all for Manatee Resort. I was going to ask Miss Arnold. Miss Arnold, obviously -- I'm sorry. Obviously the County's position is that they do not dispute that, is that correct, you're not objecting? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, I'm going to have Jennifer Belpedio with the County Attorney's office respond. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. MS. BELPEDIO: Good morning. Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant Page 12 October 24, 2002 County Attorney. Mr. Whitt has correctly asserted our position. We are not objecting. It's my understanding that you have a copy of the memorandum from our Division Administrator at Community Development and Environmental Services Division. That pretty much sets forth the position in a little more detail. We are not objecting to the continuance. It's our belief that the Manatee Resort attorneys and the Manatee residents are making good faith efforts towards coming into compliance. What I would like to clarify from what Mr. Whitt had said is that the variance application and the SDP submittal for a change in use are two alternative ways in which the Manatee Resort may come into compliance. And that if the variance was granted, the Manatee Resort would have to be used as a hotel. And that will -- will be before the Board of County Commissioners. The SDP amendment is something that need not come before the Board of County Commissioners. That's an administrative process and that would be for staff to determine, upon legal counsel from my office, the County Attorney's office. And I also recognize that it's this Board's decision whether or not to continue the Manatee case that's before you today. If you choose not to continue the case, I'm ready to prosecute the matter and I can call my witnesses and be ready. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. MS. DUSEK: Jennifer, I have a question for you. The County Commissioners are just going to make a decision on the variance; is that correct? MS. BELPEDIO: That's correct. MS. DUSEK: Do you see any reason why they wouldn't make that decision at their next meeting? Page 13 October 24, 2002 MS. BELPEDIO: I'm not quite sure if that's what Manatee Resort owners seek to do at this point in time. It was a viable alternative for them some months ago and there has been discussions with the neighboring communities and also the Manatee Resort owners. And it's my understanding that it's more appropriate to use the building as residences, but currently using the building as a residence is a violation. So it's something that was thought earlier that may not be something that they will proceed with. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And the timetable for the SDP process for the conclusion of that? MS. BELPEDIO: I don't know how long that could take. I typically don't work with staff in those areas. But it is my understanding that that application was recently submitted. There are some issues as to how many units can be used as a residence. I believe there is legal authority for perhaps eighteen of the nineteen. It's just a matter of sorting how the extra unit can be used as a residence and have it be legal. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other questions from the Board? MS. BARNETT: Can I ask you a question, only because I'm new. What's the cost that the County incurs every time we continue a case? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: It varies depending on how much time staff actually puts into the case. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And that's literally on a case-by-case basis. And Michelle would be best to answer that. MS. ARNOLD: That's -- that would be my answer. MS. BARNETT: Is that cost passed on then possibly in the -- if we were to give those costs back to the plaintiff at the end, if we so Page 14 October 24, 2002 ruled that, or does the County just eat those costs? MS. ARNOLD: It depends on what the action of the Code Enforcement Board is. If the Board says that the Respondent has -- finds the Respondent in violation and he has to pay operational costs, then -- then that would be a decision. But if you choose not to make that as your finding, then the County would eat those costs. I think an example is what we're about to do MR. FLEGAL: with Valdes. MS. ARNOLD: MR. FLEGAL: Right. The problem is solved, but we're going to hear the case anyway. That's the only way we can do something. So all of these continuances, if this gets resolved, we're still going to have to hear this case before we could charge them any money to reimburse the County. MS. BARNETT: Okay. I just wanted to get a handle on that. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Whitt, did you have anything else you wanted to add? MR. WHITT: I don't think it's necessary. If you had questions about the options on the SDP variance, then -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I was just reading body language out of the comer of my eye. I thought you might have something. MS. DUSEK: I do have a question. I don't think this is out of line. Are you pursuing the variance or the SDP? MR. WHITT: Both. Both are being pursued. And my understanding, Mr. White of Becker and Poliakoff is handling the matters more on the front lines than I am with County staff, but my understanding on the SDP application to amend that is that County staff did not want to make that decision, that they at least relatively recently had taken the position they wanted it to go before the County Commission. Page 15 October 24, 2002 We have done what we need to do to get that done. The application has been submitted to the County. We really don't have any control over how quickly they process it, review it and make a decision on it or if staff will make that decision. I understand Miss Belpedio today has stated that maybe staff will do that in conjunction with the County Attorney's office and the opinion they get from the County Attorney. That would be wonderful if staff can do that and make that decision and it does not have to go before the County Commission. The variance obviously does. So one or both may end up before the County Commission. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Whitt, when did you submit the SDP process or the application? MR. WHITT: I'm going to let Mr. White speak to that. MR. WHITE: If I may, it's been an ongoing process. The first -- the initial submittal was made right after our last appearance before you. There have been additional submittals as recently as this past week. The only loose end now appears to be what the payment of impact fees would be if the property -- the use of the property was changed from hotel transient to residential. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And have you-- do you have any idea what the conclusion timeline would be on this? MR. WHITE: We have asked that the staff make a decision by the first of the month. So we're asking for a final meeting with staff as soon as possible. They have everything to my knowledge that they need to make the determination, so it's in their ball park now. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So if the Board were to grant a continuance to our December meeting, in theory your variance issues and your SDP issues would in theory be taken care of by then? MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And to answer Miss Dusek's question, our first option here is certainly the change to the site Page 16 October 24, 2002 development plan to allow for residential use. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you, gentlemen. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any discussion from the Board? MR. FLEGAL: Yes, sir. In the past I have been against continuances. I still am on this case. Ultimately, we're going to have to hear it if we want to pass any costs on, you know, reimburse the County for what they've -- all of the time they have put in. A comment made this morning, I believe, was ultimately the case may go to court. The court has nothing to do with this Board. The Board of County Commissioners has nothing to do with this Board. Our decisions are independent. I think the case should be heard, get it over with, make a determination, if that's what we choose, and let it be done. End of comment. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other comments? MS. DUSEK: Miss Arnold, have you-all expended at this point costs? MS. ARNOLD: We haven't-- we haven't done the calculation at this point, but we have -- MS. DUSEK: But there are costs involved? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MS. BELPEDIO: Miss Dusek, what we've been doing with the Manatee Resort case is not reprinting all of the materials that you have received for each individual hearing. We have those documents ready to be printed. And if you were to decide to hear the case today, we would ask that you hear other cases in advance and we would make the copies, the additional copies, that we have. But we're not going ahead because the expense could be a couple of hundred dollars for each hearing. And I think it's in the best interests of both the County and the Respondent. Page 17 October 24, 2002 MR. FLEGAL: Yeah, but you have expended a sufficient amount of money to date, because there has been a couple of reprintings. This case has been continued now-- this will be the fourth or fifth time or something. MR. WHITT: Fifth, fifth time. FLEGAL: And I think there was at least two reprintings MR. way back. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, that's correct. MR. FLEGAL: So -- plus all of the time that went into it. So there's been a lot of money expended on the County's side so far, I would say. MS. BELPEDIO: I would suspect there has been a lot, but we have mitigated the amount that we could have spent. MR. FLEGAL: Right. MS. DUSEK: One more question for either Jennifer or Michelle. If we heard the case, we would be asking for exactly what they're planning to do, is that correct, either get a variance or the SDP? MS. BELPEDIO: The third option that you would possibly be asking for would be that they remove the building or the structure, although not likely, but that is an alternative if the two other options are not approved. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And bear in mind also, if we hear the case, I suspect it will be a fairly long drawn out process, hearing. There is additional time from the County staff, obviously from the Respondent's counsel and everybody else involved in the process. If we were to hear the case at a later date when possibly the violation has been abated, then I think that hearing will be much shorter, because in a sense, the County will say a violation exists, the Respondent will say, yes, but now it's taken care of and we go from Page 18 October 24, 2002 there. So it shortens that process. MR. WHITT: The Respondent will say certainly the violation does not exist. And that's been our position from day one. We vehemently deny that any one of the three violations exist. This is caused by the County's approval of the site development plan with the number of units listed, the square footage is listed on the face. And the permit's issued and the building is built and now three years later, after the properties have been sold to third parties the County comes back and raises these issues as code violations. