Loading...
CEB Minutes 05/22/2003 RMay 22, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida May 22, 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: CHAIRWOMAN: Clifford Flegal Roberta Dusek Sheri Barnett Catherine Godfrey Gerald Lefebvre George Ponte Rhona Saunders ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board; Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director; Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney; Shanelle Hilton, Code Enforcement Coordinator Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA AGENDA Date: May 22, 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 IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES- April 21, 2003 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS B. HEARINGS BCC vs. Baywood Manor Antiques and Jewelry Inc., and Joseph A. Giallana, as its Registered Agent and Director Location: Golden Gate Estates Alleged Violation: Observed but not limited to a non permitted mobile home, a boat and a vehicle with no valid tags. Also observed a structure, which was partially built under Permit # 88-1370 and has been declared abandoned under Ordinance No. 98-76, Section 104.6.1.1(B). Case continued from February 27, 2003 Agenda. CEB NO. 2003-003 BCC vs. Kenneth and Leslie Carter and Cater Fence Company Inc. and John Bolan as it's Registered Agent and Kenneth Carter As it's President and Director Location: Golden Gate Estates Alleged Violation: Observed workers coming and going and working on the property in violation of the Home Occupational License and the outside storage of materials including but not limited to building materials. Flat bed trucks making deliveries from said property which is zoned single family residential and homestead. CEB NO. 2003-021 BCC vs. Dixie Higginbotham Location: Golden Gate Estates Alleged Violation: Observed a primary structure that had a permit issued for it in 1981 (81-2232) but didn't get all of the required inspections and certificate of occupancy. Also a guesthouse type structure built without obtaining the required building permit(s), inspections, and certificate of occupancy. CEB NO. 2003-022 BCC vs. Haldeman Creek Enterprises, LLC and Harriet McCarthy as its Manager and Jeff M. Novatt, Esquire as it's Registered Agent and Mark Hendry, as tenant and manager of Haldeman Creek Boat House Grill and Marina Location: East Naples, off Bayshore Drive Alleged Violation: On December 17, 2001, did observe an alteration, enlargement, and addition made to the kitchen area of the Halderman Creek Boat House Grill and Marina, including electrical CEB NO. 2003-024 hook-up, without first obtaining a building permit, and without having received a certificate of occupancy for said addition; prior verbal warning has not corrected the violation. Case to be continued to June 26, 2003 Agenda. NEW BUSINESS A. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC vs. Claude Mattel 2. BCC vs. Claude Martel B. Request for Reduction/Abatement of Fines 1. BCC vs. Walter Crawford C. Request for Foreclosure 1. BCC vs. Hada Olivella 2. BCC vs. Maxwell of Naples Corp 3. BCC vs. Maxwell of Naples Corp D. Motion/Request for Extension of Time 1. BCC vs. Southern Development Co., Inc., and Mario Curiale as its Registered Agent 2. BCC vs. Southern Development Co., Inc., and Mario Curiale as its Registered Agent 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Affidavits of Compliance 1. BCC vs. Claude Martel 2. BCC vs. Claude Martel 3. BCC vs. Walter Crawford B. Affidavits of Non-Compliance 7. REPORTS 8. COMMENTS 9. NEXT MEETING DATE ,Tune 26, 2003 at the Orange Blossom Drive, Collier County in the Sugden Library Library CEB NO. 2003-001 CEB NO. 2003-002 CEB NO. 2003-004 CEB NO. 2002-030 CEB NO. 2002-027 CEB NO. 2002-032 CEB NO. 2003-005 CEB NO. 2003-006 CEB NO. 2003-001 CEB NO. 2003-002 CEB NO. 2003-004 Headquarters, 2385 Theater 10. ADJOURN May 22, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, I'll call the Code Enforcement Board to order, please. Before we begin, I missed our last meeting, and I would like to extend my appreciation to all my board members and the staff for their well wishes. I am alive and kicking. Well, alive, not kicking. But anyway, thank you very much. I greatly appreciate it. May we have the roll call, please. MS. HILTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Clifford Flegal? MR. FLEGAL: Here. MS. HILTON: Roberta Dusek? MS. DUSEK: Here. MS. HILTON: George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. HILTON: Rhona Saunders? MS. SAUNDERS: Here. MS. HILTON: Catherine Godfrey? MS. GODFREY: Here. MS. HILTON: Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. HILTON: Sheri Barnett? MS. BARNETT: Here. MS. HILTON: And Albert Doria and Christopher Ramsey have an excused absence. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One item, please, before we move on. Please make note that any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of this proceeding 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. Page 2 May 22, 2003 Our agenda. Are there any changes? MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, code enforcement director. I have an addition to Item 4-A, motions. We have a motion that was submitted to our office yesterday for a continuance, BCC versus Baywood Manor Antiques and Jewelry, Inc., and Joseph A. Giallanza as the registered agent and director for that company. So that item would be heard first. And then I'd like to change the order of the public hearings and hear Item No. 2, which is Board of County Commissioners versus Kenneth and Leslie Carter and Carter Fence Company, Inc. first. So that would be one, and then depending on your decision for the continuance, Baywood would be second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear a motion to accept the changes to the agenda? MR. PONTE: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Approval of our minutes from April 21st. Any changes, corrections? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the minutes of-- MS. BARNETT: And I'll -- Page 3 May 22, 2003 MS. DUSEK: -- April 21st. MS. BARNETT: -- second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion by Ms. Dusek and a second by Ms. Barnett. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll move into our public hearings. First item is the request for a continuance. MS. ARNOLD: I believe, yes, Mr. Giallanza is here. MR. GIALLANZA: Hello, ladies and gentlemen. I'm here on code enforcement violation -- THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, your name, please? MR. GIALLANZA: Joseph Giallanza. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Just one moment, sir. Cherie', can you swear him in, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. GIALLANZA: I'm here on a continuance, which was extended on February 27th, and I thank you all for that, on the violations. I've corrected some. There still exists a mobile home, which is on the property and is scheduled to be removed on or before June 5th, which is about two weeks. The unfinished building, which is still requiring a building permit to finish, is still tied up in litigation. I've made efforts to secure building permits prior to this hearing, and I just received notice from the federal bankruptcy court, who already I've paid money to and gave all my documents to has been absolved and is discharged of his debt. Which I have no idea what that has to do Page 4 May 22, 2003 with all the documents I had given him. That's kind of tied me up and extended my efforts to secure a building permit. However, I've contacted several loan companies and within 90 days from this date, I'm 99 percent positive I should have the building permit secured and the building will be under construction again. So I'm asking for a 90-day extension, based upon that fact. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle, county's position, please? MS. ARNOLD: Our position is that we granted the continuance for the notice last time, and we've given Mr. Giallanza ample time. We can hear the case and the time that he's specifying that would be adequate for his compliance could be one that's considered by the code board, or time for compliance in their order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Refresh our memory a little bit. When did this whole thing start? When did it first come to the board? MS. ARNOLD: Well, it was scheduled on your February agenda, and it was continued from that agenda. But the case itself started August 16th, 2002. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: So we gave a 60-day continuance? MS. ARNOLD: First time. MR. GIALLANZA: Ninety. MS. ARNOLD: Ninety. MS. DUSEK: Ninety days. MR. PONTE: Mr. Giallanza, you have at this point removed the boat and the vehicle; is that correct? MR. GIALLANZA: Yes. MR. PONTE: And the abandoned structure is still standing? MR. GIALLANZA: It is. MR. PONTE: And what are your plans for that structure? MR. GIALLANZA: I would like to finish it. It has been tied up in litigation, both divorce matters, for more than seven years. And I have -- I've come to my end as far as trying to deal with the Page 5 May 22, 2003 opposition. I've taken it to state court and federal court now, and she's refused to comply with any federal court orders as of recent. And I'm just going to go ahead, even though there's a court order, the divorce order that says that I have to sell the property, which I have had sales pending, and then because of the problems of the complaint, the complaint regarding the unfinished building, code enforcement contacted the new owner before the closing, so they backed out. There's a contract pending at this point, but I'd prefer -- I spent six years saving the money and working on that building. It is a huge building, it's 4,000 square feet. I did it by myself on weekends from Key Largo to Naples. And I did that because I wanted to build a good home for my family in a secure, clean environment. I want to see that finished. And it's my intention to do everything I can to finish my home. Self, pride, whatever you want to call it. But it's something that I put major money and effort into. And I'm asking this board to allow me to at least do whatever I can to see that come to fruition. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. GIALLANZA: You're welcome. MS. DUSEK: I guess I'm not quite clear. What have you done since we gave you the last continuance toward the building? I understand you have some personal problems, but -- go ahead. MR. GIALLANZA: We all have. I have contacted several loan companies in regard to borrowing money, as far as equity that I have in the property, which is paid for. I've tried to negotiate some settlement with the former spouse regarding the divorce court order, which ordered the property sold or to buy her out. There's been no compliance with my request or the federal court orders. I've also -- I hired, as I explained to you last time I was in here, I hired SRL & Associates to do the as-built drawings. I'm not exactly Page 6 May 22, 2003 sure if that's the proper term for them, but new drawings to conform to the new county code or the state code. I just got this notice this morning from the federal court that not only was Mr. Ruben and SRL absolved, discharged from the debt, the court gave no explanation as to why he was entitled to keep my plans, my surveys and all the other documents that I had given him regarding the property. They have nothing to do with a bankruptcy cause. It should have been returned to me so I don't have to go and have the surveys done all over again, which I need to do, because there was -- you know, I think that's an issue for the engineers to be able to do a proper set of forms or plans for the new building. So it's not just personal problems, it's a lot of complications, things that have come up in between the time that ! was here and now. But as I said, I've made an effort to at least try to secure a loan, so in the event the sale which is pending now does not go through, I'll at least have the backup and have the money to finish my building. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess there's really only two roads here. We can grant a continuance for 90 days; we could hear the case, and since the violation would exist, we might end up issuing an order that gives him 90 days to solve the problem, since he says he's going to take that long. For the lack of time and expense, I would probably recommend we might consider continuing it for 90 days, and maybe by that time it will be gone and the county can just take it off the books. MS. BARNETT: Cliff, I kind of-- I'm going to state, I might disagree with you, I just wanted to start with. This case has been hanging on for quite some time. We've already had him here previously. I understand there's a lot of litigation and that, but rather than have it come again and add costs on top of something, I think we ought to go ahead and hear it. Page 7 May 22, 2003 MS. DUSEK: I'm inclined to agree with that. And -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: -- we can -- as you mentioned, Cliff, we can give him the time, after we hear the case, if we do find violations. MS. SA UNDERS: I concur also. I think we hear it. ACtually, I think it's to his advantage that we hear it; otherwise, the case doesn't go away, it's -- the case is on the property, not on him. He sells it and we're looking at a new owner doing exactly the same problems, SO ---- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear a motion? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we deny the continuance. MR. PONTE: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to deny the request for a continuance. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sorry, sir, we hear the case. MR. GIALLANZA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You'll be second on the docket. So within the next however long, don't leave the room. Okay, public hearings. First case, Board of County Commissioners versus Kenneth and Leslie Carter and the Carter Fence Company, Inc. Case No. 2003-021. MS. HILTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. For the record, Shanelle Hilton, CEB coordinator. I would like to ask at this time if the respondent is present in the courtroom? MR. PIRES: Yes, he is. And counsel, Tony Pires for Mr. Carter. MS. HILTON: We have previously provided the board and the Page 8 May 22, 2003 respondent with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. MS. DUSEK: I make the motion that we enter the county's Exhibit A. MS. BARNETT: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to enter the county's exhibit. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. ARNOLD: Just to expedite the process, since we've already entered the exhibit, Mr. Pires is here and they have an agreement or a settlement to make, and I'm going to have him speak first, and then the board could possibly make a decision as to which way they want to go. MR. PIRES: Thank you. Members of the board, my name is Anthony Pires, law firm Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, representing Kenneth Carter and Carter Fence Company in this case. First I want to say Mr. Carter is present today, and what we'd like to -- we've held discussions with the staff, had an opportunity to review the file in its entirety. What we'd like to propose, in talking with the staff, because they have been very good, once again, as far as providing access to all the files, all the materials and the time and the opportunity for discussions, to obtain a resolution of the notices of violations without going through the hearing process. I think that would be an expeditious resolution of the matter, and efficient administration of the code enforcement process, and resolve the matters in the notice of violation. Subject to and predicated upon the entry of an order disposing of the case, consistent in the manner with which we've discussed, my clients would agree to the entry of an order that six months from the Page 9 May 22, 2003 date of an entry of the order by the board, he will have ceased the actions complained of in the notices of violation and be in full compliance with the requirements of the home occupation ordinance, and failing which, prospectively, beginning at a date six months from the date of the entry of the order, a fine of $100 per day, if any violations, as outlined in the notice of violations, exist. We would request the board waive the operational costs as to this particular case at that time, if it's in compliance. My client says part of this case will stipulate that there is, and the code enforcement staff would be able to, introduce and provide testimony and evidence, sufficient evidence, to support a finding of the violations outlined in the notice of violations, as to the outside storage and material, or as to delivery of materials by services other than United States Postal Service and in the manner outlined in the note of violations. Basically, and we were talking with staff, they said can your client admit the violation? I said, I never like to have my client admit that, but I will -- we will stipulate that there is sufficient evidence to find the violations outlined in the Notice of Violations, and the staff has put together a very complete packet, quite frankly, in this particular case. We would request the six-month period. There was an SDP that Mr. Carter has for an industrial parcel he owns in White Lake Industrial Park. He is working on getting the loan financing commitment for the next week or two, and he is committed to get that constructed and get out of this location within that six-month period. And we request your favorable consideration and approval of entry of an order allowing that six-month time frame, failing which after six months, if there's any violation that exists, $100 a day violation would accrue. