Loading...
CEB Minutes 04/21/2003 RApril 21, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida April 21, 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: ACTING CHAIRWOMAN: Roberta Dusek Sheri Barnett Albert Doria, Jr. Gerald Lefebvre George Ponte G. Christopher Ramsey Rhona Saunders ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board; Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director; Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney; and Shanelle Hilton, Code Enforcement Coordinator. Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA AGENDA Date: April 21, 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, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL tS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 27 2003 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS a. Motion to Continue 1. BCC vs. Shirwin Inc and Edwin C. Skafca as its Registered Agent and President CEB NO. 2003-018 B. HEARINGS BCC vs. Shirwin Inc and Edwin C. Skafca as its Registered Agent and President Location: East Toll Plaza RV Resort Alleged Violation: prohibited exotics and failure to submit Exotics Maintenance Plan. BCC vs. Wilma J. Britton and Gordon E. Schultz and Kay M. Schultz Location: Holiday Manor Cooperative, Inc. Alleged Violation: On 3/22/02 and 2/13/03, did witness a survey of Henderson Creek Drive conducted by Wilson Miller, requested by Collier County Public Utilities, and it was determined that the shed~utility building portion of the mobile home, portion of the carport are m the County right of way. BCC vs. Wilma J. Britton and Gordon E. Schultz and Kay M. Schultz Location: Holiday Manor Cooperative, Inc. Alleged Violation: On 3/22/02 and 2/10/03, did wimess three enclosed additions erected without first obtaining authorization of required permits, inspections and certificate of occupancy After research it was determined that one of these additions at the rear comer of the mobile home, was permitted for a roof over existing slab and was later enclosed without proper Collier County permits. CEB NO. 2003-018 CEB NO. 2003-015 CEB NO. 2003-014 4. BCC vs. Lorraine Burgess and Lindell McFadden Location: Singletary Drive, Copeland Florida CEB NO. 2003-016 Alleged Violation: On August 27, 2002 and again on November 25, 2002, confirmed the existence of three mobile home structures and one occupied travel trailer, all placed on village residential zoned parcels. Same parcels previously improved with a principal use reference Collier County building permit No. 910004809 (2 bedroom frame residence). No Collier County building permits for all additional structures and related improvements. BCC vs. Lorraine Burgess Location: Copeland Florida Alleged Violation: Repeat Violation; On July 16, 2002 and on August 27, 2002, did observe the existence of one occupied mobile home structure on an unimproved lot. A search of the official records of Collier County, revealed that this structure had been erected, moved, added to, altered and utilized without first obtaining authorization of the required permits, inspections and certificate of occupancy. In addition, the order of the Code Enforcement Board filed in the Official Records of Collier County at OR Book 2704, Page 0840, revealed that on 09/23/99, Ms. Burgess was found to have violated Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended Section 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5, the same provisions as cited in the Notice of Violation dated February 7, 2003 and is therefore a repeat violator. CEB NO. 2003-017 NEW BUSINESS A. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC vs. Daniel Goldman 2. BCC vs. Walter Crawford CEB NO. 2003-013 CEB NO. 2003-004 B. Request for Reduction/Abatement of Fines C. Request for Foreclosure OLD BUSINESS A. Affidavits of Compliance 1. BCC vs. Daniel Goldman B. Affidavits of Non-Compliance 1. BCC vs. Walter Crawford CEB NO. 2003-013 CEB NO. 2003-004 7. REPORTS 8. COMMENTS e 10. NEXT MEETING DATE May 22, 2003 ADJOURN April 21, 2003 ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting to order. Note, any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. Before we do the roll call, I just wanted to let everyone know that our chairman, Cliff Flegal, had a medical emergency last week. He is doing very well. I am sure he is watching us this morning, and we look forward to your return, Cliff. Roll call. MS. HILTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. For the record, my name is Shanelle Hilton, CEB coordinator. Cliff Flegal and Catherine Godfrey both have an excused absence. Roberta Dusek? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Here. MS. HILTON: George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. HILTON: Rhona Saunders? MS. SAUNDERS: Here. MS. HILTON: Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. HILTON: Sheri Barnett? MS. BARNETT: Here. MS. HILTON: Albert Doria? MR. DORIA: Here. MS. HILTON: Christopher Ramsey? Page 2 April21,2003 MR. RAMSEY: Here. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Are there any changes to the agenda? No changes. Do I hear a motion that we accept the agenda? MR. PONTE: So moved. MS. SAUNDERS: Second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: I believe it was Rhona who was second. All in favor? (Unanimous votes of ayes.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Any opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Motion carries. Approval of minutes. Are there any changes to the minutes for March 27th? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: motion that we accept the minutes? MR. PONTE: So moved. MS. BARNETT: Second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: The motion was by George Ponte and Sheri Barnett was the second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) Any opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Motion carries. The public hearings. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director. We are trying to coordinate with the information technology A motion by George, and No changes? Do I hear a Page 3 April 21, 2003 department to conference in our first respondent, so if we want to go and do our-- we can go through and do some of our kind of-- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Reports? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, administrative actions. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: All right, why don't we do that. MS. ARNOLD: And hopefully it will be ready by then. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Then you want to move to new business? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, if we could do that. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: All right. If that's acceptable to the board. Do I hear any objection that we go to new business, which is number five on the agenda? MR. PONTE: No problem. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Okay, go ahead, Michelle. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, the first item on your agenda is Code Enforcement Board Case 2003-004, which is Board of County Commissioners versus Crawford-- Walter Crawford. This case was heard by the board on January 23rd. At that date, the board found a violation did exist, and requested that the respondent obtain all necessary permits within 60 days and certificate of occupancy within 30 days after the issuance of that building permit, or remove structure within 60 days. The respondent was also ordered that if they did not comply with that first request, that fines would be imposed at the rate of $25 per day, commencing on March 23rd, 2003. The respondent was also ordered to pay operational costs incurred for the prosecution of the case. Staff is at this time requesting the board issue imposition of fines in the amount of $650 for the period of March 21st through Page 4 April 21, 2003 April 15th, and $1,304.10 for operational costs. The respondent has applied for a permit but has not yet scheduled the required inspections, and thusly not attained a certificate of occupancy. Once they obtain a certificate of occupancy, then the fines will stop accruing. So staff is requesting that you impose those fines today. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Is there any comment from the board? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Do I hear a motion that we go ahead with the county imposing the fines? MR. PONTE: So moved. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Is there a second? MS. SAUNDERS: Second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: The motion was by George and the second was Rhona. All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Any opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Motion carries. MS. ARNOLD: We have a second request for imposition of fines. That is Code Enforcement Board Case 2003-013, Board of County Commissioners versus Daniel Goldman. This case was heard by the board on March 23rd. At that time the board found a violation did exist and ordered the respondent to obtain all required inspections and certificate of occupancy within 15 days, or fines of $100 per day would be imposed each day the violation continued past April 11 th. The respondent was also ordered to pay operational costs. Staff is at this time requesting that the board impose a fine in the amount of $985 for operational costs only, as the violation has been Page 5 April21,2003 abated as ordered by the board. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: we go ahead with the imposition of fines? MS. BARNETT: I'll make a motion. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Sheri, the second by George. All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: (No response.) Do I hear a motion that Second? Is there a The motion was made by Any opposed? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Motion carries. MS. ARNOLD: And the other items that we have are under old business. We do have -- and just to report for the board, we have filed an affidavit of compliance for the Daniel Goldman case, and staff has also filed an affidavit of noncompliance for the Walter Crawford case. And the board needs take no action on either of those. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Okay. Are we ready with the first case, or are they still in the process? MS. ARNOLD: I think they're still in the process, as they haven't come back. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Do you want to move to reports -- do you have any other reports? MS. ARNOLD: We have no other reports. So we could -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Do we want to go ahead with the first case before we do the motion to continue? MS. ARNOLD: Well, the first case is related to the motion to continue. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: I meant beyond that one, Page 6 Apdl21,2003 case number two. Although I don't know how quickly they're going to get the conference call. MS. ARNOLD: If we could take a two-minute break so that I can check with IT? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And then if it's going to take some time, then we can go ahead and do that. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: We can take case number tWO. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: All right, why don't we do that, we'll take a quick break, just a few minutes. (Brief recess.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: The code enforcement meeting is now called back to order. MS. ARNOLD: The first item on your agenda is Board of County Commissioners versus Shirwin, Inc. and Edwin C. Skufca, as its agent and president. And we are awaiting Mr. Skufca's phone call. When he calls in, it should click, as the administrative assistant indicated. MR. PONTE: Michelle, just while we're waiting for that call, there is a misspelling in his surname, that he has signed it Skufca, S-K-U, but in our documents we refer to him as Skafca, S-K-A. MS. ARNOLD: The spelling is in the property appraiser's records that way, so we didn't change it. MR. PONTE: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: We didn't alter it. So they've entered it into the official records incorrectly, so we couldn't alter that. We can note that for the record, that the spelling is incorrect in the record. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Just to inform everybody that the first part of this is going to be a motion to continue. If we Page 7 April 21, 2003 decide to continue the motion, then the case -- then we will not hear the case. So we're waiting for Mr. Skufca to speak to us on why he wants to continue the case. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, just to note that everyone would vote today, since we do have two permanent members out. Right? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Good point. Michelle, do you understand what's going on, or are we -- MS. ARNOLD: I think he might be having trouble calling the number, so we're checking the phone number that he dials in here. MS. SAUNDERS: The more high tech we get. Bobbie, can't we just go ahead and approve it? That's what we're going to do. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: I might remind everyone that the meeting is in order and so any comments made will be heard. MS. SAUNDERS: Sorry. Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Technology at its best. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Jean, I have a question. If for any reason they're not able to connect and he's not able to be heard, can we just go ahead with this continuance? MS. RAWSON: You can certainly consider the motion. I think it's in the front of your packet. And I see there's a Delta Airline ticket, so I assume that that's the reason. So I think you could act on the motion, if he can't call in, as i~fhe had filed it, which he has. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: Could we try -- could we -- I mean, because he's -- his reason for continuance is merely he can't be present. Could we go ahead and hear the motion and then try to conference him in for the case, if it's not continued? MS. RAWSON: Yes. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: I think that would be a good avenue to follow. Page 8 April 21, 2003 MS. ARNOLD: Okay. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Each of us has in front of us the motion to continue. I assume that everyone has read this, his travel arrangements. He's not able to be here today so he has asked that we postpone it till next month. Are there any comments from the county? MS. ARNOLD: I've checked with the investigator for this case, and we would object to the request, because Mr. Skufca has been in communication with the investigator for some time and we are concemed that if we postpone it any longer, that we will be in rainy season, and it would be more difficult for compliance to occur, so it would push out the compliance time. The investigator has also spoken with the contractor that Mr. Skufca is I guess making arrangements with, and he's indicated that he would be able to complete the removal within two weeks. So postponing it for another month may mean postponing it for another season, another rainy season. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Do I understand you to say that Mr. Skufca has a contractor who could complete this within two weeks? MS. ARNOLD: I'm going to have you talk to -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: And Susan, since you are going to give us some information, I would like to have you sworn in. MS. MASON: Okay. (Speaker was duly. sworn.) MS. MASON: For the record, I'm Susan Mason, environmental specialist with code enforcement, Collier County Code Enforcement. And I did just speak this moming with a contractor. He does not have a signed contract at this point, but Mr. Skufca had contacted him and asked him to go out and evaluate the property and give a Page 9 April21,2003 bid. In the course of our conversation, I asked him if he started today, how long would it take to complete the work, because that was one thing that was key to try to see if we could get this finished before the rainy season started. And he did say it would be about two weeks that -- from the time he was able to get out there and start working. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: In this letter that Mr. Skufca has written to Shanelle, it says that you've had a meeting with him, it was rescheduled to April 4th. Is this an information meeting? MS. MASON: I'm not real sure exactly what he's referring to in this. I've never met with Mr. Skufca in person. We've always talked only over the phone and with various parties he's attempted to contract to have this removal done that were all too small to do it. Because it is a larger natural area and they don't do that type of work. And so honestly, I'm confused. The only thing I thought he might have been talking about was a CEB warning letter that was sent out, but even those dates were incorrect versus the warning letter, so -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Did you have a conversation -- THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, your microphones have shut off. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Are we back on? MS. MASON: I'm not sure ifI -- I don't have my telephone log with me. I don't know if we had a phone conversation. I've had numerous conversations with him since June, 2002, but I'm not sure if there were conversations on those exact dates or not. I don't really understand his -- that section of his request. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Do I have any comments from the board? MR. PONTE: Yes. I think my inclination is to side with the Page 10 April21,2003 county's recommendation and to deny the motion for continuance. Mr. Skufca has been dragging his feet since June of last year, has had dealings with other contractors that haven't worked out, and if we delay this at all to next month, then we're facing the rainy season and it makes it more difficult to do the job. So I would like to make a motion right now that we deny the continuance. MS. BARNETT: George, seeing that I agree with you, I will second it. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: There's been a motion made to deny the motion to continue this case. The motion was made by George, second by Sheri. Are there any other comments.9 (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Any opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: The motion is denied. We will start with the case. MS. ARNOLD: While Shanelle enters the information and reads into the record the pertinent information, I'll check with IT to find out what their progress is. MS. HILTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Our first case is Board of County Commissioners versus Shirwin, Inc. That's S-H-I-R-W-I-N, and Edwin C. Skufca -- it's S-K-U-F-C-A-- as its registered agent and its president, CEB Case No. 2003-018. I would like to ask if the respondent is present in the courtroom. (No response.) MS. HILTON: We know he is not, of course. We have previously provided the board and the respondent with Page 11 April21,2003 a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Do I hear a motion that we enter the county's Exhibit A? MS. BARNETT: So moved. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: A motion is made by Sheri. Is there a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Second by George. Any comments? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Any opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Motion carries. MS. HILTON: The respondent was served with the notice of hearing by certified mail, which he did receive, I got the green card back, and the property and the courthouse was posted as well. The alleged violation is of Section 5.7, paragraph C of Ordinance No. 85-57, as amended, a PUD or a planned unit development for the property known as East Toll Plaza RV Resort. The description of the violation: Accumulation of prohibited exotics, including but not limited to Brazilian pepper, melaleuca, carrotwood and air potato on approved PUD zoned property. Also, no maintenance plan filed with Collier County as described in the PUD Ordinance 85-57, as amended. Location where violation exists: 3050 Beck Boulevard, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 00396360001. Name and address of owner in charge of location where Page 12 April 21, 2003 violation exists: Shirwin, Inc., care of Edwin C. Skufca as its registered agent and president, 30449 Shaker Boulevard, Cleveland, Ohio. Date violation first observed: May 22, 2002. Date owner given notice of violation: June 4, 2002. Date on which violation was to be corrected: June 26th, 2002. Date of reinspection: March 19th, 2003. And I believe the investigator went out again on Friday, which was April 18th. Results of the reinspection is the violation remains. And at this time, I would like to turn the case over to the code investigator, Susan Mason, to present the case to the board. MS. MASON: Good morning again. This case originated as a complaint about road access. There is a road that exists on the west side of this parcel here, which is actually now called -- it's Panther's Walk RV Park. And this physical road and the maintenance of the exotics on that was the original complaint. After doing further research and outlining the actual property boundaries, you can see on -- in your packet, I believe it's Page 22 of the zoning map, actually shows where the Lebuff Road is. The actual physically existing road is only on the section of the other PUD, the Toll Plaza RV Park. The part of the road easement that's actually on East Toll Plaza, or Panther's Walk, is not developed. It's got a swale in it and it's not part of the physical road itself. But while I was out there investigating that initial complaint about the road access, I observed all the prohibited exotics in the natural area, as well as some of the developed area of Panther's Walk. And I issued the NOV last June, required removal where possible to take place then. There were some areas that were dryer that removal could have started. As far as the maintenance -- that they could start Page 13 April 21, 2003 some removal in the dryer areas. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, I think he's on. MR. SKUFCA: I'm on? Do I hang up with you? MS. ARNOLD: You are on, Mr. Skufca. This is Michelle Arnold. Can you hear me? MR. SKUFCA: I can hear you. MS. ARNOLD: What's going on in the meeting right now is Investigator Susan Mason is providing the board testimony. And if you could just sit and listen. What the board has already done is taken action on your continuance, so they've decided to hear the hearing today. MR. SKUFCA: And no continuance? MS. ARNOLD: No continuance. MR. SKUFCA: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, go ahead, Susan. Sorry. MS. MASON: Okay. In the interim of when I wrote my NOV, I requested that exotic removal begin where possible in the areas that were dry, because it hadn't really started raining at the beginning of June of 2002, and to submit a plan for maintenance and then also to have the remaining exotics that couldn't have been removed at that time completed, starting in December, or as soon as it had dried out. There was no action on exotic removal at all in any of the areas. At all, even up till this day. And the -- no plan has been submitted either. There were some contacts with a couple of different contractors. I sent Mr. Skufca a list of our contractors, and also, because it's not a complete list, it's just contractors that we use for bid-out purposes, to use other contractors available in the telephone book to get some bids and to get somebody out there to work. The first contractor I believe works alone, he doesn't have any crew at all, and it was just too large a job for him to do. And I Page 14 April 21, 2003 explained that to Mr. Skufca. And also apparently Mr. Skufca had asked that contractor to use mechanical methods to take out the exotics, and this area is -- largely all the preserve is a wetlands and you'd have to get state authorization for that. I explained that to both the contractor and Mr. Skufca, that it would have to be hand removal, unless other permits were obtained. There was some litter issue with some dumping on part of the property. That has been resolved. Mr. Skufca did obtain a contractor and all that debris has been removed. That area has been blocked off to prevent further dumping. Until this morning I hadn't really had any contact with any contractors out there since, I believe it was, March that I last talked with a contractor, but this morning I did speak with another contractor. At this point he does not have a signed contract with Mr. Skufca, but he is capable of doing this type of work. We discussed details about how the removal could take place, and also disposal methods that would be applicable. And in the course of that conversation, I asked that contractor from start date how long it would take him to complete the work. He did say two weeks for the -- about two weeks for the removal. And that would allow -- if work was started soon, that would allow removal to take place before the rainy season started. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Susan, do I understand that the exotics are blocking the roadway? MS. MASON: Not really. And those exotics are actually on another parcel, but they were being trimmed by one of the property owners to the south, and they were seeking to have the property -- the property owner where the exotics are at remove the exotics and vegetation that was growing out into the roadway. And that really doesn't have anything to do with this parcel. That's on a separate parcel. That was the nature of the initial complaint, though, when I Page 15 April 21, 2003 was investigating the property lines out there. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: How difficult is this? You say it can only be done by hand unless there's state approval. Is this a gargantuan task to do this by hand? MS. MASON: Not really. The county removal techniques do allow what's called killing in place, where they'll often girdle the trunk of the larger trees and poison that tree, and it's left there standing. These trees are all located for the most part well away -- the larger trees are located well away from any trailers or developed properties, so it wouldn't cause a problem with damage. And the other areas, they would just have to drag the debris off. It's a large parcel, but it's not unusual for these companies to handle pieces like this, and they get the work done amazingly fast. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: I just have one more question. The contractor you spoke to this morning, had he had a conversation at all with Mr. Skufca? MS. MASON: I know he had already been out to the property, and I had gathered -- you'd have to check with Mr. Skufca after this, but after I talked with the contractor, a few minutes later Mr. Skufca did call me. So I think they've talked in the interim from when I talked with the contractor. Because Mr. Skufca's -- in the course of the contractor's talk, I said we were going to be going to the code enforcement today and hopefully hearing the case, and that's when Mr. Skufca called. It seemed that he already knew that part of my conversation. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Okay. MR. PONTE: Just a couple of questions. How many acres are involved here? MS. MASON: There's about -- it's this section here. I believe the preserve is only about five acres. MR. PONTE: And when -- if you use the technique of drilling Page 16 April21,2003 into the trees or poisoning of the trees and leaving them standing, then what about taking them away after they're dead? I mean, should that not be part of-- if we're reaching a point where we're making an order, that at some future date the trees have to be removed, or just leave them standing? MS. MASON: Normally.they just stay standing for a very long period of time. This is a large natural area and if, you know, a tree or two falls down, we don't -- those areas aren't treated for like litter and debris removal. It wouldn't be acceptable for them to cut trees and leave large piles of debris. That would be a problem. But just like in any wooded area, when a tree dies and it eventually falls over, it decays and rots and, you know, returns to the MR. PONTE: I guess my thought is we have five acres or so of dead trees, we have a fire hazard, don't we? MS. MASON: Well, they're not-- it's not-- this area here is mostly native vegetation. There are some large exotics in there, but there's a really good amount of native vegetation in there. So the vast majority of vegetation would be intact and green. And fire risk in this wet of an area is pretty low, even with some dead trees in there. MR. PONTE: My last questions is, what is the reason that we can't do this operation in the rainy season? MS. MASON: Because herbicides are used and they'll -- you'll have rain wash off the herbicide, it will hit non-target vegetation, kill off native plants, and it won't do what it's intended -- it won't kill the mature exotics that are there. MR. PONTE: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Are there any other questions from the board? MS. BARNETT: Just one technical question, and it's do we Page 17 April21,2003 have to, if he speaks, have him sworn in, even though he's -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Yes, we will. MS. BARNETT: Okay. I just was curious. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Thank you, Susan. From Mr. Skufca. Now, we can swear him in over the phone? MS. RAWSON: Actually, he should have a notary there with him to swear him in there. Because I don't know that any of you can recognize his voice. Perhaps Susan Mason can recognize his voice, and if she says she can recognize his voice and she knows that's his voice, then we can have our court reporter swear him in. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Skufca, can you hear us? MR. SKUFCA: I can hear you. MS. MASON: It does -- it did sound like Mr. Skufca to me. It sounds like the same voice I heard on the phone -- MR. SKUFCA: Is that Susan Mason? MS. MASON: Yes. MR. SKUFCA: Yeah. I have a little trouble speaking. I had a great amount of oral surgery done here several weeks ago, and I'm still recovering from that, so I speak with a lisp and it's a little painful to talk. MS. MASON: That sounds to me like Mr. Skufca. MR. SKUFCA: Well, it is me. We have talked this morning about, you know, about Jim Jesella. MS. MASON: Yes. MR. SKUFCA: Yeah, and he's agreed to start the job, you know, in the next few days. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: MR. SKUFCA: Yes. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: acting chairman today. Excuse me, Mr. Skufca. This is Bobbie Dusek, I'm Page 18 April21,2003 Just a question. MR. SKUFCA: of daughters in Atlanta, Georgia. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: are going to swear you in over the phone. going to ask you a question. (Speaker was duly sworn.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: may begin. Do you have a notary there? No. I'm at a private residence visiting a couple All right, Mr. Skufca, we So the court reporter is All right, Mr. Skufca, you MR. SKUFCA: Well, I am just responding to Ms. Mason's demand to get this job done that I don't see, you know, what the big problem is here. We have -- a lot of Southwest Florida is covered with all kinds of exotics, and on this parcel over here, according to the original documentation, the permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, the property had to be maintained for three years to remove the melaleuca, and that has been done. That action started in about 1988 when the permit was given. Now this is 2003, it's 15 years later, and yes, the exotics do come back but, you know, this isn't the only area in Florida where we have exotics. So, you know, in -- it's a 12-acre parcel of land, not five acres. This is presenting a real financial hardship on me. Our business at this point in time cannot afford to lay out the kind of money that's necessary to do this job the way Susan wants it done, and that's the main problem. There's a secondary problem, I should say. We're trying to be good neighbors and we take care of our park and so forth. We had a dumping problem there on our property which, as she stated, has been cleaned up. But, you know, I don't see the -- you know, the immediacy of this having to be done right now versus next December. We are in the process of attempting to remove the environmental easements on this property and to develop the acreage Page 19 April 21, 2003 into the full PUD of 240 RV lots on the parcel. And we're working with Vanasse and Daylor on this project at the present time. We started that about two months ago. At which -- you know, and they kind of lead us to believe that the environmental easement can be relocated to a mitigation bank and that we could go in there and take out all -- at one time take out all the exotics and start with the construction. And they figure that they would be able to start that work probably December of this year, January next year, you know, on the expansion of the park to 240 RV lots. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Mr. Skufca, in addressing one of your first comments, there is a code that all people, all properties that have the exotics on them are to be removed. Yours is not the only one. This has been going on since last May, and that's why you're before the board today. Do you understand that? MR. SKUFCA: I understand that. But, you know, we can't do it, haven't been able to do it because of money, finances. We've been negotiating with our bank, which is now First National Bank, used to be Citizens Community, and we've been working with David Klein for probably about a month to refinance our property so that we can work this into the program. We've asked them for $140,000 more mortgage on our property, and as of Friday -- or Thursday, there has -- the action hasn't been positive for to us raise the money to do the job. We also have a business in Cleveland, Ohio, I own and operate a bowling alley there, and this past year, since the beginning of the great war in Iraq, our business has suffered tremendously. And our business has suffered really since 9-11. So, you know, we're under financial hardship over there and we've had other problems at our RV park that are, you know, causing us some financial stress. So it's not an idea of not wanting to do it, it's the idea of having the wherewithal to do it-- Page 20 April21,2003 MR. PONTE: Is the only -- MR. SKUFCA: -- which is very important. MR. PONTE: Mr. Skufca, is the only reason that you haven't taken action on this before is because of financial considerations? MR. SKUFCA: That's a major part of it. Every contractor we've talked to has been in the 25 to $30,000 price range to remove the exotics, and, you know, that's just not within our financial capabilities at the present time. Our next positive cash flow comes in the first of August from our RV park where, you know, we'll have -- we'll collect our annual dues from approximately 60 residents in the park. See, our park is a snowbirds park; they come down, spend the winter there. It's all by contract. We don't do day camping. And our cash flow -- our cash comes in the first of August and the first of January for basically the whole year. MR. PONTE: But that first of August happened last year as well. MR. SKUFCA: Yes. And we just started this project, I'm not sure when in May, I guess a year ago. But we haven't -- you know, we have other obligations in just maintenance and running of the park. We don't take a living out of that park. We try to take a living out of our Social Security income and our bowling alley in Cleveland, and that's hindered us also, you know, that's hurt us. We just -- dollars are tight. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Are there any other comments from the board? MS. SAUNDERS: Yes. Mr. Skufca, Rhona Saunders from the Code Enforcement Board. I'm just looking at your airline ticket which was submitted earlier, and indicated that you were leaving Akron on April 21st. But Page 21 April 21, 2003 you just testified that you're in Atlanta. I wonder if you changed that ticket, or am I reading it wrong? MR. SKUFCA: No, I did not change that ticket. The reason -- what I did there is we have a daughter that just moved to Atlanta about a month ago, and my wife came up from Florida to visit. And what I did was I came into Atlanta Friday night to spend a couple of days with two of my daughters that are living here. And then our airline ticket has been-- reservation to Southwest Florida I believe was made in early March. So, you know, we're going to be flying out of Atlanta at I guess 4:05 today, and we'll arrive around 5:45 or something like that. I don't have the itinerary right in front of me. But those reservations, this time of the year you have to make your reservations well in advance in order to be able to, you know, get on a plane. MS. SAUNDERS: But you're not flying from Akron to Atlanta today? MR. SKUFCA: No, I flew from Akron to Atlanta Friday afternoon. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay, thank you. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Are there any other questions or comments from the board? Thank you, Mr. Skufca. I will now close the public hearing and we will have a discussion among the members of the board. MR. SKUFCA: Now, do I stay on here with this conference call? MS. SAUNDERS: Sure. MS. ARNOLD: I would recommend that you do so you can hear what the board's findings are and what their decision is. MR. SKUFCA: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: If there is no discussion Page 22 April21,2003 from the board, then I'll ask for a findings of fact and conclusion of law. MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion that a violation does exist in the case of Shirwin, Incorporated, Edwin Skufca, CEB Case No. 2003-0 ! 8, and that the violation is of section :5.7(C) of Ordinance 8:5-:57, as amended, a PUD, planned unit developed, for the property known as the East Toll Plaza RV Resort. And the description of the violation is the accumulation of prohibited exotics that include Brazilian peppers, melaleuca, carrotwood and air potato and others on the improved PUD zoned property. Also, there has not been a maintenance plan filed with Collier County, as described in the PUD Ordinance 85-57, as amended. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Do I hear a second to the motion? MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: The motion has been made by George and seconded by Sheri. Is there any other discussion? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Any opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: The motion carries. And now we need to do the order of the board. MS. SAUNDERS: I will move that the respondent be ordered to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case, submit an exotics maintenance plan within 1:5 days, by May 6th, or a fine of $2:5 per day be assessed and imposed each day the violation Page 23 April 21, 2003 continues. And remove all prohibited exotics from the parcel by June 1st, 2003, or a fine orS100 per day will be assessed and imposed each day the violation continues. MR. SKUFCA: Would you be so kind as to repeat that, please? MS. SAUNDERS: The whole thing? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: We will repeat it to you, Mr. Skufca. We're still in the process of discussing it. Under the circumstances of his financial situation, I would recommend that we do a $75 per day, instead of a $100, which I think would still be in order. And Rhona, I don't know if you are agreeable to amending the motion or if you want to keep it as you stated. MR. PONTE: I think that the $100 puts a little fire under the seat here. It's been dragging for a year. MS. SAUNDERS: Yeah. MR. PONTE: The financial situation that Mr. Skufca has described and said oh, money comes in in August, well, it came in in August last year, too. We're just repeating the whole thing. I think if money's tight, a possibility of a fine of $100 is better than the possibility of a fine of $75 in terms of our accomplishing what we want to accomplish here. MS. SAUNDERS: I agree. He does also -- did also say that money comes in in January as well, so there was money to do it now rather than in August. I'd like to stay with my $100 per day. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Are there any other comments? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: I'll repeat the motion, Mr. Skufca. The board is recommending -- making a motion that you pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case, submit an Page 24 April 21, 2003 MS. MR. MS. MR. MS. MR. to be? exotics maintenance plan within 15 days, which would be May 6th, or a fine of $25 per day will be assessed and imposed each day the violation continues. We also are recommending that you remove all prohibited exotics from the parcel by June 1st or a fine of $100 per day will be assessed and imposed each day the violation continues. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Any opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: The motion carries. Do you understand, Mr. Skufca? MR. SKUFCA: I believe I do. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Okay, thank you. MR. SKUFCA: Are we finished? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: We're finished. MS. ARNOLD: Who seconded the motion? Rhona made the motion. I don't believe we got a second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: I'm sorry, I thought that there was a second to the motion. SAUNDERS: Does somebody want to -- PONTE: I'll second the motion. SAUNDERS: -- second it? SKUFCA: ARNOLD: SKUFCA: Hello? We're still here. Can anybody tell me what the costs are going MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Skuf-- if you can call our office at 403-2440, we -- and ask for Shanelle Hilton, she can give you the costs. We don't have it today at the hearing. Did you hear me? Page 25 April 21, 2003 MR. SKUFCA: MS. ARNOLD: MR. SKUFCA: MS. ARNOLD: MR. SKUFCA: costs? MS. ARNOLD: MR. SKUFCA: MS. ARNOLD: MR. SKUFCA: MS. ARNOLD: I hear you. Okay. Can we arrange payments to pay that off?. I didn't hear the question. I said can we arrange payments to pay the court Yes, you can. Okay, thank you. All righty. Thank you. Are we all done here now? Yes. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Yes. MR. SKUFCA: Thank you very much. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. Bye-bye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Okay, we'll move on to the next case. MS. HILTON: We're going to do our second and our third case, as they go hand-in-hand at the same time. MS. ARNOLD: What we'll do is have Shanelle read into the record information for both cases, but rather than have the investigator repeat themselves, because some of the evidence is similar for both cases, we're just going to have one testimony. And we've done that in the past. But once you make a decision, you will have to find for both -- two separate cases, okay? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Okay. So the first case we're hearing is 2000-015? MS. HILTON: Yes. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Okay. MS. HILTON: That's Board of County Commissioners versus Wilma Britton, Gordon Schultz and Kay Schultz. CEB Case No. 2003-015. Page 26 Apd121,2003 I would like to ask if the respondent is present in the courtroom. Yes, she is. We have previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. And also, I had provided you some supplemental information as well that we would like to be included as all the same, so we only have to do the evidence once. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Do I hear a motion that we accept the county's Exhibit A? MR. PONTE: So moved. MS. BARNETT: Second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: There's been a first and a second by George and Sheri. All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Any opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Motion carries. MS. HILTON: The respondent was served the notice of hearing by certified mail and personal hand delivery, and also posting at the courthouse. The alleged violation is of Section 1.5.6 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code, and Section 4 of Ordinance No. 93-64, as amended. The description of the violation: On 3-22-02 and 2-13-03, did witness a survey of Henderson Creek Drive, conducted by Wilson-Miller, requested by Collier County public utilities, and it was determined that the shed/utility building, portion -- shed/utility building, a portion of the mobile home and a portion of the carport are in the county right-of-way. Location where violation exists: 109 Duncan Lane, Naples, Page 27 April 21, 2003 Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 50880004661, Holiday Manor Co-op. Name of owner in charge of location where violation exists is Wilma J. Britton, a single woman, and Gordon E. Schultz and Kay Schultz, husband and wife, 109 Duncan Lane, #A, Naples, Florida, 34114. Date violation first observed: April 1, 2002. Date owner given notice of violation: April 3, 2002. And amended notice of violation was provided on February 13, 2003. Date on which violation was to be corrected was March 13th, 2003. Date of reinspection: February 27th, 2003. And I believe the investigator also went out on Friday, that was April 18th, 2003. And the results of the reinspection is the violation remains. Our third case is Board of County Commissioners versus Wilma Britton, Gordon Schultz and Kay Schultz, CEB Case No. 2003-014. The respondent is present in the courtroom. And we have previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Do I hear a motion that we accept the county's Exhibit A on the second case? MS. BARNETT: So moved. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: MR. PONTE: Second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: seconded by George. All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: (No response.) Is there a second? Motion made by Sheri, Any opposed? Page 28 April 21, 2003 ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Motion carries. MS. HILTON: The respondent was served the notice of hearing by certified mail and personal delivery, and also posting at the courthouse. The alleged violation is of Section 2.7.6.1, and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: Three enclosed additions erected without first obtaining authorization of required permits, inspections and certificate of occupancy. After research, it was determined that one of these additions at the rear comer of the mobile home was permitted for a roof over existing slab and was later enclosed without proper Collier County permits. Location where violation exists: 109 Duncan Lane, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 50880004661, Holiday Manor Co-op. Name and address of owner in charge of location where violation exists: Wilma J. Britton, a single woman, and Jordan (sic) E. Schultz and Kay M. Schultz, husband and wife, 109 Duncan Lane, #A, Naples, Florida, 34114. Date violation first observed: April 1, 2002. Date owner given notice of violation: April 3, 2002. And amended notice of violation on February 13, 2003. Date on which violation was to be corrected was March 13th, 2003. Date of reinspection: February 27th, 2003, and April 18th, 2003. Results of the reinspection is the violation remains. And at this time I would like to mm the two cases over to the code enforcement investigator, Carol Sykora, and that's Page 29 April 21, 2003 S-Y-K-O-R-A, to present the case to the -- cases to the Code Enforcement Board. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Before you begin, is Ms. Britton here? MS. HILTON: Yes, she is. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: All right. And Mr. and Mrs. Schultz? No. Would you stand at your seat and just be sworn in? So if you'll swear them both in, Cherie'. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. SYKORA: Good morning. My name is Carol Sykora, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. I received a complaint from -- a citizen complaint on March 22nd, 2002 at the property located at 109-A Duncan Lane. I responded to the complaint and investigated and found that a survey had been conducted by Wilson-Miller at the request of Collier County public utilities for the sewer that's going to go in on Henderson Creek Drive, which is off of 951. After inspecting, I noticed that there was a wood walkway, a shed, portion of the trailer and carport. I did further investigation and obtained the survey from Wilson-Miller, which is on the board up here, showing in the yellow where everything's in the right-of-way. On April 3rd, 2002, I took pictures, and also a notice of violation was served and signed by Wilma Britton. The notice of violation was 93-64, Section 4 -- the ordinance on the violation was 93-64, Section 4, which is the right-of-way violation. And 91-102, amended, 1.5.6, which would be illegal land use. I spoke also with Ms. Britton to advise her of all the violations when I served the notice of violation. On May 1st, 2002, I reinspected and found that the wood Page 30 April 21, 2003 walkway over the ditch was removed, the shed was also moved. But I had advised Ms. Britton that she needed to get a permit to relocate the shed out of the right-of-way, which was not done. She just moved it without a relocation permit. The shed was originally permitted and CO'd, but then she didn't -- she needed to get one to relocate it, which was not done. We had several meetings over this, and Ms. Britton went in front of the commissioners as to try to resolve this situation, and they decided that they needed to think about it. And I believe Joe Schmitt, the director, he was going to compile the information and present it himself to the commissioners, but then at a later date it was decided that I go forth to the Code Enforcement Board with this. And to involve the other case through the investigations of this, I -- it was found -- at first I found that there was two unpermitted additions to the original mobile home, and then further on down investigating, it was discovered there was a third unpermitted addition to the rear, one of which is in the right-of-way. It's a rear addition to the mobile home that happens to be part of the right-of-way violation. Ms. Britton came to the office, and I went up with her to see about requesting for a variance, but it was decided, I believe by Ms. Britton, not to go forth with that. And also, she has stated she didn't want to go forth with permitting the unpermitted structures, due to the fact she really didn't know what was going to happen with the right-of-way violations. Do you have any questions? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Yes. Do I understand that there is only one area that is in the right-of-way now and that's on the third mobile home, the addition, that the original shed has been removed out of the right-of-way, and it's only that it needs to be permitted now? Page 31 April 21, 2003 MS. SYKORA: Correct. But there is two violations at the moment. Part of the carport ended up in the right-of-way, and part of the mobile home, the addition that was put on which did not have a permit. Originally there was a permit for a roof over an existing slab, but this was later on enclosed. The shed was moved, but it needs to have a permit to relocate it. MS. BARNETT: I have a question, ifI can. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Sure. MS. BARNETT: Maybe Michelle can answer this. But if the county's permitting a shed in the right-of-way and they permitted a roof to go over an existing garage in the right-of-way, how is the person supposed to be responsible of knowing that it's in the right-of-way? If it seemed permitted-- MS. SYKORA: They also approved the carport. But on several drawings that were submitted with Ms. Britton requesting for permits, there was different measurements on every drawing. They all varied. And I don't know if you-- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: They probably never had their CO; is that correct? MS. SYKORA: They did have a CO. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: They had a CO? MS. SYKORA: The shed and the carport had a CO. But unfortunately the drawings had different measurements. Distances from the street, distances between structures, they all were different. MS. BARNETT: Shouldn't the county have caught that at that point before giving CO's? MS. ARNOLD: In -- for the record, Michelle Arnold. In this particular case, in your packet you do have like the location map showing the property. It's one parcel, one large lot with mobile homes and travel trailers on them. And in this particular case, because there's no individual lots indicating for each separate parcel, Page 32 April 21, 2003 there is no requirement for a spot survey, which would normally -- if somebody were to construct a single-family home on their single-family lot, the building department requires a spot survey to make sure that there aren't any encroachments. In this particular case, we're dealing with one large lot. There's no encroachment of the large -- the overall boundary, but there is an encroachment of this right-of-way. It's the property owner's responsibility to find out where those dimensions are. And what Carol is indicating is that the building department is trusting the information that is submitted with their building permit is valid. And they're not questioning the validity of that information. The owner or the building -- the contractor submitting for the building permit signs that the information that's attached is accurate. MS. BARNETT: Don't they usually require a survey? MS. ARNOLD: Only in the cases where it's an individual lot. In this particular case, because it's one large lot, there is no boundary, per se, indicating where the northern boundary of her parcel is. There's only one large parcel and then there's right-of-way. There's survey markings, and that's what the county was doing when they were trying to locate the sewer line. MS. SYKORA: Yes, the public utilities requested a survey down Henderson Creek Drive for a sewer line, and there were stakes put out at the cul-de-sac where 109-A is located. It's a 60-degree -- 60-foot right-of-way down there and, therefore, the stakes were up by her shed, by her carport, behind this other addition in the back, and that's what prompted the complaint by a citizen. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: So I want to understand, if this utility survey had never been done, we wouldn't be hearing this case right now, because -- MS. ARNOLD: Possible. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: -- it was permitted and Page 33 April 21, 2003 CO'd. MS. SYKORA: Possibility. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: All right. And I have another question. On the case, let's see, 15, you cited her for having a shed in the public right-of-way. This has been moved. So that's all she's being cited for, it's not for permits in Case No. 015. And if this has already been accomplished, the shed has been moved from the right-of-way -- you weren't citing her in Case No. 15 for permits. MS. SYKORA: My motion of violation that I amended on the 13th day of February, 2003, my corrective action is must obtain proper Collier County permits to move and relocate shed/utility building. So that she needs to get, because of the setbacks as it stands now are not correct, then that has to be reinspected. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: I understand what you're saying. I'm just looking at the description of the violation for Case No. 015 which says did witness a survey of Henderson Creek by the Collier County Public Utilities. It was determined that the shed/utility building, portion of the mobile home, portion of the carport are in the county right-of-way. MS. ARNOLD: The carport is also noted. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Is it still on that particular mobile home, that one is -- MS. ARNOLD: Yes. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: -- still in -- okay. MS. SYKORA: Portion of the carport is and portion of-- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: But the shed is no longer part of that, it's just the carport? MS. SYKORA: The shed is no longer a part of the right-of-way violation, but a permit must be obtained to relocate that to a different location. It's not as extensive a process as if you're getting a permit Page 34 April 21, 2003 from scratch, because she already had obtained a permit. It's just to relocate it. They would go out and inspect it to make sure the setbacks were okay from the home. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Jean, I have a question for you. Since it's not in the description of the violation that it be permitted, it's only that the carport and shed are in the right-of-way, and the shed has been removed but the carport hasn't, so all we can really cite her for is the fact that that carport is still in the right-of-way; is that correct? MS. RAWSON: Well, look at Section 1.5.6 of the land development code, see if it says anything about permit, then look at Ordinance No. 93-64, Section 4, before you determine. I know the description of the violation is shed/utility building, portion of the mobile home, portion of the carport in the right-of-way. MS. ARNOLD: Also, the description of the violation is the encroachment, but also, part of the notice of violation is the corrective action. And the corrective action would describe for the respondent or the public how they would fix the violations noted. And I believe in the corrective NOV, Ms. Sykora indicated that they needed to obtain permits for that shed. What page is that? 12. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: I see that you did the amended notice of violation on February 13th. It just didn't explain what that amendment is, as far as we're concerned. And so what we're -- what I'm looking at is the actual description of the violation, what she's cited for. I just want to make sure that we're -- MS. RAWSON: Well, Section 4, permits, is in 93-64. And they did cite them with Section 4, and Section 4 is called permits. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: So it's in your opinion that we're okay with this, with the -- MS. RAWSON: I think so. Because it clearly says in there without first obtaining a permit. Page 35 April 21, 2003 ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Okay. MS. BARNETT: Michelle, one other question. Where are we on resolving I guess the right-of-way case? Is that -- I'm assuming it's still up in the air with the county as far as what they want to take action for, for that utility? MS. SYKORA: Pardon me? The -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: I think what Sheri is referring to is the non-use alteration variance that -- MS. ARNOLD: The decision to obtain a variance is the property owner's, not the county's. And what -- MS. BARNETT: I guess because it was -- MS. ARNOLD: We believe there still is an encroachment. And what's encroaching is the carport-- a portion of the carport, and then there was also an addition to the rear of the original mobile home that's also encroaching into the right-of-way. MR. PONTE: I have some questions that -- I don't know who will answer them-- about ownership here. We're dealing with the Holiday Manor Cooperative. That means that the respondent owns shares in the cooperative. Does she own the land? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: No. MR. PONTE: Does she own what is on the land? And if she does, what was there originally when she bought the shares in the cooperative? MS. SYKORA: Well, originally on this parcel of land was a mobile home, period. Everything else has been-- MR. PONTE: The mobile home that she's currently in? MS. SYKORA: Yes. 'I have a picture that I took Friday, on the 18th. That was originally there. I believe if that had been left standing alone, nothing would be in the right-of-way. This is a frontal view of the property. The carport to the right, the original Page 36 April 21, 2003 mobile home is this right here next to it. This is an unpermitted addition, enclosed with electrical, and this end addition is unpermitted, enclosed with electrical. MS. ARNOLD: To answer your question about what was there, I believe Ms. Britton can answer that. She does have her paperwork that she submitted on the facts and the history of the property, and she'd indicated that when she purchased it, it was a trailer, just the trailer on the property. MR. PONTE: My other question is on Pages 23, 24 and 25, and you mentioned them, you have put some stakes down. And they're in the photos. I just don't understand what you're referring to with those stakes. MS. SYKORA: The survey stakes. MR. PONTE: Yes. MS. SYKORA: Wilson-Miller surveyed it and applied stakes, but they were removed by someone eventually. MR. PONTE: What did they indicate? MS. SYKORA: They indicated where the right-of-way was. They staked out the street, they went with a pin in the center of the cul-de-sac, and it was 60-degrees there after that. And Wilson-Miller actually put this on their survey where everything was in the right-of-way there. That center square depicts the property at 109-A Duncan with the items that were in the right-of-way. MR. PONTE: So is it that the structures are not in the right-of-way, because the stakes aren't in the house, that the -- it's just too close to the right-of-way? MS. SYKORA: Well, they staked it off where the -- one stake would be right at the back of the home. And then they proceeded to bring the stakes around where you could tell that the items were in the right-of-way. MR. PONTE: I see. Okay, thank you. Page 37 April 21, 2003 ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Michelle, in the second case, I think that's 14, you have written a letter to the Board of County Commissioners and in there you state that the Henderson Creek Cooperative is currently working with the planning staff toward the completion of a non-use alteration variance? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: And that if this petition is approved by the Board of County Commissioners, the distance between structure violation that Ms. Britton currently has will be resolved, meaning the distance between her shed and the mobile home. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: How does this affect-- if this is approved, how does this affect what the violation is today? MS. ARNOLD: It doesn't affect it at all. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: It doesn't. MS. ARNOLD: No, because -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Because she's still in the right-of-way. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. What that nonconforming use alteration request is going to address is simply those accessory structures in relation to the permanent structures, meaning the sheds that have been placed all throughout the park and their distance between their mobile homes or their travel trailers. The code requires that there's a 1 O-foot separation between the primary structures and the accessory structures. And throughout the park they're -- that particular setback is in violation. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Because they don't have any lot lines there? MS. ARNOLD: No, because the lots are so small, and they were originally developed probably for just one travel trailer. Years Page 38 April 21, 2003 have gone by, travel trailers have gotten bigger and the lots haven't increased, and they put these sheds on their lots to accommodate some of their equipment when they're gone or whatever, and so now there's an encroachment between the accessory structure or sheds, in the most part, and the primary structure, the mobile homes or the travel trailers. So that's not going to address the case that is before you with respect to the right-of-way, because it's not a question of two structures that are too close, that have been placed too close, it's more of a question of her carport was built within the county's property. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Okay, so just so we all understand it, and let's see if I understand it, the first case is that the carport is in the right-of-way, and the shed has been moved to another part of the property and needs to be permitted; is that correct? MS. SYKORA: And an additional right-of-way violation is the back comer of the mobile home, which was an unpermitted addition. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: That's all in the first case, 157 MS. SYKORA: Yes. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Then the other case is there are three other additions that are also in the right-of-way and were not permitted? MS. SYKORA: No, they're not in the right-of-way but one. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: One is in the right-of-way? MS. SYKORA: The one at the rear of the mobile home is in the right-of-way. These two in the front side of the original mobile home were not permitted. They are enclosed with electrical. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: All right. Without permits. Page 39 April 21, 2003 MS. SYKORA: Without permits. I've researched thoroughly back on microfilm, I could not locate any permits for anything. Once there was a carport that was applied for, but it was canceled, and I believe that could have resulted in one of the unpermitted additions in the end. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Sheri, did you have another question? Earlier you had -- MS. BARNETT: You actually asked it better than I was -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Are there any other questions for Carol? MS. ARNOLD: This -- I don't know if you're going to be able to see it very well, but these photographs here show you where the stakes that was referenced by the investigator. This is a survey stake and this is the addition -- or the carport when we originally started the case, location of the carport. This is another stake in relation to the rear of the property. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MS. SYKORA: This is the unpermitted-- MS. ARNOLD: Right. MS. SYKORA: -- addition. MS. ARNOLD: And let me just show you another photo. Again, here's the stakes. They're indicated here in yellow. And this is the roadway. And this is a part of the encroachment right here. So this -- everything to the south of those stakes is the right-of-way, everything to the north is the property. MR. PONTE: Thank you for pointing that out. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Are there any other questions? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Thank you, Carol. Ms. Britton? Page 40 April 21, 2003 MS. BRITTON: I would like to ask Carol, part of the trailer is still within the right-of-way, correct? The addition on the back-- I'm not talking about the addition, I'm talking MS. SYKORA: MS. BRITTON: about the -- MS. SYKORA: MS. BRITTON: MS. SYKORA: No. -- back end of the original trailer. But that could be in question. It's hard to determine that because of this rear addition. Basically this original trailer is surrounded on two sides by additions. And it was very difficult to determine at first, or for me to investigate it, it was very difficult to determine where their original trailer was ending and where the permit started, where the addition started. Right there is where it's beginning and MS. BRITTON: starting. MS. SYKORA: MS. BRITTON: Right. There's the -- Now, move back to the line where the original survey was done. It's back by -- it should be back by the gas tank. MS. SYKORA: This is the first stake that's behind. This is the unpermitted addition in the back. MS. BRITTON: No, the stake behind the carport, Carol. MS. SYKORA: Right, I'm going to describe that next. This comes around and then this would be the next one. So right in here is where the other addition is. And it isn't. Right there is a little raised up portion. So it could be a possibility that if that was removed the original trailer would not be in the right-of-way. MS. BRITTON: Yes, it would. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Ms. Britton, are you -- MS. SYKORA: It's fine if it is, because I said remove a portion of the trailer that was in the -- MS. BRITTON: Can I make my statement and I'll let you -- Page 41 Apd121,2003 MS. SYKORA: Sure. MS. BRITTON: In March of 1993, I purchased my trailer, which was setting (sic) on the original land that it is presently on today, but it was a rented lot at that time. It was owned by Cavin and Cavin (phonetic). And the trailer is located on the north side of the ditch on Henderson Creek Road, similar to other trailers along this road. The side ditch is the only physical evidence of a right-of-way. There are no markers to indicate the limits of the right-of-way. In June of'93, after I purchased in March, I hired a licensed contractor to make an addition of 12 by 33, which was listed originally as a screen room. Several times within the next three or four months -- and I have the paperwork and you all have it in your copy -- it was enclosed with vinyl and windows and so forth. So that was all sitting there. In 1996 we converted the trailer park into a Co-op. At that time, I signed a 99-year lease with the Co-op. I do not own the land, the Co-op owns the land. My trailer and 12 by 33 was there at that time. You all have a copy of everything I have put on there, and you have a copy of everything I turned in to you. Upon receiving the notices of all the violations, I removed the bridge, the shed, the plants from the right-of-way. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Ms. Britton, I'm going to interrupt you for just a -- MS. BRITTON: Sure. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: -- second. Jean, do we need to -- MS. RAWSON: She's -- and Mr. and Mrs. Schultz are proprietary leaseholders. But if you look in the county records, they are considered to be the owner of record, because it's a 99-year leasehold. And I believe she also qualified for the Homestead Page 42 Apd121,2003 exemption. So what we usually say is we have to hold the alleged violator; that is, the owner of record, and she and Mr. and Mrs. Schultz are the owner of record. Although the order will indicate that it's a proprietary lease. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Actually, that wasn't my question, but thank you for explaining it. MS. RAWSON: Okay. MS. BRITTON: I'm glad to know, too. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Any evidence that she's presented to us, should we enter that? MS. ARNOLD: We did. We did already. MS. RAWSON: Yes. The answer to your question is yes. I was just responding to her comment that she does not -- she is not the owner. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Yes, I understand. Okay, thank you. MS. BRITTON: I'm not the owner of the land, per se. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Yes, go ahead. MS. BRITTON: Okay, I guess I was way back here. I removed the plants, the bridge, the shed, I moved it out, everything from destroying my home. I'm willing to purchase any permits that you guys deem necessary after the county right-of-way issue is settled. I feel it is the Co-op's responsibility to obtain the variance. My trailer was sitting on the county right-of-way when I signed my lease with the Co-op. I'm here today to plead my case. This is my home. I was never aware that my trailer was encroached or sitting on the right-of-way until the survey was done in 2002. If I had known this at the time, I would never have added and spent all my money and bought a share in the Co-op. I'm a retired citizen, senior citizen that is, on a fixed income. I Page 43 April 21, 2003 cannot afford the expense to do all this, and I cannot afford to lose my home. I would hope that you'd take some of this under consideration on your opinion. Okay, thank you. MR. PONTE: Ms. Britton, I have a question for you, please. When you purchased the shares in the Co-op, were you provided with any kind of drawings or anything that would indicate or show the land that your trailer was on as drawn up by that Co-op board? MS. BRITTON: We have, in the back of the proprietary lease as to markings, but nothing as to what was sitting on it. MR. PONTE: So there's no indication-- MS. BRITTON: No, sir. MR. PONTE: It just looks like a clear piece of property just like all the others. MS. BRITTON: Yes. They're just squares on a map. I can show you a copy. MR. PONTE: That's okay. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Are there any questions to-- MS. SAUNDERS: Yeah. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: -- Ms. Britton? MS. SAUNDERS: Yes, Ms. Britton, what has been the attitude or the opinion of the Co-op board? Has any -- have they discussed this, and what have they -- MS. BRITTON: Not too favorably, I'm sorry to say. MS. SAUNDERS: Are they planning -- MS. BRITTON: There is several members here today, you can ask them. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Is the Co-op planning to go before the County Commissioners? I mean, I notice that the Henderson Creek-- Page 44 April21,2003 MS. BRITTON: They have asked for a variance. I have asked to be included in that variance. But since it's a right-of-way issue, I was told that I -- you know, I didn't know whether I could be included in the variance. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: As an individual. MS. BRITTON: As an individual. Because, you know, it's a case against Collier County. You all have a copy of what I have drawn out what I would lose, which is going to be quite a bit. You want to see the copy of what our plot plan was when we -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: I don't think that's necessary. It doesn't show any mobile homes -- MS. BRITTON: No, sir-- no, ma'am. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: -- it's just land. MS. SAUNDERS: So the variance that the Co-op board is asking for relates strictly to the sheds that are on the other properties? I think it's against all the encroachments MS. BRITTON: everywhere, right? MS. ARNOLD: MS. BRITTON: MS. ARNOLD: MS. BRITTON: MS. ARNOLD: No, it's simply-- But not on the right-of-way. Right. It's all the encroachments -- Internal. MS. SAUNDERS: Within. MS. BRITTON: Yes, within the park. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Mobile home to mobile home. MS. BRITTON: Um-hum. MR. PONTE: The permits that you've applied for in the past, have any of them been denied by the county? MS. BRITTON: No, sir. You have copies of them in my Page 45 April 21, 2003 packet that I tumed in to you. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: And they've all been CO'd? MS. BRITTON: Yes. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Any other questions? MS. BRITTON: Anybody else have a question? MS. BARNETT: When did you add the electricity into the -- MS. BRITTON: The one in the rear was just added probably about a year ago, because I put a washer and dryer in there. MS. BARNETT: Did you obtain a permit for that? MS. BRITTON: No, ma'am. I had a local person help me do it. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Are there any other comments from the board for Ms. Britton? Thank you, Ms. Britton. MS. BRITTON: Okay. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Does the board have any more comments to either side, county, before I close the public hearing? MS. SAUNDERS: Is there anybody else that wants to speak? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Would you like to speak, sir? You need to be sworn in. Come up and state your name. MR. FIORILLO: My name is Robert Fiorillo. F-I-O-R-I-L-L-O. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. FIORILLO: Well, approximately four years ago I also bought a share, and it's right behind Mrs. Britton's property. When I bought the property, I was told where my line was. My line is practically to the comer ofWilma Britton's trailer. She is now encroaching on my property about 13 feet, including her shed that we've all been discussing. She moved her shed, but she moved it on my property. I Page 46 April 21, 2003 retained an attorney at the cost of approximately $2,000, and finally the Co-op, with the president and a vote from the people in the park, unanimously voted 180 to 6 that she remove her property, her shed, her trees and so on off my property and move it back to her property. She's been defiant right till today. The Co-op now has hired an attorney and sent her several letters -- well, I don't know about several letters, but letters, demanding that she remove that shed and that property, whatever is on my property, back to the line. And she has never done it. I understand that the attorney is now in the process of taking her to court to remove that shed from my property and for her to abide by the line. So we've been talking about a shed here encroaching on county property, and it was moved without a permit onto my property, and so actually that shed has nothing to do with this case. The case is that that shed is on my property and should be removed, with other stuff that is on my property. The ex-president of the Co-op is here today to verify everything I'm saying, if you'd like to talk to him or whatever. But that's the way that back property stands. She's been very defiant to this day. Thank you. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: I have one question for you. Is that the only issue that the Co-op is addressing is the shed on your property? Or is it with the other mobile homes that she has that MR. FIORILLO: Ma'am, I really couldn't tell you that. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Okay, that's fine. MR. FIORILLO: I only know about-- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: That's fine. MR. FIORILLO: -- my particular case, and that's the line. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Okay, thank you. MR. FIORILLO: Thank you. Page 47 April21,2003 MS. SYKORA: This is an overhead of the property at 109-A on the GIS maps, and the invisible property line, even though they are not lotted, plotted lots here, pretty much they go by invisible property line, which is this little black line there. And you can see right on there the shed is infringing upon the parcel of land behind. There's really not any room, because there's too many structures on this small lot, and there's no room left. MS. BARNETT: I was going to say, it doesn't look like -- because of the right-of-way encroachment and everything else, there isn't any available space -- MS. SYKORA: Right. MS. BARNETT: -- for her to put the shed. MS. BRITTON: Could I make another statement? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Yes. MS. BRITTON: I bought my share in '96. The gentleman that was just here bought his in 2000. This question has came up several times. In our prospectus, and the attorney who did our transfer work, the boundaries between the units on the side and to the rear shall be the boundaries currently maintained on the date of the recording of the proprietary lease. And that's what I have been going by, and they have been arguing with me about the rear line. Now, if you'll look at the map in the back of our prospectus, there is no one behind 233. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Are there any other comments, any other questions from the board? MS. SYKORA: I'd just like to present, three of the permits that Ms. Britton had applied for, I had spoke earlier about the different dimensions that she gave as measurements for -- this would be -- MS. ARNOLD: What she's referring to is what was handed to you this morning. MS. SYKORA: This would be one that was applied for in 1999 Page 48 April 21, 2003 for a carport. And then the following one in the year 2000, as you can see, the dimensions are changing with every application. This has four feet over here, 16 feet on the other side of the carport, 19 feet to the street. Now this one goes 10 feet to the street, 24 feet to the street and 16 at the rear, 10 feet between the homes. In actuality, there's four feet to the property line, 10 feet at the rear. Well, if there's 10 feet to the rear existing home, how would she get a carport -- I mean, excuse me, a shed in that little space? But then following a shed application, now it's changed. There's 20 feet back here. It's 14 feet here, 5 feet over here. Every one is different as to her application for permits. And basically that's what they relied upon, due to the fact this wasn't a plotted piece of land. MS. BRITTON: Can I ask a question about the carport permits? There was two, one in '99, which was done by -- asked for by a company out of Fort Myers, if I'm not mistaken. It was canceled. MS. SYKORA: Correct. MS. BRITTON: Okay, the reason it was canceled is because the guy ran off with my money. And I finally traced him down. So that's why there was a new one applied for by White Aluminum, and they're the ones that obtained the permit and did the measurements, not I. MS. SYKORA: And the one that was applied for with a carport for a roof over an existing slab is a portion of the trailer that was illegally enclosed. This is a picture that I obtained of it being enclosed. Originally the permit was for a roof over an existing slab, but it was being enclosed at a later date in the year 2000. And this is the portion -- right where this ladder is approximately is where the one stake for the survey was put. So it would cut right up into that. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Gerald, did you have a . Page 49 April 21, 2003 question? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, I do, for Mrs. Britton. The question I had, you originally -- you just stated one of your last comments was regarding the -- when you took ownership, or when you signed that 99-year lease, you stated that your property boundaries were as maintained upon taking, signing that lease. But the shed has been moved. So really, that shed has not been maintained in that same location. MS. BRITTON: Well, when I originally signed my lease -- this is a long story, sir -- I had two sheds at the back, one on one comer and one on the other. I asked to have one redone and they turned me down, so then I destroyed it because I didn't like the looks of it because it was going to be right alongside the road. So then I moved my other one over to that location, which has started this whole problem. And then we had an argument between me and Mr. Fiorillo. I voluntarily gave up three foot to the rear, so my line is not maintained to this day as it was to the day I signed my lease. I should have had another three foot back there. I'm not the only one that can testify to that. I have paperwork signed by then President Bob Reed, Secretary Jack Grintau (phonetic), and myself and Mr. Fiorillo signed the agreement in 2000. Anything else? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Any other comments? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: All right, I will close the public hearing. Any discussion among the board? Let's start with the first case. And the first case is the carport is in the right-of-way, the shed has been moved without the proper permits. MR. RAMSEY: Well, I think it's the carport and a portion of Page 50 April21,2003 the mobile home are ostensibly in the right-of-way. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: The back. MS. BARNETT: I'm wrangling with a couple of things in that she didn't get the proper permit to move the shed, but she did originally have a permit and a CO where the existing shed was. She also had obtained a permit to I guess cover the carport with the roof and that was CO'd, but she didn't have the right to enclose some of the things she's enclosed. But the county I think is a little bit, well, almost to a fault almost, because they've given the CO's. I'm having a little bit of trouble with that. And I realize Michelle was explaining to me there's a difference because there's no lot line. But I think as an individual, if I am adding to my home or putting structures on my home and I submit a permit, I kind of rely on the county to help me in some cases if I miss something. I don't know if I'm wrong in that feeling. MR. RAMSEY: I have a little difference. My take on it is this way: You know, if you have -- if you've done what I think are tantamount to unauthorized additions to your home, you have non-permitted structures and you have a somewhat unusual ownership situation, you know, it's incumbent upon the homeowner to make certain that whatever they're doing is compliant with what the rules and regulations are. Just because they've been able to skirt the issues or obtain what is seemingly tacit approval from the community by virtue of the CO, I don't think obviates her, you know, culpability in being in a position where she is responsible for the home. I think there is a violation, I think it's in the right-of-way and she got caught, plain and simple. I think when they had the survey, when Wilson-Miller did the survey, she got caught. MS. BARNETT: Does any of the auspice fall on the individuals that she's hired to do the work that pulled the permits? Page 51 April 21, 2003 MR. RAMSEY: ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: MR. RAMSEY: -- not against -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: them -- MR. RAMSEY: -- here at this court. But then her remedy is against those people -- That would be -- yes. That would be against ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: -- personally. Christopher, since you spoke so clearly, would you like to make a motion? Or do we have any other comments from the board before a motion is made, or a findings of fact and conclusion of law? MS. SAUNDERS: I have one comment, and I'm really not sure where I stand on this. I'm very uncomfortable with the fact that -- with the easement part of it. Because it's -- the buildings have been there for quite a while, especially the existing trailer and the addition. The person has signed a lease. It seems to me that the Co-op, even though it's not divided up, this is a violation of a Co-op easement, as well as an individual easement. This is -- the Co-op owns the land and should be -- is responsible for maintaining all that land. If somebody builds something on it and the Co-op does not argue it, then they've in effect given permission to do it, in my mind. And it looks to me also like the way the existing trailer and addition are is going to be virtually impossible to correct the easement without a variance. I almost -- and I'm not trying to take anybody's home. I think the shed is a completely different matter. That's disposable, that can be moved. I don't see a solution for this. If the sewer pipes need to go in, then they obviously have to go in. If they don't, why are we destroying this home? That's where I'm uncomfortable. MR. PONTE: I understand your sensitivities here, because I Page 52 April 21, 2003 feel very much the same way. However, Ms. Rawson pointed out to us earlier that because the lease is one of 99 years in length, the assumption is made that the person holding that lease is the landowner. So it just doesn't go to the Co-op board in this instance. MS. SAUNDERS: And yet when you buy a home, you get title insurance to prevent exactly this type of a thing. I guess with a Co-op you don't get-- MR. PONTE: You're just buying shares. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: You're buying shares. MS. SAUNDERS: You're buying shares. Therefore, I may not be understanding it correctly. MR. RAMSEY: Similarly, if you're buying a home, I mean, you know, one of the things that when you buy a home, I mean, you'd be certain that what you're buying is what's represented -- MS. SAUNDERS: Yes. MR. RAMSEY: -- through either representation by legal counsel or something to that effect. I mean, if you're buying a 99-year lease, that's tantamount to buying a home. You know, caveat emptor certainly applies. I mean, you know, you should be certain that what you were conceivably buying is what you're receiving. And if you're not then you have a remedy. But it doesn't exist here. MS. SAUNDERS: Good point. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Any other comments? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: All the comments are very well taken. MS. BARNETT: Okay, in that case, I'll take the auspice off of you. You've said it better than I did, but I will make a motion that there is a violation that has occurred. And I guess this is -- we're doing the 2003 -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: 015. Page 53 April 21, 2003 MS. BARNETT: -- 015. And let's see ifI can find that page. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Page 7. MS. BARNETT: And that violation, Collier County versus William -- Wilma J. Britton, Gordon E. Schultz and Kay M. Schultz, pursuant to Section 162.06 and 162.12, Florida Statutes, and Collier County Ordinance No. 92-80 have been violated. And I guess that violation was an encroachment on the right-of-way in regards to a carport shed, which has been removed -- or moved but improperly moved and needs to be permitted properly, and the rear structure. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: And if you will just look at No. 1, violation of section and just on that same page. MR. PONTE: Cite those sections. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: And just cite those sections where it says -- the one you were just -- Page 7. Here you go, Sheri. Just read No. 1, violation is of-- MS. BARNETT: Violation of section 1.5.6 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code, and Section 4 of Ordinance No. 93-64, as amended. Thank you. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Okay, thank you. Do I hear a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: made by Sheri and a second by Gerald. Is there any discussion? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: There's been a motion All those in favor, signify Any opposed? The motion carries. Page 54 April 21, 2003 Now for the order of the board. MR. PONTE: Let me just discuss this for a second before we try and craft anything here. Because the recommendation from the county includes obtaining a variance from the Board of County Commissioners. Board of County Commissioners, as I understand it, have said they don't really want to hear this, go see code enforcement. MR. RAMSEY: No, I think that the -- as I recall, Michelle, what she said was that Ms. Britton elected not to get the variance, if I'm not mistaken, Michelle. MR. PONTE: I thought the county -- MR. RAMSEY: Did they not want to hear it? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: The county also I think wanted to refer it back to the Code Enforcement Board. MS. ARNOLD: What essentially was occurring at the Board of County Commission meeting was a hearing of the case, so they referred the case back for a decision to the Code Enforcement Board. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: They hadn't really asked for a variance. MS. ARNOLD: No, there was no request at that point for a variance. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Okay. MR. PONTE: Then that's a bit of a conundrum. If we then, as we have, found that a violation exists, how does that color the reading by the county commissioners? They'll say well, a violation exists, there's no reason for us to share that. MS. ARNOLD: No, no, no, they would -- what they would be considering is whether or not to allow Ms. Britton to maintain her structures within the right-of-way. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: And that would be through the variance. Page 55 April 21, 2003 MS. ARNOLD: Yes. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: So I might suggest that we look at it perhaps in four parts. And one would be to pay the operational costs. The other would be to obtain a variance within 90 days from the date of this hearing. The third part would be a variance; if it is obtained, to get all permits, inspections and CO's within 60 days from the granting of the variance. Number four would be if the variance is denied, remove or demolish structure with the appropriate permits within 30 days, or a fine of-- I put $75. But just looking at it in those parts, because one reacts to the other. So for your consideration. MR. RAMSEY: Are we better off saying she must make application for variance or actually obtain the variance? Once she makes application, it's kind of out of our hands. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Is the 90 days a reasonable time frame? MS. ARNOLD: Well, it should be. But, you know, I'm not really -- it depends on the workload of the planning department. If you all do decide on keeping that 90 days and we verify that the application has been submitted well within that time frame and the delay is on the part of the county, we will bring that back to you all and say we don't believe she should be fined for those days, because it was outside of her ability to do anything. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are we able to speak? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. I agree with everything except for the proposed $75 a day. I think 50 might be better. I mean, I think all things considering, I would be more inclined to go towards 50. MS. SAUNDERS: In actuality, I don't think it's going to make the least bit of difference, because what we're basically saying is if Page 56 April21,2003 the woman doesn't get the variance, she's got to tear down her house. You know, no amount of fine is going to make a difference in that case. She's not going to be able to, you know, do that. I'm very comfortable with the first part, paying all the operational costs and obtaining a variance. MR. PONTE: I think Christopher is right, I think it should be applying rather than obtaining, because we don't know how fast the commission is going to move. MS. SAUNDERS: I like the applying part. The other part I'm not so comfortable with as well is obtaining approval -- is obtaining all the required permits and CO's and all the rest of that. That just seems like it's putting such an undue burden on somebody who's basically gone through most of the permitting. You know, everything has been pretty well per -- yes, the shed is not, but the rest of it she's gotten permits for. MS. BARNETT: For parts of it. MS. SAUNDERS: For parts of it. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: My understanding from Michelle is it wouldn't be difficult to get the permits if she gets the variance for the shed that's been moved, because it's like an after-the-fact permit. MS. SAUNDERS: Well, leaving out the shed, I'm concerned with the home and the addition. Forget the shed, because that can be torn down or whatever. What's involved.9 What kind of permitting is involved after you get a variance for the -- MS. ARNOLD: A standard building permit. What she should have done when she added the addition, go through the permitting process and inspections will be done, you know, once the work was done. Since we're dealing with something that's already existing, once the permit is obtained, all she merely needs to do is request an inspection and it's CO'd. Page 57 April 21, 2003 MS. BARNETT: Michelle, does this bring -- we had a similar case where we had an existing structure and the gentleman had a real hard time getting drawings done because it was an existing structure. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MS. BARNETT: Can we run into that? MS. ARNOLD: In the case of the addition, yes. I don't think it's going to be a big problem with the carport, because she had already applied for the carport and kind of showed what was going to be installed. MS. BARNETT: All she did was enclose it? MS. ARNOLD: But then she -- then it got canceled. MS. BARNETT: Oh, okay. MS. ARNOLD: And -- but the addition, I don't believe there was any permits applied for for that addition to the rear, so that's going to be difficult. MR. PONTE: I think-- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Excuse me, would you say that if she does get the variance, that a 60-day time frame for getting the permits and the inspections and the CO is reasonable, or is that unreasonable? Should we extend this? Should we make perhaps just the 120-day time frame here? MS. ARNOLD: I don't know if Ms. Britton knows if the contractor that did her additions and her carport -- not the rest of it, we're just dealing with the addition to your existing structure. MS. BRITTON: White Aluminum did the carport. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. And they're still in business, so they should have all that information on file and they should be able to pull a permit really quickly. And who did your rear addition? MS. BRITTON: It was done in stages. An individual -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Mrs. Britton, would you Page 58 April 21, 2003 come to the microphone, please. MS. BRITTON: I'm sorry. It was done in stages. The cement slab was poured at the cost of probably a couple hundred dollars at that time. Anything under $500 you did not need a permit for that cement. Then when I got the carport put on, I just had the roof extended out over. And I personally did the sidewalls, okay? MS. ARNOLD: The rear addition is what I'm asking. That's what I'm talking about. Behind the MS. BRITTON: trailer. MS. ARNOLD: MS. BRITTON: So you did the work yourself?. Some of it. I mean, I had help. But I did it in sequences where it wasn't enough money to get a permit. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Going back to the second part where I've said obtain, and I hear the word application, application for a variance, time frame for that, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: For obtaining -- or to submit it, it's plenty of time. 90 days would be plenty of time to submit. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: I mean, what is -- does it take two days, does it take a week? MS. ARNOLD: For a variance? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: No, just for the application, applying for the variance. MS. ARNOLD: It's a matter of her completing the paperwork and submitting it to the county. What takes the time is that becomes then a review process that the planning department has to review for completeness and then putting it on a public hearing for the planning commission and the Board of County Commissioners to make a decision. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: So perhaps if we change -- if we do application and obtain -- I'm trying to condense this so we Page 59 April 21, 2003 don't have a lot of days here and a lot of days there for various things. MR. PONTE: Let me -- if you want to condense it, I'm going to try something here that might make us all more comfortable. There is the phrase here in the recommendation, or remove and/or demolish the structure after obtaining a demolition permit for variances not granted. I think there are some of us on this board who feel uncomfortable with putting that in. If that were to be deleted and we're taking it -- if you're looking at that recommendation, take it into occupancy, so it reads occupancy within 30 days after obtaining the required permits or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues, and we don't write in this threat of having to demolish the home. MR. LEFEBVRE: What's the recourse after that? MR. PONTE: I think what we're trying to do here is provide the remedy, and that's not what our responsibility is. The responsibility here is to find in fact whether or not a violation exists. It does. A violation exists. Okay, what's the fine? And that's what we do. We don't have to provide the remedy. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: You have to give some guidance -- MR. PONTE: We do. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: -- so that they know what they have to do. And I think if you say after-- if it's denied, if the variance is denied and then you go through the process of getting a CO, she's not going to get a CO. So do we just say okay, well, you can leave it? MR. PONTE: No. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: I mean, you just can't -- you have to give some guidance. MR. PONTE: We're not saying that. We're saying if you don't Page 60 April 21, 2003 get that and you leave it that way, you're going to be fined $100 a day. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: And she leaves it and just pays the 100 -- MR. PONTE: Pays $100 a day? I don't think so. MR. RAMSEY: Prior to this, as I recall, when we had a structure that was -- you know, I was just thinking of another case, a structure that was constructed without a permit and the homeowner was required, by virtue of our order, to obtain the necessary permits, if they didn't do so, then they were required to remove the structures. I think that's pretty much standard issue, so I don't really see any reason to remove that at this point. I mean, because we don't know whether it's demolishing the whole house. Is it demolishing the house or just the portion she was required to move before that was built illegally? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: If we take out demolish and just have removed, maybe that softens it a little bit. All right, does someone want to make a motion? I think we've had a discussion and I think all points of views have been heard, unless there's something that we haven't heard that wants to be brought forward, someone wants to bring forward. And so if someone would put the recommendation -- MR. PONTE: Well, if we're going to do that, then what we're -- all right, here's the recommendation: That the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case, and abate all violations through applying for a variance from the Board of County Commissioners within 90 days from the date of this hearing, and obtain any and all permits required for the described structure improvements within 60 days of the approval of said variance. Additionally, respondent must request -- cause required Page 61 April21,2003 inspections to be performed and obtain a certificate of occupancy within 30 days after obtaining the required permits, or remove or demolish the structure after obtaining a demolition permit, if the variance is not granted, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: I liked the first maybe three or four lines, but then when you got into the getting the permits and the inspections and putting another time frame in there. Let me just review and see if I understood what you said, George. The pay operational costs, apply and obtain a variance within 90 days. MR. PONTE: Right. Apply, not-- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Just apply. Okay, we're going to apply for a variance within 90 days. Then what was your time frame for getting a variance? MR. PONTE: Within 60 days of approval of a variance. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: But are you giving -- so we're not giving a time frame for-- MR. PONTE: No. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: -- approval of the variance? MR. PONTE: No, because we can't. We don't know when the commission's going to make a decision. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: So within 60 days from the approval of a variance, then she must get all permits and inspections and CO's;' is that correct? MR. PONTE: After-- within 30 days after getting the permits. MS. BARNETT: If we're -- MR. PONTE: And what we're giving her is 90 days -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: To get the -- to apply. MR. PONTE: Right, giving her three months to comply after such time as she obtains a variance. Page 62 April 2 l, 2003 ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: First she's applying for the variance within 90 days. MR. PONTE: Right. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Assuming she gets the variance, then are you giving her 60 days to get all the permits and inspections and CO's? MR. PONTE: Yes. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: If she doesn't get the variance, then it's remove or demolish structure? MR. PONTE: That's correct. MS. BARNETT: George? MR. PONTE: What we might do, I mean, I don't know why we've got 90 days to apply for the variance. I think that should be shortened to 30 or 60 days. Because after all, it's the homework that Ms. Britton's going to have to do herself. No reason to have it be 90 days. MS. BARNETT: George, I don't know if you'll agree to this, but I also have a -- I agree with you that it needs to be shortened as far as -- because we are now applying, not trying to obtain. I also would like to see the fine of $100 per day possibly be reduced, because we are putting the auspice of getting the variance -- which is rather expensive in this county right now -- on this lady, as well as paying for the permitting that she hasn't done. So I would think that if we could reduce the fine to, say, $50 a day rather than 100, because she's going to have some rather large bills on top of that. MR. PONTE: Yes, I think that the fine realistically in this case -- immediately if it started to run at $100 a day, you'd exceed the value of the property in relatively short time, I would expect. So I think a fine of $50 a day is adequate. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: So you're amending that? Page 63 April21,2003 MR. PONTE: Yes. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: So are you going to shorten the days from 90 days to, say, 30 days, 45 days? MR. PONTE: Forty-five days. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Forty-five. Okay, that's applying for a variance within 45 days. After the variance has been approved, then we're giving her 60 days to get all the permits, inspections and CO's. MR. PONTE: Correct. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: If the variance is denied, then she has 30 days from that time frame to remove or demolish. MR. PONTE: After obtaining the -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: After obtaining the correct permits. MR. PONTE: Right, the removal permits. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Otherwise, there will be a fine of $50 a day. MR. PONTE: Right. MS. BARNETT: With that, I'll second it. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: MS. RAWSON: I think so. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: George, seconded by Sheri. Is there any other discussion? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Jean, did you understand? The motion was made by All those in favor, signify Any. opposed? Motion carries. Page 64 April 21, 2003 MS. ARNOLD: MS. BRITTON: MS. ARNOLD: have another motion. Mrs. Britton, do you understand what we've done? MS. BRITTON: I'm afraid so. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: You're afraid so? Okay. I'll be glad to repeat it to you if you're not sure. MS. BRITTON: Where do I go to get a demolish permit? Same place you get a building permit. Okay. And that was just for the first case. You do MR. PONTE: That's correct. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: That's right, that's right. Now we move on to Case 2000-14. And this was the three enclosed additions without permits, and the violation of at least one of these structures in the county right-of-way. MR. PONTE: Okay, you want me to make a motion? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: I sure do. MR. PONTE: All right, I will make a motion that a violation does exist in the case of Wilma Britton, Gordon Schultz and Kay Schultz. Board of County Commissioners -- that's CEB Case No. 2003-014, and that the violation is of 2.7.6 1 and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance 91-102, as amended. That is the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of a violation is that there are three enclosed additions which have been erected without first obtaining authorization of the required permits, inspections and certificate of occupancy; and that one of these additions at the rear comer of the mobile home was permitted for a roof but was later enclosed without obtaining Collier County permits. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: And you might want to add and located in county right-of-way. MR. PONTE: And located in county right-of-way. Page 65 April21,2003 ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: George, it was seconded by Gerald. discussion? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: (No response.) Do I hear a second to the The motion was made by Are there any comments, All those in favor, signify Any opposed? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Motion carries. And now to the recommendation of the board, which in a way will be similar to what we just did. Well, the first part of it we all know will be pay operational costs. And then this is -- I'm just opening this up for discussion. I'd like for someone to make a motion that the violations must be obtained -- MS. ARNOLD: Can I interrupt just for a minute? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Yes, go right ahead. MS. ARNOLD: Since we heard this as one case, do you want two separate operational costs, or do you want to just combine one operational cost for two -- for both cases? MS. BARNETT: Michelle, do we run into the problem like we just had recently where because we kind of combined a couple of cases -- MS. ARNOLD: That's true. Thank you. Never mind. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Okay. That the violations -- so we are going to include operational costs. The second part would be something to this effect: That Page 66 April21,2003 violations must be obtained -- abated, excuse me, by obtaining the required permits, inspections and CO for the described structure within however many days, 90 days. Third part -- this is if a variance approval -- MR. PONTE: Why did you change it from 60 to 90? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Well, I said -- I threw that in in the beginning. MR. PONTE: Oh, creativity. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: This is kind of a discussion right now, just to get everybody started. And that if the variance is not granted, respondent must remove or demolish with the correct permits within 30 days. Again, if the respondent does not adhere to the amount of days if the variance is approved, or the 30 days if variance is denied, then a fine of $50 per day will be imposed each day violation continues. That's to get you started with some suggestions. MR. PONTE: Well, I think you've just done it. MS. BARNETT: I have one thought, and it's because of what Michelle had started to bring up, because we are already hitting this individual for a very similar case on operational costs. Has there ever been a precedent where we did not charge operational costs, Jean? MS. RAWSON: Rarely, but yes. You know, in answer to Michelle's suggestion, which she then withdrew, if their operational costs are the same for both cases, then why don't we leave it up to the county to split them between the two cases. MS. ARNOLD: That's what we're going to do. And that would be the same thing as what MS. RAWSON: you're thinking of?. MS. BARNETT: Yeah, I was just going to say, let's just forego charging the operational costs on this one and then get it all on the Page 67 April 21, 2003 one. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, we're going to do that. Where visits and things occur to address both, we're not going to charge twice. MS. BARNETT: Okay. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: That's very good. MS. BARNETT: I just wanted to get that covered, because I didn't think that was quite fair. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Okay, do we have a motion? Recommendation? You all have been doing so well. MR. PONTE: Well, I think we're -- unless there's something we should -- what we're doing here is following the staff recommendation, isn't it? MR. LEFEBVRE: Except for the per diem. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Except for the amount. MR. LEFEBVRE: The 60 days -- MS. BARNETT: I'll make a motion that the respondent pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations through obtaining any and all permits required for the described structures and improvements within 60 days of approval of said variance as required in the CEB Case No. 2003-015; that they require all 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 after obtaining demolition permit if variance is not granted, or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: MR. DORIA: Second. MR. PONTE: I will second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: MS. SAUNDERS: Yes, you did. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Is there a second? Did I hear Albert second? I'm going to take his Page 68 April 21, 2003 second. Sheri made the motion, Albert seconded the motion. Is there any discussion? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Any opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Motion carries. Mrs. Britton, do you understand? MS. BRITTON: Yes. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Would you like to have a break? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Okay, let's take a 1 O-minute break. (Brief recess.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: case. This will be Case 2003-016. MS. HILTON: Yes, our fourth case is Board of County Commissioners versus Lorraine Burgess, B-U-R-G-E-S-S, and Lindell, L-I-N-D-E-L-L, McFadden, M-C-F-A-D-D-E-N. CEB Case No. 2003-016. I would like to ask if the respondent is present in the courtroom. (No response.) MS. HILTON: The respondent is not present. We have previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Do I hear a motion that We'll move on to the next Page 69 April 21, 2003 we accept the county's Exhibit A? MS. BARNETT: So moved. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: MS. SAUNDERS: Second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Sheri, seconded by Rhona. All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: (No response.) Do I hear a second? The motion was made by Any opposed? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Motion carries. MS. HILTON: The respondent was served with a notice of hearing by certified mail and personal hand delivery of the notice of hearing and also posting at the courthouse. The alleged violation is of Section 2.7.6.1, 2.7.6.5, and 1.5.6 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: On August 27, 2002, and again on November 25, 2002, confirmed the existence of three mobile home structures and one occupied travel trailer, all placed on village residential zoned parcel; same parcel previously improved with a principal use being Collier County building permit No. 91-0004809, a two-bedroom framed residence. No Collier County building permits for all additional structures and related improvements. Location where violation exists: 246 Singletary Street, Copeland, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 001134800201. Name and address of owner in charge of location where violation exists: Lorraine Burgess, Lindell McFadden, P.O. Box 431, Copeland, Florida, 34137. Date violation first observed: August 27th, 2002 and November Page 70 April 21, 2003 25th, 2002. Date owner given notice of violation: August 27th, 2002. Date which violation was to be corrected: January 3, 2003. Date of reinspection: February 24th, 2003 and April 18th, 2003. Result of reinspection: Violation remains. And at this time I would like to mm the case over to the code enforcement investigator, Carol Sykora, to present the case to the board. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Carol, you'll be sworn in again. (Speaker was duly sworn.