Loading...
CEB Minutes 01/23/2003 RJanuary 23, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida January 23, 2003 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 Sheri Barnett Roberta Dusek Clifford Flegal Gerald Lefebvre George Ponte Rhona Saunders ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney Shanelle Hilton, Code Enforcement Coordinator Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA AGENDA Date: January 23, 2003 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, W~rlICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES- December 16, 2002 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS B. HEARINGS BCC vs. Claude Martel Location: Bay Shore, East Naples Alleged Violation: The continued existence of three (3) derelict and partially dismantled structures resulting from incomplete demolition efforts on "VR" zoned property in Collier County known as #3155 Karen Drive, Naples, Florida. Contents of all three structures left exposed to the elements front and rear structure built without Collier County building permits. All structures are not up to Collier County Code. CEB NO. 2003-001 BCC vs. Claude Martel Location: Bay Shore, East Naples Alleged Violation: Continued outside storage of numerous items including but not limited to: several appliances, furniture, carpet and children's toys intended for inside use. Also numerous building materials including but not limited to: lumber, garage doors, large scrap metal, use windows, used wiring and other assorted debris. Also major and minor vehicle parts, including but not limited to: sections of dissembled vehicles and tires, an assortment of tools, lawnmowers, lawnmower parts and wooden pallets. CEB NO. 2003-002 BCC vs. Southern Development Co., Inc., and Mario Curiale as its Registered Agent Location: Mile South of 951 East on 41; adjacent to Falling Waters Alleged Violation: Removal of vegetation from unimproved agriculturally zoned parcel without first obtaining required vegetation or agricultural clearing permit. CEB NO. 2003-005 BCC vs. Southern Development Co., Inc., and Mario Curiale as its Registered Agent Location: Mile South of 951 East on 41; adjacent to Falling Waters Alleged Violation: Removal of vegetation from T51 R 26 S 3- block 52 without first obtaining required County Vegetation Removal Permit. Block 52 is a Special Treatment Overlay (STO) and no site alteration or development can begin before submittal and approval of a Site Development /Alteration Plan. Also observed fill and culverts on site to construct access and roadway without first obtaining required Collier County Permits. CEB NO. 2003-006 e o o BCC vs. Walter Crawford Location: Boca Palms Subdivision Alleged Violation: Construction of playhouse in rear yard without first obtaining the required Collier County Building Permits. NEW BUSINESS CEB NO. 2003-004 A. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC vs. Gerald K. Davidson CEB NO. 2002-033 2. BCC vs. Katrina Furth-Nead CEB NO. 2002-023 3. BCC vs. Hada Olivella 4. BCC vs. Joseph and Ida Cannistraci, Rick Johnson Individually R.A. Johnson Inc. d/b/a Rick Johnson Auto & Tire, Richard A. Johnson, Sr., Registered Agent and Richard Johnson as President of R.A. Johnson Inc., dPo/a Rick Johnson Auto & Tire 5. BCC vs. James M. Goldie (Trustee Madison Meadows) CEB NO. 2002-030 CEB NO. 2002-026 CEB NO. 2002-014 Request for Reduction/Abatement of Fines 1. BCC vs. Gerald K. Davidson 2. BCC vs. Ronald Gleichman C. Request for Foreclosure 1. BCC vs. Fernandez CEB NO. 2002-033 CEB NO. 2002-020 6. OLD BUSINESS CEB NO. 2001-032 o A. Affidavits of Compliance 1. BCC vs. Gerald K. Davidson 2. BCC vs. Katrina Furth-Nead 3. BCC vs. HadaOlivella 4. BCC vs. Joseph and Ida Cannistraci, Rick Johnson Individually R.A. Johnson Inc. d/b/a Rick Johnson Auto & Tire, Richard A. Johnson, Sr., Registered Agent and Richard Johnson as President of R.A. Johnson Inc., d/b/a Rick Johnson Auto & Tire 5. BCC vs. Eloy and Francisco Fernandez 6. BCC vs. James M. Goldie (Trustee of Madison Meadows) CEB NO. 2002-033 CEB NO. 2002-023 CEB NO. 2002-030 CEB NO. 2002-026 CEB NO. 2001-032 CEB NO. 2002-014 REPORTS A. Status Report of past cases heard by the Board COMMENTS The normally scheduled meeting in April (April 24, 2003) will have to be rescheduled to April 23 or 25th due to a room scheduling conflict. NEXT MEETING DATE February 27, 2003 10.9 ADJOURN January 23, 2003 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: If we could call the meeting to order, please. Please note, any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceeding pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record -- upon which record the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. Did I get ahead of you there? MS. HILTON: That's okay. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: If we can have a roll call, please. MS. HILTON: Catherine Godfrey and Mr. Ramsey has an excused absence. Peter Lehmann? 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? MS. SAUNDERS: Here. MS. HILTON: Sheri Barnett? MS. BARNETT: Here. MS. HILTON: Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: As we have six permanent members and one alternate, we do have a quorum for the board today. Our alternate, Mr. Lefebvre, will be a voting member today. If we can review and move on to approval of the agenda. Any changes, modifications, anything? Page 2 January 23, 2003 MS. ARNOLD: No changes. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we approve the agenda. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion by Ms. Dusek, a second by Mr. Ponte. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. We'll move on to the approval of the minutes for the December 16th meeting. Any changes, modifications to those minutes? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the minutes of the last meeting. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion by Ms. Dusek, a second by Mr. Ponte. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. We'll move on to the public hearings. MS. HILTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. For the record, my name is Shanelle Hilton, CEB coordinator. Our first and second case is the same person, same location, and we would like to present them at the same time. Therefore, we'd like to do a motion to consolidate CEB 2003-001 and 2003-002. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: For the record, Ms. Rawson, any objection to that-- MS. RAWSON: Not at all. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- consolidating the cases? Thank you. I would entertain a motion to do so. MS. SAUNDERS: So moved. Page 3 January 23, 2003 MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion by Ms. Saunders, a second by Ms. Dusek. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion carries. Please proceed. MS. HILTON: At this time, I would like to ask if the respondent is present in the courtroom. Yes, he's here. We have previously 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. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion by Mr. Flegal, second by Ms. Dusek. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion carries. Please proceed. MS. HILTON: First two cases are Board of County Commissioners versus Claude Martel, CEB No. 2003-001 and CEB 2003-002. The alleged violation is of Ordinance No. 91-102, Section 2.7.6.1, and 2.7.6.5, 1.5.6 and 2.1.15, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code, and Ordinance No. 99-51, Sections 6, 7 and 8. And Ordinance No. 2002-01, creating new Section No. 10, 1.4.9.2, maintenance. And Ordinance No. 89-06, Section 5.16-A, and 16-B as amended by Ordinance 2002-05, Section 22 through 263 of the Collier County Land Development Code. And that alleged violation is for 2003-001. The alleged violation for 2003-002 is of Ordinance 99-51, Sections 6, 7 and 8. And Ordinance No. 89-06, Section 5.16-B, as Page 4 January 23, 2003 amended by Ordinance No. 2002-05, Section 22 through 263 of the Collier County Land Development Code. Description of violation: The continued existence of three derelict and partially dismantled structures, resulting from incomplete demolition efforts on a VR zoned property in Collier County known as 3155 Karen Drive, Naples, Florida. Reference: Collier County notices of dangerous building data, July 12th, 1999 and February 12th, 2001, and demolition permit No. 2001101093. Contents of all three structures left exposed to the elements, front and rear structure built without Collier County building permits. Middle structure is the remains of a permanent bedroom addition, reference permit No. 960003416, which was CO'd on April 29th, 1998. All structures are not up to Collier County code for CEB No. 2003-001. Alleged violation for 2000 -- excuse me, the description of the violation for 2003-002 is the continued outside storage of numerous items, including but not limited to: Several appliances, furniture, carpet and children's toy, intended for inside use. Also, numerous building materials, including but not limited to: Lumber, garage doors, large scrap metal, used windows, used wiring and other assorted debris. Also, major and minor vehicle parts, including but not limited to: Sections of disassembled vehicles and tires and an assortment of tools, lawnmowers, lawnmower parts and wooden pallets. Location where both violations exist is 3155 Karen Drive, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 61840320002. Name and address of owner: Claude Martel, who resides at 3155 Karen Drive, Naples Florida. Date violation first observed: July 31 st, 2002 for CEB No. Page 5 January 23, 2003 2003-001, and July 1st, 2002 for CEB No. 2003-002. Date owner given notice of violation was August 22nd, 2002 for both CEB cases. Date on which violations were to be corrected: September 30th, 2002 for both CEB cases. Date of reinspection: January 22nd, 2003 for both CEB cases. A result of the reinspection is the violations remain. And at this time I would like to mm the case over to the code investigator, Jason Toreky, to present CEB Case No. 2003-001 and 002 to the board. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a respondent in the audience; is that correct? Would the respondent for this case please stand and identify yourself?. We'd like to swear both witnesses in. I assume you want to speak today? Would you like to speak before the board today and provide testimony? I'd like to swear both witnesses in, please, at the same time. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you, sir. If you'd have a seat and we'll let the county present their side first. You can have a seat, if you'd like. Thank you. MR. TOREKY: For the record, my name is Jason Toreky. I'm an investigator with the Collier County Code Enforcement. I'm going to go ahead -- and it's kind of a confusing case. I wrote a summary here which will kind of break it down and hopefully sort things out. These two cases originated from a previous case that we had in 1999, which was a case addressing a dangerous building at 3155 Karen Drive, Mr. Martel's property. I took this case over in July, 2002 and decided to split this case into two different categories, one for litter-- one to address the litter and one to address the permitting issues on the property. Page 6 January 23, 2003 Let's see here. Upon taking this case over, I observed the partial removal of a mobile home and two structures still remaining, which were part of the living area of the mobile home. Further investigation revealed the rear addition, which I'm going to show a picture of the rear addition. Was permitted -- the rear addition was permitted in 1996 as an addition to the structure. Bear with me one second here. That's what's remaining of the mobile home originally -- this was the rear portion of the mobile home, in addition to the mobile home. That's what's -- that was remaining as of last night. When I went there this morning, that has been demolished. The materials are still there on site. Currently this morning it looks like this, okay? Now, that's the front portion of it -- the rear portion of the mobile home section there that remains. There is also a front portion of it, which this is from the rear of the yard facing towards the street. This is from the neighboring property; actually in the front comer of the property from the street. And this is taken from the street this morning, okay? Also noted on that property was a shed that also did not have any permits, and it's underneath those vines. Currently I'm not sure if there's things stored in there or not. When I originally took this case over, it was still with construction, used windows and items like that. Also throughout the property is scattered litter -- and I'll show some quick pictures of that -- various construction items, things of that nature. And also there's some stuff underneath these palm branches, too. I guess that was a camouflage situation there. During the litter portion of this case, it was observed throughout the property a large unauthorized accumulation of litter consisting of construction equipment, appliances, furniture, lawnmowers, et cetera. Some materials was from the demolition efforts and some the property is being utilized as storage. Page 7 January 23, 2003 Both these cases were discussed with Mr. Martel on several occasions with different methods of compliance. On August 22nd, 2002, two notices of violations were issued to Mr. Martel, with a compliance date of September 30th. We went over it in great detail, the different options of compliance as far as the permitting issues go and the litter. On October 8th, a site visit was performed, and these structures still remained in the same state, although a good portion of the litter was removed. These photos that I just showed you are current pictures from yesterday and this morning. There's some other photos that you have in your packet that shows what was there before. I'd say probably 50 percent of the litter was removed. Also, on October 8th, during that site visit, I advised Mr. Martel that I'm preparing him for the Code Enforcement Board to try to come into compliance at least before the hearing date. I have since visited Mr. Martel approximately every three weeks or so and have seen slight progress in regards to litter. The permitting issues remain the same. In conclusion, the permitted mobile home on this property, the primary structure, was removed, leaving two additions to the property -- actually it's one now, because one was torn down -- as well as a shed, thus making this property unimproved property. The primary structure was removed. According to Land Development Code, these type of structures cannot be permitted without a primary structure. I'd like to make note, on one of the -- on the Land Development Code, Section 2.7.6.1 and .5, section one, no building or structure shall be erected, moved, added to, altered, utilized or allowed to exist, and/or no land alternations shall be permitted without first obtaining the authorization of required permits, inspections, certificates of occupancy as required by the Collier County Building Page 8 January 23, 2003 Code. Also on this same property, and in July, '99, we started a dangerous building case on this property. If you look at the dangerous building letter, the second paragraph, the mobile home with emphasis on a rear addition and a front porch addition was in a state of structure deterioration. The upright supports as well as the structural floor framing has deteriorated to the point that it can no longer support the load which it was intended. Okay, and that was written by a certified residential contractor and employed with Collier County, certified housing rehab inspector and a certified county engineering structural inspector. Mr. Martel did discuss method of achieving compliance. We discussed him possibly bringing in a mobile home and permitting a new mobile home there and permitting uses accessory to that mobile home, but nothing's ever come of that conversation. He's advised me on several occasions that he's having problems with somebody pulling permits for him. And as I said before, during the site visit this morning, it was observed the rear building was taken down, after my visit yesterday, with all materials remaining on-site. Also, for this type of activity, a demolition permit is required. It was never obtained. Our recommendations remain the same for the order to correct, but we would like to add on to that, that the county may, after 60 days, hire a contractor to remove the litter and debris from the listed -- from the property and impose the cost against the respondent. And that's where we're at. Questions? MR. PONTE: Investigator, I have some questions. Just to widen my knowledge of the area, I don't know it, would you describe the area? Is it a residential area? What -- I saw a house there in one of the photos. MR. TOREKY: It's zoned village residential. It's got several Page 9 January 23, 2003 types of dwelling units, mostly mobile home type units there. MR. PONTE: In the neighborhood, have you seen any evidence that there are children in the neighborhood, like basketball hoops or tricycles or-- MR. TOREKY: I have seen children in the area. MR. PONTE: Is there a school in the neighborhood? MR. TOREKY: I don't believe so. I'm not sure on that. MR. PONTE: So it's a residential neighborhood-- would you say it's a residential neighborhood with young people in it? MR. TOREKY: Yes. Yes, definitely. It's village residential but it's single family. You know, some homes do have children, and MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. TOREKY: -- it does create a safety issue. MS. DUSEK: I noticed that you said the continued violation. Are you bringing this before us as a repeat violation? MR. TOREKY: No, this is the first time it's been to the board. MR. PONTE: In your opinion, with children in the neighborhood, looking at those photos, there's shards of glass, refrigerator, possibly nails. Which is a question: The refrigerator photo showed the door in place on the refrigerator. Is it, in Collier County, a violation to have a refrigerator with a door on it, as opposed to the door having to be removed? MR. TOREKY: We have guidelines for when you set it out at the street the doors need to be removed. I'm not sure if it's on a property that the doors would be required to be on it or not. You know, it would be the same as if somebody had one in their carport, something like that. But, I mean, in this case, it's more of a storage issue. The refrigerator is not operating, it's not serving a purpose, it's just being stored on the property. MR. PONTE: It's just dangerous if-- MR. TOREKY: It could very well be. Page 10 January 23, 2003 MR. PONTE: -- somebody were to play with it. MS. DUSEK: Did I understand that there was a mobile home and that there were two additions on it and one has been removed and demolished? MR. TOREKY: Yes. And the one that was removed and demolished was the one that was permitted with the mobile home. The mobile home originally had a permit. The rear structure, a permit was obtained in 1996 in conjunction with that mobile home. Okay, that was taken down. The other portion, which is still remaining today, was never permitted and is still remaining. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And the demolition was done without a demolition permit? MR. TOREKY: Today -- currently it was. And originally when we first started this case, Mr. Martel did get a demolition permit to remove the mobile home. It was -- he obtained a permit for that, that permit expired, and then he renewed the permit and continued on. That's one reason it's taken from '99, you know, to this date almost, because there was a couple demolition permits ongoing on that property, taking the mobile home out little by little. MS. DUSEK: What living condition-- what living structures are still on this property? Was the mobile home the only thing that was -- MR. TOREKY: Yes. MS. DUSEK: -- a place where people would live? MR. TOREKY: That was the permitted primary structure on the property, and that was removed. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other questions from the board? Hearing none, thank you very much, Investigator. Mr. Martel, would you like to address the board? You can come to the podium here. MR. MARTEL: It was John Kelly out there. It was code enforcement out there. They made me jump place to place to place, Page 11 January 23, 2003 you know. I got seven place on Karen Drive, seven rental, you know, and which added a lot of electric -- I have three property. I have to clean up, you know, to make me jump -- that one look good enough, now you gotta go tear that one across the street. You know, you make me go around in circle, you know what I mean? I got one property out there on 3176 Karen Drive. It's all passed inspec -- I got it all cleaned up, he already signed it and everything. And I'm working on my own property right now. I'm almost done. And, you know, I got too much to do in one time, you know what I mean? I'm not a -- yesterday we tore that building down across the street at 3155. I don't know. MR. TOREKY: Can I make a statement real quick? Mr. Martel has currently three cases with us. Two other cases were cases that have gone to the board, and he's -- we're working on him with that as well. So he does have overlying cases. That's what he's explaining there. He did -- on one of his other properties that went to the board, he did come into compliance on that one property and he is -- I have seen improvement on his current property that he's living in. But, you know, this is an ongoing issue. Back in July I told him he should at least get a contractor involved and show effort with this property, and we haven't seen any effort as far as permitting goes. The only efforts we've seen is we've seen some litter removed from the property, so -- so he is working on several properties at once, I will attest to that. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. If you would proceed, Mr. Martel. MR. MARTEL: Yeah. And I've been out with the gout for like the first month -- I mean, with it about a year and a half ago when I come to the board. I have the gout for like five months out there, I couldn't do nothing. You know what the gout is? You can't walk, you got to walk on crutch. Page 12 January 23, 2003 Instructor (sic) John Kelly was code enforcement on this area at this moment. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Martel, have you at any time tried to contact a contractor? Have you asked anyone to help you? MR. MARTEL: Well, I got some. I have two other guys helping me now. That one guy was helping me, he took off for over six months, you know, and he came back and helping me. And I got another guy's helping me beside that. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The question that my colleague had asked is have you actually signed a contract with a contractor to remove this for pay, as opposed to just having helpers yourself Have you contracted with a private firm or company to do this -- MR. MARTEL: One guy, he wants to charge me $2,000 just to remove the mobile home over there. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. MR. MARTEL: And I can't -- I've got to watch my money, you know? I only got three place I rent right now. And the other one, they're not rentable, you know. And I just paid my taxes of $6,000 this year, you know. You know, you can only do so much, you know.9 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay, any other questions for Mr. Martel? MR. PONTE: I have one. Mr. Martel, how did these properties -- well, the property in question -- get into such deplorable condition? Were you responsible for putting all this material there or did you-- MR. MARTEL: Well, I'm putting in-- I have to clean up my garage to put the material like in where -- I threw a lot of stuff away, you wouldn't believe it. A lot of stuff I threw away. I got the garbage service, he got mad at me several times, and they didn't want to pick up nothing no more, and which I called the board over there, and now they start picking up again without no problem. Page 13 January 23, 2003 MS. DUSEK: Has the property been in this condition since you've owned it? MR. MARTEL: It was about that. I think it's probably like 15 years ago. A renter will destroy everything, you know that, don't you? Low income people rents it, they pay their rent for when they move in there, and after that you don't see no money. They get another family move in there and destroy your place over there. MS. DUSEK: So are you saying that the tenants that you've had MR. MARTEL: Yes. MS. DUSEK: -- are partially responsible for the litter that's on your property? MR. MARTEL: Right. And I called the code enforcement, the code enforcement condemned that place at 315 5. And I made John happy, he said -- you know, I was cleaned up on my side. And he said that's good enough, now he put me over there at the -- you know, he switch me around like a switchboard or something. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other questions from the board? Any other comments from yourself, Mr. Martel? MR. MARTEL: No, I'm only here to make code enforcement happy, you know. The problem is, I can't pull no permit. I called somebody this morning again. And I called in Naples, nobody. Fort Myers, that guy won't pull no permit for me. And, you know, if I can't get a permit, I'm going to have to do without a permit. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. MR. MARTEL: I did one like that before with no problem, you know. I exchanged a mobile home, you know. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. If you'd have a seat, then we'll move to the discussions actually of this case. What I would like to do, just for -- just to keep things on the Page 14 January 23, 2003 even, is to have a finding of fact for one case, finding of fact for the other case, then we'll move on to the order of the board for both cases. We'll handle these separately, so to speak. Any discussion from the board members? Mr. Martel, you can have a seat, if you'd like. Okay, thank you. MR. PONTE: I think that whichever case you're discussing, the safety factor should be considered here. It's a hazard. It's a dangerous hazard, whether it's the buildings or the litter. So whichever case, it's the same. It's attractive to kids. The neighborhood does have children in it. I don't think it's a 60-day situation, I think the county ought to go in and clear it out. MS. SAUNDERS: I agree with you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We may have other issues with vermin and pests and so on. MR. PONTE: Oh, I can't imagine what's there. Nails, shards. The pictures I'm sure don't tell the whole story. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, I do have one question for you. Mr. Martel said that he's had a problem getting somebody to pull a permit. Can a homeowner pull his own permits with something like this? MS. ARNOLD: I think what he was referring to with respect to the permits was the replacement of the mobile home that was removed. And he should be able to get a permit for the replacement of the mobile home. He's pulled all the demolition permits himself that has already been issued, so he shouldn't have a problem obtaining a permit for demolition. MR. FLEGAL: Michelle, based on the pictures, there's not a livable structure on the property currently? MS. ARNOLD: Currently, that's correct. MR. FLEGAL: And to get a permit to put a mobile home or a livable structure on there, he's first going to have to clean the property off, as it doesn't appear that there's any space for -- Page 15 January 23, 2003 MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. FLEGAL: -- anything. So would I be correct in assuming that he really doesn't need a quote, unquote, building permit at this time, what he needs to do is clean his property? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, what he would have to do first is -- MR. FLEGAL: You're not citing him for a building permit, because there's nothing built on the property at this time, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Well, we did cite him for failure to obtain a permit for the structures that were remaining on the site. There were two structures remaining after he removed the mobile home. MR. FLEGAL: But he's leveled those now, right? MS. ARNOLD: Well, he's leveled one of them. There's one remaining still. And I guess there's a shed as well. MR. FLEGAL: That you can't see. MS. ARNOLD: That you cast see, because it's overgrown. But to get a -- we didn't cite him for the replacement permit at But yes, that would be the best course of action, to clean up all all. of the -- MR. FLEGAL: MS. ARNOLD: on there. MR. FLEGAL: Clean the property and then -- -- and before he moves another mobile home Thank you. MS. SAUNDERS: If I may, I agree with George completely. I think this is a safety issue. I think the gentleman has three properties, and if you're a landlord, it's your responsibility to maintain the properties; not necessarily do it yourself, but maintain them. Somebody having gout does not to me relieve them of their responsibilities of creating -- of keeping the property within the code. And I do think that something should be done rapidly. It's been going on for many years, obviously. MR. FLEGAL: Mr. Chairman, can I ask Jean a question? Page 16 January 23, 2003 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Certainly. MR. FLEGAL: Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes, sir. MR. FLEGAL: If the board was a mind to direct the county to clear the property, clean the property, whatever the proper word is, based on what we've heard and seen, that obviously the respondent hasn't been able to do this and he's been given a lot of time, is that acceptable if we order it done by the county kind of like immediately? MS. RAWSON: Yes, you can. I was just discussing Florida Statute 162-09 with the county attorney. Yeah, why don't you read that. MS. BELPEDIO: Jennifer Belpedio, assistant county attorney with the Collier County Attorney's Office. The provision that we were speaking about and refer you to is Florida Statute 162-09, which states that the Code Enforcement Board shall notify the local governing body, which is Collier County in this case, which will make all reasonable repairs which are required to bring the property into compliance and charge the violator with the reasonable cost of the repairs, only if the violation rises to the level of affecting -- or presents a serious threat to the public health, safety and welfare, or if the violation is irreparable. We ask that if you choose to require that the county abate the violation, that you make a specific finding that there is a serious threat to the public health and safety, and we'll put that in the order and the county will comply with your order. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would like to move on with at least a finding of fact for Case No. 2003-001. This is for the structures themselves. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, versus Claude Martel, CEB Case No. 2003-001, that there is a violation. The violation is of Page 17 January 23, 2003 Ordinance No. 91-102, Sections 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5, 1.5.6 and 2.1.15, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code; and Ordinance No. 99-51, Sections 6, 7 and 8, and ordinance No. 2002-01, creating new Section No. 10, 1.4.9.2, maintenance, and Ordinance No. 89-06, Sections 5.16-A and 16-B as amended by Ordinance No. 2002-05, Section 22-263 of the Collier County Land Development Code. And the description of the violation is -- I think we've discussed that, and I don't think I'll need to read all of that. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would request of my colleague that we amend that motion to include the items as representing serious health to the public -- a serious threat to the public health, safety and welfare, as defined by Florida Statute 162, Section 162.09 -- excuse me, 162.06 paragraph, the applicable paragraph. And again, we want to define this as a threat to the public health, safety and welfare. MS. DUSEK: Now, Jean, can we do that if he's -- has he been cited in that -- on that subject? MS. RAWSON: He's been cited with a dangerous building. MS. DUSEK: Can we go ahead and -- MS. RAWSON: And you've heard the evidence presented to you by the county staff, code enforcement staff, and you have seen pictures, so you can make whatever findings of fact you wish, based on the evidence that was presented. MS. DUSEK: So it's all right to put that statute, No. 162.06? MS. RAWSON: It's .09. Yes. MS. DUSEK: It's .09? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes, it's .09. I'm sorry. MS. DUSEK: Okay. All right, I will amend the motion then to include Florida Statute No. 162.09. MS. BARNETT: I'd like to second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion by Ms. Dusek Page 18 January 23, 2003 and a second by Ms. Barnett. aye. I'd rather not repeat it. Jean, you understand what we have? MS. RAWSON: I've got it. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All those in favor, signify by saying Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: unanimously. fact. Hearing none, motion carries MR. FLEGAL: The motion was just a finding of fact? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The motion was just a finding of MS. DUSEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And we may either move to an order of the board on this particular case or move to a finding of fact on the next case. MR. FLEGAL: Why don't we just -- Why don't we move to a finding of fact on the MR. PONTE: case? MS. DUSEK: next And then we -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Then I would entertain a motion for a finding of fact on case No. 2003-002; this has to do with the storage of debris. MS. DUSEK: Okay, this is -- we're making a finding of fact before we do the recommendation. We're going to recommend on both; is that the case? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We are doing a finding of fact on the second case. We have not issued an order of the board on the first case yet. MS. DUSEK: Okay. Well, then I'll make the motion in the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, versus Claude Martel, CEB Case No. 2003-02, that a violation does exist. The Page 19 January 23, 2003 violation is of Ordinance No. 91-51, Sections 6, 7 and 8, and Ordinance No. 89-06, Sections 5.16-B, as amended by Ordinance No. 2002-05, Sections 22-263 of the Collier County Land Development Code. MR. PONTE: And you want to add 152.09 -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: 162 -- MS. DUSEK: And 162.09, Florida Statute. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a finding of fact motion. Do I hear a second? MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion by Ms. Dusek, a second by Ms. Barnett. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. And we'll now proceed to an order of the board for each individual case. First we'll take Case No. 2003-001. This is the building structures themselves. MR. PONTE: Because-- I'm going to mention this: Because we've found that a serious risk to the public exists here, I'd like to suggest, as we work on framing this, that the days -- that is, the recommendation from staff was do things within 60 days, and I think that's overly long. In any instance here, this case has been dragging, and the health, safety and welfare aspects of this case I find particularly troublesome. I think they should be resolved very quickly, much sooner than 60 days. MS. SAUNDERS: And again, ifI may, we've heard testimony from the property owner that if he hasn't gotten the permit, he'll just take it down by himself or do what he needs to, which disturbs me. MR. PONTE: And he has also other plots that he's working on. MS. SAUNDERS: Yeah. Page 20 January 23, 2003 MR. PONTE: He is not capable of taking it down, he's proven that to this board. MS. DUSEK: So your suggestion is to just go ahead with the county removing it and not giving any time to Mr. Mattel? MR. PONTE: I think he's had all the time that any reasonable person should give him. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Another question, Ms. Arnold. We have still one structure on the site. Is that structure a permittable structure? I don't mean is it permitted, but I mean is it a type of structure that a permit could be obtained for, for the use that it's there now? MS. ARNOLD: No, because there is no principal structure on the property. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So the only recourse that Mr. Martel has right now with regard to the structure is to demolish it? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MS. DUSEK: And about the shed, to remove the shed? MS. ARNOLD: As well, yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Because in staffs recommendation, you refer to obtaining all building permits. Are you saying now that there are no building permits that he could obtain, so that's a moot point? MS. ARNOLD: For the removal of the shed, the demolition permit. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I'm talking about a building permit, not a demolition permit. MS. ARNOLD: Well, when we made reference to the build-- obtain all permits, we were referring to the demolition permit for the structure. Because we can't tell the property owner to place a new structure on the property, so that was what our reference was for a demolition permit. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, my concern is if the board Page 21 January 23, 2003 orders removal of everything, I certainly don't want to overly state to the respondent what he can do with his property. In other words, if he has other options available to him, such as to permit the existing buildings that are there, an after-the-fact permit or something -- MS. ARNOLD: They couldn't be permitted. They wouldn't -- he could not obtain a permit for the existing buildings that are there under the condition that exists on the property. Technically that should be a vacant property, because there is no primary or principal structure on there. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. So the only recourse he has at this point in time is to obtain demolition permits and clear the property of all debris. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. MS. SAUNDERS: Michelle, if the county was to take on the project of clearing the property and making it safe, how long a period of time would be needed, roughly? MS. ARNOLD: We will have to go through a bid process because of the size of the job, and we could do kind of a quick turnaround in terms of receiving bids back. And we do have a list of the contractors that we can call. And then once we obtain the bid, we can have them do it as soon as possible. MS. DUSEK: Is that like within a 30-day period? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, within a 30-day period, definitely. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Are you saying the removal can be complete within 30 days, or the bid process would be complete? MS. ARNOLD: The entire job, probably within 30 days. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: MR. FLEGAL: MS. RAWSON: MR. FLEGAL: The bid process, as well as the removal. Jean? Yes. Would the board, if their order were given, Page 22 January 23, 2003 would it be proper to say we direct the county to I guess bring the property into compliance by removal of the existing violations without giving the county a time period? Can we do that? In other words, we can't force the county to -- Correct, we're not -- -- get their bids within 30 days and do MS. RAWSON: MR. FLEGAL: everything. MS. RAWSON: they don't. MR. FLEGAL: Right. And we're not going to fine them if I think all you can do with the county is say we're directing you to do it, and however long it takes that's the county's problem-- MS. RAWSON: Correct. MR. FLEGAL: -- correct? MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, I would entertain an order of the board for this particular case. MS. DUSEK: Well -- go ahead, Cliff. MR. FLEGAL: I would make a motion that we direct the county to abate the violation by whatever means is necessary. Is that a sufficient wording, Jean? MS. RAWSON: That's fine. MS. DUSEK: As soon as possible. MS. SAUNDERS: As soon as possible, or-- MR. FLEGAL: Yeah, I mean-- MS. DUSEK: That's not giving days, that's just-- MR. FLEGAL: Right. As soon as possible. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: You're requesting the county to take immediate action? In other words, begin the process -- MR. FLEGAL: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- as of the end of this meeting? MR. FLEGAL: If we vote and it's approved, then the county's Page 23 January 23, 2003 on notice to do it, just like we would expect the respondent to -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And their time limit is whatever it takes -- MR. FLEGAL: Whatever it takes -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- to accomplish the task. MR. FLEGAL: -- within the county's system. Not knowing -- you know, it's kind of hard to control that. So I understand they have their own time lines. MS. DUSEK: And if you will add that the cost will be given to the homeowner and he is -- MR. FLEGAL: Yes, I haven't got that far yet. I'm trying to first get a sentence out that we can all accept, I hope. The second part of that would be that the respondent pay all the operational costs incurred for the prosecution of this case. And third, that whatever monies are expended by the county to abate the violation is also the responsibility of the respondent. Does that give everybody what they need? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Jean, that's sufficient for your order? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have -- MS. SAUNDERS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion by Mr. Flegal, a second by Ms. Saunders. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. MR. FLEGAL: That's on Case 01. Maybe we didn't say that. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes. We will proceed to Case No. 2003-002. This is the debris on the property. I would entertain an order of the board. Page 24 January 23, 2003 MR. FLEGAL: I would put this order in the same category as the first, because we have the appliances and so on and so forth that I think are dangerous, and that's the way our motion was in the beginning, so I would like to make the same motion on this order. MR. PONTE: I'll second that. Same. MS. ARNOLD: Excuse me for the interruption. We need to actually enter Exhibit 02 into the order. I think we did 01 and we failed to do 02, so -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: You're right, thank you for catching that oversight. I would entertain a motion to exhibit -- or excuse me, to enter exhibit as -- Case No. 2002-002 as composite Exhibit A. MS. DUSEK: So moved. MR. FLEGAL: Second. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion from Ms. Dusek, second from Mr. Flegal. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none, motion carries. Thank you. We have a motion on the floor-- on the table by Mr. Flegal, a second by Ms. Dusek, and this is an order of the board that is equivalent to the order the board issued for the prior case. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. Mr. Martel, do you understand what the board has ordered? MR. MARTEL: I was going to say something about that -- MS. SAUNDERS: You have to come -- Page 25 January 23, 2003 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: If you can come to the microphone, we could hear you. MR. MARTEL: That one building, which is concrete, it's like 25 by 14 feet wide, I want to keep that building, and I'm going to fix it up by the code, you know, just for a storage for -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The board has ordered the county to abate the violations by whatever means it deems necessary. They will work immediately on that process. If you have anything that you want to coordinate with the county, that would be between you and the county. But the order of the board is that the county take whatever action it takes to abate the violations, period. Okay? Thank you, sir. If we may proceed to the next case. This is Case No. 2003-005, and I believe that 006, Case No. 2003-006, is similar in the fact that we can take these two cases together, is that -- MS. HILTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. Jean, do you have any problem with that at all? MS. RAWSON: No, that's fine. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. We'll proceed then to take these two cases simultaneously, just as before. MS. DUSEK: Might I suggest, or is it possible that she could present both exhibits at the same time? MS. HILTON: That's what we're going to do, yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And I would like to swear both witnesses in at the same time as well. MS. HILTON: I would like to ask if the respondent is present in the courtroom. MR. CURIALE: Yes, I am. MS. HILTON: Okay. We have previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information for 2003-005 and Page 26 January 23, 2003 2003-006 that we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would so move. Motion by myself, second by Ms. Dusek. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. MS. HILTON: This is Board of County Commissioners versus Southern Development Company, Inc. and Mario Curiale as its registered agent. CEB No. 2003-005 and CEB No. 2003-006. The alleged violation is of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, Section 3.9.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code, and that alleged violation is for 2003-005. And the alleged violation for 2003-006 is of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended. Section 2.2.24.5, 3.9.3, and 2.7.6, paragraph five of the Collier County Land Development Code. Description of violation for 2003-005: Is the removal of vegetation from unimproved agriculturally zoned parcel without first obtaining required vegetation or agricultural clearing permit. Area cleared is 30 by 228 along northern edge of property. And the description of the violation for 2003-006 is the removal of vegetation from tract 51, range 26, section 3, block 52, without first obtaining the required Collier County Vegetation Removal Permit. Block 52 is a special treatment overlay; hereinafter as an STO, and no site alteration or development can begin before submittal and approval of a site development/alteration plan. Area cleared: 20,800 square feet, 3,200 square feet in excess of that allowed. STO's permit only -- the STO permit only allows 10 percent development, which would be 17,600 square feet on that particular parcel. Page 27 January 23, 2003 Also observed fill and culverts on site to construct access and roadway without first obtaining the required Collier County permits. Location where violation exists: Is mile south of 951 East on 41, adjacent to Falling Waters, Naples, Florida. And that's more particularly described as Folio No. 725960001. And that location is the 2003-005. Now, the 2003-006 is a mile south of 951 East on 41, adjacent to Falling Waters, Naples, Florida, and its Folio number is 726040001. Name and address of the owner: Is Southern Development Company, Inc., 845 Bald Eagle Drive, Marco Island, Florida. The date the violation first observed: Was April 29th, 2002 for both the CEB cases. The date the owner was given the violation: Was May 14th, 2002 for both CEB cases. And the date on which the violations were to be corrected: June 16th, 2002 for both cases. Date of reinspection: December 27th, 2002 for both cases. And the result: The violation remains. And at this time I would like to turn the case over to the code investigator, Susan Mason, to present the CEB Case No. 2003-005 and 2003-006 to the board. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: If we can have all the investigators, or anyone presenting testimony to please stand for either one of the cases. And if the respondent would please stand, I assume you want to give testimony, we'd like to swear all the witnesses in at once, please. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. MASON: Good morning. For the record, I'm Susan Mason. I'm an environmental specialist for Collier County Code Enforcement. And this case originated as the result of a complaint from the Page 28 January 23, 2003 planning department. Upon inspection in April of 2002, I found a swath approximately 25 to 30 feet wide cleared of most vegetation on the northern side, crossing both the affected parcels, and a roadway of approximately 25 feet wide by 375 feet cleared on the parcel that is the special treatment overlay. I have a map here to kind of show you some of the properties under consideration here. The clearing was done across here on this northern border, and this is approximately where the road was cleared. I believe your packet contained an aerial that also is new enough that it shows the road clearing quite clearly. At the time of my inspection no permits, site development plan or zoning applications were made, and to this day there are still no applications for any improvements on these parcels. The Southern Development does have an approved SDP for the block here in orange, this large one here. It's a current site development plan that's been approved and building permits have been obtained and construction's ongoing. This parcel here has a site development plan under review. The clearing that is the result of these cases is on two completely separate parcels that are located to the west of the parcel with the site development plans on them. I have had numerous meetings and phone calls over the past eight or nine months with Mr. Curiale and also two different consultants that he had hired to try to come into some compliance. There was one meeting in May of 2002, a rezone pre-application meeting that took place, but no application has been filed at this point. The methods of compliance that we discussed were for the 15 foot of the portion along the northern edge along the fence line. If he did obtain a building permit for a fence, it would be allowed, there Page 29 January 23, 2003 would be an after-the-fact permit with penalties that would go with that. That would also require, however, state and federal review, because there are wetlands and drainage issues in the areas that would need to be addressed first. No progress has been made contacting the state or federal agencies, to my knowledge. And then if-- since none of that has taken place at this time, the really only options are mitigation to either take place on-site, which would require a permanent conservation easement be recorded so those areas would be protected from future development, or off-site mitigation by either donation of land of equivalent value to a public agency or funds that would be equivalent to the cost for design of the mitigation plan, or installation and maintenance on-site, as described in the Land Development Code 91-102, Section 3.9.6.9. I also did want to note, too, that a revised notice of violation was sent in December to correct a scriveners error I had with the name of the corporation involved. MR. PONTE: Ms. Mason, I have a question for you for clarification. Is the respondent the owner or is he the manager or agent of Southern Development? MS. MASON: He's the registered agent, and I believe he may also be an officer on the board. But he is listed as the registered agent and also director. MR. PONTE: And has he given you any reason or suggested to you any reason why he has ignored -- he's elected to ignore all of the attempts you've made to work with him? MS. MASON: Mostly when we have discussions -- we've had discussions, he refers to the other parcels and other site development plans that he has on-site. At some point he has maintained that when he got -- the state controls this right-of-way along Route 41, and that he had a state right-of-way permit, and what did the county think he was going to do with it, of course he was going to build a road. I explained to him that, you know, you need to get a permit for these Page 30 January 23, 2003 things ahead of time. That's also the parcel that does have that special overlay over it that allows only 10 percent maximum development. And all that's supposed to be approved even before you apply for permits. MR. PONTE: And now his action is that he has just elected to ignore the entire problem? MS. MASON: There has been no progress. I called his consultant last month, Mr. Davidson, and reminded him he's -- the last conversation I had with him was he was going to try to encourage Mr. Curiale to do an off-site mitigation to take care of this, but there's been no action. MR. PONTE: Is there a party by the name of Peterson? Or am I getting it confused? MS. MASON: The first consultant was a Gary Butler, I believe. And currently it's Jeff Davidson. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MS. DUSEK: Ms. Mason, the other two properties that he's all permitted for and has followed the correct procedures, would they -- would the two properties in question now require the same procedure that he did on the other two? MS. MASON: Yes. If he wanted to develop the agriculturally zoned for commercial use, he'd have to get it rezoned and then also go through the site development plan process and then get an applicable permit. The special treatment, even though it's zoned commercial, since it does have a special treatment overlay on it, it also needs a different set of pre-application meetings and agreed upon strategy for development of that property with minimal impact, and then he'd be able to go through a site development plan and permitting. So it would require an additional step, but very similar. MS. DUSEK: But very similar. Just those two additional: One being the commercial property and one the agricultural property. Page 31 January 23, 2003 MS. MASON: MS. DUSEK: residential? MS. MASON: Right. How are the other two zoned? Are they zoned They're currently zoned C-5. I don't know if when they were changed if Mr. Curiale did that before they were developed. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any other questions from the board? Ms. Mason, thank you very much. Mr. Curiale, would you like to provide testimony on your case? MR. CURIALE: Sure. Before I start making any presentation, I want you guys to know that I've been building for over 30 years, I never once have been in front a code enforcement board to try to figurize (sic) that I'm doing something illegally. Okay, I measure -- you guys can see the plan I measure, right? Is there any way you can be able to put the same map Susan Mason had on the machine over there? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We'll get the camera on this particular display. MR. CURIALE: Does this work? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes, sir. MR. CURIALE: Okay, what we have in here, what she shows the triangle part in that area over there, that actually is this second entrance over here. When I went to get the approval for the county, and also for the D.O.T., at the same time I got the approval for the entrance of a boat entrance, which is first one in here, and the second one over here. Before we even got to the point, I have no way for me to get into this property, because 41 has got a guardrail all the way across, there's no entrance. And what I did, with the permission of people from Falling Water (sic), they allowed me to get in on their job site, because at this point they were putting all condos in here. And what I did, I got over there at this point here, come back Page 32 January 23, 2003 here, and we tried to work in here to try to put this entrance in. After they finish this section of condos from this point here, some new people moved into the place, and it caused me my worst nightmare. My nightmare consist of that there is somebody in the condos, they've been calling the county almost every week. For any complaints or whatever. And the county responds like that. It make me feel like that I'm doing something illegally. In order to alleviate the problem-- in order to alleviate the problem, what I did, on (sic) August, 2001, I went to the county and I get a wall, privacy wall permit, designed by an engineer. A wall is supposed to be eight feet high and it was a precast wall structure to be installed. I got all the wall delivered to the job site. The Falling Water refused me to go through their property now. So I'm stuck with the wall, $60,000 worth of material laid on the ground, and I have no way for me to put the walls up. I have no entrance either. Meantime, it was fortunately that I had a chance to put the pipes in, the culvert pipes, that first was issued, which they are this ones here. I already had it in. And between the D.O.T. cooperation, which actually it really helped me out to finish this project the way I had immediately entrance in my property. I was locked in. I could do nothing but get a helicopter and get over there. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, I'd like to interrupt. All of this that he's talking about is on property other than what we are bringing before the board today. This is on the adjacent property, it's not on the two parcels that we're discussing today. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Sustained. Mr. Curiale, if you could just keep your discussion to -- MR. CURIALE: I'm trying, yes. This is a continuation properties. I own all these properties here. I got a building permit in August, 2001 from the county to build a privacy wall, which it starts from this point here, come over here and goes all the way down to this end here, right at this point here. Page 33 January 23, 2003 On the map that Susan Mason put up, there is right alongside there is a right-of-way easement from Florida Power & Light. She claims, and I brought it up three different times, and she been very diligently come over there, we went over several times to figure out what can we do. I said, "Well, how can I put this wall up if I have no room to work with?" Okay, it's no way they'd be (sic) to put the sticks together. On the same time, when we were talking about putting a wall up, Florida Power & Light came in with their own trucks, because they ran a new high tension wire to supply power for my building here, right on the site. They in turn made an extra cut, we talking about here on the map an additional 10 feet, 15 feet for the trucks to go around the poles in order to go through here. I did not remove those trees. The trees that I removed was to make the entrance here. And I started wide over here and it get narrow, just like she shows on the map over there. But these trees that I removed, I already had the permits from the D.O.T. to put the culverts in, I already had the entrance approved. How am I be able to get over here when I can't get through 41 ? So somehow I have to have an entrance back here to get in. So I don't know what kind of illegal things that I have done. The ST that we talking about now, it does not involve this entrance at all. The ST starts from this point here back two and a half acres, and then is another parcel from here over, which is ag. So this section what is cleared over here is actually part of a C-5 rezone from this point all the way down here, which I got in 19 -- I don't know, '97, '98, something like that; I don't remember. That's as far as we have got. At the present time all the privacy wall that we were supposed to put over there, then they change the code, we have to put a masonry wall now, because they could not meet the wind load anymore. The engineer could not approve. Page 34 January 23, 2003 And now what we did, we put the privacy wall on this point over here, which eventually we're going to continue all the way down to this end over here. This is far as I got. Now, when Susan Mason brought it up to my attention in April, which was -- I contact her, we went over, she came over to the job site, I would talk with her. I says, "How can I fix these items you want me to fix? What, do I put my trees back?" We already gone for the SDP for the same plan here. Because right now I'm going for the SDP for the remain here. It took me a year and a half and we still don't have the SDP approval yet. I mean, it seems to take forever to get anything approved. This one here, we were ready to go to rezone, to go down to C-3 rezone, but we haven't got anywhere with that. We have a meeting with the county, with the staff, personnel, find out what they need, and we didn't get anywhere. A year and a half went by and the application for the rezone is still has -- is not even in place. The engineer that I hire before, which was Gary Butler, I told him three or four times to try to contact Susan Mason to make sure how we alleviate this problem. Well, the bottom line is, I don't think he did anything. So by the fall -- by August, September this year, I fire the guy. So I hire somebody else. And I wrote a letter to Susan Mason somewhere on the same time, August, September, to allow the new engineer to make sure that he could pull something together. When we go for the rezone for the remain here, we can mitigate some of the land to accommodate this area here. This is going to be cleared anyway. So we are come in with a rezone for the remain six acre that we will going to have at least three acres of mitigation here (sic). It will accommodate this deficiency plus the remain of the land. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Curiale? Here. Over here. When you developed those other two properties, did you have to do any clearing? Page 35 January 23, 2003 MR. CURIALE: The other one, this side? MS. DUSEK: The other ones that are not -- you're not being cited for two properties. Did you -- when you got the S -- MR. CURIALE: No. MS. DUSEK: Did you have to do any clearing? MR. CURIALE: When I got the SDP? Which property are we talking? This is a pretty big project here. Which one is that? Yeah, we clear this area here. MS. DUSEK: You cleared that. Did you clear that with a permit? MR. CURIALE: We clear it with permit. Yes, we have SDP. MS. DUSEK: So you knew that in order to clear the property you needed a permit. MR. CURIALE: Correct. MS. DUSEK: On the property you're being cited for, you cleared without a permit. That's what this violation is all about. MR. CURIALE: The property cite for -- the cite for the back wall. I got a building permit to put a wall up. How can you put a wall up if you don't move those couple of trees there out of the way? But I did not remove the trees. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Did the building permit of the wall include a clearing permit for the vegetation for a 30-foot wide path? MR. CURIALE: Well, I did not make a 30-foot wide path, but to answer your question, I had no clue at that time that I need a vegetation permit to override a building permit. I figure a building permit would consummate whatever needs to be do for the vegetation. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Ms. Arnold, for the record, a building permit allows you to build, it doesn't allow you to clear; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Please proceed. Page 36 January 23, 2003 MR. CURIALE: At this point in time, I really don't know what to do in order to say how we going to fix this little item here that we talking about. We talking about 3,000 feet of violation here that was being cleared, when I have here 475,000 square feet of land here. The whole tract. We are in process right now again to summon the SDP for the remain, and with also the rezone. So I really don't know which way I needed to go in order to correct anything. The entrance is still going to go in. The reason why the pipes is not put in place, because I got locked in again, because the people from Falling Water, they went -- arbitrarily went ahead, they put a fence in between the property line and the right-of-way. So now I have no way for me to get back in there again in order to service the work. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Curiale? MR. CURIALE: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: You had indicated earlier in testimony that FP&L had gone through the rear of your property and cut a 1 O-foot wide path for their power lines? MR. CURIALE: Right. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: What we're talking about is a 30-foot wide path on your property. Who cleared that section? MR. CURIALE: Part of the area was cleared when I drove back, put the machine on the area here. We left the several trees. Plus the area was cleared. There's nothing more of the Palmetto palms. We left the trees there. We just went right around it. We did not destroy any vegetation on that area. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So you're saying there was no clearing that occurred in this northern 30-foot strip? MR. CURIALE: As my own clearing point of view? No. The point of view of clearance is between Falling Water, they pile a bunch of junk on my side, they move a lot of debris on this side. Page 37 January 23, 2003 When Florida Power & Light went through from 951 to come to the back of my property, they actually remove the majority of the vegetation than I did. I need only a path for me to get the machine through in order for me to get in and out of the property. That was the only thing I did. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Curiale, have you-- you've been in the business for 30 years. MR. CUPdALE: Correct. MS. DUSEK: Have you ever built in Collier County before? MR. CUR/ALE: Yes, I did. MS. DUSEK: So you're familiar with the procedures? MR. CUR/ALE: Yeah, I'm very well familiar with procedure. That's why when I did that, I got the SDP approve it. The SDP covers the clearance of a land. MS. DUSEK: And you've been having this discussion or meetings with Susan Mason since April? MR. CUR/ALE: Correct. MS. DUSEK: And you -- she hasn't indicated to you what you needed to do in all these months? MR. CUR/ALE: I have no clue how to fix this deficiency that we take these few trees. Am I to replant the trees? Are we going to -- we got 3,000 square feet in here. They're still going to be removed again to put the road in. I mean, this is going to have to be removed. This road is going in here. So either way, it's going to have to get removed. I don't understand what to do. MS. DUSEK: It's not a question of yes, you will have to do the removal, but you have to do it with a permit. That's the whole question here today. MR. CUR/ALE: I agree with you 100 percent. I thought the D.O.T. permit, when they give you to install a culvert again, I think they give you the permit for you to take care of that end of it. You can't put the pipes in the right-of-way, you can't put the pipes in there Page 38 January 23, 2003 unless you have a permit to do so. there to get to it? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: MR. CURIALE: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: County? MR. CURIALE: years right now. I mean, how am I going to get Mr. Curiale? How long have you built in Collier I've been building in Collier County about five CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And how many different projects have you worked on site developments? MR. CURIALE: I build a few places in Marco. And this one is one of the -- most of my major area I'm starting right now in Naples. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So you have experience in the requirements of pulling permits before you do site clearing on any property? MR. CURIALE: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So explain to us why this property got cleared without a permit. MR. CURIALE: This property got cleared without a permit because there was a flaw in between the engineering (sic) who was representing me in the county who turned (phonetic) and never file the papers in that need to be done. I got the paper-- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So you're saying this is the responsibility of the engineer that -- MR. CURIALE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- prepared your SDP? MR. CURIALE: The engineer prepared the SDP, the engineer supply all the file that supposed to be to the county, of all regulation, all governmental agency to be approved off. We got the DEP approved, we got the Water South Management (sic) approved, we got Marine Corps Engineer signed and already approved. That's not my job to worry about it for the guy finally Page 39 January 23, 2003 submit to the item. And it was -- I called him three different times to get ahold Susan Mason, and she never really got an answer from this guy. It just is unbelievable. And I was paying this guy and he wasn't doing his job, and I finally got fed up with it. And up until the last minute we still never got anything. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I'm a little confused. MR. CURIALE: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: You are saying the responsibility of this is the engineer that you hired? MR. CURIALE: The engineer that I hire -- no matter who you hire, if you doing a project, you want to build a commercial building, you cannot do any work yourself anymore. You got to get an engineer to go ahead and he's going to have to do all the groundwork, he's going to have to do the survey, he's got to do the elevation, he's got to apply for the Marine Corps Engineer (sic), the South Water Management, the flood elevation. He's got to prepare every single thing with every organization that we have to build. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And you say that it was his responsibility to obtain a permit for you to clear this property? MR. CURIALE: That is correct, to make sure the whole item was made into the file to accommodate that. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: MR. CURIALE: Engineer? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Who does that engineer report to? Yes, who does he report to? MR. CURIALE: Well, if I -- he reports -- I hire the guy. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So he reports to you? MR. CURIALE: But if he does not follow -- if he did not do that item himself, how am I supposed to know about that when I already cleared that site already? If that site was done, it was correctly done. This one here automatically I thought that was done also on the same time. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, Mr. Curiale, if you've been Page 40 January 23, 2003 building in Collier County for five (sic) years and you've done a number of different projects, and I assume on those projects you've hired engineers to do the site development plans and so on, so forth, somewhere along the line you should have raised the question, hey, I don't have my permit for this, where is it. You should have known yourself that you don't have a permit and that you needed one. MR. CURIALE: With all due respect, okay, I don't think sometimes we have to be that critical for us to do that. I think I have to rely on somebody who gets paid the high nut, paid them a lot of money do the work, and he should understand what he -- you hire me to build a house, I got to know how to build a building. I don't know what size a roof and how I got to frame this house. You don't have to tell me how to frame it because you do it yourself. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Who's the general contractor that did the work? MR. CURIALE: I am the general contractor. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So you pulled the permit. MR. CURIALE: I pulled the permit, correct. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All right. So you are very -- apparently you seem to be very knowledgeable about the permitting process. MR. CURIALE: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I find it difficult to believe that this is just an oversight that one of your hirelings such as an engineer might have done and you as the overseeing factor didn't catch it. MR. CURIALE: The bottom line here to this, I don't see -- the reason why we're here in front of this board today, okay, if it was any other project nobody would ever been in front of this board in here, because there is not a major detriment of violation here. The reason why I'm in front of this board here, because we have people from Falling Waters been constantly calling the county about complaining about every single item there. And that's the reason why I'm here. Page 41 January 23, 2003 I personally feel that I have not done anything illegal here, knowing that I'm in process to do the whole area to work with. I have not destroyed, I have not removed like 10 acres of land on 100 acres. I mean, we're talking about here 3,000 square feet that I haven't even measured that if it's 3,000 square feet above and beyond what I should have moved. I mean, 3,000 square feet is from here to there, I mean, half of this courtroom in here. I don't see that I have made -- and what am I supposed -- you want me to replant the trees there? Give me an idea with how am I correcting this. You want me to take the palm trees out of here and put them back over here, I'll go there with a machine and move it in. Will that satisfy the board? I don't know. I had a meeting last August with staff. I waste an hour and a half and 750 bucks. I says what do you want to do to save this environment? How are we going to do this? How big is the building we want to build? We left the meeting, I didn't come up with any conclusion. So we going around circle right now. It's not an easy thing to do. MS. DUSEK: Susan, may I ask you a question? Since you've been in contact with Mr. Curiale, have you offered some ways to mitigate this and explained exactly what he has to do so that he would never have had to come before this board? MS. MASON: Yes, I did. I supplied, along with the notice of violation, the sections that cover exactly what needs to be included in a mitigation plan. He had to hire two consultants that are knowledgeable in this as well and explained it to them. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So his own consultants could have provided the answers for him in the questions that he's asking this board now. MS. MASON: Yes, I believe so. In my last conversation, like I had talked about before with the current consultant, Jeff Davidson, he said he was going to encourage Mr. Curiale to get a plan for off-site Page 42 January 23, 2003 mitigation, but I hadn't heard anything from him in regards to development of that, or Mr. Curiale showing any evidence of that. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Curiale, is there anything else you'd like to add? MR. CURIALE: Let me reply to what Susan Mason said. She's correct 100 percent of what she said. But also when the same time when we tried to get the mitigation in place, the mitigation of-- what kind of mitigation are we talking about, the 3,000 square feet mitigation? When we apply -- as we speak right now, for the second SDP, which is this entire area here, from here to here, this is -- will cover any kind of mitigational deficiency that we have now, if we needed to do that. And that's what the engineer told me, he says we going to incorporate this item in here and hopefully we will solve the thing that was corrected -- that was done wrong or whatever. But I really don't know what to do. You guys tell me what to do. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, I think we will with an order of the board one way or the other. MS. DUSEK: Susan, I have one more question for you. Mr. Curiale just said that the SDP for the other two properties would incorporate a mitigation plan for the two that were cited; is that correct? MS. MASON: Normally it's -- on occasion it has been. I did offer that at the beginning of all this, that if he was going to submit for rezoning and site development on these parcels, then that we could work out something that would either be mitigation off-site or preserving a larger segment on the remaining properties, but nothing has been done with that at all. There hasn't been any applications filed. And as far as what's required, the LDC 3.9.6.9 outlines exactly what's required in the -- the qualifications of the person preparing the mitigation plan, what they must have. Page 43 January 23, 2003 MS. ARNOLD: Usually when there's going to be a quick turnaround, if he was going to be submitting something, there could be something included in the site development plan review process. But in this case, since August of last year was when he discussed submitting something and they had a pre-application meeting and nothing has been done since then, the suggestion to do off-site mitigation was presented to Mr. Curiale, so that's where we are today. MS. MASON: Because if he did do on-site mitigation, that area would need to be preserved under conservation easement, and he expressed concerns that he wanted to develop the entire parcels and not keep extra areas undeveloped. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. Mr. Curiale, anything else you'd like to add before -- MR. CURIALE: Yeah, back-- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- we close the hearing? MR. CURIALE: -- to the -- back to the what do you call, SDP amendment, the application to comply. That's the reason why we come up with that was to the fact is that with the second rezone, that we are in process to be formalized, hopefully can get in there within the next couple weeks or a month. Because I don't know why they take so long to put things together. I have no clue. That will be incorporated -- what I recommend the board, if that's okay for the board, that we can incorporate this violation of a 3,000 square feet that we got in here, incorporate into the mitigation for the remaining of the land, that way we abate all this violation all at one time, instead of have bits and pieces. If we're going to be in front here -- I hope I never be here again, but I don't want to see -- to be here and be saying the same speech over and over again and we ain't going anywhere. So if I can incorporate the mitigation problem we have now into the mitigation we can incorporate for the remainder of rezoning, Page 44 January 23, 2003 maybe we will look at all the problem one time. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay, if there's no other comments, then we'll close the public hearing section of this case and open it for board discussion. Comments? MS. DUSEK: Well, in my opinion there's a violation. It might not have been intended, but there is a violation. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, hear-- MS. DUSEK: And I'll make a motion to that effect. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I was going to say, hearing no further comments, let's proceed on to finding of facts then. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that -- with the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, in the case CEB No. 2003-005 versus Southern Development Company, Incorporated, and Mario Curiale as its registered agent, that there is a violation, and the violation is of Ordinance No. 91-102 as amended, Section 3.9.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code. And the description of the violation is: Removal of vegetation from unimproved agricultural zoned parcel without first obtaining required vegetation or agriculture clearing permit. The area cleared is approximately 30 by 228 along northern edge of property. Susan -- MS. ARNOLD: Can I just add that we include the respondent as director and agent? MS. DUSEK: Okay, I'll amend it to add director and agent. You said -- well, I guess it's on this one case. The other one is the commercial property? One is agriculture and one is commercial? MS. MASON: Commercial, right. The commercial has the special treatment overlay on it. MS. DUSEK: That is my motion. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion by Ms. Dusek, Page 45 January 23, 2003 and that I assume is on Case No. 2003-005; is that correct? MS. DUSEK: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. And does the same motion exist on both cases, or-- MS. DUSEK: I think the only difference probably is that one is commercial and one is agricultural; is that correct? MS. MASON: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Ms. Rawson, do we have sufficient verbiage in there to vote on this particular motion to apply to both cases? MS. RAWSON: Yes, but you need to do two separate orders. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Two separate votes and two separate orders, yes, okay. MS. RAWSON: Right. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion by Ms. Dusek in the case of 2003-005, a finding of fact. I will second that. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none, the motion carries. We'll proceed now to 2003-006. We have Ms. Dusek's motion for a finding of fact on that particular case. I'll second that. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion carries on that. We'll proceed to order of the board with regard to both cases, and we'll handle them separately. MS. DUSEK: Before we proceed, I just need to double check that the ordinances are different. Ms. Rawson, you'll take care of that? MS. RAWSON: Yes, they are different in each case. Page 46 January 23, 2003 MS. DUSEK: In each case, okay. MR. FLEGAL: The ordinances are different? MR. PONTE: I have a question -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. PONTE: -- regarding the recommendation. What sort of-- I guess Michelle-- MS. RAWSON: The same one? MR. FLEGAL: Excuse me, George, just one second. I'm confused. You say the ordinances are different. I'm looking at both executive summaries and every number is the same, so tell me where it's different. MS. DUSEK: Well, in the case of 006, it's still Ordinance No. 91-102. I should say the sections are different. There's one additional section, 2.2.24.5. MR. FLEGAL: No, I'm looking at both pieces of paper and I've got all the same numbers. MS. DUSEK: Well, I'm looking at the statement of violation. The request -- MS. ARNOLD: And the statement of violation-- MS. DUSEK: The statement of violation. And there are two different sections -- there are additional sections -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. MS. DUSEK: -- in Case No. 006. MR. FLEGAL: No problem. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, the executive summary failed to include those sections on there. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Ms. Rawson, does -- MR. PONTE: I have a question -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- does that alter the finding of fact at all? MS. RAWSON: I don't think so. There's an additional section, Page 47 January 23, 2003 but I think-- MS. DUSEK: Should we make one separately? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: If you would like, we can -- MS. RAWSON: You probably need to do a separate finding of fact for each case. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: You already did. MR. FLEGAL: We did. MS. ARNOLD: You did. MR. FLEGAL: We voted twice. MS. ARNOLD: And the statement of violation, we noted in the record the correct sections, applicable sections for each case, so I think we're covered. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Are we on good grounds to proceed? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I don't want any loopholes. MR. PONTE: Back to me? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes, sir. I apologize for the interruption. MR. PONTE: Okay. In the recommendation from staff, it mentions that a donation of funds is acceptable. What sort of money are we talking about? What kind of guidance? MS. ARNOLD: It depends on -- and staff can go into this further, but they look at the amount of vegetation that was removed and come up with a cost for the revegetation on some -- on another site. And that -- those funds are donated to an applicable agent. MS. MASON: A public agency. The way they come up with an amount of money that would be involved is the funds shall be equal to or greater than the total sum it would cost to mitigate for the violation, according to the mitigation plan, as if they were -- like they would almost create a theoretical Page 48 January 23, 2003 mitigation plan, and that would get approved. They would come up with a cost that includes consulting fees for design and monitoring, installation costs, vegetation costs, earth-moving costs, irrigation costs, replanting and exotic removal. And that entire amount of money then is submitted to an appropriate publicly owned agency, a state agency or something like that, so it would be used for mitigation in a publicly owned land. I have worked with consulting firms in the past and they know exactly how to comply with this. They're familiar with it. MR. PONTE: Do you have any idea -- we're talking about this 3,000 square feet -- what it costs to -- I mean, how high is a rug? I know it's a tough question, but-- MS. MASON: It can be rather expensive. I had-- a different parcel work clearing was done illegally and they did donation of funds, and it was just over a quarter acre, and the cost for that mitigation was around 50,000. So it is expensive. Removing vegetation and replacing vegetation is very expensive. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Ms. Arnold, in staff's recommendation, you recommend that the respondent be ordered to submit a mitigation plan within 30 days, obtain a permit and replace the vegetation within 60 days, and then alternately you allow him to contribute to a donation of funds, an off-site mitigation plan. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, there is an option there. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I certainly do not want to stymie the respondent's ability to achieve compliance through any avenue, because that's what we're concerned about. Do we have any conflict between those two options and an order of the board, so to speak? In other words, may we order just as the recommendation states? MS. ARNOLD: I think you can do that because you're giving the respondent two options. Although he did express a desire not to do any -- or keep any open space on the property. If that's his intent, the second alternative would be the best course of action for him to Page 49 January 23, 2003 take, to do off-site mitigation and just write a check. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, but again, I want to leave that decision up to him. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: You know, our position is here we need to achieve compliance, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: How we do that or how the respondent achieves that is his business. MR. FLEGAL: I'd like to ask Ms. Mason a question. MS. ARNOLD: Susan? MR. FLEGAL: Susan, the respondent said that some of this removal was done by FP&L. Did you contact FP&L and ask them if they did that? MS. MASON: I did not contact FP&L, because I wasn't taking into account any of the easement that was cleared. And when we were on-site and discussing it, the area that we were discussing was the area he said that he had cleared himself for the fence. MR. FLEGAL: Okay, good, thank you. MS. RAWSON: Mr. Lehmann, in the ordinance that talks about mitigation, there is a section that said that you can donate land and/or funds to the public agency if none of the above remedies are viable. That's mitigation. Then it goes on to tell you how much the donation of funds will be, as Ms. Mason has already told you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, my concern is that I don't necessarily -- or I should say I would not like to see the board issue an order where we provide an alternate that is not allowed by the code, so to speak. The other side of the coin is if that is an alternate that is acceptable for, you know, a mitigation plan, then if we order the respondent to achieve an approved mitigation plan within "X" number of days and he chooses to go that route, then he's approved Page 50 January 23, 2003 and he's complied with our order and complied with the code, more importantly. Okay, thank you. MS. ARNOLD: The time frames, there are time frames, specific time frames that are specified in that first option, so he would only have 30 days to submit the plan and then 60 days thereafter, if that's what you all choose -- if you choose to go with our recommendation for an order to do actual planting of the vegetation on-site. So if it takes him longer than that 60-day or 90-day total time period, then the fines would start accruing. So that needs to be considered by the respondent. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, in your recommendation, you basically say alternately the respondent may choose to complete an off-site mitigation plan within 15 days of the approval of the mitigation plan. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So in other words, he basically pays for the plan within 15 days of the plan's approval. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: There's nothing in here that says that we need to get a plan submitted within a certain period of time. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, 30 days. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I take that back, we do, yes. Thank yOU. MS. DUSEK: I have one question, because I'm a little bit confused about this one part. The SDP on the other two properties. I understood the respondent correctly, he was trying to get that extended over to these two properties in order to do a mitigation plan. Now, that -- that's not one of his options here. MS. ARNOLD: No. MS. DUSEK: Is that a possibility or is that a longer period of time, or-- MS. ARNOLD: Go ahead. If Page 51 January 23, 2003 MS. MASON: I did talk with the planner who's on the project, Joyce Ernst (phonetic), and she stated that at this point in the review process it would not be possible to add these other parcels to it, it was too far along, and it needed to be done under a separate site development plan. And there's also the matter of the special treatment overlay. He's already exceeded the amount allowed to be impacted with that special treatment overlay intact. So there's -- there would be a violation, no matter what. They never would have approved him to clear that amount on the special treatment commercial parcel. MR. FLEGAL: Michelle, I hate to tie people down to certain things. If he doesn't want to submit a mitigation plan, let's just say he -- I don't want to do this. What's his alternative? I mean, he can go put plants in, or does he need that plan to do the planting? MS. ARNOLD: Well, he needs the mitigation plan irregard -- if he wants to replant or if he doesn't want to replant. The mitigation plan would be required regardless. MR. FLEGAL: Either way. MS. ARNOLD: Either way. So he submits a mitigation plan showing the locations, the, you know, number of plants and the types of plants and those types of things, and he decides well, I'm going to go ahead and execute this plan, and he's given an additional 60 days to do that, or he decides well, it's going to cost this much to actually execute the plan, and I'm going to donate that to such and such agency. So those are his two options. MR. FLEGAL: But even if he -- I hate to bring this other piece of property in, because it's really not -- but if he wanted to add the violation property in with his other property, is that a viable option for him? I mean, is that something that he can try to do and that would erase the violations? MS. ARNOLD: I think that was an option that was presented to him initially, because he had explained to the investigator that he was Page 52 January 23, 2003 about to submit a site development plan to add those two parcels. Nothing has transpired. And if he does want to still do that and if the board wants to give him that as an option, I think that then your time frame would be timed to the submittal of the site development plan, and an agreeable mitigation would have to be tied into that SDP. But understand, he could -- that could be years from now before the review of that and the actual completion of that mitigation takes place. MR. FLEGAL: Okay, I guess what I was looking for is if I know what all his options are, rather than trying to tie him to a date, I'm more prone to say you've got 90 days to solve this problem, period. How he solves it, I don't care. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. MR. FLEGAL: I mean, because you're going to give him 30 days for a plan, 60 days to plant the plants anyway, that's 90. Let's just give him 90 days, you do what you want to do. If you don't do it, we're going to fine you. How you do it, I could care less. If it's an SDP, a mitigation, I don't care. Rather than give him little stages, I'm more prone to give him a number and say here's your drop-dead date, do something or else. And that's why I'm trying to ask you these questions, so I understand does he have more than the mitigation plan as a way to go. And I really don't care what that is. I mean, if he would walk in here and say I have submitted my SDP and all that and it's in the cycle, fine, you know, we could probably live with that and say great, you're making progress and we'll let you proceed. But I'm just trying to get all the avenues rather than cut him off. Thank you. MR. CURIALE: Excuse me, could I be able to elaborate? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: No, sir, we're past that section of this hearing. Any further discussion from the board? If not, I would certainly entertain a motion for an order. MR. PONTE: I think Cliff is right on target there. I think Page 53 January 23, 2003 you've done it. You've had the solution, so why don't you frame it? MR. FLEGAL: Well, I guess I would say I would feel comfortable, based on what the county had recommended to us, that if the board orders anything, my motion would be as follows: No. 1, that the respondent be ordered to pay all the operational costs in prosecuting this case before us; No. 2, that within a 90-day period, the respondent abate the violation. MS. SAUNDERS: That's it. MR. PONTE: Period. MR. FLEGAL: Period. If the respondent fails to abate the violation within 90 days, a fine of-- and I guess I could live with the recommendation -- $100 a day be assessed for each day the violation continues. MR. PONTE: If that's your motion, I'll second it. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Just one second before we second the motion. I don't mean to cut you off. Jean -- MR. FLEGAL: I'm done. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- is that a sufficient motion to accomplish what Cliff was talking about? MS. RAWSON: Yes, it is. Because he can mitigate, get approval of his mitigation plan, he can do the off-site mitigation by donating funds. He's got 90 days to do something. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: He's got 90 days to find out how he's going to correct the problem and then achieve compliance. Very good, sounds like an excellent motion. Do I have a second? MR. PONTE: I will second. MS. SAUNDERS: One comment on that? I think $100 a day sounds very high. MS. DUSEK: I do, too. MS. SAUNDERS: You know, yes, he cleared it, it's a small Page 54 January 23, 2003 amount of space. We're hopefully going to get it corrected. It's not an endanger to anything in Collier County at this point. I'd be much more comfortable at $50. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would not. I would rather see $100. MS. ARNOLD: I just want -- I was just going to ask for clarification whether or not it was 100 per parcel or 50 -- Well, we're only dealing with one case right MR. FLEGAL: now. MS. ARNOLD: MR. FLEGAL: Okay. Okay, we have two cases and we're only dealing with one so far. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: At this point in time, the order of the board of the motion Mr. Flegal had indicated was for Case No. 2003-005. MR. FLEGAL: Right. MS. DUSEK: I feel the same as Rhona does, and I don't feel like this is such a dramatic violation, and that the $100 a day is too high. MR. PONTE: I think that given that we are in the process of considering two violations, two parcels and everything else has been additive, I would suggest that it be $50. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Are you amending your second? MR. PONTE: I'mjust-- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Actually, you have to remove your second, if I remember right. MR. PONTE: I will remove my second if Mr. Flegal will agree to just amend his MR. FLEGAL: Not a problem. MR. PONTE: -- recommendations and change the amount from $100 to $50, then I will second that. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay, so the motion has been Page 55 January 23, 2003 amended. MR. FLEGAL: I'll amend it to 50. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion has been amended to 50. Do I hear a second for the -- MR. PONTE: I will second it. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I have a motion by Mr. Flegal and a second by Mr. Ponte. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none, the motion carries unanimously. We'll proceed on to Case No. 2003-006 for the order of the board. MR. FLEGAL: And I would make the same motion on that case. No. 1, respondent pay the operational costs; No. 2, that he comply within 90 days; and No. 3, that he pay $50 a day if he does not comply. MS. BARNETT: I'll second that one. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Ms. Rawson, do you understand Cliff's motion again? MS. RAWSON: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay, thank you. We have a motion by Mr. Flegal, a second by Ms. Barnett. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none, the motion carries unanimously. that. Mr. Curiale, do you understand the order of the board? MR. CURIALE: Yeah, I understood. I have no comment to Page 56 January 23, 2003 Can I say something, now that you guys are moving on? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Feel free. MR. CURIALE: I just found out this morning, I forgot to bring that up to you guys. I just remembered it. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: It's a little late now. MR. CURIALE: I understand that. That's fine. I got the SDP approved, this site over here, and the utilities come across from 951, because I'm being charged with the county to get the water supply and sewer here. Being donated to force main to the county, the force main starts from this end over here, it comes all the way across this area over here and then comes back to this area here. So actually, this area here which is cleared is going to have to be cleared anyway to get the water line and the sewer line across. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: By whatever means you achieve compliance, you have 90 days. MR. CURIALE: We got to work something out with the mitigation -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you, sir. I'd like to adjourn for 10 minutes for the court reporter. We'll recess for 10 minutes. (Brief recess.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We'd like to reconvene, if we can. Everybody's all set and ready to roll? Except for Counsel. I'd like to reconvene the hearing, and we'll proceed to the next item on the agenda, BCC versus Walter Crawford, Case No. 2003-004. If you could proceed. MS. HILTON: I would like to ask if the respondent is present in the courtroom. Okay, we have previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. Page 57 January 23, 2003 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would so move. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion by myself, second by Ms. Dusek. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none, motion carries. Please proceed. MS. HILTON: And please delete Page 13, as it is not a applicable. This is the Board of County Commissioners versus Walter Crawford, CEB No. 2003-004. The alleged violation is of Ordinance No. 98-76, Section 104.1.5.1, as amended by Ordinance 2002-01, Section 104.1.3.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code. Description of violation: Playhouse in rear yard, constructed without first obtaining proper Collier County building permits. Location which violation exists: 10298 Boca Circle, Naples, Florida. More particularly described as Folio No. 4345005704. Name and address of owner where violation exists: Walter Crawford, 10298 Boca Circle, Naples, Florida, 34109. Date violation first observed: March 7, 2002. Date owner given notice of violation: March 7, 2002, and amended notice of violation on December 30, 2002, reflecting the new ordinance. Date on which violation was to be corrected: Was March 19th, 2002, and January 3rd, 2003. Date of reinspection: January 22nd, 2003. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. And at this time I would like to turn the case over to the code investigator, Larry Schwartz, to present the CEB case to the board. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: May we have the witnesses sworn, Page 58 January 23, 2003 please. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SCHWARTZ: Good morning, members of the board. My name is Larry Schwartz, I'm an investigator for Collier County Code Enforcement. On March 7th I received a citizen generated complaint about a playhouse in the rear of 10298 Boca Circle. I went to that location and I observed the playhouse. The complainant stated that it was not permitted, they had no permits. I went to the office, I checked, there was no permits obtained for the playhouse. I gave the violator a notice of violation, and it's been now 10 and a half months since I went out on the case, and the violation still exists. It was later determined that it is now -- it's also in an FPL easement, so he would have to move the playhouse from the easement and then obtain the necessary permits to come into compliance. MS. DUSEK: If he were to remove the playhouse, then that's it. MR. SCHWARTZ: Oh, excuse me, move the playhouse from the easement. MS. DUSEK: Oh, move it to another part of the property? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, I'm sorry, and then obtain the necessary permit. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Is the playhouse -- I'm just looking at Page No. 18 of our evidence package. It just shows an overall elevation of the playhouse. Is it secured to the ground at all, or is it just resting on blocks? MR. SCHWARTZ: It looks to me like it is resting on blocks. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. It's relatively easy to move. It's not secured with foundation, so on, so forth, so -- MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, it is relatively-- MR. PONTE: Have we heard from Mr. Crawford since his Page 59 January 23, 2003 letter of January 14th? MR. SCHWARTZ: I have not heard from him, no. I went there yesterday and there was no one home. MR. PONTE: And when you talked with Mr. Crawford and he explained that he was going to the West Coast, did he give you any indication of how long he was going to be there? I mean, gone a week or-- MR. SCHWARTZ: I had no conversation with Mr. Crawford. I didn't even know he was going to the West Coast. MR. PONTE: Okay, thanks. MS. ARNOLD: He just provided the letter to the -- MS. DUSEK: It says in his letter that he applied three times for a building permit. Do you have any knowledge of that? Through Imperial Homes. MR. SCHWARTZ: I've checked. I didn't see any building permits applied for. He might have tried to apply but they told him no, but there was no permits applied for. MR. LEFEBVRE: In your estimation, how far would he have to move it to be in compliance? MR. SCHWARTZ: I am not even sure how far the easement is, but he would have to move it maybe to the side of the house. MR. LEFEBVRE: How far from his present location would that be? MR. SCHWARTZ: Fifteen feet. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: In Mr. Crawford's letter, he seems to at least indicate that he's very willing to work to resolve this, but yet it's been 10 months since we've had any action. Do you see that your interaction with respondent is equivalent to what's indicated by his letter? MR. SCHWARTZ: I've made numerous attempts and I've spoken to him, a lot of times I left messages, and he wouldn't call for two -- you know, for approximately two weeks. But I've been out a Page 60 January 23, 2003 dozen times within the last 10 months, "I'm going to do this, I'm going to do that," but nothing really has been done. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So it doesn't seem to occupy a high priority, so to speak. MR. SCHWARTZ: for him at work, at home. out there. MR. FLEGAL: Mr. Crawford states in his letter that he spoke to Mr. Perrico and Mr. Ballard. Did you check with them to see that he's talked with this fellow? MR. SCHWARTZ: No, I did not. MS. ARNOLD: He did state also that he spoke to me and he did in fact speak to me about -- MR. FLEGAL: I assumed that. When I saw that statement, I thought if he says that he spoke to Michelle and he didn't, she'd be upset, so I assume he did. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We'd know about it. Any other questions for Investigator Schwartz? None? Thank you, sir. I'll close the hearing portion, open the discussion portion. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that the -- in the case of CEB No. 2003-004, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, versus Walter M. Crawford, that a violation exists. Violation is of Ordinance No. 98-76, Section 104.1.5.1 as amended by Ordinance No. 2002-01, Sections 104.1.3.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: Playhouse in rear yard constructed without first obtaining the proper Collier County building permits. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion by Ms. Dusek. I'll second that motion. MR. FLEGAL: Can I ask Jean a question first? I don't think so, no, because I left messages I'd leave two messages every time I'd go Page 61 January 23, 2003 MS. RAWSON: Sure. MR. FLEGAL: I know that we omitted the county's package, okay, which they send out I guess 10 days before the hearing. This letter from Mr. Crawford I'm sure wasn't part of their package that they mailed out. Do we need to enter this on his behalf?. MS. RAWSON: Wasn't that in your packet? MR. FLEGAL: Well, it was given to us, but I don't know that it was part of the package that you mailed to Mr. Crawford, because he just wrote it on the 14th. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: It's Page 22 of the package. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. FLEGAL: Well, no, part of the package that you gave to us but it wasn't part of the package that you mailed to him, correct? Exactly. Correct. So we probably should enter that as his MS. ARNOLD: MR. FLEGAL: MS. ARNOLD: composite exhibit. MR. FLEGAL: MS. RAWSON: MR. FLEGAL: Yes, this should be his composite A, correct? Yes. Otherwise, it's not in the record. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would entertain a motion to do so. MS. DUSEK: So moved. MR. FLEGAL: I'll make that motion -- I'll second it. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Ms. Dusek has the motion, Mr. Flegal second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you for the clarification. We now have a finding of fact that has a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) Page 62 January 23, 2003 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none, motion carries. If we can move forward to the order of the board. MR. PONTE: Before we do an order, just a thought. Mr. Crawford could be away for a while, has no indication as to how long. I think it would save ourselves a lot of trouble if we just extend the staff recommendation from 60 days to 90 days. I know that this has been pending for a long while, but we don't know when he's going to get back, so maybe another 30 days, just let him have travel time. MS. DUSEK: I thought in his letter, which I can't find right now, that it says that he was going to do something this week. MS. BARNETT: Yeah. MS. DUSEK: "I will be applying for a permit again this week." MS. SAUNDERS: Indicates he'll be back. MR. PONTE: Then he's back. MS. SAUNDERS: I suggest we just accept the recommendation of staff. MR. PONTE: I agree. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would recommend that a fine of $75 per day would be a little excessive in this particular case. MR. LEFEBVRE: I agree. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would recommend that it be adjusted to $25 per day. MR. PONTE: How much? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Twenty-five. MR. LEFEBVRE: I would agree with that. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Again, all we're talking about is a playhouse. It doesn't seem to be any safety or health problems. It seems like it was planted in the wrong spot and it is readily moved and relocated and it's not really a hindrance to much, so to speak. MR. LEFEBVRE: I agree. MR. FLEGAL: We're going to do a motion? Page 63 January 23, 2003 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yeah, I would so move that order of board is point number one, the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case, and abate all violations through obtaining any and all permits required for described structure/improvements within 60 days of this hearing. Also, must request or cause required inspections to be performed and obtain a certificate of occupancy within 30 days after obtaining the required permits or remove and/or demolish the structure within 60 days of the hearing, after obtaining a demolition permit, or a fine of $25 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion by myself-- MS. SAUNDERS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- second by Ms. Dusek. MR. FLEGAL: She beat you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any comments prior to a vote? MS. BELPEDIO: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, may I interject -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes, ma'am. MS. BELPEDIO: -- for a moment? I think it may be a better practice to clarify the order and specifically state that all development orders be obtained within "X" period of time or that the structure be removed, just so that we don't find ourselves in a position where they, you know, get your permit by this date, get your CO by this date. If we forgot to mention an SDP, which, you know, isn't appropriate in this case, but if it were and we didn't mention it, then there may be some issues and challenges to the order. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Point well taken. Thank you for the clarification. Ms. Rawson, would you amend the order to reflect that? MS. RAWSON: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. MR. FLEGAL: I was going to ask if you could do away Page 64 January 23, 2003 without all the day things and pick a final day, like we did before. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, I could just rescind the order and you can -- or rescind the motion and you could -- MR. FLEGAL: No, I was worried that when we give him these times, that, you know, if he gets held up by the county or, you know, whatever, I'm more prone to go pick a final day and say get everything, whatever it is, done by "X" day and then. I think that's just, I don't want to say safer, but a lot easier and less convoluted for them. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Are you saying you'd like to amend the order so that we just say everything is done within 90 days; is that -- MS. DUSEK: Well, if I might just interject this: Usually the public has no idea, as in many cases I don't, about the procedure and how long it takes for each step. Sometimes giving them dates or days helps guide them through each step. So I don't think that we should on each case -- MR. FLEGAL: Well, but once they submit something, you say here get all the permits within 60 days. That may or may not be possible, I don't honestly know. And when you tell him to do that, then you say do something else, get a CO within 30 days, that may or may -- I don't know. So I'm more prone to just say you've got 90 days to resolve the problem, period, or you're going to get fined, rather than give him these dates. Because if something comes up, he's going to come back to us and say gee, the county wouldn't let me do this or the county -- MS. DUSEK: I understand. I just wouldn't want somebody to drag their feet and in 45 days start doing it and say well, I've got -- MR. FLEGAL: That's okay. MS. DUSEK: -- so many days left. MR. FLEGAL: In 90 days -- MR. PONTE: The fines start. Page 65 January 23, 2003 MR. FLEGAL: Ninety days is 90 days. You're giving him 90 days here, 60 days for the hearing and then 30 days for the -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, Ms. Dusek, I think you have the swing vote on this, because it was your second. You would have to rescind your second, or-- MS. RAWSON: If I might interject for a moment, there is a case that the county attorney is going to get me that I will share with you next week. But basically the sum and substance -- next month. The sum and substance of the case is that you need to tell people specifically what to do so that they can't later come back in an appeal and say they didn't tell me what to do. And in the particular case that I'll share with you, there was enough discussion on the record about what to do, like in our last case. There was plenty of discussion. Even though you gave him 90 days, he knew exactly what he needed to do. Because there's discussion on the record about alternatives he had available to him. This respondent's not here, and I wouldn't want him to come back and say well, I don't know what that means. MS. DUSEK: That's how I feel. And the previous case, the respondent did know these procedures, but I think most people don't. And I think you have to give them a time frame. If they need an extension later on, then that's something else. We can come back. MR. FLEGAL: But Ms. Rawson, explaining or discussing what needs to be done is different than saying you must do what within "X" number of days. Giving him the days is not necessarily, I wouldn't think, a case for somebody to walk in and say well, they gave me 90 days and they should have gave me 30 days for this and 45, that's immaterial. MS. RAWSON: No, I understand, and I agree with you there. What I'm saying is if you just say abate the violations and come into compliance within 90 days to a respondent that's not here and we had no discussion about what he needs to do -- Page 66 January 23, 2003 MR. FLEGAL: MS. RAWSON: MR. FLEGAL: MS. RAWSON: I understand that. -- that's the concern. Yeah, okay, so we-- Not that you divide it up, that's fine. MR. FLEGAL: Yeah, telling him that he needs to get permits, he needs to get this, whatever it takes to abate, but do it within this date out here, not intermittent dates in between. As long as we tell him all the things that we think or we've been told he needs to do is what we want to cover, correct? MS. RAWSON: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Ms. Rawson, Ms. Dusek's original -- or maybe it's my motion; I forget whose motion it is now -- the original motion, is that sufficient to accomplish what we're still looking for and still fall within the guidelines that you're recommending? MS. RAWSON: Her motion I think was pretty much the recommendation of staff. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Actually, it was my motion and her second. MS. DUSEK: And my second. MS. RAWSON: Okay. Well, that's pretty specific. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All right. That sounds like a winner. Ms. Dusek, do you wish to rescind your motion -- aye. MS. DUSEK: CHAIRMAN MS. DUSEK: CHAIRMAN MS. DUSEK: CHAIRMAN No. LEHMANN: Yes. LEHMANN: To the vote. LEHMANN: -- or carry it through -- -- to the vote? All those in favor, signify by saying Any opposed? Page 67 January 23, 2003 (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. All right, if we would move on -- close the public hearing section of this meeting and we'll move on to new business. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, this first item is Board of County Commissioners versus Gerald Davidson, Case No. 2002-033. I just want to note for the record that Mr. Davidson is present and there is another item on the agenda, at his request, for a reduction of fines. This case was heard by the CEB on November 18th, 2002. At that time a violation for repeat violation was found. And the respondent was ordered to correct the violation or fines of $250 per day would be imposed, commencing August 27th, which was the day the violation was witnessed by the investigator. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Ms. Rawson, we have a request for an imposition of fines on this case and also later on in the agenda a request for reduction or abatement of those fines. Procedurally we must first impose fines before we can hear whether or not we're going to reduce or abate them, correct? MS. RAWSON: Right. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay, thank you. So we will proceed with this. MR. PONTE: Before we go on, I'm very confused here. And it may be that I just don't understand something. I have a letter from Janet Powers, and -- but the case is 077. 2001-077. And it mentions MS. ARNOLD: Okay, you're jumping ahead. If we can go ahead and impose a fine -- MR. FLEGAL: Yeah, I was going to say -- MR. PONTE: Well, no, my question is, because I couldn't-- when I was looking at the packet, I didn't know exactly what to do with this, because the amounts were different. Page 68 January 23, 2003 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Ponte, I believe you're looking at evidence -- or documentation from a -- MR. PONTE: A previous case. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, and we're not at that part of the agenda yet. MR. PONTE: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: We're -- MR. PONTE: Yes, it was just -- MS. ARNOLD: I can explain it later, if we can get through these proceedings, and then-- MR. PONTE: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. All right, so the fines were ordered to start accruing from August 27th, 2002, which is the date the investigator witnessed the violation. And operational costs were also ordered to be paid by the respondent. At this time staff is requesting that we impose fines in the amount of $28,000 for the period of time of August 27th, 2002 through December 17th, 2002 at a rate of $250 per day plus $852.85 for operational costs. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Just as clarification, was this a repeat case? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay, I would entertain a motion. MS. DUSEK: So moved. MS. SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion by Ms. Dusek, a second by Ms. Saunders. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none, motion carries. Proceed with the next item of business. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, the next item is also a request for Page 69 January 23, 2003 imposition of fines, and that was for CEB Case 2002-023, Board of County Commissioners versus Katrina Furth-Nead, registered agent, Brown Noltmeyer Company, Naples Holdings LLC. This case was for prohibited exotics planting, and it was heard by the board on September 26th, 2002. At that time, a violation was found and the respondent was ordered to correct the violation by December 15th, 2002. If the violation wasn't abated, the board ordered that fines of $100 per day would continue to accrue until the violation was abated. The board also ordered that prosecutional costs for the case be imposed. At this time, staff is requesting that the board impose fines in the amount of $1,306.75 for the operational costs, as the violation was abated as the court ordered. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I so -- MR. FLEGAL: So moved. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion by Mr. Flegal, second by myself. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion carries unanimously. Next item? MS. ARNOLD: Okay, we have Case No. 2002-030, Board of County Commissioners versus Hada G. Olivella, or Ollivia (sic). And that was a case that was heard before the board on October 24th, 2002 for a shed and other items placed on the property without permits. At that time, the board did find a violation and ordered the respondent to obtain permits by November 23rd, 2002 and obtain CO by December 23rd, 2002, or remove the shed by that same date. The respondent was also ordered that if that paragraph was not complied with, fines of $50 per day would be imposed each day the violation continued. And operational costs were also ordered to be Page 70 January 23, 2003 paid by the respondent. Staff is at this time requesting that the board impose fines in the amount of $1,385.15 for operational costs, and no fines, additional fines, would be assessed as the board's order was complied with. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would so move. Do I hear a second? MR. FLEGAL: Second. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Second by Mr. Flegal. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion carries. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, this is -- the next item is 2002-026, Board of County Commissioners versus Rick Johnson Auto & Tire. This case was heard by the board on November 18th, 2002 for a landscaping violation. The board did find in violation of the respondent and ordered that he correct the violation by December 18th, 2002. The respondent was also advised that if he did not correct the violation by that time, fines of $100 per day would be imposed and operational costs would be imposed as well. Staff is requesting at this time that we impose the operational costs for $1,230.70, as the board's order was complied with. MR. FLEGAL: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion by Mr. Flegal, second by Ms. Dusek. All those this favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. Next item? MS. ARNOLD: Okay, this one is Case No. 2001-014, Board of Page 71 January 23, 2003 County Commissioners versus Madison Meadows, and that's a subdivision. This was another exotics case heard by the board on July 25th, 2002. A violation was found, and the respondent was ordered to abate the violation by December 31 st, 2002. The respondent was also advised that if the violation wasn't abated by that date, fines of $50 per day would be imposed each day the violation continued, and operational costs should be paid for the prosecution of the case. Staff is at this time requesting that the board impose fines in the amount of $1,544.65 for the prosecution of the case, and no additional fines would be assessed, as the respondent complied with the board's order. MS. DUSEK: So moved. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion by Ms. Dusek, second by Ms. Barnett. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion carries. We'll proceed on to the request for reduction of abatement of fines. First case is BCC versus Gerald K. Davidson. MS. ARNOLD: The respondent has submitted this packet requesting a reduction of fines, and the information that is required to be completed by the board has been done so, and the affidavit of compliance for the case 2001-007 was for the prior case that was heard by the board. So this matter was brought to the board originally and found in violation, and then the second time that we brought the case to the board it was for a repeat violation and another number was given. MR. PONTE: I see, thank you. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, the first case, 2001-077, there was a fine assessed and the respondent is making payment schedules on that Page 72 January 23, 2003 fine. And so that's what we're providing for you, so you can see that they're timely in their payments and they're trying to abate that violation as well. MR. PONTE: Got you. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: You might have already said this, Ms. Arnold, do we have an affidavit of compliance for Case No. 2002-033? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, they have complied. I believe it's on your next part of the agenda. Yes. MS. RAWSON: And I think it's in your packet back with -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, it's in the reports section. MS. RAWSON: -- the requests for impositions. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Mr. Davidson, would you like to -- MS. ARNOLD: Before he gets up, I just -- the staff person that handled this case wasn't able to be here, and I just wanted to add that he expressed that they have made every effort to quickly abate the violation, once they were made aware of the violation. And they can go into the details about why it wasn't done before. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And I assume you'll speak, you or -- someone will speak for the county's side? Thank you. Mr. Davidson, if you could explain why you're requesting -- MR. DAVIDSON: Yes, first of all, I -- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Excuse me, sir, one second. We are not taking testimony so we do not need to swear Mr. Davidson in; is that correct? MS. RAWSON: I would swear him in. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay, then we'll do so. MS. ARNOLD: Do I need to be sworn, too? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Anyone who wishes to provide testimony, please stand and be sworn in, please. MR. DAVIDSON: Yes, my daughter, Lisa. (All speakers were duly sworn.) Page 73 January 23, 2003 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. Mr. Davidson, if you could proceed. MR. DAVIDSON: First of all, I was aware of the $3,000 fine, and at the time we were in the process of taking care of that $3,000 fine. We felt that the board -- that was probably in view of everything. Even though this place is so isolated. I mean, it's almost ridiculous when we're talking about this area, because it's out at the end almost near Everglades Boulevard. End of the road. It doesn't create any particular problem, eyesores for anyone. But anyhow, having said that, we've tried to do everything and everything (sic). I wasn't aware, I didn't get this other communication on this recent fine thing. The only thing I knew about was the 3,000, because I wasn't in the area at the time, so I wasn't even aware of this. I understand that one of the people that was staying with me signed for this and he never gave me the order, so I didn't even know anything about it. Furthermore, what I've done -- this is my daughter, Lisa, she's actually my spokesperson now and is the inheritor of this property and, therefore, she wants to obviously try to keep it, if she can. So I'd like to turn it over, unless you've got a question for me. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any questions from the board for Mr. Davidson himselF?. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Davidson, the only reason right now that I've heard that you're asking for a reduction of fines is because you did not get the notice? MR. DAVIDSON: Well, it's not only that. And plus, I'll tell you what, it would virtually bankrupt us at this time if you enforced that $30,000 fine on us or pushed it down our throat. It would devastate the family right now, in view of the fact we're behind on our mortgages and so on. And it would just be a total -- if you knew anything about my background and my public service and all this, Page 74 January 23, 2003 I'm the last guy you want to -- I'm one of the good guys, and so is my daughter. My daughter has a full-time job rescuing pets, and she does it -- what I'm saying, we're just not the right people to shove this in our face and destroy the family. That would be a terrible injustice, if you knew any more about us. But anyhow, having said that, is there anything else you want to add to that, or-- MS. DUSEK: No. MR. DAVIDSON: Yeah, I'm just saying, it would just be a -- it would be a disgrace is what it would be. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. And for the record, could you state your name, please? MS. HODGE: My name is Lisa Hodge. As he said, I'm his daughter. I've been handling my father's affairs since November when I came down here. At that time there was an issue with another piece of property, and that's when it was brought to my attention of this very excessive fine, to say the least. As stated previously, we made arrangements, payment plan, we followed through with it. In reviewing the paperwork -- which I do not have in front of me this morning because I drove all night long to get here and had several different mechanical problems with my older car to get here, so I apologize for being ill prepared. I also have a terminal illness and other financial obligations and so forth that I need to handle in a timely manner, due to my sensitive situation. With that in mind, I know that I'm on TV, that this is a public forum, and I would appreciate privacy. If you need to have any additional information to verify anything I'm saying, you can request that and I can give you whatever paperwork to verify what I'm saying, whether it be with a doctor or a bank or financial institute to prove what I'm saying. But at this time I do not want to discuss the Page 75 January 23, 2003 details of my personal problems. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: That's fine. We're only interested in the details of this particular case and how they apply to the fines specifically. MS. HODGE: Okay, as far as this particular case is concerned, I was under the impression this ridiculous fine started on August 27th at $250 a day. I was -- I found this out at the end of November. I immediately came into the office, I immediately processed whatever paperwork, and I immediately took it upon myself to take care of the matter. What I actually think actually happened was the previous case, which does have bearing on what we're discussing this morning, we were fined. It was due to vehicles that were not tagged or considered and/or inoperable was the particular wording on that. There was also different debris consisting of and not limited to different items, wood, tires, there was appliance, different things, just of debris. At that time, we were in compliance in February. I had some different things that needed to be attended in another state concerning being under the doctor's care and so forth. My father was with me at that time. When we left, we were in compliance, and we knew we needed to pay this fine. And we tried to do it in a timely manner, because we have some other financial problems. It wasn't done in an immediate situation. At that time, when we thought we were in compliance and we were told we were in compliance and we left, we didn't look into it anymore. During the time we were gone, there were different vehicles that were put on the property without our acknowledgement, without our permission. When we found out about the offense at the end of November, we went out to the property, we assessed the situation. There were vehicles there. We contacted the person, which is a friend of a friend that parked the car there. At that time we told the Page 76 January 23, 2003 gentleman, you need to remove your car, we're going to have some kind of problem with the board of commissions being a code violation and we're not in the position to afford thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars to take care of somebody else's car that they decide to park there. Obviously they thought it was going to be a good storage place, because it -- like my father said, it's off the beaten path. You have to make a conscious effort to drive all the way out to this place out in the country. There is one neighbor across the street. Other than that, everybody else is quite a distance away. So I understand why the gentleman did that, because obviously he lives in town and he didn't have the room or whatever. But at the same time, A, he should have asked our permission, and B, if it didn't have a tag or it was inoperable, I'm sure he was probably aware of that, and we were not. So with that in mind, I always from day one never felt that this was our problem. The only reason why it's our problem is because it's our property. And so we told the guy get the property of yours off of our property. He did that. At that time -- I've worked with Mr. Letourneau, I spoke to him several times on the phone, I have met with him out on the property. There was never anymore issues. So, you know, I'm not sure why we're at the point with, you know, an excessive fine like this. In listening to the other cases today, you know, we had one gentleman in here can afford a $60,000 wall, he got a $50 fine a day. We're not in that situation. We don't have that kind of money. And at the same time, I guess it's up to you guys to decide whatever fine you want to do. You know, I don't know what you base that on. Obviously it's not on a personal income. We are not in any health issue situation as before, you know, between-- I heard your discussions. We don't have any children or Page 77 January 23, 2003 any safety violations. It was a car that was parked with an improper tag. The debris was picked up a long time ago. So I'm not sure what else needs to be done. But with the financial issues, with the health issues, with having deaths in the family, with having many financial strains right now, even to make the payment -- I did not make our house payment to make that payment. Now, I will continue to do that to stay in compliance, but I'm explaining to you the severity of the situation. And at the same time, my father is getting older, he's getting forgetful, he's not doing things he's supposed to do, and I've got to step in and I've got a full plate already. So with that in mind, I hope you keep that under consideration when you make this decision today. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you. Any questions for the respondent? MS. SAUNDERS: Yeah, I have a question. Lisa, are you down here now, living here? MS. HODGE: I am down here right now to see you guys. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. MS. HODGE: I also have to take care of different things for my father. Do I personally live here full time? No, I do not. I live in northern Kentucky. MS. SAUNDERS: Is anybody going to be keeping an eye on the -- I can understand the problem you had with not knowing what was going on. Is anybody keeping an eye on the property so -- MS. HODGE: I personally have taken it upon myself, ma'am, since November to take care of everything. MS. SAUNDERS: You'll be coming down periodically and checking? MS. HODGE: I will make every effort to come down here. I am under a doctor's care. It was very difficult to get here today, personally, but I'm here today. So I think that stands for -- Page 78 January 23, 2003 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Do you possibly have a neighbor-- MS. HODGE: -- speaking for itself. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: -- or someone who could just give you a call if something goes on with the property? MS. HODGE: There is an elderly man that's across the street. Other than that, there are no other neighbors. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Can you make arrangements with him, just hey, if you see somebody dumping something on my property, give me a call, let me know about it? MS. HODGE: I've spoke to Mr. McKay on several issues, and he's like an older guy, like I would say 80 something years old. I don't know how capable he is of keeping an eye on my belongings or my property. I've made a conscious effort on myself to try to do that myself. Now, I can't be there every day. We've already told the gentleman that parked his car there he didn't have the right to park it there. We've never had any issues before with anybody parking anything anywhere, so I don't see this as a continuous problem. At the same time, I am in the process to eventually move down here, provided everything works out. Because I know my dad can't take care of him himself, and I don't have any other recourse to take care of him, so I have to take care of him myself. MS. DUSEK: Does your father live on the property? MS. HODGE: No. No, he lives on a boat that's sinking out in the water. And every day we're dealing with boat issues. MS. DUSEK: I think our concern is this is a repeat violation and we would not want to see you have to come back before the board again. If there was anybody that you could have periodically just go check the property so that you wouldn't have to make the trip down here yourself and someone who could give you a call. MS. HODGE: Well, I guess it's kind of the old adage, if you want something done, you need to do it yourself. I've asked people Page 79 January 23, 2003 before I could even get out there, you know, could you stop by or something? You have to do it yourself, it's as simple as that. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, let me throw a suggestion out here. MS. HODGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a lot of seasonal residents. And some of those residents employ various companies or people or friends just to come over and check their house out while they're gone. That might be an option that you might want to make some arrangement with somebody here locally just to come by and do literally a drive-by, if that's all it takes. MS. HODGE: Yeah, right, if you had the extra money to do that. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Once a week or once a month or something like that. MS. HODGE: I don't have the extra money to employ a management company. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, I was just thinking it might be less expensive for you to have somebody here locally do that rather than you drive down from Kentucky on a regular basis. MS. HODGE: Yeah, I personally don't really know anybody down here, so I don't have anybody in mind that -- like I said, I'm going to make an effort on my personal part to do that. And just getting back to -- I'm not sure what her name is, Ms. Duske (sic)? MS. ARNOLD: Dusek. MS. HODGE: She stated this was a repeat violation, okay? And technically your paperwork says repeat violation. I don't see it as a repeat violation. We were in compliance with our violation before and we are on a payment plan to do the fine. That's finite. Months gone by, someone parks something on our property, okay? We weren't there to get the notice. Grant you, we can't say Page 80 January 23, 2003 that that's -- you know, that's not even a legitimate reason. You know, if you get a notice, it's your responsibility or whatever, okay? But that was the truthful situation in this problem. The other thing is we told the man, move your car, move your car, move your car, move your car. Well, he finally got around to moving the car, okay? Now, with that in mind, okay, the violation originally was these other cars, this other trash, that was done. Okay, this is a different car and there isn't any trash involved, okay? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, the repeat violation -- MS. HODGE: So it's a repeat violation as far as the same property, but it's not us keep doing the same wrong thing. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: It is a repeat violation simply because not only it's the same property, but more importantly it is the same code sections that are being violated. Whether it is a car or something else that might be there, it is being tried in front of this particular board and was found in a finding of fact that a violation did occur in that specific area and that at a later date after that case was solved and you say yourself you're in compliance, then another case was brought before the board under the same code sections in a sense that we had heard the prior case. So that in a sense makes it a repeat violation. And we're governed by the rules and regulations that govern this board as to how that is defined, and so on, so forth. And Michelle I'm sure can explain it much better than I can; I tend to pontificate too much and not explain enough. MS. ARNOLD: I think, if I can just interject. It's me over here. MS. HODGE: Sure. MS. ARNOLD: I think a part of the problem is to your address that you have listed. If-- you know, if we're going to get a better response from you out of town, we can easily send notices to that address, but you have to change your record with the tax collector's or the property appraiser's office so we have a current address. Because that's who we are required to notify, whoever is listed in that Page 81 January 23, 2003 property appraiser's record. So if it's going to serve you better to change your records with that office so that in the event there is any other problems, the notices get to you, that's what I would advise. MS. HODGE: Yeah, just to reply to that, I changed our address with the code enforcement people. I didn't know that I needed to change the address with the tax assessment people. And so that's my error. But actually making an effort on my part to change my address, that was done, it just was done with the wrong people. And I personally don't have a political background, I don't have a building background. I'm just a common person. Even all of your acronyms this morning, I couldn't really follow what you were talking about, to be quite honest. So I am making a conscious effort. It isn't like we're ignoring this, it isn't like we want to sit around and cause problems for anyone. We thought we were in compliance. We gave what we thought was going to be the right people to give the address change to. And so with that in mind and having all the other things to deal with, we figured this was taken care of, and we went and we moved on to other things going on. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, we'll certainly take that under consideration. What I might recommend with (sic) you before you head back up north is to make sure that you get with Michelle and make sure that all of the entities here locally that need your correct address have that, so in the future if anything happens to the property where a notice is sent out or so, it goes to your current address so that you're getting it in-- MS. HODGE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: MS. HODGE: That's fine. address to anyone. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: MS. DUSEK: -- an expeditious manner. I don't have a problem giving my Well, thank you. Michelle, do you have something to add to all of Page 82 January 23, 2003 this? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, we have the request. And as I expressed, the investigator said as soon as they found out that there was a problem again, they quickly took care of the problem, as she testified today. We also checked the assessment records and the property's assessed at 24,000 -- a little over $24,000. So, you know, her comment with respect to the burden that it would be placing on them to have to pay a $28,000 fine is a valid one. And again, the fines were not simply based on them getting notice of this board's order and ignoring it, it was because we dated the violation, or the date for the fines to accrue back to the date the investigator first witnessed the violation. So -- MR. PONTE: But there was only one vehicle involved? I mean, after-- MS. ARNOLD: Well, the record indicates there were six vehicles, so-- MR. PONTE: Originally on the-- MS. ARNOLD: No, in this -- in the repeat case. And I can't speak to that, because I wasn't actually out at the site, and the investigator's information said that there were multiple vehicles on the property. MS. DUSEK: Did he say since they had been notified that all the six were removed? MS. ARNOLD: He has signed an affidavit of compliance, so the property is in compliance today. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And my understanding is the fine itself is in the amount of $28,000 and there are operational costs in the amount of $852.85? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. FLEGAL: I think we should keep in mind, too -- I understand what you're saying about the assessed value. That doesn't Page 83 January 23, 2003 mean that's what the property's worth. MS. ARNOLD: Right, I understand that too. MR. FLEGAL: Most everything in Collier County is assessed at a number. And if you look at what it sells for, it sells for far greater than that number. So that's really not a comparison, in my estimation. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. FLEGAL: Looking at our order on this, it was posted and you got the address from the tax collector, which we assume is if they pay their taxes, they get a tax bill, so they should receive your notice. So their comment that they didn't receive notice is kind of moot. MS. ARNOLD: I think what Mr. Davidson said is somebody else accepted the notice and didn't tell him anything about it. MR. FLEGAL: Well, but when you mail things out, you mail them to the address you get from the tax collector's office? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, absolutely right. In terms of service, we complied with the service. MR. FLEGAL: And you posted it in the courthouse? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MS. BARNETT: I think Cliff, she actually acknowledged that. She said that when she had spoke, the fact that they didn't actually physically receive the notice is their burden. She did accept that. MS. DUSEK: Your comment just a couple minutes ago about the date of the violation beginning, you said that you didn't -- you dated it back to August 27th? MS. ARNOLD: Which was the date the investigator witnessed the reoccurrence. MS. DUSEK: So are you saying that it should not have been dated beginning August 27th? MS. ARNOLD: That's a choice that the board has. You have the ability to date it back to the date of the reoccurrence, the repeat Page 84 January 23, 2003 occurrence was witnessed by the investigator, which is what you did. I mean, there's no problem with that, but I just wanted to point out that that date doesn't reflect your mailing out the order telling them there is a repeat violation and then starting the fines after that time period or after the hearing. It was dated back to the 27th, which was the date prior to the hearing but the date that the repeat violation was witnessed by the investigator. MS. DUSEK: And what time -- when would they have received notice? MS. ARNOLD: MR. FLEGAL: MS. ARNOLD: The hearing was November 18th? Correct. And we are -- your legal counsel is very quick about getting things out and in the mail as soon as possible. So, you know, a few days thereafter. MS. RAWSON: November the 22nd it was signed by Mr. Lehmann and it was mailed to Mr. Davidson on November 25th. MS. ARNOLD: And we're not dealing with certified mail in that case, it's regular mail. MS. RAWSON: Regular mail. MS. SAUNDERS: I really feel in this case that the fines are excessive, I do agree with that. It is a repeat violation, but I think there are extenuating circumstances as to why it became a repeat violation. I'm concerned only with it not being a continuing violation, that it -- and we need to rely on the property owner to say that they're going to be monitoring this. If not, I would certainly -- if it occurred again, I would certainly be strongly opposed to giving any leniency. But in this case I do feel that it's excessive. I don't think we probably should have started the fines from when it was noticed rather than -- I think we may have -- I'm uncomfortable with our decision to start the fines when the inspector first noticed it versus when we actually sent out the notices, because we gave them no time to abate the violation. Page 85 January 23, 2003 So my recommendation or inclination would be to waive the fines, keep the cost of doing -- the administrative costs on there, and just notify the property owners that, you know, if there is a repeat violation, the maximum fine is $250 per day if we find that there's a violation. And we're not going to accept the responsibility of-- the fact that somebody's out of state or ill or anything else for not knowing what's going on on their property. But I in this case feel that, you know, some clemency is warranted. MR. FLEGAL: I disagree with that theory. I'll throw one out. We had a hearing on the 17th, I think it was, of November. MS. BARNETT: 18th. MR. FLEGAL: 18th. Okay, assuming it was November 18th and everything was done right, if I back down to that and they solved the problem by December 17th, that's roughly 30 days? MR. PONTE: 23 days by my count. MR. FLEGAL: November 18th to December 17th? MR. PONTE: November 25th, actually. MS. DUSEK: Well, that's the date -- MR. FLEGAL: No, that's the day -- MS. DUSEK: -- that's the day it was sent out. MR. FLEGAL: -- it was met. The date of the hearing, go to the date of the hearing. That's when we issued the order and that's when normally everything starts today. Everybody that was here today, the clock starts today. So that's today. That's the way it's been forever. So let's not -- I don't want to try to change that. So if I go back to the November 18th to December 17th, that's roughly about 30 days. I'd have to look at a calendar to calculate it out. I don't have a problem with taking that time period times the $250, plus the costs. MR. PONTE: I do. MS. DUSEK: I do, too. MR. PONTE: I think that $250 in this case for six cars, for that Page 86 January 23, 2003 amount of time, 23 days or 31 days, is extremely excessive. MR. FLEGAL: Even though it's a repeat violation? MR. PONTE: No danger, no hazard, no responsibility, in theory. It's excessive. It has to have changed a lot. MR. FLEGAL: So being a repeat violation doesn't count? MR. PONTE: Of course it counts, but not that much. MS. DUSEK: I would be more inclined to assume that they received notice on the 30th of November, which -- and then they came into compliance on December 23rd; is that -- MS. SAUNDERS: No, they reinspected on December 17th and said at that time that the action had been taken. We don't know when between there it had been because we hadn't given 30 days to correct the problem. MS. ARNOLD: Well, they called us on the 17th and we did the inspection on that date. MS. DUSEK: And it was -- they were in compliance. MS. ARNOLD: They were in compliance. MS. DUSEK: So let's assume that they received notice on the 30th themselves. Seventeen days they were in violation, in my opinion. And so if you do 17 times 250, which I haven't done yet. MR. PONTE: Let me just remind everybody that the 250 is the violation for repeat, but I don't think it is necessarily a minimal violation for a repeat. It's what you can hold someone -- a respondent to for a repeat, but it's not the minimum for a repeat. MR. FLEGAL: I think what I'm hearing us all talking about is we heard the case, we came up with a number which was 250. I don't know if we all agreed or some or whatever. That was done. Now we're sitting here trying to negotiate down the 250. I think that's the wrong thing to do in cases. If we're going to reduce a fine, it should be on some logical basis, not that we didn't like the 250. We agreed to the 250 months ago. That's done. We can't go back and negotiate that to something different. We settled it then. Page 87 January 23, 2003 Now let's find a way to do this by whatever they have told us, what would be reasonable to reduce the fine to, not let's renegotiate how much we fine them per day. Let's just pick a number that's reasonable, if that's what we really want to do. MS. SAUNDERS: I can agree with not reducing the fine after the fact; however, I think the extenuating circumstances here are that an effort of good faith was indeed made, that the problem was solved in less than 30 days, and our job is really to get the code violation fixed. I think whether we were justified or not in putting the fine in, we've accomplished what the goal was, which was to get the violation fixed. And I think they've demonstrated a caring and an attempt to do that as best -- as rapidly as could be -- and I accept that as a mitigating circumstance. MR. PONTE: Without-- yeah, I agree with Rhona. You know, often if something has gone on for a while, this board has decided in the past, and may have in this case as well -- without reviewing the minutes we have no way of knowing -- where we'll go for a little stiffer fine to make sure we quote, unquote, get their attention. Well, we got their attention and they've come into compliance. MR. FLEGAL: Okay, but we still haven't come up with a number. I haven't heard anybody say a number. We're all saying that they've worked hard but, I mean, are you recommending we just waive it altogether? MR. PONTE: No. MR. FLEGAL: Okay, what's the number? MR. PONTE: We already have a cost of 800 and some dollars. In addition to that, if you had a -- you could pick a number, as far as I'm concerned. You want to make it $10 a day for all of the time they -- you know, you don't want to back off the 250. MR. FLEGAL: I don't want to change an order that was issued, and that's what you're trying to do, renegotiate, and I think that's the Page 88 January 23, 2003 wrong thing to do. MS. SAUNDERS: In that case, I would recommend that we simply abate the fine, except for the operating costs. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Let me ask -- MR. PONTE: If that's your motion, I would second that motion. MS. SAUNDERS: I'll make that as a motion. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Let me -- well, I was going to add a few things, but what was your motion? Sorry. MS. SAUNDERS: My motion is that we abate the penalty fines and simply retain the operating costs. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Okay. And we have a second from Mr. Ponte? MR. PONTE: I second that. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Before we vote on that, let me explain a few things that I have concerns with. First off, I agree with my colleague that we don't want to alter the order of the board, because that's not the business we're in. The business we're in is dealing with cases that come before us from respondents and achieve compliance. Now, this one happened to be a repeat offense and the fines imposed were higher than what they would normally be for a normal case. But in my viewpoint, there are many extenuating circumstances that would apply to this case. First off, we do have a respondent that appears to be working well with us to achieve compliance. And there are other extenuating circumstances that if you go according to the rules of our -- of the way we act here, they would come into play with that as well. Mr. Flegal obviously doesn't want to abate the fines simply because then in a sense, my understanding of it, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that in a sense we haven't taught the respondent a lesson, or we haven't pushed the point across and he's understood exactly what's going on. Secondly, this board certainly doesn't need to appear weak in its Page 89 January 23, 2003 ability to control the situation, okay? In both of those instances, I think in this particular case -- and I stress this case, because I really don't like changing fines for the reasons that Mr. Flegal had said. In this particular case, I think that we do have some circumstances that would warrant reconsideration of that. My recommendation on this is that we go with as the motion carries, in a sense. We assign operating costs in this case and that we waive the fines. And simply because I think we do have some cases -- or some circumstances in this particular case that really go outside the realm of what we would normally hear. One thing I don't want to have happen is for this to set a precedence and I don't want this particular respondent or any respondent to get the idea that just because this board might have waived fines in this case it will happen again for this respondent or any other respondent, because it won't. It's a case-by-case review. MS. BARNETT: May I just throw a suggestion? I can -- I'm kind of sitting in the middle here agreeing a lot with what Cliff is saying because I don't want to set a precedent that we've abated a fine completely, but I also hear what my other constituents are saying in that this case has a lot of issues that we need to take into consideration. Could we possibly amend the motion to retain the fine for maybe a couple of days so that we haven't completely abated the fine? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: You're saying a token fine? MS. BARNETT: A token fine? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: You can do any -- this board can do anything it desires in a sense with respect to that. But there should be some grounds for that decision. MS. DUSEK: You usually have to have some solid grounds to make that. It can't just be an intuitive throw-out, I think, well, let's just do this. MR. FLEGAL: I think what she's trying to say is yes, they've Page 90 January 23, 2003 worked with the county diligently and they've resolved the problem, but there was still a violation. And you want to abate the fine just because they've worked with the county. We understand there's some hardships, and we all understand that, and so that gives you reason to maybe try to reduce the fine. But just to abate it because the things I've heard is well, they worked with the county, they did it diligently and they have a hardship so we'll just erase the fine -- MS. DUSEK: Let me say -- MR. FLEGAL: -- there still -- there was a violation and that I'm for reducing it to something rather than just waive it to try and help them. That's what I was trying to -- otherwise, I can visualize other people coming in saying I worked with the county and I got it done. Maybe they're a hardship, something else, not health, and so I want you to abate the fine. We'd be hard pressed to say we can't do it because we've just done it for somebody. MS. DUSEK: We do take each case by case. And just let me say that these people have already shown in the past that they are willing to work with the county. I think had they been in town or had they received the notification as soon as it happened, that we wouldn't be facing this right now. I think that these people have already demonstrated by their performance in the past that they would abate the fine immediately. And I think that at this point in time, we need to give consideration to the fact that they did not receive the notice, even though we did do it legally, we posted it, et cetera. In this case, I think it's an unusual situation, and I think that they have demonstrated -- MS. SAUNDERS: One other factor is that normally here we give a certain amount of time for someone to remedy a problem. In this case, we did not. And I think that's an extenuating circumstance. If we had said the hearing was November 18th, the violation had to Page 91 January 23, 2003 be abated by December 18th or 17th and it went on from then, I would accept that. But I think -- I'm inclined to always want to give somebody at least a 30-day grace period unless, as you say, for your health issue. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Ms. Rawson, in your professional opinion, by the board waiving fines, does that create any precedence that would lead us into potential problems in the future? We don't want to have to respond to precedence over these things. MS. RAWSON: Well, you've done it before. And Ms. Dusek is correct, you take these cases one at a time. And I do not want to see you change the fine, because I don't think you should change your order, but it's in your discretion to -- he filed a motion, and it's properly pled, asking for a reduction or an abatement of the fines. It's generally been your precedent never to let the cost go, but you have the discretion to reduce or abate the fines. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just offer -- MR. FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson, let me -- I want to get more definitive than that. Ms. Dusek's comment was even though they were given legal notice, they didn't receive it, so that's the reason she wants to abate the fine. MS. DUSEK: No, that's not the -- MR. FLEGAL: That's what you said. MS. DUSEK: Yes, that's part of what I said. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. So that statement bothers me if we agree to abate a fine, because you received legal notice, but you said you didn't get it on time, so we're using that as one of our judgments. MS. MR. MR. record so thing. DUSEK: Well, let me just say -- PONTE: Well, it's one of many judgments. FLEGAL: I understand, but that bothers me being on the that somebody else can walk in and say the exact same Page 92 January 23, 2003 MS. DUSEK: MR. PONTE: MR. FLEGAL: No, no. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: MS. DUSEK: Legal -- All right, let me just say that -- You have to say all the other things as well. Order, please. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: One speaker at a time, please. MS. DUSEK: Legal procedure was followed by the staff is perhaps the way I should have said it. MR. FLEGAL: Right. But I don't know-- MS. DUSEK: It was not received by these people. That's what I said. Had they been in town and had they been living here permanently, they would have received it, they would have taken care of it, I firmly believe that. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Let me clarify the issue. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just offer one thing? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes, ma'am. MS. ARNOLD: There was contact with staff prior to the December 17th date, and that was Ms. Davidson -- MS. HODGE: Mrs. Hodge. MS. ARNOLD: I'm sorry. -- contacted Shanelle Hilton to advise that she just received the notice. Unfortunately we can't pinpoint exactly when that occurred. It did -- we know it occurred after the Thanksgiving holidays. And it was early December. And she contacted us right after the violation was abated. I could offer a window of seven days from the time that they were -- we were contacted that they received notice to the date that it was abated as something to, you know, reduce the number of days that the fine would be imposed to the board for their consideration. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Let me clarify -- MR. FLEGAL: My objection-- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Wait, let me clarify an issue first. Page 93 January 23, 2003 The issue of notice. As far as this board is concerned, the respondents have received proper notice. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And that's not an issue for consideration. MS. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Now, whether or not the notice was not received personally by the respondent, it was delivered in this case appropriately and therefore should not enter as a consideration for whether or not fines should be reduced. MR. FLEGAL: Well, that's my objection. Bobbi has stated that that's one of her reasons for wanting to reduce it, and I don't like that reason on the record. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: In this particular case I don't think any of the procedures that we follow in prosecuting these cases, both from the initial onset to the hearing, was violated in any way. MS. ARNOLD: No. MS. DUSEK: No, and that was not my intention. That was not what I meant. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So those are no issues to be considered in the abatement or reduction of the fine. You are to make those considerations based on other evidence and other conditions. MS. RAWSON: In a repeat violation action, you don't have to give them time to cure. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Correct. MS. RAWSON: And in addition, the statute says that $250 is the most you can charge if it's the first violation, and $500 is the most you can charge if it's a repeat violation. MR. FLEGAL: And we didn't do that. MS. RAWSON: And you only charged 250. MR. FLEGAL: 250. Page 94 January 23, 2003 MS. BARNETT: IfI remember the case properly, I think we actually came into this particular discussion and area, and that's why we back dated the fine to the beginning, because it was a repeat violation, without going to the maximum fine. And that's where I'm coming into a hard time with completely abating this fine. I do feel for the individuals and their situation. I kind of would like to lean towards maybe Michelle's window of opportunity there of seven days and fining them on that seven days. If I can get the motion changed, that would be -- kind of make me very happy, because I don't want to set the precedent with completely abating this fine. MR. PONTE: I don't think it sets a precedent, because we've done it before. And along with many cases that we've heard, it doesn't happen very often, so I don't think it's a dangerous precedent. MS. BARNETT: Maybe it's my precedence that would be set, because I haven't been sitting on here very long. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well, let me put it to you this way: The one thing the board certainly does want to do is base its decisions, each individual basing their decisions on the weight of evidence presented to them. There should be some grounds if you are basing your decision on it. I always want the board to act on solid ground so that we don't leave loopholes and other things for problems in the future and we have consistency so that the general public responds and so on and so forth, understand that when we say something we mean it and that we will carry through with something. Again, we have -- right now we still have a motion on the table; is that correct? MR. FLEGAL: Yes. MR. PONTE: Would you mind repeating what that motion is. MS. DUSEK: It was Rhona's motion. MS. SAUNDERS: It was my motion, and my motion was to abate all fines except for the operating costs. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And we have a second for that; is Page 95 January 23, 2003 that right? MS. DUSEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So just to proceed, I would suggest that we at least go to a vote. Since we have a second on this motion we have to either rescind the second or vote to cancel the motion, so to speak. Do I hear a rescission of the motion? MS. SAUNDERS: No, not from me. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Then we'll proceed to a vote. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Aye. Any opposed? MR. FLEGAL: No. MR. LEFEBVRE: Nay. MS. BARNETT: No. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Passes 4-3. Motion carries, majority. Do you understand the order of the board? MS. HODGE: I have just one comment, sir. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Yes, ma'am. MS. HODGE: So with trying to understand this now, we need to pay 800 and some odd dollars. Is that going to be on a different payment plan, or is that just added to the payment plan? CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would assume that would be on a separate arrangement, because it's a separate case. MS. ARNOLD: Whichever way -- MS. HODGE: Is that something I need to talk to Mrs. Powers about again? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Page 96 January 23, 2003 MS. HODGE: Okay, very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Now, I want to make this very clear: This is quite an exception, quite a departure from our normal procedures. MS. HODGE: I appreciate your consideration, sir. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I want you and literally everyone else to understand that you should not expect this again if you were to come before us again on the same case. MS. HODGE: I understand that, sir. MR. FLEGAL: Same type of case. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Same type of case, yes. MS. HODGE: I understand. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We'll proceed on to the next case, BCC versus Ronald Gleichman; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: Gleichman. Okay, this is another request from the respondent, Mr. Ronald Gleichman, CEB Case No. 2002-020. And Mr. Gleichman is not here. In this particular case, the fines -- the property is in compliance, obviously, because we wouldn't have put it on the agenda without that fact existing. And the amount of the fines were for a period of, let's see here, let me see what the date is. Shanelle's checking to see whether or not we have a total amount of fines. But the county attorney's office said that you could -- you may want to entertain whether or not you want to hear this at all, seeing that the respondent is not present to represent himself. MS. BARNETT: Michelle, it looks like I think it says $900 for the period of September 27th through October 9th at $50 a day plus 1,066 for operational costs. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, but that order was the first imposition of fines, and they actually -- he came into compliance November 8th. MS. DUSEK: Jean, if we don't hear his request today because Page 97 January 23, 2003 he's not present, does that mean he can come back at another time? MS. RAWSON: Yes. You don't have to hear it. I mean, he's the one who filed it, so you would think he would be here. Maybe he just assumes you're just going to read his reasons for wanting the fines reduced or abated and he doesn't want to come. We can calculate the costs and the fines, but it's up to you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: If this is not heard today, is it tabled till the next meeting automatically, or do we have to set a date? MS. RAWSON: I think he'd have to call and ask to be put back on the docket. MS. SAUNDERS: I think since he put in his request and he said it was based on the fact that he didn't have enough time, and as I understand it, he was given 30 days, and I personally believe that's enough time, that's all the evidence we have in front of us, I'm prepared to go forward with the request and decide whether or not we think it's appropriate. MR. FLEGAL: Jean, the document that he submitted, which looks -- other than being not as neat -- like the last one we just did, it has been submitted properly, correct? MS. RAWSON: Well, it's not notarized, but yes. MR. FLEGAL: Well, the last one wasn't either, and-- MS. RAWSON: He filled it all out and he's put down there the reasons why he wants a reduction or abatement. MR. FLEGAL: So I think we should proceed. MS. BARNETT: I agree. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Do we have concurrency from the board that we proceed with this case? MS. SAUNDERS: Yes. MR. PONTE: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Then we will do so. Ms. Arnold, anything you would like to present? MS. ARNOLD: I'm trying to calculate what roughly the total Page 98 January 23, 2003 amount is. I think the total amount of the fines to date, based on the compliance date, it's about $2,400, plus another 1,066 for operational costs. And-- which is a total of 3,466. You know, I'm not familiar with his circumstances. I mean, I don't have any -- I think that the board's order was a fair order and it took him more than -- MR. FLEGAL: I make a motion we not reduce the fine, leave it as it stands. MS. SAUNDERS: We deny his request -- MR. FLEGAL: Yes. MS. SAUNDERS: -- for abatement? I'll second that. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: We have a motion by Mr. Flegal, a second by Ms. Saunders that the request be denied. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. We'll proceed to request for foreclosure. MS. ARNOLD: You have a memo in your packet, or should have a memo in your packet for item number -- or Code Enforcement Board Case 2002-032, which is Eloy and Francisco Fernandez. The fines were in-- a total of $5,400 and operational costs were for $524.50 for a total of $5,924.50. So at this time we are requesting that the item be forwarded to the appropriate entity, whether that's collections or attorney's office for collection. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would so moved. MR. FLEGAL: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Motion by myself, second by Mr. Flegal. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) Page 99 January 23, 2003 CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. Old business. MS. ARNOLD: As with the list of imposition of fines, you've got lots of affidavits and compliances. I don't believe you need a motion on this, I'll just go through the list. For the record, the first one is Board of County Commissioners versus Gerald K. Davidson, Case 2002-033. The second is Board of County Commissioners versus Katrina Furth-Nead, Case No. 2002-023. The next is Board of County Commissioners versus Hada Olivella, Case No. 2002-030. The fourth case is Board of County Commissioners versus Joseph and Ida Cannistraci, or Rick Johnson, individually, and that one was Case No. 2002-026. The fifth case was Board of County Commissioners versus Eloy and Francisco Fernandez, Case 2001-032. And the final case was Board of County Commissioners versus James M. Goldie, Case No. 2002-014. All -- we have filed affidavits of compliance and we'll record those documents accordingly. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: So noted. Thank you. Reports? MS. ARNOLD: We provided the board with a report just to give you an idea of what the status of some of our cases are. And this is by calendar year -- actually, it's by fiscal year. Our fiscal year is October 1 through September 30th. And there is a series of charts that are being provided. I'm just going to walk you through those charts and explain what information's being presented to you. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Ms. Arnold, before you go, is this the report that goes to the commissioners, or is that a separate reporting? MS. ARNOLD: It's a separate report that goes to the commissioners. This is just for your benefit. Page 100 January 23, 2003 And we're going to try to do this on an annual basis so you can know, you know, how we're doing in terms of collections of fines or kind of give you an overall summary of the decisions that have been made over the years. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Very good. MS. ARNOLD: I just want to note, though, that 2001 was the year that we actually did a lot of changes with respect to this board. We changed our rules and regulations, we -- that was the year that we actually said let's start taking action after the compliance date has passed and nothing has happened with the cases. So you'll see that there's an awful lot more cases in some years with respect to forwarding and foreclosures and those types of things. But the numbers have reduced dramatically since then. The first chart is showing you the case types, giving you an idea of the types of cases that you have heard. And as you can see, the majority in 2001 were for permit violations. We had a substantial amount of illegal land use, which is kind of a catchall type category. And then environmental cases. We had two housing cases and no sign cases. We also in 2001 again -- the majority of the cases were illegal land use cases, and environmental cases coming in a close second again. MR. FLEGAL: Michelle, can I ask a question? On your case types, your -- 0 to 30, that represents what? Is that 30,000, 3,000? MS. ARNOLD: Number of cases. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thirty days. MR. FLEGAL: You only had 30. MS. ARNOLD: We had a total in 2001 of 52 cases. The largest number was 29 cases, and those were permit related. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: It just seemed like more. MS. ARNOLD: In 2002, we had -- we heard 31 cases. And the majority of those, which was 13, were illegal land uses. Page 101 January 23, 2003 The next chart was fines imposed. In 2001, just so you see the actual numbers, as you can see, the illegal land uses were the cases we imposed more fines for, as compared to the fact that we had the majority of our cases in permit cases. We imposed an amount of 166,133 for illegal land uses in 2001, and then the next amount after that was 35,756, which was for permit cases. So our fines were substantially greater for the illegal land uses than the other cases. In 2002, the large number was 59,013, which is again for illegal land uses. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And what do you attribute the difference is from 2001 to 2002? Is it the sheer volume of the cases that were there? MS. ARNOLD: No, we had 13 cases in that same category in 2002, and 16 in 2001, which isn't a substantial difference. It could be the magnitude of the cases, you know, the types of illegal land uses that warranted a higher per day fines that we experienced last year. Prosecution costs imposed, if we went back to before 9 -- 2001, we probably wouldn't have very great numbers there at all, because again, 2001 is when we started doing that. The permit side of it were our highest imposed prosecutional costs, and they -- there's not a big difference in the types between -- between the types of cases and the cost. 9,800 was for permits, 9,000 was for environmental, 7,100 was illegal land use, and housing -- and I think that was basically because the number of the few housing cases we had-- was only 1,100. In 2002, the numbers ranged from 5,000 to 9,000. And environments won out in that one. Revenues received, now that's the -- we may impose an awful lot of fines, but the collection side of it is what's difficult. And again, you all have taken substantial amount of changes to try to at least collect those monies by the county by forwarding those cases to the Page 102 January 23, 2003 county attorney's office, as well as by forwarding cases to the collection agency that the county has under contract. In 2002, of the amount of fines that we imposed, the environmental side is -- we're best at getting collections from our environmental cases. And those are typically where they do the off-site mitigation and they'll just pay the fines or pay a penalty just for vegetation removal or after-the-fact vegetation removal permits, and that was a total of about 14,000. The next amount was illegal land use, and we collected about 11,000 there. And then it's dramatically different for the other types of cases, 1,900 for permits and then only 723 for housing. In 2002, again the environmental side, we collected 5,200, and again, the numbers go down in collection amounts after that. Only 1,997 for permits and 867 for illegal land uses. MR. FLEGAL: Michelle, if we compare the fines imposed and the revenue received, okay, if I look at fines imposed in 2001 for illegal land, which is something over 160,000? MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. FLEGAL: And you collected maybe 11, 12 -- MS. ARNOLD: 12,000, yeah. MR. FLEGAL: Is the balance divided between abatement and foreclosure, or-- I mean, that's a big spread. MS. ARNOLD: The 10,000 or 11,000 that we collected are either -- there were smaller amounts of fines that were imposed, and those property owners paid them in full, or we're collecting on a payment schedule for some. So that's the spread. So we're not -- it's not like we're compromising that 160,000. MR. FLEGAL: I was just curious if we imposed 160,000 and so far only collected 10, that's a pretty big disparity. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. And we may have imposed-- that's the other thing, too, we may have imposed those dollar amounts in a given fiscal year, but, you know, we may not collect it for another Page 103 January 23, 2003 three, four fiscal years. So it would be nice if we got it right away. MR. FLEGAL: It's not like paying your electric bill, is it? MS. ARNOLD: No. We can't shut it off. So yeah, there is a big difference between what we're collecting and what we're imposing. But the county attorney's office, you know, had to catch up, so to speak, on a lot of those cases that just sat dormant for years without doing anything. So they're helping us in those efforts to collect. And I think that the actions that the board has taken in the last few months, you know, people are saying well, they're serious and they're coming in and, you know, setting up payment schedules, as the last respondent that you heard from has with my operations manager and they're making regular payments, so we're getting there. The next chart is showing you a comparison with the number of requests that we've heard. And we don't get a lot of requests, as you all know, for reductions or abatements of fines. In 2001, we got three requests. And of those, all three were granted and the full amount was granted. In 2002, we got two requests, and one was granted and it was reduced by 50 percent. MR. FLEGAL: I'm confused. MS. ARNOLD: I know, the chart is not a good chart to show the numbers that I'm reading to you. MR. FLEGAL: In your first chart, which is case types in 2002, didn't you say something like 40 some cases? MS. ARNOLD: 52 cases were heard in 2001 and 32 in 2001. If you had 32 in 2002, 40 percent of 30 some MR. FLEGAL: cases is like 127 MS. ARNOLD: I'm saying that the chart is not a good one, because what it's doing is based on the requests that we've heard for reduction of fines, not based on the total overall cases you've heard and relating that to the requests that have come in. It's looking at the Page 104 January 23, 2003 total number of requests that came in. Between 2001 and 2002, we've got five requests for reduction of fines. And between those two fiscal years, three of them were -- happened in 2001, and 100 percent of those were granted. In 2002, two were requested and one was granted, and that particular one was granted not for the full amount but for 50 percent. So the chart is not a good one. I can give you the actual numbers. MR. FLEGAL: No, that's okay. I was confused by saying 60 percent of the cases come in for -- I didn't remember that many and I was trying to equate it. MS. ARNOLD: No, that's not a good representation. We have in 2001 requested 20 cases be forwarded to the county attorney's office for foreclosure, and part of that is the backlog that we had. In 2002, seven of them were requested for-- or forwarded for foreclosure or collection. Do you all have any questions on that? That's essentially it. MR. FLEGAL: Nice work. MS. ARNOLD: You know, we want to show you guys that you guys are being effective. MS. SAUNDERS: We're making a difference slowly. MR. FLEGAL: Are we helping your work load? MS. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Any comments? The normally scheduled meeting in April, scheduled for April 24th, apparently needs to be rescheduled? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. And we've reserved the room for the 21 st, which is a Monday, the Monday prior to that normally scheduled day. And the reason for that is our counsel is not available that date and we want to have her here. So -- MS. RAWSON: I appreciate you making that accommodation for me. I've got to be in Washington. MR. FLEGAL: That's not a problem for me. Page 105 January 23, 2003 MS. DUSEK: Before we close, I'm concerned about the termination dates of a couple of our colleagues; not just these people, but when they terminate, which is in the middle of the month. And I don't know if there's any way that that can change. I guess this is what the county commissioners had decided to do. I think George and Peter are right in the middle of February, and of course Peter's our chairman, and-- CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: But we have a vice chair. MS. DUSEK: I know we have a vice chair, but I'm thinking about in the future. If there's a termination-- if there's an expiration, I should say, of the term, it should be at the end of the month. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I can express that to the board. I don't know how they establish the -- you know, whether it's in the middle or at the end. But I think that date has been long standing for some time. And it's the same date each year that the expiration of the term happens, February 14th. But with respect to leaving this position, they can submit a resume and the Board of County Commissioners has the ability to waive the terms of office, so -- MS. DUSEK: Well, under the circumstances, let's say that neither one decides to do this, are you prepared to have somebody new step in because-- MS. ARNOLD: The matter has to be before the board and whoever they decide to select to fill those vacancies would be the ones that would come and sit in the chair at the next meeting. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: And as long as we have a quorum, the board can still pursue its activities and conduct its business. MS. DUSEK: Right, I understand. MS. RAWSON: and we elect officers. MR. FLEGAL: MS. ARNOLD: Don't forget that March is your annual meeting We didn't decide on the April 21st date. If you don't know, give us a call. Page 106 January 23, 2003 MR. FLEGAL: Can anybody say-- MS. SAUNDERS: Works for me. MS. BARNETT: Works for me. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: It won't work for me. MR. FLEGAL: I'm trying to slide you in here. MS. RAWSON: Did everybody get the information about the workshops? It was just laying here on this desk. But here's what it says, and I think it's pretty important. Notice of informal workshops. Notice is given that the county attorney's office will be presenting workshops on the Sunshine Law, ex parte issues to the following. It lists all the boards, including Code Enforcement Board. There are two workshops scheduled, one was Friday, January 17th, so I think we missed it. But the second one is Monday, February 3rd from 9:30 to 11:00 in this room. MR. FLEGAL: Never heard anything about it. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I would suggest the members of the board make note of that. MS. ARNOLD: You all, with the exception of the new member, two new members, participated in that workshop. MS. RAWSON: I'm sure it's the same one the county has done before. MS. MS. MS. ARNOLD: They're going to have other dates as well. BARNETT: What was the date again? RAWSON: February 3rd, 9:30 in the morning. So if the new ones can come. I think I'll come. MS. DUSEK: Jean, will you have a copy of the bylaws for us next month so that we can review them for the annual meeting? MS. RAWSON: Yes. Don't you all have copies of your -- are you talking about your rules and regulations? Don't you all have copies of those? MS. SAUNDERS: We've all been given copies. MS. RAWSON: I think they would like to have copies in their Page 107 January 23, 2003 packets next month so they can review them in case they have any changes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Hint, hint, hint. MS. ARNOLD: Again we will do that, yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: As a parting note, I just wanted to inform the board, this is my last meeting here, and I just wanted to thank every member of the board. The donation of time and effort and conscience that you put into everything, every case that we have here, is incredible. I just wish the general public would literally know how difficult this job really is. And the pay's lousy. MR. PONTE: I'll mention that when it comes to donations. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: But I'm truly honored literally to not only serve on the board with esteemed colleagues and such learned people, but more to get to be your chairman, so I'm honored and I appreciate it, everything we've gone through in the last board. Also Ms. Rawson. Hey, you're the grounding rod to everything we do, so I'm very appreciative to all your advice. MS. RAWSON: Thank you, I appreciate that, Peter, and I think you could certainly reapply. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: I think it's probably time for me to retire. And obviously to the county attorney, thank you very much for everything you're doing, keeping us straight. And Michelle, obviously to you and your staff, you're doing an excellent job. Keep it up. It's a difficult job that your inspectors have. Let them know that, you know, I understand it's tough. And it's very difficult for us as a board member. We're a very impartial judge. We have to literally hear the cases back and forth and weigh it on the evidence. And we do not try specifically to side with anybody. But I know it's tough being an inspector. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I just want to say, I appreciate your kind words and all the effort that you have contributed to the board and Page 108 January 23, 2003 improving the way this whole thing has functioned. Because I know that you are one of the veterans that helped us rewrite our rules and regulations and, you know, I think you're a big part of why we are doing as good a job as we are right now. So thank you very much. And I hope you reconsider. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Well -- MS. DUSEK: Kudos to Peter. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: The decisions that come down from this board and all the actions they take is not any one person, it's us as a consensus. And I think we argue very well, and that's very important for each member to understand. It's not important for us to have unanimous decision, it is very important for us to vote our conscious and literally argue the issues out and weigh it out. And I think the board's doing a great job. Ms. Dusek, obviously you get to take the torch next month, and she will do a bang-up job as a chairperson. So I thank you very much for everything you have given me. MS. DUSEK: I say also, I hope you reconsider. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Thank you for the support. And George, I'm sorry to see you leaving. MR. PONTE: Thank you all. I'm up. MS. ARNOLD: Not submitting your-- MR. PONTE: I have resubmitted, but I haven't heard anything. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Anyway, I would entertain a motion. MS. SAUNDERS: So moved. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: Second, I assume? MR. FLEGAL: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEHMANN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. None opposed, so let's get out of here. Page 109 January 23, 2003 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:35 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD PETER LEHMANN, CHAIRMAN Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 110