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. Page 10 May 22, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Advice, please? MS. RAWSON: What's happened here is kind of like a plea agreement. And Mr. Pires has been speaking with the Code Enforcement Board officials, as well as the county attorney's office, I understand, and is prepared to just admit the violations and, you know, ask you to give him time to comply and ask you not to fine him until after that time. And so if you agree to the terms of this agreement, you know, I mean, I think that's where you are. MS. DUSEK: Can you -- can we do this without ever hearing a case? MS. RAWSON: Yes. Sure. There's no sense in hearing evidence if he's already said you can prove it. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. SAUNDERS: One question for Michelle. Is the county in agreement with this? Is there any kind of health or safety problem with going six months, rather than 30 days or 60 days? MS. ARNOLD: No, there's no health/safety concerns in terms of the operations. It's just a use that shouldn't be conducted within a semi-residential area. MS. SAUNDERS: That six months might be reasonable. MS. DUSEK: Six months, I don't know, to me seems a long time to-- MS. ARNOLD: Well, what is involved, he's already obtained the site development plan, which is required. And what is involved is building the structure that he's going to house his business in. So six months is reasonable. MS. DUSEK: Okay. MS. SAUNDERS: I have one problem with the plea agreement and that is waiving occupational costs -- I mean operational costs. We just don't do that. MR. PIRES: I understand. Page 11 May 22, 2003 MS. SAUNDERS: So that part I would negotiate. MR. PIRES: I could always ask. MS. BARNETT: I was getting ready to ask Michelle the same question, does the county have a problem with waiving the operational costs in this, or-- MS. SAUNDERS: I would. MS. ARNOLD: It's a decision of the board. I think what Mr. Pires is suggesting is waive it to the six-month period. If there is violations that exist after the six months, both the operational costs and the fines would kick in. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, question. Since Michelle has said that, that's where my thoughts were going. If we agree, let's say in spirit, with Mr. Pires's presentation, can we -- at the end of this six months where he says if a violation is found and the $100 a day would take place, can we also say that any operational costs will be paid? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: Sure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That would -- MR. PIRES: We would agree to all that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, good. That was easy. MS. SAUNDERS: I would argue only that I think we should incur operational costs regardless, because we're in effect monitoring it through the six months. They're going to be minimal, they don't make a difference, but it's a policy that we've followed in the past, and I'd like to see the county get back the $1,000 or approximately, whatever it's going to be. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle, do you know how much your operational costs are to date, roughly? MS. ARNOLD: Approximately between nine and 1,200. Page 12 May 22, 2003 MS. SAUNDERS: I said 1,000. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And I don't think the costs are really added to after the hearing. It's the cost that's incurred -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Bringing it to prosecution. Okay. So basically after we issue the order, you don't keep piling on costs. MS. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: So those are actual costs up to now? MS. ARNOLD: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any-- MR. PONTE: I'm sure not clear. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- questions? MR. PONTE: Yes. Mr. Pires, is the business going to be moved? MR. PIRES: Yes. MR. PONTE: And the move should occur-- be completed at the end of the six months that you're suggesting? MR. PIRES: Yes. Because we were agreeing to cease that operation to be an operation at the White Lake Industrial Park location, and if there is any problem with that occurring, then we will -- my client will be suffering the consequences from that. But again, he has the SDP and he's committed to getting the financing, getting the building permit and getting it constructed and moving everything in that six-month period. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MS. SAUNDERS: I would move that we accept the recommendation, or the plea bargain, or whatever you call it, with the exception that operational costs still be incurred and paid. But I can go along with the six months, and I accept $100 per day fine if Page 13 May 22, 2003 it's not valid -- if it's not accomplished within six months. MR. PONTE: If that's a motion, I would second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion and a second to accept Mr. Pires's presentation, with the one change that operational costs be paid, period. Any further, discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Next case, Baywood Manor Antiques, Case No. 2003-003. MS. HILTON: I would like to ask at this time if the respondent is present? Yes, he 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. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the county's Exhibit A. MS. BARNETT: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the county's exhibit. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: The respondent was served with a notice of hearing by certified mail and posting of the property and the courthouse. Page 14 May 22, 2003 The alleged violation is of Section 104.5.1.4 of Ordinance No. 2002-01, and 2.1.15, paragraph one, 2.7.6.5, paragraphs one and five, 1.5.6, 2.2.3.2.1., 2.2.3.1, and 2.2.3.2 of Ordinance 98-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: Observed but not limited to a non-permitted mobile home, a boat and vehicle with no valid tags. Also, observed a structure which was partially built under Permit No. 88-1370, and has been declared abandoned under Ordinance 98-76, Section 104.6.1.1, paragraph B. Location where violation exists: 3631 42nd Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 41660800007 of the Golden Gate Estates. Name and address of owner in charge of location where the violation exists: Is Baywood Manor Antiques and Jewelry, Inc., P.O. Box 990262, Naples, Florida, 34116. Date violation first observed: August 16th, 2002. Date owner given notice of violation: August 21, 2002, and amended notice of violation, May 2nd, 2003. Date on which violation was to be corrected: February 6th, 2003. And for the amended notice of violation, May 12th, 2003. Date ofreinspection: May 2nd, 2003. Results of reinspection: Mr. Giallanza, G-I-A-L-L-A-N-Z-A, has removed the boat and the vehicle, and the remaining violations are the unpermitted mobile home and the abandoned structure. And at this time, I would like to turn the case over to the code investigator, Jeff Letourneau, to present the CEB case to the board. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. For the record, my name is Jeffrey Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. I'm just going to start from the beginning of this case. On August 16th, while responding to an anonymous complaint, Page 15 May 22, 2003 I went out to the described property and observed a semi-built structure, a mobile home, a boat and a car with no valid tags. I wrote up the NOV. Well, first I went and did some research on the property and determined that Mr. Giallanza was the owner of the property, by checking out the corporation on-line -- and actually Baywood Manor Antiques and Jewelry are the official owners of the property, with Mr. Giallanza being the registered agent and the head officer of the property. I then pulled the deed and verified that Baywood Manor Antiques was the rightful owner of the property. In the pictures I took, you can see the trailer and the semi-built structure. This is the overhead view. Trailer. There was the boat that has since been removed. And that's the semi-built structure. Okay, over the course of the next six months, I was trying to work with Mr. Giallanza to, you know, comply with the violation. He had some problems with-- like he had stated earlier, some legal problems, and ran into some problems with contractors that he was trying to get help from. Basically, you know, we gave Mr. Giallanza every chance over the six months to comply with the violation, but for one reason or another he couldn't do it. So I brought the case before the board in February, and Mr. Giallanza received an extension from the board, a 90-day extension, and the violation still remains as of today. I went out there yesterday, and the semi-built structure and the trailer remain on the property. MS. DUSEK: Has there been any change to the building whatsoever? MR. LETOURNEAU: No. The building is exactly the same as when the first time I went out there on August 16th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jeff, can you give us an estimate of what you would think time-wise it would take for him to do what is Page 16 May 22, 2003 required to alleviate these violations? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, he's got a lot of situations. The trailer is not an illegal use in the estates district, unless it's used in conjunction as a construction trailer while the primary structure is being built. So he would have to get the permit reissued and get a temporary use permit for a construction trailer and then get a building permit for the trailer. And then while the primary structure was being built, he could use the trailer for construction purposes only, so he couldn't -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He couldn't live there? MR. LETOURNEAU: No, no, you could not live there. And then after the primary structure was inspected and C.O.'d, he would have to remove the trailer at that time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Time line for this whole process? MR. LETOURNEAU: Time line for this? I mean, I would say 60 days to get the -- at least get the permit, the building permit issued and the temporary permit issued and the building permit for the trailer issued. I would think 60 days, since, you know, he's already had nine months, I think that would be fair. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. BARNETT: Jeff, is anybody residing in the trailer at this time? MR. LETOURNEAU: I think Mr. Giallanza is residing in the trailer at this time. He hasn't been there the last couple of times I've inspected, but he was there a few times I've been out there. MS. DUSEK: In order to get a building permit, or whatever permits are needed for the trailer to be used as a construction unit, is there a lot required? I'm just thinking, since last August he's had an opportunity to do that, maybe not to complete the building. It's not a very involved process, is it? MR. LETOURNEAU: I would think it's pretty involved, yes. Because you have to -- I mean, you have to go through a lot of-- you Page 17 May 22, 2003 know, a lot of things to get both permits issued, I would think. MS. DUSEK: I'm thinking just of the trailer. To get permits for that, he has to have the right electrical and plumbing. So that is a difficult process? MR. LETOURNEAU: Michelle. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jeff, let me ask you this question while you're thinking about that. To get the construction trailer permitted to be on-site, wouldn't you have to have your documents submitted to say what this site is? You just can't take a big piece of land and say I want to put a construction trailer there and not say what you're going to use it for. MR. LETOURNEAU: I would think he'd have to go through getting the primary structure permit first -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MR. LETOURNEAU: -- trailer after that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: First. and then go with the construction Put your construction trailer there to help you build the primary structure. MR. LETOURNEAU: Exactly. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody other (sic) have any questions for Jeff?. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Jeff. Sir? One moment, sir, we'll do this again, because we're in a different case. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. GIALLANZA: To reiterate what I stated, I began the process of renewing the building permit back on -- I believe it's the latter part of August. I paid SRL & Associates to redo the existing plans that I had on the home, because they had to conform to the new state code. Mr. Ruben, SRL Associates, had absconded with the money, which was to be held in escrow, not to be used in his Page 18 May 22, 2003 corporate funds for whatever his bills were, until not only it was paid for, but the pending contract to sell the property had either, you know, consummated or I was released to go ahead and get my plans the way I wanted them done to finish my building. As I said, I just got the notice today that he was discharged of his debt. However, Mr. Leon (sic) took all my original plans, the surveys, which were -- you have to have a number of surveys, and they're quite expensive regarding the site, the site elevation, the building and what is existing there already, before the new plans could have been drawn up. The court didn't mention as to why Mr. Ruben was entitled to that. I have no explanation, because there's none in the document here. The mobile home is going to be removed from the property by June 5th, regardless of whether I get the building permit or whether it's sold. I don't really live there, so I want it out of there myself. I'm afraid that some day I'll just show up there and there might be somebody else living in it, which is the reason I put it there to begin with, so people wouldn't move into an unfinished building, try to finish it themselves and homestead the property. Which I have found a number of people on the property in the last, I'd say, three or four months. And I believe that's because there's a sign there that says for sale, which I have to have there because of the court order, which is the still pending divorce court order. I've done everything that I can, and I just have to now redo the same things over again: Pay another contractor, an engineer, to do the plans, or go through with the sale which is pending now and take substantial loss as to what I have invested in the property. Either way, before the next 90 days is up, or 60 days, as Mr. Letourneau recommended, I'm going to make my move. And then I'll have to worry about the court order later on. Because this is just unbearable. I mean, I don't want to be here bringing an imposition to you Page 19 May 22, 2003 people or anYbody in this county. That was not my intent to come out here and build a building and leave it half finished to have to show up here and give you the explanation as to why it's not finished. You know, that goes without saying. But what I would like to do is end this problem as soon as possible. And I can't do it today. But I'm hoping to do it within the next 