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Proceed. MS. SYKORA: Again, my name is Carol Sykora, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. I'm really making a bang on my first time here. MR. PONTE: Carol Sykora day. MS. SYKORA: On August 27th, 2002, I had been advised that a mobile home had been moved from Plantation Island, which is near the Copeland/Lee/Cypress area, over to that area. Upon investigating, I arrived and found that the mobile home in question was placed on the parcel of land located at 246 Singletary Street, which is in village residential area. I had also observed at that time there was a total of four mobile homes and one occupied travel trailer on the parcel of land. I issued an NOV and took pictures. Upon further investigation, I determined that one of these mobile homes had a permit, the main home that was on the land. It's two parcels of land and basically the permitted home is across both parcels, which is one folio number. But there is one on each side unpermitted mobile home of this permitted structure, one to the rear, and also a travel trailer, bringing it three mobile homes -- beside the permitted one, there's also three Page 71 April21,2003 mobile homes and one occupied travel trailer, which will not be permitted by the county. After discovering that the one mobile home was permitted, I amended my notice of violation to disclude (sic) that. It was very difficult for me to go to this property, due to the fact I needed a sheriff's officer to accompany me, due to the total family coming out and making a lot of disruptions and -- as far as threats, and so the sheriffs office usually accompanied me to this property. I had talked to Lorraine and advised her that all the other mobile homes would not be able to be permitted because of the fact this is one parcel, one is permitted, the rest of them are illegal. But she claimed that where is her family going to live. And it's as you see by her not coming here today, this is what I always go through with Lorraine, as far as not paying attention to what's asked. I tried to help her, but to no avail. Do you have any questions? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: The fact that you have two parcels, and I know that the one permitted parcel is on both properties now. MS. SYKORA: Yes. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Let's assume that that permitted piece is not there. How many could be put on each parcel? How many mobile homes could be put on each parcel? MS. SYKORA: If the parcel was divided into the two separate folio numbers, there could be two. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Two on each parcel? MS. SYKORA: One on each parcel. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Oh, one on each parcel. MS. SYKORA: Right. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Now, the fact that this has been built, this permitted structure is on both properties, does that Page 72 April 21, 2003 automatically make it one property? MS. SYKORA: Well, it is one property of property appraiser's. It's one folio number. Even though it's two parcels, but it's one folio number, meaning one permitted stTucture. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: And so that's all that's allowed, so -- MS. SYKORA: Yes. MR. PONTE: Or are the three mobile home structures occupied? MS. SYKORA: Two are occupied. The one in the rear, Lorraine intended -- she got a demolition permit of a mobile home. Her intention was to replace one of the mobile homes, demolish it and replace it with the one that was brought in from Plantation Island, because it was a better mobile home. Without permits, probably. MR. MS. MR. MS. MR. PONTE: So they are occupied -- SYKORA: Yes. PONTE: -- two of them are occupied? SYKORA: And a travel trailer that's occupied. PONTE: Are they suitable for occupancy? MS. SYKORA: The one -- I really don't believe they are suitable. I have -- the pictures in the packet show -- MR. PONTE: That's what prompts my question, and I'll tell you where I'm going: Is she using these, do you think, for migrant worker housing? MS. SYKORA: I believe it's her family, extended family living in them. This is the main home I believe the mother lives in. MR. PONTE: Are there other trailers around the area like this in the vicinity of this lot? MS. SYKORA: Yes. Yes, there -- the street has other homes Page 73 April21,2003 on it. MR. PONTE: In this condition? MS. SYKORA: The main home that's permitted is very nice, as you can see. MR. PONTE: Right. MS. SYKORA: And this is the illegal one on the left-hand side of the permitted one. And behind it. MR. PONTE: My concern is for the safety and well-being of the people living in this, whether it be family or not. MS. SYKORA: Well, nothing has been permitted or inspected, and I have no idea how they're hooked up to any sewer system, electrically. Nothing's been permitted. Behind this home here is the travel trailer, which is occupied. It has an antenna up in the air off of it. To the right of the permitted structure is this mobile home, which is the one I believe she wanted to demolish because it leaked. And she wanted to replace it with this one that's shown in the rear of it from Plantation Island. And that's what initiated this case. MR. PONTE: Do you know whether or not she's collecting rents from her family who are living in the other units? MS. SYKORA: I do not know that. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: I think probably the direction you were going was a health and safety issue. But it probably is not in Carol's realm of expertise to tell us whether that is or is not. It seems pretty clear-cut to me that these are definitely in violation, since only one structure is permitted on the property, and here we have three plus a trailer. And I just think it's very clear that there is a violation. Are there any other questions for Carol? (No response.) Page 74 April 21, 2003 ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: MS. SYKORA: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: fact. MS. BARNETT: and make a motion. Okay, thank you, Carol. Now we need a finding of I'll make a motion that this -- I'm going to try ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: You're doing very well. MS. BARNETT: In the case of Board of County Commissioners against Lorraine Burgess and Lindell McFadden, CEB No. 2003-016, that there is a violation, it's pursuant to Sections 162.06 and 162.02 of Florida Statutes and Collier County Ordinance No. 92-80. Violations of Sections 2.7.6.1, 2.7.6.5, 1.5.6 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. And the description of the violation is that there is confirmed existence of three mobile home structures and one occupied travel trailer, all placed on a village residential zoned parcel. MS. SAUNDERS: I'll second that. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Well, without -- you just might want to say without building permits for any of these structures, or addition -- MS. BARNETT: Without any -- without proper permitting or actually allowing of those structures being -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: You did fine. Do I hear a second? MS. SAUNDERS: Second. MR. PONTE: I'll second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: The motion was made by Sheri, the second by Rhona. Is there any other discussion? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: All those in favor of the Page 75 April 21, 2003 motion, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Any opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Motion carries. Now the recommendation of the board. MS. SAUNDERS: I need to ask a question, actually. I'm not certain I understand the difference between the two cases. One is a repeat violation; we're not hearing that right now. MR. PONTE: Different location. MS. ARNOLD: Different location. MS. SAUNDERS: Oh, different location. Thank you, I didn't pick that up. Okay. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: ' All right. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll make a recommendation. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Good, Gerald. MR. LEFEBVRE: And I'm just going to make one change. First of all, order respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case. Two, remove all unpermitted structures within 30 days from the date of this hearing by obtaining any and all permits required for demolition within 60 days of this hearing-- let me see -- what's that? MS. ARNOLD: Thirty or 60. MR. LEFEBVRE: Within 30. Must request -- cause required inspections to be performed and obtain a certificate of completion within 30 days after obtaining required permits, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: I'm sorry, what was your fine, 1007 MR. LEFEBVRE: $100 a day. Page 76 April 21, 2003 ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Remove all permitted structures within 30 days, you said? MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. Do you see that to be possible? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: I think that -- I'd feel more comfortable in giving a little bit more time, since we've got three structures that have to be moved. And-- MS. ARNOLD: And they are occupied. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: And they're occupied. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: So I think staying with the 60 days is reasonable. MR. LEFEBVRE: All right, I'll amend it to -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: If you would amend that. And by obtaining any and all permits required for removal? You said demolition. Would you not want to change that to removal? MR. LEFEBVRE: Demolition or removal. How does that sound? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Okay, does everyone understand the motion? MS. SAUNDERS: Couldn't we make it simpler by saying remove or demolish all unpermitted structures within 60 days? MS. ARNOLD: That would make sense. MS. SAUNDERS: Would that work? It was getting too confusing. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Gerald, do you mind if we-- MR. LEFEBVRE: Not at all. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: -- amend your motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Not at all. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: All right, we're at paying all operational costs, remove or demolish all unpermitted structures Page 77 April21,2003 within 60 days or a fine of $100 per day; is that correct, Rhona? MS. SAUNDERS: Yes. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Okay. Do you agree, Gerald? Is that all right? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, I do. MS. BARNETT: You did leave out the obtain the certificate of completion within 30 days after obtaining the -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I amend it. MS. BARNETT: You said it, but she left it out. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: I didn't -- I think it pretty well states itself, within the 60-day period. Repeating that again, the way we've structured it is they have to do everything within 60 days or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed. Everyone understands the motion, which was made by Gerald, got changed a little bit by Rhona, but is acceptable. So is there a second? MR. RAMSEY: Second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Christopher seconds. The motion was made by Gerald, seconded by Christopher. Any more discussion? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Any opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Motion carries. We'll move on to the next case, Case No. 2003-17. MS. HILTON: Our final case of the day is Board of County Commissioners versus Lorraine Burgess, CEB Case No. 2003-017. Page 78 April21,2003 I would like to ask if the respondent is present in the courtroom. (No response.) MS. HILTON: She is not. We have previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Do I hear a motion that we accept the county's Exhibit A? MR. PONTE: So moved. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Is there a second? MS. BARNETT: Second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: The motion was made by George and seconded by Sheri. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Any opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Motion carries. MS. HILTON: The respondent was served the notice of hearing by certified mail and personal service and posting at the courthouse. The alleged violation is of Section 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: On July 16th, 2002, and on August 27th, 2002, did observe the existence of one occupied mobile home structure on an unimproved lot. A search of the official records of Collier County revealed that this structure had been erected, moved, added to, altered and utilized without first obtaining authorization of the required permits, inspections and certificate of occupancy. Repeat violation information: On September 23, 1999, public Page 79 April 21, 2003 hearing, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact for CEB Case No. ! 999-055 as recorded at OR Book 2704, Page 0840. The Code Enforcement Board found that a violation existed, a mobile home structure on an unimproved lot, without first obtaining authorization of the required permits, inspections and certificate of occupancy. Ms. Burgess was found to have violated Ordinance 92-101 as amended, Section 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5, the same provisions as cited in the notice of violation, dated February 7th, 2003, and is therefore a repeat violator. The Code Enforcement Board further ordered that if the respondent does not abate the violations on or before November 23, 1999, a fine of $50 per day would be imposed, plus all the operational costs. On or about December 29, 1999, the Code Enforcement Board imposed fines, as recorded at OR Book 2626, Page 3141. The original violation has never been abated, and the fines of $50 per day continue to accrue. The Code Enforcement Board authorized the case to be forwarded to the county attorney's office for collection or foreclosure in July, 2001, and a motion for summary judgment has been scheduled for May 5th, 2003. Location where violation exists is 249 Brockington, B-R-O-C-K-I-N-G-T-O-N, Drive, Copeland, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 1133560005. Name and address of the owner in charge of location where violation exists: Lorraine Burgess, P.O. Box 431, Copeland, Florida, 34137. Date violation first observed: July 16th, 2002. Date owner given notice of violation: July 16th, 2002, and amended February 7th, 2003. Date on which violation was to be corrected: February 17th, Page 80 April21,2003 2003. Date of reinspection: February 24th, 2003, and April 18th, 2003. Results of the reinspection: The violation remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to the code investigator, Carol Sykora, to present the case to the Code Enforcement Board. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Carol, you'll be sworn in again for this case. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. SYKORA: I don't think I need to introduce myself after this day. But on July 16th, 2002 1 had been going down at this location several times throughout the year, due to the fact of the prior violation where the Code Enforcement Board had the fines accruing, to see if anything has changed, if she'd been in compliance. And on this particular visit I noticed a mobile home placed on the property where no permits were obtained. Also, on August 1st I went to the property appraiser's office to obtain tax cards on this and the parent property. What occurred on the prior violation in '99, it was one parcel, they subsequently had it divided into two parcels so they could have the two mobile homes. There was a travel trailer existing on this, which still existed, even though the new mobile home was put there. This is the mobile home that -- this was taken on Friday, the 18th of April. That is the mobile home that they put there. And in my case, I show where they've actually put their own PVC pipe in the ground and attached it to the sewer line out there. At that time, when I noticed that, I placed a stop work order on the property. This shows the other mobile home that was existing at the prior 1999 case. And then this was the one that was put in. And on -- at Page 81 April21,2003 that time the travel trailer, which they were supposed to remove to come into compliance, was still on site. A check on October 2nd, 2002, they did remove and demolish the travel trailer, but the mobile home remained unpermitted. And at that time I spoke to Jennifer, the county attorney, as to repeat violator, due to the fact there is an existing violation on this property. That's when I amended the notice to be a repeat violation. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Carol, the violation, the first violation, was an unpermitted mobile home? MS. SYKORA: Correct. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: And then a travel trailer came on. That has since been demolished? MS. SYKORA: The travel trailer was in the original violation from 1999, which was not my case, it was another investigator's case. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: And then that's been demolished -- MS. SYKORA: Yes-- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: -- or taken away, whatever? MS. SYKORA: -- on October 2nd on my visit, it was removed. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Now they've moved another trailer on the property; is that correct? MS. SYKORA: Before the travel trailer was removed, this one right here was put on the property. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Unpermitted? MS. SYKORA: Unpermitted. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: If they were both -- if she went to get her permits, would they be allowed -- would two trailers -- so we're talking about two properties? MS. SYKORA: Yes, now. It was divided through the -- because of the first violation, they wanted to put two there, so they Page 82 April 21, 2003 had the property divided into two parcels. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Okay. MS. SYKORA: Which could be done, but they're not in compliance with the first case yet. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Did they stop the work when you put the stop work order there? MS. SYKORA: I don't believe they did. It's -- they just continue -- they live in it. It is occupied by another relative of Lorraine. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: I don't know whether this -- Michelle, whether you can answer this or not. If they've hooked in by themselves into the sewer line, and I don't know how they're getting water, could this potentially be a health issue? MS. ARNOLD: It definitely is a health issue. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Okay. MS. BARNETT: Carol, I have a question for you. It looks like it's your Page No. 35, looks like the pipe is actually not even connected. It looks like it's flowing into like a ditch. Is that part of the sewer? MS. SYKORA: That's the PVC pipe that they were laying when I placed the stop work order. MS. BARNETT: So I'm trying to get the sequence then of all of these pictures of piping that you have. You've got one that has like an elbow joint in it that there's quite a bit of water around. MS. SYKORA: Right. They were all taken at the same time. MS. BARNETT: Okay. So it looks like the pipe then is just not finished? It's-- MS. SYKORA: Right. MS. BARNETT: -- just running? MS. SYKORA: They were hooking it into the sewer line. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Also, I have another Page 83 April 21, 2003 question, Michelle. If the county is now pursuing the first violation, which would include the entire property, both parcels, where are we at this stage; do you know.9 MS. ARNOLD: Shanelle had indicated there's a motion for summary judgment. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: For summary judgment? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: And that's just where it is MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: -- it's just that motion stage. MS. HILTON: Yeah, I checked with Ellen Friday on the status, or her assistant anyways, and he said that the motion's set. They have to present their motion to the judge and the judge has to say yes or no. If he says yes, they're going to set it for foreclosure and auction within 60 days. But it's not a guarantee that that could happen, because the judge has to agree to their motion first. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: So that's why we're hearing the case now, okay. MR. PONTE: Question. Somewhere in reading here I read that the notice of violation was served on Ms. Burgess at Everglades City School. Is she a school teacher? MS. SYKORA: No, she works at the school. Not a teacher. I'm not sure of the capacity, cleaning or -- I'm not quite sure. But in actuality, that is pretty much the best way to get ahold of her; she's a little more civil acting. When I go down to the property, everybody comes running out and it gets into a very difficult situation. MR. PONTE: And she maintains that this is family as well with bringing in these other trailers? MS. SYKORA: Yes. I think Lindell McFadden lives in the Page 84 April 21, 2003 right-hand trailer over here, and another relative lives in the -- he used to live in the travel trailer, but when -- that's why they put this one in there and then finally removed the travel trailer. This one, actually, it was abandoned down the street and they just pretty much moved it down to this parcel of land. MR. PONTE: We assume that there were no permits ever done. I mean -- MS. SYKORA: No. MR. PONTE: -- they're hooked up to electricity that came from who knows where? MS. SYKORA: Right. Sewer, pretty much they laid their own pipeline. MR. PONTE: They're obviously not anchored. MS. SYKORA: No. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: I might just remind the board that on a repeat violation, we don't need to give any time frame in which things have to be done, and also the fine can go up to $500. MR. PONTE: I have a question. Well, no, we're not discussing that, but I do have a question when we get to the discussion stage. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Are there any more questions for Carol? MS. BARNETT: I don't have one for Carol, but I have one for Jean. I'm a little bit concerned about the sewer just being there and possibly flowing. Especially because if this is anywhere near the original parcels that we just did the case, which I'm kind of getting that feeling, there's a lot of children around in that area, and animals. If this is a potential health hazard, do we have the right to just have the county go in and clean it up? MS. RAWSON: Yes. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Are there any other questions before we close the public hearing? Page 85 April21,2003 (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: All right, thank you, Carol. MS. SYKORA: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: The public hearing is closed and now discussion among the board. MR. PONTE: My -- it's a question, really, prompted by your pointing out that this is a repeat violation. And this is for Jean, I guess. Is there anything that we can do that makes any sense here? Because we have a case where the respondent absolutely ignored what was done before. I have no idea what this $50 a day fine has accrued to that's been running since 1999, and we're going to level against the same respondent, if found in violation, another fine. It's meaningless. MS. RAWSON: It is. Because pretty soon it's going to be worth more than the value of the property. MR. PONTE: It has to be worth more than it is now. MS. RAWSON: But as she told you, there's foreclosure action in existence, and if they don't object to the motion for summary judgment, my guess is it will get granted and in 60 days it will be up for sale on a foreclosure sale. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: We do have to -- even though this may very well happen, this is a repeat violation, and to go on record, we have to make a motion that there is -- I mean, I would say that we make a motion that there is a repeat violation and follow through with it so it will be on record. MS. BARNETT: I have just a personal feeling, going along with the fact that this individual has ignored what we've done, what we have ordered, the potential that it is going to be foreclosed, but we're not positive of that, the fact that there is a health hazard here Page 86 April 21, 2003 that could be a pretty serious one. I kind of am inclined to ask the county to move to clean it up and get it over with. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Let's find a violation first, and then we'll -- MS. BARNETT: Okay. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: -- go to the recommendation, and then you can make that recommendation. MS. BARNETT: I jumped ahead. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: That's all right. You can make that recommendation at that time, but first we need to find a finding of fact and conclusion of law, which would be whether there is a violation. And so do I hear from the board members, one person to make a motion.9 Again, yOu all have done such a good job today with making these motions. MR. PONTE: Okay, let's do it. I'll make a motion that a violation does exist in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Lorraine Burgess, CEB Case No. 2003-017, and that the violation is of Section 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. And the description of the violation is the existence of one occupied mobile home structure on an unimproved lot and that this structure has been erected, moved, added to, altered and utilized without first obtaining authorization of the required permits, inspections and/or certificate of occupancy. In addition, the order of the Code Enforcement Board filed in the official records of Collier County at OR Book 2704, Page 0840, reveal that on September 23, 1999, Ms. Burgess was found to have violated Ordinance 91-102, as amended, Section 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5, the same provisions as cited in the notice of violation dated February 7, 2003 and is therefore a repeat violator. Page 87 April 21, 2003 ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: MS. BARNETT: Second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: made by George, seconded by Sheri. Is there any discussion? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: (No response.) Do I hear a second? The motion has been All in favor, signify by Any opposed? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: The motion carries. And now we go to the recommendation of the board. MS. BARNETT: I think I've already stated what I felt earlier. I don't see this lady's going to rectify this problem. I think we're going to have to take action if we're going to get it fixed. MS. SAUNDERS: I wonder what actions we're allowed to take. We can't condemn a property, can we? It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to have the county go in, and how do they clean it up? They can't lay sewer pipes and stuff. So what can we do? MS. RAWSON: You can charge her $500 a day. MS. SAUNDERS: Yeah. MS. RAWSON: You can have her demolish the structure and remove or demolish the structure. And if she fails to do so, you can have the county go in and remove or demolish the structure. MS. SAUNDERS: So we can -- okay. MS. RAWSON: Because if you find that there's a health violation -- MS. SAUNDERS: Can we do that in a very short period of time? MS. RAWSON: Well, I don't know how long it would take the Page 88 April21,2003 county. They have to put it out for bids, I think. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Well, hearing that, knowing that first we have to go through the process of asking the homeowner to take care of it and we can give a very short period of time, according to what Michelle feels the county can get out and do MR. PONTE: Yeah, but we really don't want the county out there going through the expense of clearing up, and how do they connect to sewage and all that? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: No, I think what we would do would be have them remove or demolish, and then they would not be connected. Then it would not -- MS. BARNETT: Gone. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Yes. And so I think again on a repeat violation, there's no time frame. We can say that they must go out and do this -- not the county, but the homeowner must do this immediately, like within a week. If they don't do it, then the county can go out. I just want you all to be aware of that, that we don't have to give time frames. MS. BARNETT: Michelle, do you have something to -- MS. ARNOLD: I guess my reservations is the fact that we're dealing with occupied structures again, and the fact that there are people in it. I don't know what our-- what authority we have to evict them, essentially, because it's not county property. So we would have to look into that. And I think that's what's going to postpone anything -- we have, in other cases, removed structures that have been placed on property without valid permits, especially ones where the condition of the structure is such that it was uninhabitable. I'm not sure whether we're dealing with the -- you know, that in this particular case. Page 89 April 21, 2003 ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: of us is that health issue. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: people. MS. ARNOLD: Right. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: these trailers. I think what concems all And affecting other Not just the people in MS. ARNOLD: I think that I would have to consult with the county attorney's office further to see what we would be allowed to do with those health/safety issues, the fact that we do have exposed pipes and sewer lines that may have been installed and flowing into, you know-- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Jean, how can we respond to this repeat violation.9 Since it is inhabited, we could still -- I guess we could give a time frame that they have to remove the trailer or demolish it, which means the people would have to move out. MS. RAWSON: Well, I think that you can only tell the landowners that they have -- that they are in violation, and then they have to either obtain the permits or they have to remove the structures or they're going to pay $500 a day. I don't think that the county probably has the authority to evict these people, and it would be very difficult to remove the structures with them in it. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: So how do we address -- MR. PONTE: Or demolish them. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Right, I understand all of that. I guess I keep reflecting back on the health issue and how it's affecting other people. We can't -- obviously we know that this lady doesn't care about the fines. We could put 500, we could put a dollar and it doesn't Page 90 April21,2003 make any difference to her. So that means this would be continuing. It's been going on, something similar-- MS. RAWSON: Well, if the summary judgment is granted and the property is sold in 60 days, then someone else is going to have the authority to evict these people. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: In the meantime, how do we address this violation? I think what you're saying is we have found the violation, we can ask her to get permits or remove, and if she doesn't, then we fine her. And that's about as far as we can go. MS. RAWSON: I think so. You can ask the county to look into or make their best efforts to correct the health hazard, but I don't think you can ask the county to evict them. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Well, do I hear a motion? I think we all pretty well understand it. I think that we can only hope that the summary judgment is accepted. But right now what we can do is ask her to get the permits. If not, remove the structure. And if not, then there will be a fine of-- and we can go up to $500 a day. MS. SAUNDERS: Well, since this is a repeat violation, we're just repeating ourselves by asking them to get the permits. Can't we just go from we order the respondent to pay all operational costs and we impose a fine of $500 for repeat violation and a fine of $250 per day for each day the violations continue? MR. PONTE: I don't think you can do that. Now you've got two fines. You do the $500, or you do 250, but you can't do two fines. MS. SA UNDERS: Okay. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: And I think you have to describe what her violation is. MS. RAWSON: And you have to give her time to comply. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Yes, even though it may sound as a repeat. It is a repeat. Page 91 April 21, 2003 MS. ARNOLD: I thought we didn't really have to give the time additional. MS. RAWSON: You don't. But you've got to -- if you say immediately, immediately upon her getting notice of what we did with this order. So let's assume she doesn't get a copy of this order until by the end of the week. So she's -- if you say immediately, that's probably pretty good. But it's still when she gets this order. MR. PONTE: Well, say within 15 days of receipt of this order, 10 days? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: We can say whatever we wish. Because again, we don't need to give her any time. But I think that we would all like to give some reasonable -- MR. PONTE: Yes, I think it has to look reasonable, too, just in the event it comes back in another forum so that we are saying okay, you have 15 days to demolish. Take some time. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Would you like to make a motion? MR. PONTE: I haven't thought it through yet. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Or is someone prepared to make a motion? MS. SAUNDERS: Okay, I'll go ahead. Recommend -- well, we find that a repeat violation exists. We order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case; obtain any and all permits required or-- any and all permits required for -- okay, required for the described structures or improvements, or demolition -- can I do that? I can't combine them. Never mind. Any and all permits required for improvements within 15 days of this hearing, or demolition permits ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: I think you could combine the two, could you not, Jean? Page 92 April 21, 2003 MS. RAWSON: I think you can. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: I think you -- I would combine the two as you started out to, Rhona. MS. SAUNDERS: Well, then somebody take a crack at it. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: If you obtain any and all permits required for the described structure -- MS. BARNETT: Improvements or demolition. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: days of this hearing. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Otherwise, a fine of whatever we choose will be imposed. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. MR. PONTE: Can you say obtain any and all permits -- not as required, but if we're going to give them 15 days, and one of the reasons that we're giving it a short amount of time is because of the health considerations. Is there such a thing as an emergency permit or something that puts her at the head of the line; that is, if in the event she were to go to the county and say okay, I need a permit for it, but I need it on an emergency basis, so I'm not Case No. 12, I'm Case No. 1, how can we word that? MS. ARNOLD: I don't think any such a policy exists, but we could -- MR. PONTE: But maybe the 15 days is not real. MS. ARNOLD: But we could probably -- you know, or I could probably go to the -- if Mrs. Burgess is inclined to come in for an application and obtain a permit, try to give it some priority in terms of a review. MR. RAMSEY: I think, George, the only real remedy here is going to be a health inspection and maybe condemnation of the properties or something of that nature. She's not going to respond. -- or demolition within 15 Page 93 April 21, 2003 ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: No, she's not. MR. PONTE: I don't think she is either. Sorry. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Okay, Rhona, do you want-- are you-- MS. SAUNDERS: No, somebody else-- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: You want to restructure or -- MS. BARNETT: I'll try it. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Go ahead, Sheri. MR. PONTE: Rhona, you're a writer, an editor. MS. SAUNDERS: I know. MS. BARNETT: I make a motion that we find that a repeat violation exists, and we order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case; that they obtain any and all permits required for the described structure improvements and/or demolition within 15 days of this hearing. And I would like to impose a $250 a day fine. MR. PONTE: No, we had $500, did we not? MS. BARNETT: Well, you said we can do both. MR. PONTE: We can't do both. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: We can do one or the other. MR. PONTE: One or the other. MS. BARNETT: Okay, so I can go up to $500 a day? MR. PONTE: Yes. MS. BARNETT: All right, if she does not obtain the required permits, that we impose a fine of $500 per day to continue from that date. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Each day the violation continues. MS. BARNETT: Each day the violation exists. Page 94 April 21, 2003 ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: motion? MS. SAUNDERS: Second. MR. PONTE: Second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Sheri and seconded by Rhona. Do I hear a second to the The motion was made by Is there any discussion? Do all board members understand the motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: One question. Is it 15 days from the hearing or 15 days from notice? That was one question we had. MS. RAWSON: It's usually 15 days from the hearing. MS. BARNETT: That's what I said. MS. RAWSON: Because I usually put in parentheses the actual date every time. When I say 15 days from today, I actually count 15 days from today. MR. LEFEBVRE: Very good. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Okay, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Any opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Motion carries. And we've already done our new business, we've done our old business, and there are no reports. MS. BARNETT: May I make a motion that we adjourn? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Yes, you may. Is there a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: There was a first and second to adjourn. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 95 April 21, 2003 (Unanimous votes of ayes.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN DUSEK: Any opposed? The meeting is adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:20 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD ROBERTA DUSEK, ACTING CHAIRWOMAN Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 96