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And I apologize, Mr. Whitt, I didn't mean to put words into your -- into the Respondent's mouth in a sense. MR. WHITT: And I have to say, I understand, you know, your -- your view and trying to recoup costs for the Collier County citizens and having to go through these types of cases, but the cost to the owners of the nineteen units at the Manatee Resort has been astronomical over the last year. And it costs them, you know, a big chunk of change every time we have to come in there and get prepared, get witnesses lined up. We have got all of our witnesses here today. People still under subpoena that have been under subpoena for six months, you know, messing with their work lives and personal lives. So, you know, from their standpoint, they have a lot invested in this as well. So -- but I don't think that changes anything. And I would say I know again, it's in everyone's best interests, the citizens of Collier County, Collier County itself and my clients, that this matter be continued and see if we can get it resolved through action of the County Commissioners or by County staff. MS. DUSEK: My comments are in agreement with yours, and that is, yes, there have been some costs involved, but the costs to hear the case would even be greater. And they're working toward what Page 19 October 24, 2002 we would ultimately ask them to do anyhow and they have been working. It's not as though they've been sitting back and not doing anything. So I'm inclined -- I am in favor of the continuance. MS. BARNETT: I think I have to agree with you, because I don't think that we can really make a decision until this is resolved, as to whether or not violations exist. Because if there is a dispute that's legal on their side, how are we going to determine today whether or not it's a viable issue? MR. FLEGAL: You can't sit here on this Board and wait for a legal opinion. That's not what this Board's here to do. MS. BARNETT: Educate me then, because in all honesty, I think that there's a question here as to whether or not a violation exists. MR. FLEGAL: That's what we're here to determine on evidence presented by the County and the Respondent. That's our determination. MS. BARNETT: Okay. MR. FLEGAL: We decide if a violation exists. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Right. MR. FLEGAL: Period. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: That's literally the purpose of the Board. MR. FLEGAL: That's the purpose of the Board. We're the judge. MS. BARNETT: Okay. MR. FLEGAL: We don't need a judge over in the other building to tell us that. We make that decision. MS. BARNETT: Why has this case been continued in the past? MR. FLEGAL: Gee, question I've been asking for seven Page 20 October 24, 2002 months. MS. DUSEK: For the same reasons you've been hearing today. They have been working toward a solution. And the solution they have been working toward would be exactly -- if we were to find them in violation, it would be exactly what we would ask them to do. They -- they would have to have gone through this process. If we had listened to this case a year ago or whenever it was it came before us, we'd still be -- they would still be asking for continuances because they would be following the process and the process takes time. And I think to spend any more money to hear the case is ludicrous. I think that we should let them follow the process that we would have asked them to do a year ago or however long ago and we might not have to hear this case at all. MS. GODFREY: I will make a comment. Every time this comes before us, I have got to review this, but I'm not getting paid. I do this for free. I volunteer my time for the County. Plus when I do this, I have other cases that I have to review. MS. DUSEK: Well, I think if we -- the next -- if we give the continuance, the next time there will be no continuance. That will be the case. And so it will be the last time you would have to review it, but we might not have to hear it at all. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, I think we need to move forward and actually have a motion one way or the other. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion-- MR. PONTE: I will make a motion that the request for continuance be granted. MS. DUSEK: I second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion from Mr. Ponte, a second from Miss Dusek that the case be continued until the December hearing. Page 21 October 24, 2002 All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? MR. FLEGAL: No. MS. GODFREY: No. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have two opposed and five in favor. Motion carries. Mr. Whitt. MR. WHITT: Thank you, very much. And that will be continued to the December hearing, correct? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: That is correct. MR. WHITT: Thank you. Do you have a date? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes, I think it's -- MS. ARNOLD: December 16th. MR. WHITT: Thank you, very much. MS. ARNOLD: Are you-all waiving notice? MR. WHITT: Yes, we will waive -- we will waive notice. MS. BELPEDIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: If we can move on to the public hearings. I would like to open the public hearing section of this board meeting. We will proceed with the first case. This is case number 2002-013, BCC versus Victor A. and Isabel Valdes. Miss Arnold, if you would like to proceed. MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of Sections 2.7.6.1, 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance No. 91-102 of the Collier County Land Development Code and Subsection 104.1.1 of Ordinance 98-76, Section 103.5, Safety. The description of the violation is adding an addition to a residential home, enclosing in the garage, creating additional dwelling space to home without first obtaining the proper Collier County building permits. Page 22 October 24, 2002 The location of the violation is lot 5349 Holland Street and the owner is Victor and Isabel Valdes. The date of the first violation was July 9, 2001 and they were given the notice of violation on July 9, 2001. The date to correct the violation was August 1 st of 2001. And the date of reinspection was April 23, 2002, and at that time the violation remained. And at this time I would like to turn the case over to the Code Investigator, Jason Toreky to present the case to the Board. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: One second. I would like to swear in all of the witnesses, if we can. And if you would please translate for Miss Valdes, please. (Witnesses sworn.) MS. HILTON: We would also like to -- we have provided the Board and the Respondent with the packet of information. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: One second, please. Do you have anything you need to take notes on? THE COURT REPORTER: If I could have the spelling of the investigator's name. MR. TOREKY: Jason Toreky, T-o-r-e-k-y. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Please proceed. MS. HILTON: We have provided the Board and the Respondent with the packet of information we would like to enter as Exhibit A at this time. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would entertain a motion from the Board to do so. MR. FLEGAL: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: a second from Miss Dusek. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. We have a motion from Mr. Flegal, Page 23 October 24, 2002 Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: MS. ARNOLD: his testimony. MR. TOREKY: to the point. Hearing none, motion carries. At this time, we will have Jason Toreky give I'm going to keep this pretty brief and straight On July 9th, 2001, we received an anonymous complaint in regards to a carport area having been closed in, including a twenty foot area at or behind the garage area without -- without Collier County building permits. I met with the owner on site that day and issued an NOV to Mr. Valdes. From that day until May 25th of 2002, eight months later, no permit was obtained. Mr. Valdes was preoccupied with a federal case that he has at the time or he had and it took a lot of his time and monies. And also a change in the hurricane code was another factor in that period of time. No permit obtained. On May 25th, Mr. Valdes was brought before the Board. An extension was granted due to a pending court case he had a short time after that. On July 25th, sixty days after that, Mr. Valdes was scheduled to appear before the Board. He was unable due to incarceration. His wife and son attended in his place. They asked for an extension so they could finish the process themselves. From that point, September 9th, shortly after that meeting, they have applied for a permit. We heard them again at the last meeting on September 26th. Miss Valdes and her daughter attended. The permit was applied for, but it was still under review with the County. And there was some issues with their engineer with some hurricane codes. Since that time it has been corrected and currently the permits have isSued and they're just about -- actually, I think they're currently Page 24 October 24, 2002 getting their inspections at this point. But there is an eight-month window in time where, you know, there's a situation where things weren't taken care of. They could have been taken care of in that eight-month window. And that's pretty much it. MR. PONTE: Miss Valdes is totally in compliance now? MR. TOREKY: She's totally in compliance at this point. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. TOREKY: Yeah, we're going to monitor the case until the CO is obtained. If the CO is not obtained, then we will reopen the case and rehear it again. MS. DUSEK: So all you wanted them to do was to get their permits? MR. TOREKY: Exactly. MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to note for the record that Miss Valdes' efforts are to be commended. She's done in three months, gotten the permits, gotten all of the work done and is very close to obtaining all of the necessary inspections for the certificate of occupancy. So had this been done prior to the code case being brought to the Board, we wouldn't have been at this point right now. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other questions from the Board? MS. DUSEK: I do have one. If she's in compliance now, there's not a violation? MS. ARNOLD: What you're looking at is whether or not a violation did exist for the time period that we brought the case. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other testimony from the County? None? MS. ARNOLD: Our recommendation would change from what Page 25 October 24, 2002 was previously noted. Our recommendation would be that the Board find a violation and that the Respondent pay operational costs for just the preparation of the case, which would be a total of four hundred and ninety-one dollars and fifty-five cents. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, you're not asking that they follow through with the CO? I know it's in the process, but if for any reason it doesn't happen. MS. ARNOLD: We're not asking for that because we have no reason to believe that she will not. She's already requested inspections and we're real close to -- MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. Miss Valdes, is there anything you would like to say? MS. CJONZALEZ: She wants to know -- she wants to know if she can pay that in payments because she is not working at the time? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, we haven't told her to pay anything yet. MS. GONZALEZ: All right. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: What we're trying to do is hear the case to determine whether or not a violation did occur at this stage of the process. Is there anything that you would like to add or refute from what the County has said to support your claim that a violation may not exist or do you admit to the fact that there is a violation or any comments you may have to support your case? MS. GONZALEZ: She said that she complied with almost everything, that she's just waiting for the final thing, the inspector to go over there to the house, and that she is doing the best she can do. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. All right. If you have nothing else to add, thank you very much. If you have a seat, we will close the hearing portion and open it for discussion before the Board. Page 26 October 24, 2002 MR. FLEGAL: In the -- I think for the record, for the package that was submitted by the County, I think on Miss Valdes' behalf, the Board received a copy of a permit this morning. I think that should be submitted by Miss Valdes to prove that she's at least got the permit, for the record. She probably doesn't understand, so I think it would be a good move to submit that on her behalf since it was given to the Board. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And we have testimony from the County already on the record that a permit does exist. MS. ARNOLD: You can either make a motion for entering it into evidence as composite Exhibit B from the County or composite Exhibit A from the Respondent. As long as it gets in so that we know that there MR. FLEGAL: actually is a permit. MS. ARNOLD: MR. FLEGAL: Right. I think that ties it all together. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, Cliff, I would entertain a motion to do one or the other. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. Lets enter it as Exhibit B from the County. MS. DUSEK: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion by Mr. Flegal and seconded by Miss Dusek. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none, motion carries. Any other discussion? MR. FLEGAL: Go ahead, Bobbi. MS. DUSEK: I am ready to make a motion, unless there's any more discussion. Page 27 October 24, 2002 MR. FLEGAL: Let me just make one comment before your motion. I don't know if it will help or hurt. I remember how long this has gone on and the problems that the Valdeses have had with outside influences and so on and so forth. Like the County, I do believe Miss Valdes has been working hard to try and get this solved. I think we should take that into consideration when we come up with some kind of order. I know whatever we do, Miss Valdes has the right to come back and maybe ask for some assistance. Maybe we should think about that on the front end and try to offer some assistance in our order. I don't want to say that this is a quote, unquote, hardship case, but based on what's been told to this Board in granting continuances and so on and so forth, I tend to believe there's a little hardship involved. And maybe we should take that into consideration. She has done the best she could do and she did comply. We ought to think about that. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: First, I would entertain a motion for finding of fact to see if a violation actually does exist. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion in the case of CED 2002-013, Board of County Commissioners versus Victor and Isabel Valdes, that there was a violation and the violation was of the Sections 2.7.6.1, 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance 91-102 of the Collier County Land Development Code and Subsection 104.1.1 of Ordinance No. 98-576, Sections 103.5, Safety. The description of the violation was adding an addition to residential home, enclosing in the garage, creating additional dwelling space to a home without first obtaining Collier County building permits. MS. BARNETT: I will second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion by Miss Dusek, a second by Miss Barnett. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Page 28 October 24, 2002 MR. FLEGAL: Can I ask our attorney a question? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Certainly. MR. FLEGAL: Since we have a finding of fact that there was a violation -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We don't have that yet; we haven't taken a vote. MR. FLEGAL: Well, we're about to vote on it, so if there's a finding of fact that there was a violation, do we wait to the order of the Board to say that the violation has been abated or is that -- MS. RAWSON: No, that's finding of fact. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. So in other words, as part of Bobbi's motion should she add the statement that the violation has subsequently been abated? MS. RAWSON: Yes, that's the finding of fact. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. That's what I'm trying to get at. So if we're going to vote on it, let's make it a nice square box and there wouldn't be an order. Would you amend your motion, Bobbi? MS. DUSEK: I did. MR. FLEGAL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Miss Rawson -- MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- since we have a motion and a second, do we. need to rescind the second before we can amend the motion? MS. RAWSON: Well, we can amend the second. MS. DUSEK: I will amend the second, also. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. Make life easy on me. We have a motion and a second for an amended order. All those in favor, signify by saying -- or excuse me, a motion and a second on the finding of fact. Page 29 October 24, 2002 All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. And I have an order now. And proceeding the comments on the order, I definitely agree with my colleague, Mr. Flegal, with regard to this particular case. I think we need to consider everything that's happened in that as well. Obviously, we do on every case, but take that into consideration as well. MS. DUSEK: My comments are that the Valdeses pay operational costs only. MR. FLEGAL: I would like to see those operational costs reduced due to the circumstances, if possible. MS. BARNETT: I disagree with you only on the fact that this case has been a long-standing case and not all of the issues that came into play were in the beginning. Some of those occurred after the fact and after this case was ongoing, from what I have read in the literature that we were given. And I understand that she has the hardship now, but it wasn't the case. And until the hardship actually came into play and she took control, it didn't look like they were trying to fix the problem. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any further comments? MR. FLEGAL: I guess my only comment to that is the County didn't -- didn't bring the case forward until a certain date and then the hardships were already in place. So -- MS. DUSEK: Some of them were. MR. FLEGAL: We -- we have seen many cases, and you haven't yet, that have drug on for two years and we don't use that as a method to determine the amount of-- MS. ARNOLD: If it would help the Board any, the amount that Page 30 October 24, 2002 I noted to you is a reduced amount from what we normally would cost. We only considered the preparation for this actual hearing. We didn't consider the investigative time and all of that. MS. DUSEK: I also would like to remind the Board that it's very difficult sometimes, because we do have hardship cases who come before us. And for us to determine that one should outweigh another, I don't think is our purview. And I think that Sherri's comments were well taken. MR. PONTE: I think there's one other thing the Board should be reminded of here, however, that during the entire process, the Respondent was attempting in good faith to obtain a permit and the County didn't accept the drawings or one thing and another and it went back and forth. At one point Mr. Valdes had submitted the documents and found the last minute that the code changed on March the 1 st to a more stringent and stricter code. And nowhere I think in our findings before did we really identify that. So that's another matter in consideration when it comes to considering how you want to address the cost factor, if not the fining potential. MS. DUSEK: Well, remember, we're not fining him. MR. PONTE: That's correct. MS. DUSEK: We're just asking for the costs. MR. PONTE: And I'm saying that in considering the costs, however you might formulate that, there is another, other than hardship, element to be considered and that is the fact that the effort was made to get the permit on many occasions and the advice apparently never came from the County that, hey, you've got a March 1 deadline to correct all of that because new stringent rules will apply effective March 1. So that's another factor. MS. BARNETT: Excuse me. Page 31 October 24, 2002 MS. DUSEK: We don't know that. MS. BARNETT: I thought there was an item in our paperwork that stated prior to him submitting those cases, the County told him that he had a deadline to meet prior to that change, and that he failed to meet it. MR. PONTE: We're not rehearing that case now. I'm just saying that was a fact. MS. BARNETT: I mean, I'm saying that there is a fact preceding what you're stating that he did not make it on time but that he was told ahead of time that he needed to meet that deadline in order to avoid that change, and he did not. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And, Mr. Ponte, I don't think that we can hang our hat on the fact a Respondent supposedly wasn't told that the.codes are changing or something of that nature, because it was well publicized. MR. PONTE: I'm not asking us to hang our hat on it. I'm simply reminding the Board that it was a factor. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. I would entertain a motion for an order of the Board, regardless. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that -- in this case that we ask the defendant, I guess, we call him? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Respondent. MS. DUSEK: Respondent, couldn't think of the word, to pay operational costs only and that no fine be imposed. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The operational costs would include the investigator's time and so on and so forth? MS. ARNOLD: The amount that I quoted to you does not that include'those fines. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: But in this -- in this order, we're talking about operational costs, which would include those costs, is that what you are intending? Page 32 October 24, 2002 MS. DUSEK: Well, operational costs I think is a general term and the decision of those costs can be made by the County. I don't think we need to single out in those operational costs exactly what it is in our order. Am I correct, Miss Rawson? MS. RAWSON: She gave you a number. Usually we put in the order how much they're going to pay. This is a little different kind of a case, because this is not an imposition of fines and/or costs hearing. You actually heard the case, found there was a violation and now, because it's in compliance, you're not ordering that fines be imposed, but you're ordering that operational costs be imposed. If the operational costs are not yet figured today, we're probably going to have to come back on another day on an imposition of costs. MS. DUSEK: So are you saying that we should put in the exact amount today? MS. RAWSON: No, because we don't have the exact amount. MS. ARNOLD: Well, our recommendation would be the amount that I noted, four hundred ninety-one dollars and fifty-five cents. MS. RAWSON: If she's happy with that number, then we don't need to 'come back. If you put in that exact number, that is fine. MS. DUSEK: Four ninety-one? MS. ARNOLD: Fifty-five. MS. DUSEK: All right. I'm adding that cost into my motion, four ninety-one fifty-five. MS. BARNETT: I would like to second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion by Miss Dusek, a second by Miss Barnett. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? Page 33 October 24, 2002 MR. FLEGAL: No. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion carries. Miss Valdes, do you understand what the Board ordered? MS. GONZALEZ: Pay the (inaudible). CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: If you could come forward again. MS. GONZALEZ: Say to pay the four ninety-one. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes, ma'am. The Board has not issued any fines against you, but they have asked that the operational costs involved in this case be paid. They total four hundred and ninety-one dollars and fifty-five cents. MS. GONZALEZ: Okay. Does she have to pay that right away? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: If you can get with the County, they will make all of the arrangements to make that happen. MS. GONZALEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you, very much. If we can proceed to the next case, which I believe is case number 2002-15 -- 015, BOCC versus Dov Dunaevsky. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. This particular case was another one that was continued by the Board at two prior hearings, I believe. Three. This one, the attorney for the Respondent requested three continuances. No dismissal was requested and we have not heard from the attorney at this point. Please be advised that this is similar to the prior case in that the violation has now been abated. We did speak to the attorney a week and a half ago and we advised him that it was still scheduled on the Board's hearing. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Do we have anyone representing the Respondent here today at all? Well, Michelle, go ahead and proceed with the case and see what comes up. Page 34 October 24, 2002 MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is'of Section 1.5.6 of Ordinance No. 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Ordinance. Description of violation, construction sales trailer left on property no longer in use. Temporary use permit had expired. The location of the violation was 8001 Radio Road, Florida. The name of the owner was Dunaevsky, registered agent and DCM Naples, LLC. Date violation first observed, March 18, 2002. The notice of violation was given on March 18, 2002. The date to which the violation was to be corrected was April 18, 2002. Date of reinspection was April 19, 2002. And at that time the violation still remained. We had previously provided to the Respondent and the Board again at this time a packet of information that we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would entertain a motion to do SO. MS. DUSEK: So moved. MR. FLEGAL: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: second my Mr. Flegal. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion carries. Please proceed. MS. HILTON: And at this time I would like to mm the case over to Michelle Arnold to present the case to the Board. MS. DUSEK: Before, Michelle, you begin, I just have one question now. In the warranty deed, maybe I'm not looking at it We have a motion by Miss Dusek, Page 35 October 24, 2002 correctly, there is a folio number and I have to assume that the folio number is the correct address because there is no description of the property there. MS. HILTON: Yes. MS. DUSEK: Okay. (Witnesses sworn.) MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, and the reason why I'm presenting the case to you today is because the investigator that was responsible for doing the visits and everything has since left the department. My testimony is going to be mainly the review of the case and information as it pertains to the dates of the inspections and what the rules are with respect to obtaining permits for the activity. The case was initiated on March 18th, 2002 by investigator Repicky based on an anonymous complaint about an abandoned construction trailer. The -- there was no permit in the County's record indicating a permit had been obtained for that particular trailer. We -- the investigator made contact with the Respondent. He has been present at the previous hearings of the Board and had agreed to at the last hearing remove the trailer. The trailer has since been removed and the County's position is that at the time that we cited the Respondent and at the time that this issue was first brought before the Board, there was a violation. The violation has since been removed and the Respondent should pay operational costs. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any questions? Since we do not have a Respondent here, we will close the hearing portion of this case and open it to discussion from the Board. MS. DUSEK: Well, it appears as though this case is similar to the one before, that a violation did exist, and that's what we're making the motion on today. So if there's no discussion, why don't Page 36 October 24, 2002 we go ahead. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I will entertain a finding of fact. MS. DUSEK: Okay. In the case of CEB No. 2002-015, Board of County Commissioners versus Dov Dunaevsky, registered agent for DCM-Naples, LLC, I make a motion that there is a violation of Sections 1.5.6 of Ordinance No. 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Ordinance. The description of the violation, construction sales trailer left on property no longer in use. Temporary use permit has expired. MR. PONTE: Just amend that to say was a violation. MS. DUSEK: Was and had, okay. MR. FLEGAL: The statement that it's now been abated. MS. DUSEK: And that the violation has now been abated. MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion by Miss Dusek, a second by Miss Barnett. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion carries unanimously. I would entertain an order of the Board. MR. FLEGAL: Michelle, you say you want operational costs. What are they, do you know? MS. ARNOLD: Well, for the preparation of the case, that's just bringing this case before you with no investigative time included, is five hundred nine dollars and sixty cents. If we were to include all of the other costs associated for prosecution of the case, it would eight hundred and eighty-six dollars and sixty cents. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: My recommendation to the Board would be that we order the Respondent to pay all of the operational costs, not just the preparation costs. MR. FLEGAL: I agree. Page 37 October 24, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would move that we so do so. MS. ARNOLD: And if-- if Jean's figuring out-- what I said is eight hundred and eighty-six and sixty cents. MS. RAWSON: Thank you. MR. FLEGAL: If that's the order of the Board, sir? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: That is a motion. MR. FLEGAL: I would second that. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion by myself and a second by Mr. Flegal that the CEB order the Respondent to pay all operational costs in the -- incurred in the prosecution of this case. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: If we can proceed to the next case, Case No. 2002-025. MS. HILTON: That's Board of County Commissioners versus Derya, D-e-r-y-a, Corporation, Usulu, U-s-u-l-u, Okur, O-k-u-r, registered agent. At this time I would like to ask if the Respondent is present in the courtroom. MR. OKUR: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Do we have -- please proceed. MS. HILTON: Please state your name for the record. MR. OKUR: My name is Usulu Okur. MS. HILTON: We have provided the Board and the Respondent with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. MR. FLEGAL: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. Page 38 October 24, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion by Mr. Flegal, second by Miss Dusek. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion carries. MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of Section 2.2.28.8.13, Paragraphs 1, A through D, and 2.3.4.3, 2.3.4.7, and 2.3.4.8 and 2.4.5.1 of Ordinance 91-102 as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Ordinance. The description of violation, parking area has been resurfaced with asphalt without a permit or site improvement plan approval and is lacking elements required as part of the site improvement or site development process, including but not limited to landscaping, parking lot striping and drainage requirements. Project has an existing square footage of one thousand nine hundred and sixty and zoning approval for an addition of-- additional two thousand six hundred and ten square feet. A site improvement plan correcting these violations was submitted three times and has recently been approved, but no corrective work has been started. Location of violation, 409 Main Street West, Florida. Folio number 25581280007. Name of person in charge of location where violation exists, Derya, D-e-r-y-a, Corp., registered agent is Usulu Okur. Date of violation first observed, March 7, 2001. Date of notice of violation given to owner, March 15, 2002. Date on which violation to be corrected, August 8, 2002. Date of reinspection, September 30, 2002. Results of reinspection, the violation remains. And at this time I would like to mm this case over to the Code Investigator Alex Sulecki to present the case to the Board. MS. DUSEK: Shanelle, I have just one question again. You Page 39 October 24, 2002 said Main Street, Florida. Is that Immokalee, Florida? MS. HILTON: Yes, it is Immokalee. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Before proceeding I would like to have both witnesses sworn in. (Witnesses sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. Please proceed. MS. SULECKI: For the record, my name is Alexandra Sulecki. I'm an Environmental Specialist with the Collier County Code Enforcement Department. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Board members. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Good morning. MS. SULECKI: I'm putting a map of the property up on your screens there. This is the building and these are the properties -- actually, all of them are owned by Mr. Okur. These are the properties that have been cited. This case came about from a landscape complaint that our office received in March of 2001. The owner had resurfaced the parking area without permit or making the required additional improvements. I worked with the owner until August of this year when I began to set it for Code Enforcement Board hearing. The problems here are basically related to landscaping, parking lot striping and site drainage problems, although what ended up being required had some additional components. The first code that I cited, which is on your page fifteen, 2.2.28.8.13 relates to landscaping and buffering for the parcels that are part of the Immokalee zoning overlay, the purpose of which is to encourage redevelopment by upgrading overall standards. The first paragraph defines landscape criteria as applicable to commercial properties with buildings less than or equal to five thousand square feet. And this building is one thousand nine Page 40 October 24, 2002 hundred sixty square feet, so it applies. A through D, which I cited, "A" defines the landscape buffer requirements for parcels next to residentially zoned lots, the rear of which are all residentially zoned. "B" defines landscape buffer for parcels next to commercially zoned lots on the side. And "C" talks about landscape buffers next to right-of-way, which you actually have two there. And "D" talks about requirements for landscape planters if you're unable to meet the above, which I believe in the front would pertain because there's not enough room to cut out for trees and shrubs. As has been stated, there is an approved landscape -- or site development plan. Initially when I received this violation, I met with planners and determined that a site improvement plan was required for parking lot resurfacing. And since that time though the site improvement plan process has been changed to a site development plan process. So that's what Mr. Okur was required to come in and do for this property. I'm going to show you the landscape plan for this property that was approved on August 29th. I know you can't see everything, but just so You see there are landscape elements that are part of it. As you can see there are landscape elements required and again this actually wasn't part of the property cited. It probably should have been, but it was not. These two properties were cited and you see the landscape elements around it, planters on the front. There are twenty-eight trees required to be planted and a hundred and forty-five shrubs. The other sections that I cited on your page sixteen, 2.3.4.3, 2.3.4.7, 2.3.4.8 relate to -- the first one to proper drainage required, the second one to parking lot striping required, and the third to landscaping required. And I'm going to put up another part of the site development plan that addresses these issues. This is the approval stamp, 8/29/02, Page 41 October 24, 2002 parking lot striping. There's also some head stoppers that are required there. There are some retention requirements for drainage and, lets see, there is a statement on the plan that there were new areas paved, which actually triggered the need for the site development plan to begin with. And the final code that I cited was an applicability code, 2.4.5.1, and that says if you alter or expand your parking area, landscaping must be brought into conformity. And there is a statement that was altered on the site development plan. I sent two notices of violation to the owner. I spoke to him eight times. I spoke to his agent eleven times. I hung in through two insufficient submittals of SIPs, SDPs, and finally it was approved on the 29th, but as of yet there are no -- there is no work being done on this site. I went out on Tuesday. This shows the east side of the building, which is this side of the building (indicating). No parking lot striping, no landscaping. This is the rear, where you see the residential properties along the back. No landscaping. And this is from the other side of the property, standing here and looking that way (indicating), and it shows the front of the -- of the property where there are no planters. So I'm asking that you find that there is a violation of the ordinance sections I have cited and require that the work be substantially completed within thirty days or apply a fine of one hundred dollars per day and apply operational costs. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. Any questions from the Board? MR. FLEGAL: Alex, this is a revised NOV? How does differ from the original? MS. SULECKI: I had attempted to bring the case to this Board Page 42 October 24, 2002 earlier and met with the County Attorney's office, and they described there was some insufficiencies in the NOV as it was written the first time, so it was simply corrected to state things correctly, which provided more time. MR. FLEGAL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any further questions for this particular witness? MR. FLEGAL: Alex, you're recommending thirty days for compliance? Can he do all this stuff in thirty days? MS. SULECKI: Well, I said substantial compliance. I have asked Mr. Okur all along to show me that he's doing something, show me that he's working towards it. Substantial compliance would mean to me that he is actually engaged in putting in the landscaping. He's got to remove some areas and replace the soil there to put the landscaping in, so all that requires at least preparation work to be started and substantially moved into. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. MR. OKUR: Yea, I had to see the places from the estimate from the landscaping and paving street. I'm almost ready to start to work. THE COURT REPORTER: Could you speak into the microphone a little bit. MR. OKUR: As soon as possible I'm going to start the work. The work maybe be finished in two or three weeks. I need some more time. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Just out of curiosity, if it is only taking you a short period of time to actually do the work, why did it take us this long to get from where we started back in March, 2001 to here? MR. OKUR: It took the site plan to get -- almost a year to get approved. Site plan, and from the zoning and planning department. Page 43 October 24, 2002 MS. DUSEK: MR. OKUR: MS. DUSEK: MR. OKUR: THE COURT REPORTER: MR. OKUR: August 9th. MS. DUSEK: August 9th? MR. OKUR: 2002. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: would like to offer? MR. OKUR: No. When was the final approval date for that? I believe August 29th. August 29th? 2002, no, August 9th. I didn't hear you, sir. Mr. Okur, any other comments you CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any questions from the Board? MR. OKUR: Just like to have the time to finish. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any questions from the Board? If you'd have a seat, we will close the hearing portion of this and open it for discussion for the Board. Any discussions from the Board or maybe a finding of fact? MS. SULECKI: Excuse me. For the record, I just want to correct. It was August 29th that the approval -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing no discussion. MS. DUSEK: In the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Derya Corp., Usulu Okur, registered agent, CEB Case No. 2002-025, I make a motion that there is a violation and the violations are of Sections 2.2.28.8.13(1) A through D; 2.3.4.3;'2.3.4.7; 2.3.4.8; and 2.4.5.1 of Ordinance 91-102 as amended of the Collier County Land Development Ordinance. The description of the violation is parking area has been resurfaced with asphalt without permit or site approval -- improvement plan, however, I understand that he does have that now, and is lacking elements required as part of the site improvement or Page 44 October 24, 2002 site development process, including but not limited to landscaping, parking lot striping and drainage requirements. I think that's probably enough. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion from Miss Dusek. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBRVE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a second from Mr. Lefebrve. Any other further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, I would entertain-- all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion carries. If we can please proceed to the order of the Board then. MS. DUSEK: Well-- MR. PONTE: I think we could follow staff's recommendation on this quite clearly. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would agree. Is that a motion? MR. PONTE: I make a motion that we follow staff's recommendation. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would second that motion. We have a motion by Mr. Ponte, a second by myself that the CEB order the Respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations through the installation of all required components of the approved site development plan, including but not limited to landscaping and parking lot striping within thirty days or a fine of one hundred dollars per day be imposed for each day the violation continues. Any discussion on the motion? MR. FLEGAL: Yeah, the operational costs is a separate item, Page 45 October 24, 2002 it's not tied to completing in thirty days; is that correct? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: That is correct. Well, Mr. Ponte, it's your motion. MR. PONTE: Yes, I will amend it. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. So the motion is amended to separate the operational costs versus the fine. The operational costs will be applied regardless of whether the case is abated on time or not. Any further discussion on the motion? MS. BARNETT: I have a question, because I thought the code enforcement officer said that she -- THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. MS. DUSEK: I thought the code enforcement officer said that her recommendation was to make sure that he was making progress or substantial progress, that it could possibly not be completed in thirty days? MR. FLEGAL: The Respondent said he could do it in two to three weeks so -- MS. BARNETT: Okay. MR. FLEGAL: -- thirty days is sufficient. MS. DUSEK: I'll withdraw that then. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. Mr. Okur, do you understand what we have found and what order has been taken? MR. OKUR: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So hopefully in thirty days Page 46 October 24, 2002 everything will be taken care of?. MR. OKUR: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: MR. OKUR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Thank you, sir. which is -- this is Case No. 2002-030, excuse me, 016, I believe. 030, sorry. MS. HILTON: Board of Board of County Commissioners versus Hada Olivella, O-l-i-v-e-l-l-a. I would like to ask if the Respondent is present in the courtroom? So noted. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Let the record show that the Respondent is not present. MS. HILTON: We have provided the Board and the Respondent with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: SO. We will proceed to the next case, No, I would entertain a motion to do MS. DUSEK: So moved. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: will second that motion. I have a motion by Miss Dusek. I All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion carries. MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of Section 2.7.6 and 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. Description of violation, observed a ten-by-ten shed, wood and wire mesh fence and a large metal frame structure all built or being built without first obtaining proper Collier County building permits. Page 47 October 24, 2002 Location of violation, 1380 9th Street Southwest, Florida, more particularly described as folio number 45852980003, Golden Gate Estates. Name of owner Hada G. Olivella. Date violation first observed, January 11, 2002. Date owner given notice of violation, January 11, 2002. Date by which violation must be corrected was January 25th, 2002. Date of reinspection, September 24, 2002. Results of reinspection is the violation remains. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Miss Hilton. Miss Hilton, if I read the executive summary, the only violation that currently exists is the shed, the fence and the temporary structure. So is it the County's position you're looking to prosecute all three violations as one existing and two prior? MS. HILTON: Just the shed. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Just the shed, okay. MS. HILTON: At this time I would like to turn the case over to the Code Investigator Jeff Letourneau to present the case to the Board. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: If I might take a moment to swear the witness in. (Witnesses sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, I'm Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Jeff Letoumeau. On January 1 lth, 2002, I received a complaint about a structure being built at ! 380 9th Street Southeast. I went to the location and observed a ten-by-ten shed, a metal frame structure and a wood and wire fence. I apologize for the black and white; my color printer wasn't working this morning. The top picture shows kind of a bad picture of the metal frame that was being built. This is the ten-by-ten shed and wood and wire fence. Nobody was home. I posted and mailed notices of violations citing ordinances -- Ordinance 91-102 amended, Sections 2.7.6.1 and Page 48 October 24, 2002 2.7.6.5, stating no permits had been obtained for these structures. On January 29th, 2002, I went to the property again and found nobody home. No permits had been obtained yet. Left note stating a citation would be issued if no progress was made by my next visit. On February 1 lth I went to the property and spoke with a Mr. Robert Interian, who stated he lived on the property and was the part owner, but didn't have his name on the deed. He stated the owner of the record, Mrs. Olivella, was living in New York for the winter. He stated he had been in to try to get the permits, but was denied because he was not the owner of record. He stated he had sent the permit paperwork to Mrs. Olivella to okay her signature -- his signature on the permit. I served the notices of violation to Mr. Interian. Okay. On February 25th, Mr. Interian came into the permitting office to try to get permits, but was missing some paperwork. He had a meeting with myself and permitting technician Denise Metcalf and we explained to him exactly what he needed to get the permits. He stated he would be in to get the fence permits this -- the following week. I told him as long as he got the fence permit issued, I would give him ample time to get the other sheds permitted. As of March 4th no permit had been applied for yet. I went to the above location and left a warning that I would start CEB procedures if no action was taken and obtained the permits within a week. On March 13th Mr. Interian came in and got a permit issued for the fence. He was told that he couldn't get a permit for this shed right here (indicating) because it didn't meet setbacks, rear setbacks. And if he wanted to get a permit, he needed to move it to a different location. I told him that he needed to get the fence certificate of occupancy or completion and to either remove the rear shed or Page 49 October 24, 2002 remove it and get a permit. I also noted he needed to get a permit for the steel structure that was still remaining on the property. On March 21st, I left -- I went to the property and left a note stating that nothing had been done and I was going to start CEB proceedings if permit issues aren't handled by my next visit. On the 29th I discussed the case with my supervisor, Mr. Ed Morad, 'and he decided that we should mail an NOV, a notice of violation to the property owner of record, Hada Olivella, so we mailed the NOV on that date. On April 8th I observed no change except that the fence had been -- had gotten its certificate of completion. I rechecked it on April 16th and observed both structures remained and no permits had been applied for. I left warning that I would start CEB proceedings and we sent a CEB per -- pre-hearing warning letter. On May 5th, I went to the property and observed that the steel structure had been removed, but this shed (indicating) still remained. I received a call from Mr. Interian who stated the property owner, Mrs. Olivella, was down from New York to get the permit issued for the other shed. On May 20th the permit still had not applied for. The shed remains. I went to the property and left a note warning them again that CEB proceedings were imminent. On June 6th Mrs. Olivella came into the office to get the permit, but was missing some paperwork. She seemed confused on what she should do. I talked to her and told her to call the permitting supervisor Alamar Smiley and she scheduled a conference to be held on June 18th with her. On June 19th I went to the property, the shed was still there, permit had not been applied for yet. We sent another CEB warning letter, tentative date for August. Basically, since then, the sheds remained and I went like Page 50 October 24, 2002 biweekly and left warnings ever since. I haven't had any contact with the owner or Mr. Interian since then. On October 22nd I talked with permitting technician Wanda Warren who stated that Mrs. Olivella had been in on that date to try to get permit issued, but once again was told that the setback issue still remained and she needed to move the shed and she also needed to get some engineer's sealed drawings for the shed. I went there yesterday at 10:23 and the shed still remains. No permit has been issued or applied for as of yet. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any questions for the investigator? MS. DUSEK: I just have one question. The Sections that you're citing are 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5? MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other testimony from the County? Okay. You can have a seat. Thank you. We will close the hearing portion of this case and open it for discussion before the Board. Hearing no discussion, I will entertain a finding of fact. MS. DUSEK: In the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Hada Olivella in Case CEB No. 2002-030, I make a motion that a violation does exist -- exist. It is of Section 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance No. 91-102 as amended of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation is a ten-by-ten shed, wood and wire mesh fence and a large -- well, actually I guess the fence is no longer part of this; is that correct? All right. So it's just the shed. And the large metal frame structure? No. Okay. So we're just doing shed. This was built without first obtaining a Collier County building permit. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion from Miss Dusek. Do I hear a second? Page 51 October 24, 2002 MR. LEFEBRVE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Second from Mr. Lefebrve. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. I would entertain an order of the Board. MS. DUSEK: The recommendation from the County seems to be in order. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Is that a motion? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we follow the order of the County, MR. PONTE: I will second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion by Miss Dusek and a second by Mr. Ponte that the CEB order the Respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case, period. And second, to abate the violation through obtaining a building permit within thirty days, passing all inspections and obtaining a certificate of completion within sixty days or remove the shed from the property within sixty days or a fine of fifty dollars per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Any discussion on the motion? MR. FLEGAL: Based on the reading of the paperwork given to us, I would like to see the fine increased to get something done. It doesn't seem like to me everything has been done by the owner that could be done in a quick manner. I think we need to help that along, for lack of a better way to put it, to see that it gets accomplished. MS. DUSEK: Is seventy-five dollars acceptable? MR. FLEGAL: Yeah, that's a little better. MR. PONTE: What we have here is an unoccupied shed and Page 52 October 24, 2002 that given how quickly a fifty-dollar fine runs up to a substantial amount of money, I think that accurately reflects the violation. MR. FLEGAL: Well, they have been working on it for a long time and haven't seemed to really grasp the problem that they need to get some permits. MR. PONTE: Well, they have mitigated the other violations, so they're working toward it. They're attempting to get the permit. They failed to do so, but they're attempting to get it. I think fifty dollars is fair. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I think if you consider the price of the shed in comparison to what the fine would be over a relatively short period of time, you may quickly outweigh the cost of the shed itself. And the Respondent may be looking at this and saying it's -- it's not worth having the shed there because of this fine. But I understand what Mr. Flegal's comments are. We want to have some action on it and we don't want it to go on and on and on. Anyway, we do have a motion and a second that the fine remain at fifty dollars per day. Any further discussion on that motion? I assume that the motion is not being amended. MS. DUSEK: Yes. No, it's not. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none, the motion carries unanimously. And that closes the public hearings for today's date. Do we need to take a break for the court reporter? We're going into administrative tasks. THE COURT REPORTER: I'll keep going because I have a replacement coming at eleven. Page 53 October 24, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hopefully we will be done by then. Okay. Lets proceed to new business, request for reduction/abatement of fines, BCC versus Ricky Bell, Case No. 2001-078. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, this is a request from the Respondent. You may recall Mr. Bell has been back to the Board for an extension and the recommendation at the time that the Board gave him was to come back at this particular time, once the violation was in compliance and all the matters were addressed. So he's doing that at this time. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Mr. Bell, are you present? MR. BELL: Good morning, Board. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Good morning. MR. BELL: Yeah, I'm asking for a reduction or abatement of the fines on my house due to the fact that I went within the time period that I was requested by the Board to get a permit. It originally was turned down. I think the first time it was turned down was because of a misinterpretation of the setbacks and which eventually we got straightened out and eventually in all got the permit, but it went on for a long time because of the setbacks were being misread by the County or whatever and the permit was being denied. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And you prevailed in that argument? MR. BELL: Right. We kept going until we got it. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other comments? MR. BELL: And as far as really reading back to the point, in the very, very beginning, to refresh the Board, when this house was purchased by me approximately nine years ago, this portion was already closed in at the time that I bought it. So I was unaware that this bottom structure was closed in illegally until all of this came about. So I would like for that to be, Page 54 October 24, 2002 you know, definitely a consideration as far as the fines. MS. DUSEK: If I remember, didn't you come before the Board to ask for an extension of time or something? MR. BELL: I asked for an extension of time and I think the Board's comment was not knowing how much of an extension and that they just take that into consideration when I came back after I obtained the permit rather than giving me extensions on top of extensions. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Miss Arnold, do we have a totalling of what the fines and costs may be? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, the operational costs are one thousand four hundred and seventy dollars and eighty cents. And the fine amount.is six thousand one hundred and fifty dollars for a total of seven thousand six hundred and twenty dollars and eighty cents. MR. PONTE: Michelle, just to refresh my mind, was the per diem cost twenty-five dollars? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it was. MR. PONTE: It was. Thank you. MS. DUSEK: I do somewhat remember this case and I do remember Mr. Bell coming before us and asking that we give an extension. And we did, I think, at the time suggest that he come back once the fines were put in place and ask. MR. FLEGAL: Correct, I remember that. MS. DUSEK: Do you remember that? MR. FLEGAL: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Mr. Bell and his contractor has all along been advising the County each step of the way for where they were in the process and they have been very diligent about trying to comply with the Board's ordinance -- I mean order. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, the fines that you have imposed, did that take him up to today or were those the fines as of compliance or Page 55 October 24, 2002 at which point -- MS. ARNOLD: I think it was. MS. DUSEK: -- did they stop? MS. ARNOLD: We have it as of August 1, '02. Was that when you got your permit? MR. BELL: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: Actually, I meant operational costs. How-- how did you determine those? At which point did they stop? MS. ARNOLD: We haven't added any additional operational costs. MR. FLEGAL: MS. ARNOLD: MR. FLEGAL: Since? Since his -- since we heard the case. Okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And just to reiterate those, we have seven thousand six hundred and twenty dollars and eighty cents total in the fines and costs? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And how much of that is fines and how much is -- MS. ARNOLD: The operational costs is one thousand four hundred and seventy and eighty cents. And the fines are six thousand one hundred and fifty. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. MR. PONTE: I did want to remind the Board of the fact that when the case came up, we fined the Respondent twenty-five dollars a day. And the reason was we fined it at such a low level was that we were having some sympathy for Mr. Bell's predicament. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Bell, is your request for a complete abatement or is it to abate all of the fines but pay operationals? MR. BELL: To abate the fines and pay the operational. MS. ARNOLD: And staff wouldn't have any objection to that. Page 56 October 24, 2002 MS. DUSEK: And I certainly feel quite strongly in that direction because I do remember the case and I remember him coming before us. It wouldn't have gotten to any fines at all had we continued the extensions. MR. FLEGAL: I don't have a problem making a motion to abate the fine and leave the operational cost in place. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Before you do that, Mr. Bell, do you have anything else you would like to add? MR. BELL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. And I would entertain a motion to do so. MS. DUSEK: I second this motion. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. We have a motion by Mr. Flegal, a second by Miss Dusek that the fines be reduced to just operational costs of one thousand four hundred and seventy dollars and eighty cents; is that correct? MR. FLEGAL: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. Do you understand, Mr. Bell? MR. BELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: It's just the operational costs, one thousand four hundred and seventy dollars and eighty cents. MR. BELL: And I take that up with? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: With staff. MR. BELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you, very much. Page 57 October 24, 2002 We will proceed to the next item, request for imposition of fines. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. The next item is Board of County Commissioners versus Ronald Gleichman, CEB Case 2002-020. This particular case was heard by the Board on August 22nd, 2002. At that time the Board found the Respondent in violation and requested that the violation be abated by obtaining all of the required development orders with the County by September 21st, 2002. The Respondent was also advised that if they did not comply with that request, that a fine of fifty dollars per day would be imposed each day the violation continued. Respondent was also advised that operational costs would be incurred for the prosecution of the case. As of October 9th, the Respondent was not in compliance with the Board's order. So at this time staff is requesting that we impose fines in the amount of nine hundred dollars for a period of September 22nd through October 9th, at a rate of fifty dollars per day and an additional one thousand sixty-six dollars for operational costs for a total fine amount today of one thousand nine hundred and sixty-six dollars. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any discussion from the Board? Hearing none, I would so move, that we follow staffs recommendation to issue an imposition of fine in the amount of nine hundred -- excuse me, yes, nine hundred dollars for the period of September 22nd through October 9th at the rate of fifty dollars per day plus one thousand sixty-six dollars for the operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case for a total amount of one thousand nine hundred and sixty dollars. Said fines shall -- excuse me, one thousand nine hundred and sixty-six dollars. Said fines shall continue to accrue until Respondent comes into compliance. Do I hear a second? Page 58 October 24, 2002 MR. FLEGAL: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Flegal was first. MR. FLEGAL: Pick one. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: saying aye. Any opposed? We have multiple seconds. Mr. All those in favor, signify by (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none, motion carries. If we can proceed to the next item. MS. ARNOLD: That is Board of County Commissioners versus Jeffrey Dorini and that's CEB case 2002-017. This case was heard by the Board on, let's see, July 25th, 2002. At that time the Board found the Respondent in violation and ordered compliance by September 26th, 20002. The Respondent was also advised that if they did not comply with the Board's order, a fine of twenty-five dollars per day would accrue each day the violation continued. Operational costs were also informed that the -- the Respondent was also informed that operational costs would also be imposed for prosecution of the case. The violation has been abated and therefore no fines have accrued. But we have operational costs of one thousand fifteen dollars and five cents. And we're asking that you impose those today. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any discussion? Hearing none, I would move that we agree with staff's recommendation and that the Board issue an imposition of fine or lien in the amount of one thousand fifteen dollars and five cents for the operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case. MR. FLEGAL: I have no problem with your statement other Page 59 October 24, 2002 than you slipped the word lien in there and there's no lien yet. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yup. I stand corrected and so amend the motion. Do I hear a second? MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none -- Mr. Flegal was the second. MR. FLEGAL: No. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Miss Barnett. Motion carries unanimously. And we will proceed to the next item, which is Old Business. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. We have affidavits for compliance for the case that you just imposed fines for, Board of County Commissioners versus Ronald Gleichman, CEB case 2002-017, and that's just an administrative item. Also we -- noncompliance. And then we also have an affidavit of compliance for Board of County Commissioners versus Jeffrey Dorini, CEB case 2002 -- that's actually 017; the prior case was 020. And the other item, you have a memo in your packet, if I can find it in mine, requesting that the Board forward Case No. -- Board of County Commissioners versus Anna Rosa Avalos, that's IMOL-01, case number; and Case No. 2002-006, which is Board of County .Commissioners versus White; and Case No. 2002-001, which is Board of County Commissioners versus Lacquaniti. And those are all -- of the four listed in your memo, those are the only three that we actually need to forward to the County Commissioners for either foreclosure or collection. The fourth one listed, Board of County Commissioners versus Seaward and Kuypers is -- has been -- the Page 60 October 24, 2002 fines have been paid. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any discussion from the Board? I will entertain a motion to authorize Miss Arnold to forward these cases to the County Attorney for foreclosure or collection by the agency. MR. FLEGAL: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I have a motion by second Miss Dusek. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Comments? MR. FLEGAL: Question. asleep in the beginning. Mr. Flegal, a Hearing none, the motion carries. Maybe I missed it. Must have fell Did we approve our minutes from the last meeting? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: You fell asleep in the beginning. MR. FLEGAL: I got my nap in early. MS. ARNOLD: The comments section, the Chairman and I were participating in a videotaping of-- of information for advisory boards and Code Enforcement Board is one of the advisory boards that's going to be highlighted in Collier's 2002 program. And we were discussing the additional reformatting of our agenda and wanted to bring that item to the Board. If you-all want to us put items where the abatement has already occurred prior to the hearing in a separate section for consideration by the Board, so that we have public hearings in two sections, cases where the violation has been abated and cases where the violation Page 61 October 24, 2002 still exists. I just kind of throw that out for your consideration. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: In addition, I would like to try to change the agenda a little so that any time we have a motion on a particular case, that we place those motions to be heard and acted upon prior to the public hearings. Now, you will find them in the back of the package under New Business, but I think quite frankly they ought to be heard before. MR. FLEGAL: Don't we have in our rules and regulations a list of how our agenda is to be made up. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes, but we can amend an agenda. MR. FLEGAL: I'm just saying, if you want to do it, you're going to have to amend the rules and regulations, right? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I don't know. MR. FLEGAL: Right. Doesn't it give an order of what will take place? MS. ARNOLD: Well, it's the general format that public hearings and new business, old business comments and so on, when we do -- when we do the agenda, we can still put those items under public hearings if you decide that's what you want to do and just have it public hearing item A and B. And then for the motions for continuance, dismissals, whatever they are, I don't know, I guess it would be considered a public hearing process, wouldn't it. MS. RAWSON: Your-- your order of business and the Article six in your rules and regulations basically says public hearings, period. So whatever you change underneath that broad heading doesn't require an amendment of your rules and regulations. MR. FLEGAL: But what we did this morning, we didn't list them under public hearings. We just moved them forward and we heard them. And then we did public hearings. All I'm saying is if you're going to do things, we need to do them like the rules and regulations or we need to change them. Page 62 October 24, 2002 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, we can take a vote in each meeting to amend that agenda however we choose, which is what we did today. But I see what you're saying. So in a sense what we would do, if Miss Arnold wanted to group these things according to whether or not we had compliance prior to hearing the case or not, that could be done under public hearings, maybe the first three or five items are the ones that have been abated. And then the next set are -- are not in compliance yet. MS. RAWSON: Today she had them under new business, which is okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All I'm trying to do here is if we have motions for continuance, dismissal, any kind of motions regarding to a case, I'd like to hear that before we move into the case itself. And we can, I guess, do that under the public hearings. MR. FLEGAL: Yeah-- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Wouldn't that put it as the first item under the public hearings? MS. RAWSON: Yes. It is a public hearing. If somebody files a motion, that's a public hearing. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. I don't have a problem with that, just we want to get it correct. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yup. No, I agree with you a hundred percent. MR. FLEGAL: I don't want somebody to come back on us later. MS. DUSEK: So what you're suggesting is we group the continuances under one heading under public hearings rather than waiting to hear that continuance when the case comes up? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We can do it any number of ways. One, we can go through each particular case and before we hear the case if it has a motion in front of that case, we hear that at the time Page 63 October 24, 2002 we hear the case. MS. DUSEK: Which are you suggesting? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Or we can group all of the motions together and just enact through all of them at one time and then go and proceed with the rest of the cases. MR. FLEGAL: Let's ask our legal advisor a legal question. MS. RAWSON: Good. MR. FLEGAL: Because we ought to be able to do this in the same manner. When you go to the courthouse across the walkway -- MS. RAWSON: We have a separate day for motion hearings than we do for trials. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: And so I don't think you want to do that. MR. FLEGAL: No. But if-- I don't know if that's been the way it has been since eternity or not, but I'm just saying -- MS. RAWSON: Probably, because motion hearings are only allowed about fifteen minutes to twenty minutes and trials, you're given as much time as you need. MR. FLEGAL: Is it better for the Board to hear all of the motions and then do cases or hear the motion before a particular case, making somebody wait maybe -- if there were four cases with motions, the fourth guy's got to wait until we hear the first case. Or can we hear all of the motions first and then get the cases? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The reason I had suggested grouping them together prior to hearing any of the cases is quite frankly just to be cognizant of the Respondents, their attorney times and so on and so forth. If their case is going to be continued, then why make them wait through possibly hours of other cases before they get to hear theirs to find out that they can go home early. MS. RAWSON: What you could do is hear all of the motions first. If it's a motion to dismiss and you grant it, well, they're done. Page 64 October 24, 2002 If it's a motion to continue and you grant it, then that case is over. Those people can leave. If it's denied by this Board, you don't have to hear their case right at that moment. You say have a seat, we will be hearing your case in a few minutes, we're going to get through the rest of our motions. So that makes perfectly good sense to me. MS. DUSEK: Do we have to vote on this, changing that order under public hearings -- MS. RAWSON: No, I don't believe we -- MS. DUSEK: -- or can we just do it? MS. RAWSON: No, I don't believe we do. At least you don't have to amend your By-Laws. MS. DUSEK: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, my recommendation would be we -- under public hearings we have -- paragraph A would be motions and we will have one, two, three, however many we have. And then paragraph B would be hearings, whether the case has been abated or -- or the violation has been abated. MR. PONTE: I think it's a good idea. I think we ought to try it. We Can always change it back if it doesn't work. I think it's a good idea. Let's try it. MR. FLEGAL: I like your-- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Amazing how I could actually come up with a good idea for once. MR. FLEGAL: I like staffs information here where they put on this particular one case continued from such and such a date. That way it rings a bell with us. Next -- next agenda, would you do that with Manatee, since it's been continued forever? We didn't do that here and it's nice to know that they've had their -- MS. ARNOLD: It was all of the paperwork we have to look Page 65 October 24, 2002 through. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I mean, you know, item-- item A-3 on that case, where we had a number of continuances, it's good for us to know when those dates are and the fact of whether you have abatement or not. And that's all good. MS. GODFREY: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes. MS. GODFREY: There's a gentleman here. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I'm sorry. MS. GODFREY: I think he needs to be heard or if he's waiting for a case or something. AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Yes, 974 Haldeman Creek. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I don't know that that's on the agenda. MR. FLEGAL: I don't know what you're talking about. AUDIENCE SPEAKER: October 24th. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So you were in the wrong place at the wrong time, not us, right? AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Well, tentatively speaking, but I enjoyed every bit of it. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We enjoyed having you here. Thank you. Any other comments? Hearing none, our next meeting date will be November 18th, nine o'clock, same place, same time. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we adjourn. MS. BARNETT: Second. MS. ARNOLD: Remember, it's a Monday. MS. RAWSON: It's different. Remember that November and December are different than the usual dates because I didn't think you wanted to be here on Thanksgiving. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion by Miss Dusek Page 66 October 24, 2002 to adjourn and a second by Miss Barnett. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion carries unanimously. Surprise, surprise. Everybody have a good day. Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:09 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD PETER LEHMANN, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY DEBRA DELAP Page 67