90 days. MS. SAUNDERS: Sir, what is -- assuming you have a contract on the property now, what is the proposed settlement da.te? MR. GIALLANZA: I don't think there is one yet, because I had to disclose all the defects of the property, number one. And they -- I believe they're here -- the fellow lives in Iowa. He's coming down to speak to the people at the zoning, building and zoning, and he wants to make sure that the defects that I've disclosed to him are exactly as I've stated. And I think, you know, after I get an okay from him as to whether or not he's going to close on the property, then I'll have a date. MS. SAUNDERS: Unfortunately that makes it not a binding contract, as I recall. MR. GIALLANZA: Correct. That's why I'm kind of like in a catch-22, you know, no matter which way I move right now. But I've had to make a decision on my own. I've lined up several loan companies who are willing to give me the loan if the -- let's say the sale falls through, which actually I hope it does. I'd rather borrow the money on the equity, finish my home, and then sell it as a finished home. I'll be complying with the court order, I'll be complying with the code violations, and I'll at least get to see my home finished. MR. PONTE: Mr. Giallanza, are you currently now living in the mobile home? MR. GIALLANZA: No. I live in Hollywood, Florida, 2412 Garfield Street. But I have -- I keep that as my address, because I Page 20 May 22, 2003 come here to visit my children; I pick them up every other weekend and I have all my mail here. And to go through all these changes, I just thought it convenient to leave that as my actual address. MR. PONTE: So it's no inconvenience to you to -- removing that trailer? MR. GIALLANZA: Well, there was one problem with removing it. In the court order, it specified that nothing was to be removed or taken from the property at 3631 42nd Avenue. There are still a number of items, which I'd rather not disclose at this point, but regarding the divorce issue, where the former spouse actually exaggerated the value to an enormous amount of money, which never existed. And that's something I'm taking back to -- in fact, I just drew up the motion and I'm asking for a hearing before Judge Monaco to get that part of the divorce order settled, hopefully within the next 60 days as well. So that's why the mobile home had stayed there with the contents in it and I had to keep coming back here to check the contents. MR. PONTE: Jean, I have a question. If it's under court order not to remove anything, including the mobile home, then we can't order him to remove the mobile home, can we? MS. RAWSON: I think you need to see the court order before you make that decision. MR. PONTE: Do you have a copy of that court order? MR. GIALLANZA: I don't have a copy, but I have the original that I had purchased. MS. BARNETT: Michelle, I just have a technical question. When someone's applying for permits, I know like if I'm going for a loan, I have to have a survey done within a certain time frame or it's not any good. Is that the same thing with the county? MS. ARNOLD: Building permit, yes. MS. BARNETT: What is that length of time? Page 21 May 22, 2003 MS. ARNOLD: I knew you were going to ask me that. I don't know if it's -- MS. BARNETT: It's six months with a loan, but -- MS. ARNOLD: I'm not really sure if it's six months or a shorter time period with a building permit. I think that they've made some modifications. I do recall six months, but I'm not really exactly what MS. BARNETT: paperwork -- MS. ARNOLD: MS. BARNETT: So in technicality, even if you were to find his He may have to redo that. -- they would have to redo it anyway, because it would be too old, right? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, but if he gets the same surveyor to -- MS. BARNETT: Then they could just recertify it. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. MS. SAUNDERS: Michelle, is there -- MR. GIALLANZA: The same survey? MS. ARNOLD: She said they did it six months ago. They may certify it just by -- with a minimum cost, as opposed to redoing the whole siting again. MR. GIALLANZA: What about the six months? Why would it take six months to get it -- MS. ARNOLD: No, the surveys are typically only good for a certain amount of time. MS. SAUNDERS: Michelle, if the property's owned by two people, can just one of them apply and get the building permit and the rest, or does it need the signatures of both people? MS. ARNOLD: That is a problem. They need to get some sort of authorization from all the owners affected. MS. SAUNDERS: So it's very-- MS. ARNOLD: But he is named as the agent on the corporation, so -- Page 22 May 22, 2003 MS. SAUNDERS: So he might be able to get it because he's the agent. Sounds like a legal mess. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Giallanza, show that document you have to our attorney, please. I'd rather she review it than us. MS. RAWSON: This is a final judgment dissolving the marriage, dated the 27th day of March, 1996. And it says the parties shall equally divide the assets of Baywood Manor Antiques. None of the said properties shall be transferred, disposed of or sold until the equitable distribution has been accomplished. I think they're talking about the assets of Baywood Manor Antiques, which would mean the stuff inside. And I don't know if the equitable distribution has been accomplished. This is a 1996 decree. MS. DUSEK: I have a little confusion with this case. And the property is in violation, but he's got a court order from his divorce, asking for equal distribution of the property, and it can't be sold. I'm just confused about what we can do here and what we can't. MR. GIALLANZA: May I-- MS. DUSEK: And Jean, I don't know whether you or Michelle can help straighten out my confusion. MS. RAWSON: Well, I think what he can't sell is stuff. MS. DUSEK: He could sell the property. MS. RAWSON: Yeah, he could sell the property. And I think you could -- and I think that the way I read that, it meant he couldn't sell anything until they had split it up. And I don't know whether they've split it up. But we're talking about paintings and artifacts and objects that were owned by the antique company, we're not talking about the trailer. MS. ARNOLD: The other -- the trailer itself, he's indicated he was planning on removing it by June 5th. I don't know where he's going to deposit it, but it's not -- and I'm not sure whether or not he's Page 23 May 22, 2003 selling it. But what was described in that, what Jean just read, was that they can't get rid of it or sell it until it's equitable (sic) distributed. And we don't really know whether or not any of that -- that doesn't-- they can't-- he can't locate the trailer on another property and still equitably distribute whatever the value of it was. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, I guess one question is since it says equitable distribution of the Baywood Antiques, the property, the deed is to Baywood Antiques, so isn't that stuff?. It's real property. MS. RAWSON: Well, the deed is to the real property. That's not stuff. That divorce decree was talking about objects. It might include the trailer, if the trailer is titled in the name of Baywood Antiques. But it says he can't sell it, doesn't mean he can't move it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll ask you the question. The trailer MR. GIALLANZA: It says no transfer of the property. But as I said, what I'm going to do is I'm bringing this case before Judge Monaco and I'm going to ask for an emergency hearing on that specific element of the issue here. So this way I'm going to offer him the opposition -- an ultimatum. I'm going to put all this stuff in a warehouse, one of those mini storages, let her take it, do whatever she wants. The mobile home will be off the property. The only issue I will have left is getting the permit to finish the building, or comply with the rest of the order to sell the property if-- you know, let's say the loans don't come through for whatever reason, I have everything in order to move ahead except I need to be either released from the court order, the divorce court order, or it needs to be resolved so I can go ahead on this without any fallback from the court or-- you know, regarding the divorce. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The trailer itself, just the trailer -- MR. GIALLANZA: It's going. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But in whose name is the Page 24 May 22, 2003 trailer? Who's titled to the trailer? It has a title or a document. MR. GIALLANZA: I think it's in -- because it's been so many years, I don't remember. But I believe it's in my name. It may be in the corporate name, though, I'm not sure. But I -- I don't know. I don't want to say one or the other, because ! don't remember. Either way, the corporation's in my name, so I am Baywood Manor Corp. Antiques and Jewelry, Inc., so it would be -- if I decided to remove it from the property, if the judge doesn't like it, then I have to compensate her for whatever -- you know, whatever the amount is going to be stated. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other questions? Are we all thoroughly confused now? MS. DUSEK: I feel more comfortable about it now. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's all right. That's a good way to start Thursday morning. No other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir, you may sit down. Well, first order of business, we need to find in fact that there is a violation. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County -- Collier County Commissioners versus Baywood Manor Antiques and Jewelry, Incorporated, and Joseph A. Giallanza as its registered agent and director, CEB Case No. 2003-003, that there is a violation. The violation is of Sections 104.5.1.4 of Ordinance 2002-01, and 2.1.15, paragraph one; 2.7.6.5, paragraphs one and five; 1.5.6; 2.2.3.2.1; 2.2.3.1; and 2.2.3.2 of Ordinance 91-102, as amended by the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: Is one mobile home and partially built abandoned structure without building permits. The required permits, inspection and certificates of occupancy have not been obtained for the mobile home. Page 25 May 22, 2003 Also, the partially built structure was under a Permit 88-1370 and has been deemed abandoned and is consequently null and void. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have one question for Michelle before I ask if there's a second. Michelle, in looking at our letter, the statement of violation, we have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven paragraphs culled out, and in our summary we have less than that. So can you tell me, just to make sure which one's correct, are all those still applicable? MS. ARNOLD: I think they probably still are, because they applied to illegal land use and unpermitted structures, which we still have both. I'm not sure whether or not any of them are applicable to the unlicensed vehicle. MR. LETOURNEAU: I can clarify what's on this NOV. The 2002-01, 104.5.1.4 is the permit abandonment. The 2.1.15, paragraph one, will be illegal land use. The 2.7.6, paragraphs one and five, will be the required building permits. The 1.5.6 is also illegal land use. And the three bottom ones all deal with the permitted uses of the state's zoning. MS. ARNOLD: So they all are applicable. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The only reason I'm asking the question, I want to make sure we get it all right, is if you'll look at your executive summary sheet, we have -- MS. ARNOLD: The correct notations. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- 2.7.6.1 -- MS. ARNOLD: There is an error on the executive summary sheet. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: The correct notations are on the statement of violations. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Very good. I just want to make sure we don't miss one or we add something that isn't out. Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: We had a state of dyslexia there. Page 26 May 22, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Acceptable. We've had a motion by Ms. Dusek. Do I hear a second? MS. BARNETT: Ms. Dusek, I have one question to your motion. According to our statement of violation, it's two adjoining mobile homes. You said one. MS. DUSEK: There's only one -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Left. MR. LETOURNEAU: There's one. I was a little bit confused, because if you look at the picture, it kind of looks like two adjoining, but I think it is actually just one long mobile home. MS. BARNETT: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that for my second. I will second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion and a second that a violation in fact does exist. Any question? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, order of the board. MS. SAUNDERS: I think that the staff's recommendation makes a lot of sense in this case, and I would move that we accept staff's recommendation. I can read them, if you want it. MS. DUSEK: I was just wondering if there was any way to shorten that. MS. SAUNDERS: I thought about shortening it to 60 days rather than 90 -- MR. PONTE: MS. DUSEK: MR. PONTE: No, I -- No, I just meant -- -- think she meant the length of-- Page 27 May 22, 2003 MS. DUSEK: -- the length of the -- MR. PONTE: -- the actual recommendation. MS. DUSEK: Right. MS. SAUNDERS: Oh, oh, sorry. MS. DUSEK: To possibly read something like this -- or did you want to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, I was going to ask Jean a question to see-- MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm like you, it's really long and I'm not prone to do all that. Understanding what the county's recommending to us, Jean, do we -- do we obtain what we need if we just order them to abate the violations by obtaining any and all building permits within 90 days? In other words, then get -- you know, then requiring them to get the C.O. and I assume part of the building permit. It says you have to get a C.O. at some point in time. I don't think you just get a permit and it lays there, well, I'm done. I think it probably says you have to get it C.O.'d. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. And I think you could shorten it just by saying and comply with the inspections and certificate of occupancy requirements of that building permit, and not necessarily put any time frames in there. MS. DUSEK: Can't the building permit sit for six months without doing anything? MS. ARNOLD: It could sit, yes. MS. DUSEK: So wouldn't it be better to put a time frame in there? MS. ARNOLD: It's up to you all. I mean -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, is the county -- I guess what we need to determine, is your interest for him to -- MS. ARNOLD: Proceed. Page 28 May 22, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The violations are for not having the permits and so on and so forth. Is your interest to get proper permits to do what he needs, or do you want everything done in a specific period of time where it's-- MS. ARNOLD: Well, our concern is that it sits again and be abandoned and we are back here with the same problem. So our desire is for them to get a permit, a valid permit for all of the uses that are going to remain on the property, and then see it through till certificates of occupancy in a timely manner, rather than just having it sit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Now, I did ask Mr. Giallanza whether or not he knew how long it was going to take after the permit was issued, and he's not going to be -- he had indicated to me he's not going to be doing the construction himself, that he will be hiring someone to do that. So the time frame may be a little bit more expeditious because you're going -- he's going to have a contractor doing it and working on it. I say may. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, in other words, if he gets the permit in 90 days and we're looking at a C.O., you know, for somebody, either him or someone else to complete this building and get it C.O.'d within four months after the date he gets his permits -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- which is what you're kind of looking MR. PONTE: I think that's a little unrealistic, honestly. I've watched private homes go up around me, and it takes them a lot longer than 128 days or 120 from start to completion, with all sorts of contractors working on it. MS. ARNOLD: I think the time frame was indicated because we already have a foundation and walls and everything, and it's not starting from-- Page 29 May 22, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jeff, I'll ask you, because you probably know: The structure that's there, how long has -- it's been around for-- since what? MR. LETOURNEAU: 1988, I think. Oh, '91, the last inspection. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So whenever he gets these permits, somebody's going to have to determine that the structure is still sound enough to continue to actually build and that there's not some kind of defect, now that it's sat for over 10 years with nothing being done on it. MR. PONTE: And I guess whether or not it's up to current code, whatever has been done so far. MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. So there's probably more time limit, like you say, George. Okay, thank you, Jeff. MS. DUSEK: What if we reduce the permit time to 60 days and increase the C.O. time to 180 days? MR. PONTE: I think that we want to -- MS. DUSEK: That's six months. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is that feasible, Michelle, 60 days for permits? MS. ARNOLD: Considering his issues with the contractor taking his plans, I think 90 days is probably more reasonable. MR. PONTE: I do, too. MS. DUSEK: All right. How about something like this: That the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case; abate violations by obtaining permits for the mobile home and partially built structure within 90 days; a C.O. within 180 days after obtaining permits for the same. If any structure is not permittable, then respondent must obtain a demolition permit to demolish and remove within 60 days -- Page 30 May 22, 2003 MR. PONTE: MS. DUSEK: MR. PONTE: have to revise that CHAIRMAN MS. DUSEK: CHAIRMAN MS. DUSEK: CHAIRMAN MS. DUSEK: I'd go along -- -- or a fine of $50. I'd go along with that, but I'm not -- I can't -- we certificate of occupancy. You said 128 days? FLEGAL: No, 180. No, 180, six months. FLEGAL: 180. That's six months. Giving him six months. From the time that he -- FLEGAL: I think that's fairly reasonable. From the 90 days. So we're actually giving him nine months to complete all this. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. I mean, he can start sooner. he could get his permits in less than 90 days, he can start sooner. anyway, I think six months is fairly reasonable, George. If But MR. PONTE: Yes, it is. I just -- I'm not comfortable for some reason with the fact that we are dictating to him that he get a C.O. There's something that's -- MS. ARNOLD: I think that what we should -- MR. PONTE: -- not sitting right with me. We've gone a step too far. MS. DUSEK: Well, you think about it this way: This began last August. The structure's been sitting there. MR. PONTE: Yes, there are a lot of mitigating circumstances, however, as to why it's still sitting there in this current condition. But I just think we're going too far when we start dictating C.O. dates. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think the problem on a case-by-case basis, understand what you're saying, is that in this case the fear is that if we say get your permits and then, you know, abate the violations, that he could -- after he gets his permit, he could drag this out. Permits are good for what, a year, I think? MS. ARNOLD: They're good for six months. Page 31 May 22, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Six months? Okay. MS. ARNOLD: But every time you get an inspection, an additional six months gets added on to the life of the permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So he could hypothetically start, get his first inspection -- you know, push for his first inspection at five months, now all of a -- because he's a month away from the permit expiring, do his first inspection. Now he's got another six months, play around with stuff, and then five months later get another inspection, he gets another six months. This thing could stretch out for years. MR. PONTE: I have a feeling he really wants to get this resolved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand what he wants, and we want it resolved. That's why we're kind of interested in putting a drop dead date on him, to make sure it happens. MS. ARNOLD: I think that if we change the language from obtaining a permit within 90 days to submitting a permit within 90 days, he has more time to play with. Because if we're telling him to obtain a permit, that's dictating when the building department's going to turn around with their review and issue the permit. If we say submit by 90 days, if he submits it in '90 days and you have a quick turnaround, the 180 days won't start until the date of issuance of that permit. So he'll actually have that six-month time frame to do the construction. MS. DUSEK: So if he submits a permit -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. MS. DUSEK: -- then how much time before he actually gets a permit? Or can he drag his feet? MS. ARNOLD: No, it has nothing -- once he submits it -- MS. DUSEK: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: -- there's a review process by the building department. It could take two weeks, it could take longer than that Page 32 May 22, 2003 for them to review it. If there's questions as to, you know, whether or not something on that permit or in the plans does not meet the code, it's resubmitted to the contractor and they have to make adjustments, according to the request from the building department. That back and forth could take some time. So what I'm suggesting is if we give him 90 days to submit and then 180 days after the issuance, he'll have a true six months to do the construction. MS. BARNETT: Michelle, one question with that. If he goes into this back and forth situation with say he doesn't submit something that is required in that, in their review, is there any place it can be lost in the shuffle again? MS. ARNOLD: It could, but we would monitor it and, you know, bring the issue back to the board saying that, you know, we feel like we're not getting response, so -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The only item I -- yes, sir, did you want to say something? MR. GIALLANZA: Yes. Considering the fact that I'm not going to be doing the actual construction -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MR. GIALLANZA: -- so I will have to rely on the contractors and their schedules. And I just want to make sure that's part of the record, that I have no control over them completing specific -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're like everybody else in Collier County that has something built. It behooves you to get it done, you know. As they say, walk softly -- MR. GIALLANZA: I can't work anymore myself. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- carry a big stick. MR. GIALLANZA: Otherwise, I'd be working on it now. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. But when you hire a contractor, whatever contractor you get between the two of you -- MR. GIALLANZA: Right. Page 33 May 22, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- you need to make sure that he's going to work and has some deadlines to meet. That's something you have to work out. We're not going to give you an open-ended space because you don't trust this guy you're going to hire. That's your problem. We're going to tell you when to get it done and you're going to have to carry the big stick to make sure he does it. We're not going to carry that for you, okay? MR. GIALLANZA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The only question I have, Bobbie, is you've put the $50 on the mobile home, but we haven't put a fine on if he doesn't -- if we change the word to submit for the permit and he doesn't get the C.O. in 180 days, I think there should be something there so that he accomplishes that. In other words -- MS. DUSEK: Or obtaining the permit, if he doesn't obtain the permit? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, if he doesn't -- I don't know whether you're going to use obtain or submit. That's your call. MS. DUSEK: I mean, excuse me, submit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle -- okay. Do you want to -- if he doesn't submit within 90 days, do you want to put a penalty on him? And then if he does and he doesn't get his C.O. within 180 days, do you want to put a penalty on him? Right now you've only got the penalty on removing the trailer. But we've left basically the meat of the order-- MS. DUSEK: I hear you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- without a penalty. Okay? You might consider that. MS. DUSEK: All right. Well, let's see if I can revise this. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You can sit down, sir. MS. DUSEK: That the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs, abate all violations by submitting an application for a building permit for mobile home and for partially built structure Page 34 May 22, 2003 within 90 days. If this is not completed within 90 days, a fine of $50 per day will be imposed. Once the building permit is achieved, then the respondent has 180 days in which to obtain a C.O. If any structure is not permittable, then respondent must obtain a demolition permit, demolish and/or remove the structure/structures, within 60 days, or a fine of $50 will be imposed for each day the violation continues. MS. SAUNDERS: I have a bit of a problem dealing with the trailer that way. Since he's testified that he's moving the trailer, let's address the trailer separately and say that basically the trailer will be either permitted or removed within 30 days, finished, done. You know, he's told us that's what he's going to do. That gets it out and cleaner. He's not going to get a building permit for it. And then it seems to me you make -- you know, obtain the -- the rest of yours I think made sense, but went so long. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What I'd like -- Bobbie, may I make a suggestion? MS. DUSEK: You may. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The 90 days to submit and then the $50 fine is great. Obtaining the C.O. within 180 days, I would like to see you amend it to say if the C.O. is not obtained in 180 days, there's a $50 a day fine, period. MS. SAUNDERS: Or if the building permit is not submitted within -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, she's already said that. MS. SAUNDERS: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She's got that one. MS. DUSEK: Okay, so we'll do if the C.O. is not obtained within 180 days, there will be a $50 fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. DUSEK: And then if any structure is not permittable? Or are we just going to do -- let's start over again. Page 35 May 22, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, if he doesn't get any permits for whatever reason -- MR. GIALLANZA: Ladies and gentlemen, I really have to object to one thing, and this is very important -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You can -- at this point you don't get to object, sir. We're deciding what's going to happen to you. MR. GIALLANZA: Well, let me make a certain point that is really critical here. A contractor-- let's say I turn over and I carry the big stick and everything for the contractor to complete this in 180 days. If he has performed a certain amount of work and the building is not finished, and the lady is suggesting that if the building isn't finished in time, I have to get a permit to remove the building -- MS. BARNETT: No, no, no. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, no. MS. DUSEK: That's not it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you can't get a permit at all -- MR. GIALLANZA: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If the county says you can't have a permit, then we want the structure removed. MR. GIALLANZA: Okay. Because I don't want to put all that money into it again -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, that's not what we said. Sorry. I think the only sentence is, that you need to add, Bobbie, is -- MS. DUSEK: Well, are we going to separate out the mobile home? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think that should be your item three. You have item one is your operational, item two is dealing with the, quote, unpermitted structure at this point and completing it. Then item three should be what you want him to do with his trailer, which is either get it approved as a construction trailer or removed from your property, which I think is his only two options, the way Jeff told US. Page 36 May 22, 2003 MS. DUSEK: Well, that's why I put in the very beginning that permit for mobile home and for built -- partially built structure. If he can't get either, let's say he can't get one for the mobile home, then in the bottom part of my recommendation was that it be removed or demolished, which he's planning to do anyhow at this point, to remove it. MR. PONTE: We know he can't get it. He cannot get a permit for a mobile home, because mobile homes aren't allowed on that property. MS. DUSEK: He could if it's going to be used as a construction MR. PONTE: He hasn't asked anything about a construction trailer. He's going to move it on June 5th. MR. LEFEBVRE: He already said he's going to move it, so let's just -- MS. DUSEK: He said he is. But the fact is, it's still there and so we have to put something in here that -- MS. ARNOLD: I would go with what he says. He's testified that -- what his intent was. I would -- that simplifies it. MS. SAUNDERS: I think all we need to say, I think -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Remove by. MR. PONTE: Remove by. MS. SAUNDERS: -- is remove the trailer by -- within 30 days MS. DUSEK: Within 30 days. MS. SAUNDERS: -- or a $50 fine is incurred. MR. PONTE: That's right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Exactly. Let's get -- yeah, just add that sentence, remove the trailer within 30 days of the date of this order, or a fine of $50 a day. How's that? MR. PONTE: Right. MS. BARNETT: In the beginning part where we're talking Page 37 May 22, 2003 about the submitting -- oh, I'm sorry. In the beginning part where we're talking about submitting the permit within 90 days, its C.O. within 180 days after submitting -- after receiving the permit or a $50 a day fine would incur. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. BARNETT: Wouldn't that be a way of shortening that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, you've got two $50 fines. One he has to submit within 90 days to even try to get the permit. If he doesn't do it, the fines start. If he does get the permit, then he's got 180 days to get it built and C.O.'d. And if he doesn't, there's a $50 fine. Then the next is if he doesn't remove the trailer within 30 days, there's a $50 fine. Then the last one, item three, I would think is what Bobbie's going to say, is if the structure is not permittable, period, if the county says no, we're not going to give you a permit, then he needs to get a demolition permit and remove it within 30 days, or a $50 fine. Is that where you were going? MS. DUSEK: Absolutely. MR. PONTE: If you claim that was a motion, I'd second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, did you understand what we're trying to do? MS. RAWSON: Yes, I think. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We got four $50 fines all linked to something, okay? MS. DUSEK: MR. PONTE: I understand it now, Cliff. You want to make that the motion? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think that's Bobbie's motion. MS. DUSEK: That's it. I so move. Does everybody understand it? We're submitting -- MS. SAUNDERS: If it hasn't been seconded, I second it. MS. DUSEK: Okay. Page 38 May 22, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion, which I'm not going to repeat, and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, Mr. Giallanza, do you understand what we've told you now? MR. GIALLANZA: Not really, but I think I can read it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'll try to make it real short for you. MR. GIALLANZA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You've got 90 days to submit to the county to try and get permits for your structure, okay? If you don't do that in 90 days, 50 bucks a day? MR. GIALLANZA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Understand? MR. GIALLANZA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, once you get the permit, you have 180 days to get the structure built and C.O.'d, okay? If you don't do that within 180 days -- MR. GIALLANZA: $50 a day fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- $50 a day. You've got 30 days to get the trailer off your property. If you don't do that in 30 days, $50 a day. MR. GIALLANZA: Consider that gone. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm just telling you what the order's going to say, okay? Then the other thing is, if the county turns down the permit altogether -- MR. GIALLANZA: Demolish the building. Page 39 May 22, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- you've got to demolish the building within 30 days or a $50 a day fine. MR. GIALLANZA: Can I appeal that? We'll work on that later, maybe. I hope not. I hope it doesn't come to that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. Thank you. MR. GIALLANZA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next case, BCC versus Dixie Higginbotham-- I believe that's correct; if not, I apologize -- 2003 versus (sic) 022. MS. HILTON: I would like to ask at this time if the respondent is present in the courtroom? She's here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. HILTON: We have previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information we'd like entered as Exhibit A at this time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear a motion to accept the county's exhibit? MS. DUSEK: So moved. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the county's exhibit. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: The respondent was served with the notice of hearing by certified mail and posting of the property and at the courthouse. And for the record, her last name is spelled H-I-G-G-I-N-B-O-T-H-A-M. 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. Page 40 May 22, 2003 The description of the violation: A primary structure that had a permit issued for it in 1981, being Permit No. 81-2232. The permit never had a final electrical or a certificate of occupancy issued. Also, a guesthouse type structure built without obtaining the required permits, inspections and certificate of occupancy. Location where violation exists: 1910 Della Drive, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 61732840001, Naples Farm Sites. Name and address of owner in charge of location where violation exists: Dixie Higginbotham, 1910 Della Drive, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: October 18, 2002. Date owner given notice of violation: November 1, 2002. Date on which violation was to be corrected: November 21, 2002. Date of reinspection: May 12, 2003. Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And at this time, I would like to turn the case over to the code investigator, Jeff Letourneau, to present the CEB case to the board. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay, this case started on October 18th, 2002. I received an anonymous complaint about too many people living on the property, litter and unlicensed vehicles. I went to the property on the 18th of October and observed litter, some -- and a couple of cars, I think, and two structures, a house and a guesthouse type structure. I wrote an NOV for the litter and gave it to the property owner, Dixie, who I met on-site, and told her that I was going to have to check into the legalities and permits of the structures on the property. After researching the property, I determined that Dixie Higginbotham was the owner of the property. Here's the warranty deed. Page 41 May 22, 2003 I went and pulled the property card for the property and noted that one permit had been issued for this property, which was 81-2237. It says no final on the property card. I did some more research and came across this letter dated 6-1-81, showing that the county had notified the previous owner who was building the property at that time, John Woods, that the permit had been declared abandoned. From there we went and I did some more inspections. I brought the county electrical inspector, Clyde Ammons, on the property with me at one time, and we looked over the electric situation. And the electric was being supplied by the original construction temporary meter, and it ran to the house, which was the structure that was being built under the permit that I just mentioned. And then it had been run over to the guesthouse. So the electrical engineer advised him to remove the -- at least remove the electric from the guesthouse site structure, which they did. Since then, they've been working with the real estate agent, Carrie Luft, that sold them the house, trying to, you know, get the funds up to get this permit reissued for the house and see what they could do with the guesthouse, that structure. It's been going on ever since then, and they haven't been able to come up I guess with the money or the -- you know, get a contractor to, you know, take on the project. And here we are today at the code board. So basically the primary structure right here had a permit issued for it back in 1981, but was never C.O.'d and didn't get all the inspections for the electric and the septic. This structure was built in the meantime over the years. I don't know who by, because there's been many owners since the original owner, John Woods. This was built. No building permit was obtained for it. So Ms. Higginbotham bought the property with these problems on it, not knowing that the house was never permitted or Page 42 May 22, 2003 the guest house was never permitted. That's where we stand today. So my order to correct would be to re -- get the permit reissued for the house, which the county has agreed to let them get the permit reissued under the '81 codes back then -- because I guess they kind of felt sorry for her because she's in the situation of buying a house without even knowing there was a permit for it -- and get a permit for the other structure, which was never permitted, and that would have to be under the 2003 code. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Jeff, I'm looking at Page 26, which is the map, I assume, out of the property appraiser's system. And in red is the property, I assume, when you see the long house. Now, the unpermitted structure, is that the little what looks like a roof off to the bottom? Is that what we're looking at? This is on this particular -- Page 26 in the package you submitted to us. MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm not sure I have that page with me. Okay, as you're looking at-- this would be the primary structure right here. And that -- this was the one that was permitted but never C.O.'d. And this is the one that was built without any permits right here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The other items that you found when you went out there, Jeff, have they been alleviated and this is the only problem remaining, or MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, they were alleviated right -- you know, at once. They did a good job on that. It's just that they've had trouble with the permitting issues. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. PONTE: Jeff, there were several permits, though, here that need to be done. Like a septic tank for the guest house or the electricity for the guest house, or is that all going to come under the one permit? MR. LETOURNEAU: There would be probably a total of two Page 43 May 22, 2003 permits. So what they're going to need to do is get the original permit reissued for the house. MR. PONTE: The main house. MR. LETOURNEAU: The main house. They're going to have to get a separate permit issued for the guesthouse and bring that up to code, septic, everything-wise, if they can do it. I mean, I'm not, you know, inspecting like that, I'm giving them the option to either get a permit for it or remove it. MS. BARNETT: We've had a case similar to this, and they had a real hard time getting an engineer that would go in after the fact. Do you have anybody in mind that we can point these people in, in direction? MR. LETOURNEAU: I have two people that I normally, you know, recommend. You know, I can give them their numbers, if they want. The real estate agent was trying to find a contractor for them, but I think she's having that problem of getting somebody in there to do this kind of work right here. MS. GODFREY: I can understand. I need to have electrical work done in my house and I had an electrician come out to give me an estimate, and I've yet to have him call back so I can pull a permit to get my kiln hooked up so I can -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, the real problem is, is since the county is making, you know, every -- I think bigger than a doghouse you have to have an engineering drawing that -- the engineers and architects in the county are so overwhelmed right now. They have big projects, and they -- you know, something this small, they don't really want to deal with, you know. I know it's a situation. MS. GODFREY: Yeah, I understand. Because it's been a month I've waited and, you know, I've called and he still hasn't come back, you know, to give me my estimate so I can pull a permit-- MR. LETOURNEAU: Right. Page 44 May 22, 2003 MS. GODFREY: -- so I can have my electrical work done. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Jeff?. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Mrs. Higginbotham? Am I saying that right? MS. HIGGINBOTHAM: You're saying it right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, thank you. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. HIGGINBOTHAM: Okay, the -- this is a headache, and I can tell you that. ! didn't know that we had to check all this out. And when he come out there and told us about it -- it's aggravating. isn't CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: that big of a deal. MS. HIGGINBOTHAM: CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Just take your time and tell us. This Yeah, it is. Well, it's really not. Just relax and we're going to try to help you, if we can. So tell us what you've been doing. MS. HIGGINBOTHAM: We cleaned the property up when we moved in the place. There was transmissions, there was everything there, and we cleaned it up. And we went through, we got an electrician, we did put one out there. He went through and put in all the plug-ins for today's code. Because I do have grandkids out there and I don't want either one of them to get hurt. So we done that part. But I'm told that the septic tank has to be dug up or something, I don't know. That's the problem, we cannot get nobody out there to help us do this. This is really a headache. And when he told that I had to come to court, it was like -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. MS. SAUNDERS: When did you buy the property? About a year ago? MS. HIGGINBOTHAM: Yeah, it's been about a year ago. Next month will be a year. Page 45 May 22, 2003 MS. SAUNDERS: Did the real estate agent disclose any information to you? MS. HIGGINBOTHAM: Nothing. What had happened, Carrie Lust (sic) is the -- Luft is the one that gave us the money to help us buy it. Put it this way, she's my guardian angel. And she helped us buy this home. Well, Scott Henderson, Blue Hills Realtors, the one that sold it, was the actual realtor of this property. He knowed (sic) that-- I found this out later, too, that the C.O.'s had not been done on this house. Randy Crane, the owner of the property, knowed it hadn't been done. He knowed all this before he sold the property. The neighbors around this little neighborhood here came and told me this. The reason we got him on us is because my neighbors next to me was mad at Mr. Crane because he left owing $3,000. Like I said, I'm not moving. You know, it's my first home, I'm doing what ! can. MS. SAUNDERS: Have you talked to the real estate company that's -- MS. HIGGINBOTHAM: I have tried to get ahold of him. He will not return no more calls. MS. SAUNDERS: I know it doesn't relate to the problem we have here, but you have, I believe, some real action against them. If they knew it and did not disclose something, I would certainly recommend -- MS. HIGGINBOTHAM: I mean, I've got enough people that's telling me in this neighborhood that they knowed it, they will go to court on my behalf. MS. SAUNDERS: That may help you to pay some of the things, that's all I'm saying -- MS. HIGGINBOTHAM: I mean, because this is just -- MS. SAUNDERS: -- but we still have a problem that has to be solved. Page 46 May 22, 2003 MS. HIGGINBOTHAM: Yes, we do. MS. SAUNDERS: But you have some recourse that doesn't relate to us, but you definitely have recourse in the real estate community. But we have to solve your problem. MS. HIGGINBOTHAM: Tell me how. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to let the board know that the realtor has been in contact with the building department and the health department, as well as the county's housing department. There are programs that the county can help homeowners for rehabilitation and those types of things. So she had indicated to me that she was going to be filling out the forms for our state housing initiative program to try to get help. And I believe that's up to $15,000. MS. HIGGINBOTHAM: That's Miss -- that's Carrie. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MS. HIGGINBOTHAM: Carrie's the one that checked on it, but she wasn't -- what I'm saying is she's not the actual realtor that sold the place to me. That's what I said, she's my guardian angel. She's the one that went through, got the place for us. Hunted it down. And we went to Scott Henderson is his name. We went through, checked him out. He's the one that was Randy's realtor, Randy Crane, Mr. Crane's realtor. MS. ARNOLD: Do you know -- MS. HIGGINBOTHAM: That's where this come from. MS. ARNOLD: Do you know whether or not -- it's me over here. MS. HIGGINBOTHAM: Okay, I'm looking at her. MS. ARNOLD: Do you know whether or not that she filled the paperwork out for the-- MS. HIGGINBOTHAM: I'm not for sure. She's been out of town for three weeks. She started a job with some kind of classes or Page 47 May 22, 2003 something; I'm not for sure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: to tell us? MS. HIGGINBOTHAM: Do you have anything else you want No, that's just it. I'm just trying my best, holding down a job, raising two more grandkids. You know, that's the hard thing there. And all this here behind us. And my husband said if we could get the permit, he can do a lot of work. He is able to do this work. But we don't know where to go to. We have asked and asked. It's like Mr. Love -- Mr. Jeff, he has his cell phone, he could get ahold of us anytime he needs to. You know, anybody can get ahold of me. If they look hard enough, they can get ahold of me. MS. DUSEK: Mrs. Higginbotham, has anybody from the county given you any direction on what you should be doing? MS. HIGGINBOTHAM: Well, the electricity was the first thing we was told to do. We done what we could on it. We got the man out there. He's a licensed electrician. He came out there, he ran -- he done all the stuff in the house towards putting that down. But the light posts that you'll see on this one page here, you see the temporary pole? That's how I found out this place was not C.O.'d. Because Jeff asked me how come I had a temporary pole. Don't ask me. MS. DUSEK: So do you understand the steps you have to take in order-- MS. HIGGINBOTHAM: No, I don't. MS. BARNETT: She's going to have to get the permit and get a C.O. before they'll remove that temporary pole and give her a permanent -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. DUSEK: I just wanted to make sure she's -- MS. HIGGINBOTHAM: But the light company won't do nothing for me. Instead of paying a residential light bill, I'm paying Page 48 May 22, 2003 for a company's light bill. The light bill that -- the lights are set up into a company business, not a residential, and they won't switch it until this is switched. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. HIGGINBOTHAM: And I have moved everybody out of my house but my daughter, my son-in-law, their baby and my two grandbabies. And this was part of their little -- the little house was going to be their place. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: us? Okay. Anything else you want to tell MS. HIGGINBOTHAM: No, this is it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, ma'am, you can sit down. Thank you. I guess I need to ask Michelle a question. MS. ARNOLD: Ask Jean. No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, the -- she needs to submit paperwork, if it hasn't been already submitted to, I guess, reactivate the old permit, correct? That's the first thing she has to do -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- is that right? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. If she gets that submitted, is that going to also take care of her septic tank problem in that one permit, or is that another permit? MS. ARNOLD: I believe that she'll have to apply with the health department to get a new permit under the old -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Under the old number. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So she first has to, I guess, reactivate the old number, and as soon as that takes place she can go to the health department and say okay, I've got this reactivated, can I have a permit to do my -- redo my septic tank, or whatever has to be done to Page 49 May 22, 2003 it. Is that her next step? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And then she needs to submit to get a new permit for the other structure, the small structure. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, when she does that, she's going to need all kind of plans and stuff and whatever the new code is, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Right. MS. DUSEK: I'd like to make a motion that in the case of the Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Dixie Higginbotham, CEB Case No. 2003-022, that a violation does exist. The 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 is a primary structure that had a permit issued for it in 1981. The permit had the final -- the permit never had the final electrical or certificate of occupancy issued. Also a guest type structure without obtaining the required permits, inspections and C.O., certificate of occupancy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that in fact a violation does exist. MR. PONTE: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. MS. SAUNDERS: I'd like to ask if it's possible for code Page 50 May 22, 2003 enforcement to go a little bit further and basically stay with Mrs. Higginbotham all the way through the process, even if it takes an extra day or two of physically meeting with her and walking them down to get the permits and the rest. I know that's much more than we normally do, but I think it's called for in this case. And having just said in the previous case that we never waive operational costs -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Uh-uh, here we go. MS. SAUNDERS: -- I do believe-- MS. GODFREY: Case by case. MS. SAUNDERS: Case by case. -- I do believe in this case that we've got a, you know, citizen or resident who really was misled terribly. And I don't believe that in trying to correct this we gain anything by collecting operational costs. I think the question is as long as they show cooperation, that we ought to do everything we can to help the customer. MS. ARNOLD: And I'll also call the housing department and see whether or not they could assign somebody her particular -- MS. SAUNDERS: I think we need kind of a caseworker, too, because it's obviously very confusing. You've got your hands full with enough grandkids, it sounds like -- MS. HIGGINBOTHAM: I've got three and two on the way. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I was going to -- MS. SAUNDERS: We need to get her guest house fixed, too. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- ask you, Michelle, since her friend seems to be out of town, if we could find someone in the county that could, you know, kind of take her by the hand, and if there are programs she can get into, walk her through those and do whatever they can do to help her. We're not out to, you know, punish somebody that's obviously stepped into something they knew nothing about and is trying, but just, you know, doesn't know how to try. So they need a lot of help. Yes, there is a violation, and we'll handle that part of it. But we Page 51 May 22, 2003 also need to try and help her. Okay, order of the board. Remember now, there's two basic permits she needs to get: One to reactivate her old permit-- I call it hers, it's the property's permit. And the other one is a new permit for the smaller structure. And when she activates the old permit, she will be able to get a permit for her septic tank, which will probably work for both properties, I'm not sure, but for both houses. So remember that there are two actual building permits, one to reactivate and one new. MS. SAUNDERS: Bobbie? MS. DUSEK: I'm only going to say one thing, and I'm only concerned about the operational costs. I guess, Jean, I'm going to ask you a question. MS. RAWSON: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: Since one of the board members made the statement earlier that we never absolve somebody from paying operational costs and then the very next case we go ahead and perhaps make this recommendation, I'm a little concerned about that. And I know that we treat everything on a case-by-case basis, and I'm totally empathetic with this respondent, but I'm concerned legally what we can do, or how it might affect us in the future. I'm thinking if we went ahead and put the costs in, then had her come back and ask that they be eliminated is a better way to go. MS. RAWSON: Well, that's probably a good idea. My -- you know, my admonishment to you always is let's see that we can get compliance. And then also, the other thing is let's always try and be consistent in your rulings. Because, you know, that's the only fairness in the whole system is that you are consistent with all of your rulings. While considering each case individually, you still need to be consistent in your rulings. MS. DUSEK: I think so, too. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, the respondent always has the Page 52 May 22, 2003 right to come back, when everything is done, and ask for some reductions. And if they can present a good case, we've always been, I think, fair and tried to help them when the circumstances presented itself. So I would tend to agree with Bobbie, that I think we should put everything in our order, and then when all of this is done, that at some time Mrs. Higginbotham can come back and say it's all over with and I need some help for these reasons, and we can consider that. That's probably the best course of action, makes it the fairest and it does make us consistent. MS. BARNETT: I'm in agreement with that. MR. LEFEBVRE: What are the current operational costs? MS. ARNOLD: Shanelle didn't bring her folder today. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just wondered. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's probably fairly close to the $1,000 on the other case, judging when this started. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, they've been running from, you know, nine to $1,200. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So understanding that, again, I think at the end when it's all done, we can best consider that, but right now I think any order should include that. So having said that, is somebody willing to step up? MS. DUSEK: Well, I'll give it a try again. At least I'll get you started and you can all beat up on it. The recommendation is that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate the violations by obtaining a reissue permit for the main house, a new permit for the guesthouse, and I do -- I don't know if we have to put septic permits in there, or will it just follow? MS. ARNOLD: I think it's required as far as -- MS. DUSEK: All right. Within, I'll start with the 90 days of the date of this hearing, or a Page 53 May 22, 2003 fine of $40 per day be imposed on each day the violation continues. MS. ARNOLD: Was the recommendation obtain or submit? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Did you say submit for permits or obtain permits? MS. DUSEK: You know, I don't remember. MS. BARNETT: She said submit. MS. DUSEK: Did I say submit? Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is that -- MS. DUSEK: That's fine. Now, I didn't put the CEO's (sic) at the bottom, but I guess that should be in there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I think-- MS. DUSEK: Additionally obtain all -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Based on what we did before. MS. DUSEK: Okay. Additionally, obtain all required inspections through certificates of occupancy within 60 days of issua -- of said building and septic permits, or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day that violation continues. And I'm going to change that 50 to 40 also. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Michelle, could I ask you, once she gets her permits, is getting a C.O. in 60 days, is that feasible for her, since this little building is going to be under current rules, rather than 1981 rules? Is that enough time for her to bring that up? MS. ARNOLD: I think it's probably reasonable for the main -- or the primary structure, but I'm not sure, I'm going to have to ask Jeff what he thinks, because he's actually seen the smaller structure. MR. LETOURNEAU: I think they need a little bit longer on the smaller structure, actually, to get the C.O. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: The main structure is, you know, pretty much done. I think the only problem they're going to have on that is the septic. I think everything else is going to be pretty much Page 54 May 22, 2003 cut-and-dried as far as the 1981 codes go on that one. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But the little one, if-- MR. LETOURNEAU: The little one's been-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- we gave her 120 days, that's -- MR. LETOURNEAU: And I'm not sure that, you know, they're not going to have to do some, you know, adjustments to it to get it, you know, up to 2003 standards. So it might take longer than 60 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: Okay. So then maybe it should be in two parts, that the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The C.O. part? MS. DUSEK: The C.O. part for the main house be 60 days, and for the guest house, 120 days? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. And are you going to put a fine on each one, say maybe like $25 on each one? MS. DUSEK: That's exactly what I was going to do, $25 per -- on each one. So do you understand that, board, that on the last part it's get the C.O. on the main house in 60 days or a fine of $25; 120 days on the guesthouse or a fine of $25. MR. LEFEBVRE: Now, how about if they cannot get a permit for the guesthouse? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess we need a line item that if a permit is not obtainable for the guest house, they'll have to get a demolition permit to remove it within 30 days, I'd say. MS. DUSEK: Okay. So you're suggesting 25, 25, 25? MR. FLEGAL: Yeah. Well, and your first one was 40, so that's fine. Yeah, you're -- get the C.O. on the main house in 60 days or $25; get the C.O. on the small house in 120 days or $25; and if a permit cannot be issued -- how do we want to say this? Do you think they're going to be able to get this other -- the permit on the main Page 55 May22,2003 house, Jeff?. Is that kind of a-- MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I'm not going to make that decision. I think you should put in there also that is has to be taken down too, if it doesn't get a permit for it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So if neither permit can be issued, then both structures has to be removed within 30 days? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah. I mean, let's -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I think 30 days might be short, since they are living there. MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct, yeah, they are living there. MR. PONTE: Thirty days is short. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, throw out a number. MR. PONTE: Ninety days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, let's say 90. MR. LETOURNEAU: Ninety for the house and 30 for the guesthouse? MR. PONTE: Not if there are people living in the guest house. It should be the same. MR. LEFEBVRE: There's no electrical in the guest house, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There's no electric, so they can't live there. MS. ARNOLD: Let's just do 90 days one time, period. MS. SAUNDERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, that's fine. I mean, it's not really going to create that big a problem. It's there, it's been there. MS. DUSEK: So it's a C.O. or demolition within 90 days; is that what we're saying -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, you-- MS. DUSEK: -- on the guest house? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You gave the C.O. 120 days on the guesthouse. Then your next line should be if permits cannot be issued on either structure, they must -- you much get a demolition Page 56 May 22, 2003 permit and remove them within 90 days or a fine of $25. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: How's that? MS. DUSEK: Sounds good. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, did you follow us? MS. RAWSON: I think I did. $25 one on one permit or one structure and one on the other structure; is that right? MR. FLEGAL: Okay, on the actual permits up in the first item, she had submit for the permits. MS. DUSEK: Reissue of the main house. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Reissue on the main house within -- was it 90 days? MS. DUSEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And $40? MR. PONTE: 25. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, she said 40 on that part. on that. What did you say about the permit for the guesthouse? they both together? MS. DUSEK: I have those together. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So the first item is permit to reissue the original permit and submit for a new permit on the guest structure, both of those within 90 days or $40, okay? Then we go to C.O.'s. C.O. on the main structure within 60 days, or $25; C.O. on the guest structure 120 days and $25. And if permits can't be issued on either structure, you get a demolition permit and remove them within 90 days or $25. MS. DUSEK: CHAIRMAN MS. DUSEK: CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's the motion on the floor. That's 40 Or were That's right. FLEGAL: Okay? That's very good. Does that get us everything we need? Page 57 May 22, 2003 MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? MR. PONTE: Just I'm-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, here he goes. MR. PONTE: Are we comfortable with the time frame that we're giving here? I mean, you know, 60 days, 90 days -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I think so. MR. PONTE: -- it's no time at all, and yet major things have to be accomplished here. And we are asking the county to try and coordinate this with other agencies and all the agencies, everybody, is jammed beyond belief. And we've got a small job to look at in the meantime. And I just -- you know, 90 days is not very long. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. MS. DUSEK: That's just a reissue and submitting for a permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, just submitting it, not a permit. But I think in the long run we need to understand too that we know that this is a special case. And I don't think the addition of time is to her advantage, especially in trying to get the county to help her. The order can stand as we've just made the motion and let her come back to us if none of this time works out, and say gee, I need an extension or I need you to abate the fine, whatever. But let's make the order, put the time in there, because it may, I don't know, but it may help her with the county saying look, I'm under a crunch here. And I got a feeling Michelle's going to try to get her some help. And she's normally done it in the past and it's worked out. So I have faith in her. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. MR. PONTE: So do I. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Page 58 May 22, 2003 aye. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: what we've done? MS. HIGGINBOTHAM: Those opposed? Ms. Higginbotham, do you understand Yeah. But what I've got to figure out, who I go to to get the permits right away. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, what you should do is find the time, I don't know if today's it. You need to talk to Michelle and ask her. You can get with her and she'll try to direct you to a person or whatever so that you can start this process, okay? MS. HIGGINBOTHAM: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's take ten minutes, please. (Brief recess.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we'll call the board back to order, please. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ma'am? MS. ARNOLD: We have the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners here, and he would like to say a few words to the board, if he could. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It would be our pleasure. MS. GODFREY: It would be our pleasure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, I just come here today to thank you for your public service that you provide the Board of Commissioners. It really relieves a lot of pressure off of us. And of course working with the public and working with our staff, we recognize what you do for us, and just to say thanks. Page 59 May 22, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you very much, sir. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next case is Board of County Commissioners versus Haldeman Creek Enterprises, Case 2003-024. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, that case we're continuing for a month. Unfortunately one of my staff, the investigator responsible for this case, her grandmother passed away, so she had to leave town for a few days, so we're continuing that for a month. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, the next item is our requests for imposition of fines. The first one -- or both, actually, are Board of County Commissioners versus Claude Martel, Case No. 2003-001. This particular case was heard by the Code Enforcement Board on January 23rd, 2003, and the board found a violation did exist and ordered the respondent to use -- well, actually they ordered the county to use all reasonable means to bring the property into compliance. We were dealing with a very large litter and unpermitted structure. And what actually happened for the abatement of this is the respondent took care of it himself. He cleared the property very well, I might add, and removed the structure that was there, and so he is now in compliance. And the only thing that we have on this issue is the operational costs of $926.80. I do believe the respondent is present today and he has expressed to me that he would like to request a waiver of fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Martel? MR. MARTEL: Hello. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. ARNOLD: Before Mr. Martel starts, I just wanted to note that -- for the board that Case No. 2003-002 is also the same property, and it addressed the litter violation. The first one addressed the structures and weed-- let's see, I don't know what -- Page 60 May 22, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It looks like the first one is for the derelict and partially dismantled structures -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- and the other one is for the -- MS. ARNOLD: For the litter. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. Yes, sir, Mr. Martel. MR. MARTEL: I got it done. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MR. MARTEL: And I got all fill up, too. I put two foot to ground and pushed it like a 15 load, 18 yards of dirt on the property. I got it raised up two more feet higher, whatever, for the flood. I've been working hard, and I still have to fill up my other property now. MS. DUSEK: Was this accomplished within the time frame? I guess it was, since we don't see any -- MS. ARNOLD: On both cases, it's just the operational costs. The first case is 926.80 and the second case is 604.50, for a total of 1,531.30. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Martel, tell us why you think we should reduce or abate totally the prosecution of costs. MR. MARTEL: Well, I told what's-his-name at the code enforcement, I said I didn't need -- he brought him a contractor over here and we have 80 percent done over there, and a week later we have everything done over there. I have somebody help me over there. And-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I guess-- MR. MARTEL: He never -- last time I went to the board, you never -- what we call that, you never give him no fine out there, you know. You didn't send no fine out there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you understand what these costs are for? In other words, these costs are for the county when it started way back day one until the day you came here and we issued that Page 61 May 22, 2003 order. Those are costs right up to then. They have nothing to do with you completing the order. Those are just what the county expended to bring you before us where we issued the order to make you do something and you did it, which we appreciate. But these costs are for all their time getting you before us. That's what that money is -- this money is for. So what you need to do is try and convince us why we should reduce or waive these funds altogether. MR. MARTEL: Well, the county never did nothing for me. I pay $6,000 a year, don't you think that's enough? What do you expect? Not for me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand your statement. MR. MARTEL: I don't make much money a year, you know. I just got three brand new one (phonetic), I got. I got seven pieces of property on that -- my street over there. And I got that vacated commercial property over there, which is like $800 tax a year on that one, too. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anything else you want to tell us? MR. MARTEL: Well, I appreciate your-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any help we can give you, I know. MR. MARTEL: I appreciate if you do that. MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to, I guess, help Mr. Martel a little bit. We did go through the effort of getting bids for the property to get it cleaned up. And the cost to the county was going to be well in excess of the $1,500 that we're talking about here. Shanelle is telling me approximately'S5,000 was going to be the cost to the county, so we at least saved that cost for cleaning up his property and the property owner did it on his own. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody have any questions for Mr. Martel? MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a question. Was this -- these items properly disposed of, or were they moved to another property? Page 62 May 22, 2003 Because you made some kind of comment about it being moved. MR. MARTEL: What you mean? MR. LEFEBVRE: Pardon me? MR. MARTEL: I mean move to another property, is that what you say? MR. LEFEBVRE: What I'm asking, were they disposed of in the landfill, or were they moved? MR. MARTEL: .Yeah, we have a Dumpster and a lot of debris out there. I burned in my backyard over there. A lot of burn. ! didn't trash nobody's property over there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Mr. Martel? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. MARTEL: All right, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You can sit down and we'll make a decision. Recommendation of the board? MS. SAUNDERS: Well, I'll speak, as usual. I don't see any reason to waive the fines. We got pretty far along and -- before it had -- before he was -- did comply. In fact, we had ordered the county to, which says to me that there wasn't a whole lot of cooperation up until the time when there was an actual fine faced. I believe the costs of incurring that should be borne by the individual. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. GODFREY: I'd like to say that these costs are taxpayer -- we're reimbursing the taxpayers for what the county had to spend to get him to clean that property up. And that's why we tend to have the operational costs is because the taxpayers are the ones that eventually end up paying for the county to go out there and make sure compliance is accomplished. MR. PONTE: If we change the operational costs here, we'd Page 63 May 22, 2003 open ourselves up to revisions by everybody who comes into compliance. MS. GODFREY: No, I'm saying -- well, I'm saying keep the operational costs. MR. PONTE: I understand. I'm agreeing with you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I guess I would comment that I don't see any exceptional circumstances in this case that would lead me to believe that I should try to assist by reducing or waiving these costs, personally. I would be inclined that anybody that makes a motion to impose both fines as presented, I would agree to that. MR. PONTE: We won't call them fines, we're just imposing operational costs. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we follow staff's recommendation and impose the operational costs of $926.80 in the case 2003-001, and $604.50 in the case 2003-002. MR. PONTE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, one question. Jean, I need to ask you, just to make sure. MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If we impose and we use the words operational costs, does that give us a problem when we file this in the courthouse as to if he doesn't pay and we ask the county attorney to foreclose? Does it have to be, quote, the fine lien, or is the operational costs considered in that vein, too? MS. RAWSON: The operational costs are considered in that vein, too, because it's all county taxpayers' money. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I just want to make sure we're not sidestepping something where we don't keep our authority. Fine, answered my question. We have a motion and a second to impose the fines on both cases. Any further questions? Page 64 May 22, 2003 aye. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, that's 2003-01 and 2003-02. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, the next item is Board of County Commissioners versus Walter Crawford, Code Enforcement Board Case 2003-004. This is a request for reduction/abatement of fines. And Mr. Crawford is present. And if I can ask him to come up to the podium. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. ARNOLD: Just for the Board's information, the total cost is $2,279.10. MS. SAUNDERS: Has the violation been abated? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it has. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And -- oh, okay. I'm looking for the order to know when all this started. January of this year? And we gave him 60 days and he did that; is that correct, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: No, he was given -- the hearing was January 23rd of this year and he was given until March 21st, 2003 to abate. He was given 60 days. And he actually came into compliance on the 29th of April. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Chairman, may I step in? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me get our facts straight so when we hear you we know what all it was. Because we're reaching way back in memory, sir, if you'd just give us a minute. MR. CRAWFORD: Sure. MS. ARNOLD: What this violation was, there was a tree house or playhouse that was donated or he obtained through a project. I guess the CBIA did a bunch of playhouses, and he purchased one of Page 65 May 22, 2003 those playhouses. It was put on his property and it was put within the setbacks, and he didn't obtain a permit for it, so he had to do some relocation of the playhouse and also obtain a building permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And the amount you're stating of 2,279.10, that is current with the date when it finally was corrected MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. -- plus the operational costs. Okay, terrific. MR. CRAWFORD: Great, thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Cherie', did you swear him in? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MR. CRAWFORD: Again, my name is Walter Crawford. Thanks for having me. Let me back up a little bit in time. The Collier Building Industry Association, some time ago they had seven local homebuilders build seven different playhouses, and they gave six away to local charities, Boys and Girls Clubs, things like that. And they raffled one off, and I won the playhouse. And long story short, it was delivered to my first house, I was moving at the time, so I moved it to my second house. I placed the playhouse in my backyard; I had to put it somewhere, put it in my backyard. And long story short again, Larry Schwartz, compliance officer, came out and asked me to get a permit, which I proceeded to do. Again, a very long story short, the permitting time it took to get this playhouse was unbelievable. I met -- I talked to Michelle Arnold, I talked to Ed Perico, building director, and I talked to his second in command, Jerry Ballard; I talked to several permitting Page 66 May 22, 2003 officers. And it just simply took forever to get a permit. They -- at first they wanted me to install laminated glass windows to meet the new hurricane code. They wanted all sorts of things. I finally got over that. And part of my problem in the process was that the home was donated by Imperial Homes of Naples, and they had donated the home and they weren't real responsive to helping me. I had no leverage; they really had no reason to help me. So it took them forever to dig up the old drawings. They had to be reengineered, they had to be resubmitted. Did all that. Got it into the county, and then I realized, to my fault and my mistake, that I placed it in an easement. Also, my backyard-- most of my backyard is an easement. It goes halfway up my backyard. So again I tried to get the -- started to get the easements vacated, and that turned out to be a futile process, so I relocated the playhouse on my site plan, resubmitted, and that was about the time all of this came together. I was asked to appear on this board on January 23rd, and I had plans to be on the West Coast and just couldn't be here. I submitted a letter and said please let me try again. And then I was asked to be here again on March 23rd. The first time I got a couple months notice. The next time, the day I opened the letter at lunchtime was the day of your meeting. I just missed it, because I got that letter about a week -- it sat on my desk for about a week, by the time I finally opened it. So I apologize for missing two meetings, but I'm finally here to talk. So anyway, I got everything squared away, I built concrete footers, I got a crane to relocate it, had these special hurricane straps sent from California. Had it all tied down. Got it C.O.'d. Spent money to have an engineer. Had $190 in reinspection fees, et cetera, et cetera. Finally, my playhouse is in full compliance as of April 29th. Page 67 May 22, 2003 And I just think the fines are a little excessive. And I don't agree with the $2,200 in fines. The ordinance was written -- or the judgment was written a little confusingly. There were basically two dates. The first asked that I obtain a permit within 60 days of either March-- they asked that I obtain a permit by either March 20th or March 23rd, I wasn't quite sure. But the permit was issued on March 1 lth. So I met that date, okay. And then when you met again on April 23rd, you had imposed the fine of $650, continued on that point until I guess somehow we're up to $2,200. The second half of that fine is that I would have the C.O. by -- again depending on how you read this, I could be -- it's definitely additional 30 days, but is it 30 days after March 23rd, March 20th or March 11 th when the permit was issued? I'm a little confused about that. But the bottom line is that if I was here on either one of those days, I would have asked for more time. You gave me 60 days to get a permit, which turned out to be okay. The 30 days to get the house squared away probably would have been okay on a perfect scheme, but by the time I got the contractor out there, by the time I got the reinspections, got the final inspections, got the tie-downs, it was actually -- the last inspection was done on April 25th, and the C.O. didn't come in until April 29th. So my point is everything was happening at the same time. I was within a week or so of the time you asked me to have it done. And I just think the fines are a little bit excessive. It's my children's playhouse. I've complied with everything you asked, and so I'm here to ask that those fines are not reduced but abated. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. To help you, the date -- March 20th is the date, okay? That's the 60 days. That's why it's in the order. MR. CRAWFORD: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And that's the date you have to obtain Page 68 May 22, 2003 any and all permits. And then -- MR. CRAWFORD: Which I did. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, 30 days after that, you have to have your C.O. So if you got them -- it says by obtaining the certificate of occupancy within 30 days after the required permits. So if you got your permits on March 11 th, okay, 30 days hypothetically goes to April 11 th. MR. CRAWFORD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, if you didn't get your C.O. on April 1 lth, the fine starts. MR. CRAWFORD: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay? MR. CRAWFORD: What I should have done is I should have -- okay, I should have delayed picking up the permit until I had everything else in order. When I first read that -- it doesn't read very clearly. To me, ! thought the intent is that it would be 30 days from March 20th or March 23rd-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, it says -- MR. CRAWFORD: -- but it does say that, you're correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. By requesting required inspections to be performed and obtained by obtaining a certificate of occupancy within 30 days after obtaining the required permit. Straightforward sentence. You get the permit in your hand, you got 30 days. Clock starts. MR. CRAWFORD: And I agree with that. And my issue is that that wasn't enough time, and I wish I was notified more in advance to be able to make that point the last time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. BARNETT: Mr. Crawford -- can I ask him a question? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, sure, go ahead. MS. BARNETT: Can you tell me what the value of this playhouse is? Page 69 May 22, 2003 MR. CRAWFORD: I was told -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now it's a lot. MR. CRAWFORD: Yeah, I don't know. It is a pretty nice playhouse. Actually, I don't know. I was told that Imperial Homes spent about $7,000 to build it. It's built with marine treated plywood, it has a nice roof, vinyl siding, it's -- MS. BARNETT: How much was your raffle ticket? MR. CRAWFORD: I bought five of them for $10 apiece. MS. BARNETT: Okay. So you actually invested. MR. CRAWFORD: Yes, ma'am. MS. BARNETT: Okay. I'm trying to go somewhere with this, because I had a problem -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You say you got your C.O. on the 25th? MR. CRAWFORD: Technically I got it on April 29th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 29th. MR. CRAWFORD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So hypothetically, Michelle, you can help me, if it was supposed to be by the 11 th and he didn't get it to the 29th, is it-- MS. ARNOLD: No, what -- he's right, we overcharged him in terms of fines because he had until -- he had 60 days to obtain the permit, as well as an additional 30 days after obtaining the permit to get C.O. And so it looks as though my staff assessed from the March 20th date through the 29th -- or I'm not really sure what we did, but the $975 that was assessed per penalties, per fines for days fined should have not been that high. It should have been at most $330. I'm trying to do the addition now to reduce that $645 that was assessed above and beyond to come up with the actual fine. Because in addition to that penalty, there's operational costs that's imposed, and that's added into that 2,279. Page 70 May 22, 2003 MR. LEFEBVRE: What page are you looking at? MS. ARNOLD: I'm looking at -- from-- actually it's probably a little bit less than that. You obtained the permit -- I've got a permit in front of me that says -- MR. CRAWFORD: It's applied on February 28th and issued on March 11 th. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, March 1 lth. So it's actually-- MR. CRAWFORD: One month. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He gets 30 days from that date to get a C.O. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: April 10th or 11 th. Is that -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Which puts him somewhere around -- about how that works out? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. April 1 lth -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And he didn't get it till the 29th? MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 days? MS. ARNOLD: Eighteen. MR. CRAWFORD: Correct. MR. FLEGAL: Eighteen times 25, about 450 bucks? MS. ARNOLD: However, it's less than that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The fine is 450 plus the operational. That would be the true numbers, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Would we be happy with that? MS. ARNOLD: Those are the costs. Whatever the costs are. MS. DUSEK: Now what are the operational? MS. ARNOLD: The operational cost is 1,304.10. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 1,304.10. So now we're down to 1754.10. So it's a little over $500 reduction so far. Page 71 May 22, 2003 MR. CRAWFORD: Well, it was never really 2,200. That was a mathematical -- MS. ARNOLD: Yes, that was -- MR. CRAWFORD: I never even started there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're at least down to some other number different than the original, which ! understand got you unthrilled about this process. MR. CRAWFORD: Right, right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So now you're saying that this whole $1,754 should be waived because of all these circumstances? MR. CRAWFORD: The circumstances being that if you would have given me 60 days to -- from the permit to the C.O., you know, I could have had it done. And I don't want you to think that I didn't act on it. As soon as I got the permit, I hired the people, got it done and there simply wasn't enough time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. CRAWFORD: And additionally, I think-- again, I don't want to display any disrespect, but it's my children's playhouse. It's just -- the whole thing seems a little silly to me. There are hundreds of-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand your comment, but, you know, within the quote, unquote, county ordinances and land development code, playhouse, doghouse, whatever it is, it all has to comply. We don't sit down and say gee, only houses apply but playhouses don't. Because then we'd have somebody building a playhouse that somebody's going to live in. You know how people stretch the-- MR. CRAWFORD: I just think the fines are punitive in nature and -- they just don't apply to a children's playhouse. MS. SAUNDERS: Michelle, I have one question-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anything else you'd like to tell us? Any other questions for Mr. Crawford? Page 72 May 22, 2003 MS. DUSEK: I may have one. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: I do remember this coming before us. But how much time prior to it coming before the board did you first notify Mr. Crawford? MS. ARNOLD: Shanelle's got the case. MR. CRAWFORD: It's been a year-long process. MS. DUSEK: All right. Then if it has been, let's assume that it has been, then why did it take you so long? Why did you wait before you came before the board before you-- MR. CRAWFORD: For that year long, I've been trying to obtain a building permit. I didn't go into all that because you jumped right to January. But I was fighting easements, I was fighting a new building code, I was dealing -- MS. DUSEK: So it took you -- MR. CRAWFORD: -- with a contractor that wasn't responsive. So it really did take that long. And then once I finally -- I got the permit about the time that this -- you know, the first of this year. And as soon as I got the permit, I remedied the situation. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, the case started on March 7th, 2002. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anything else, Mr. Crawford? MR. CRAWFORD: Yes. Shanelle Hilton, she is good. She's been very helpful. And I don't know, I guess she works for Michelle, but I wanted to say kudos to Shanelle, she's been very good to me. Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: Shanelle asked me to ask you a question, Mr. Crawford. The cost for the crane to relocate the -- MR. CRAWFORD: Well, I've gotten a crane out there two times. I don't have the cost, and yet I've had friends that were able to help me and so forth. But I really don't have the true cost. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we're down to a request to Page 73 May 22, 2003 waive the fine and the operational costs. MR. PONTE: I think that we have a situation here where there are errors on both sides, and what we might consider is just reducing the total nut to $1,100, which is half. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's really 1,754 -- MS. ARNOLD: 1,750 is half. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- is the true number. MR. PONTE: Yeah, we started with 22 -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That was a mistake. MR. PONTE: Right, that was a mistake. I think we then should reduce it to half. There were errors on both sides. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other comments? MS. BARNETT: I'm having a real problem with this. I realize it's county code, but I also realize it's a playhouse. And to have him try to make a playhouse have hurricane compatible windows and that type of thing, the problems that he was having to obtain a permit I think does weigh into the length of time that he had. ! mean, it's a playhouse. MS. GODFREY: Well, you've got to take into consideration when a playhouse is in a storm, especially a hurricane, it comes apart and you've got a two-by-four go through one of your windows, it compromises your house, or your roof gets blown off. Because -- that is why we have to have everything tied down is because whether it's a doghouse or a playhouse, they do come apart and they do compromise other people's homes that do not have shutters or shatter-proof glass. And that's the reason we have these laws. And I understand it is a playhouse, and why is it so expensive. But there's a reason for it. You know, during a storm, glass -- I lived in Kansas, so I know what tornados can do. And I've seen what they can -- I've lived through quite a few big ones, and you wouldn't believe what a windstorm can do with a two-by-four. Page 74 May 22, 2003 one. MS. BARNETT: I do know that, because I was here in Donna. MS. DUSEK: I think that George's recommendation is a fair CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear a motion? MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion that the fine be half of the amount -- MS. DUSEK: That would be 877. MR. LEFEBVRE: 877.05. MS. DUSEK: 877. MR. PONTE: Be reduced to 877.05. MS. DUSEK: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion to reduce the existing fine of 1,754.10 down to 877.05. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Motion carries. Mr. Crawford, do you understand what we've done, sir? MR. CRAWFORD: I don't like it, but I understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, sir. Next, request for foreclosures. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, you should have a memo from me dated May 2nd, 2003. And in that memo, we're requesting that we forward three cases to the county attorney's office for action. That is Maxwells of Naples, Corp. That's Case No. 2002-027. And there's actually two cases for Maxwells of Naples. The other case is 2002-032. And the third case is Hada Olivella. Is 2002-030. And the county attorney's office would decide whether or not foreclosure or collection is the most appropriate. Page 75 May 22, 2003 MS. BARNETT: Michelle, in question to your memo, I may be off here, but $5,250 fine and 1,335.65 does not total 1,858. MS. ARNOLD: No, I see that, too. MS. SAUNDERS: I think it was a $525 fine. MS. ARNOLD: I guess our calculator was not working then either, because both those are added incorrectly. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Didn't eat your spinach that day. MS. ARNOLD: No, I didn't'. I didn't sign that memo. I'm reading it for the first time myself. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a request to -- MS. BARNETT: Do we know what that is? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It looks like 65 -- MS. ARNOLD: If the operational and the fines were correct, it's 6,580 apiece. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 6,585.65. We have a request to forward three cases to the county attorney's office for foreclosure, collection or whatever they deem appropriate. Do I hear a motion to do so? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MS. SAUNDERS: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. further discussion? aye. Any (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying County Commissioners versus Southern Development Corp. Mario Curiale. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Request for extension of time. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, we have Case No. 2003-005, Board of , Inc. and Page 76 May 22, 2003 This case was heard by you all I believe on -- in January. And he was given a certain time to correct. I believe Mr. Curiale has made some efforts to revegetate, and he's here now to express why he needs more time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have our order so that -- would you tell us what it says so we can tend to remember? The order was issued January 23rd? Yeah. And the order of the board was abate all violations within 90 days, that was April 23rd. If he doesn't abate them, $50 a day. And he had to pay all operational costs. Sir? Mr. Curiale. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. CURIALE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good morning. MR. CURIALE: -- board. I appreciate that you can allow me the time to come over here, and hopefully maybe I can explain this a little better than I did the last time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MR. CURIALE: When I came here the last time was -- I was out of town up until the day before the meeting, so I was really unprepared and I was no idea why I was going to get into this (sic). After the meeting took place, I tried to formalize some of the information I gather from here, through Susan Mason and also the staff. And I brought the package, the paperwork to work out to my engineer, which I will introduce him in a few minutes. Due to this long delay that has been taking place right now to get any kind of a regulation, a rezone, a PUD, you name it, you know, through the staff and all that, it seems to be such thing that we do not be able to have a pinpoint time of such item, or how long it's going to take to do it. Because I don't know. The engineer has the same dilemma, and the whole staff has the same dilemma also with this new regulation with the DCA, the governmental agencies, the environmental agencies, Marine Corps of Engineers. I don't know Page 77 May 22, 2003 what the problem is. And we tried to get all of that together. And then the conclusion of the whole matter was that we tried to could find an environmentalist who came up to find out what to do with this item. And when that search was taking place, they came up with the facts to revegetate to the area was possibly removed. But was not something that really made sense to do that, because the vegetation of being replanted is going to be removed again in the same area. So instead for me to go on and elaborate today, I would like to · introduce my engineer, because he's working on this process right now. Maybe he can explain that in much better terms than I can. But I got my hands tied and I really don't know which way to go. Jeff is my engineer. I hope he can help you out. MR. DAVIDSON: I'm Jeff Davidson, with Davidson Engineering. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One moment, sir. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. DAVIDSON: And we've been -- we're under contract to do -- actually, we were working on a PUD for the area that's been cleared. There's a small area on Mr. Curiale's property on the East Trail that's been -- that was inadvertently cleared. And what we've been doing, it's in an area where in the future we want to have a site development plan approved to put in a road. And there's an existing DOT permit from the Department of Transportation on the East Trail to put a road in this area, at least a driveway. And what happened was Mr. Curiale put these pipes up in an area that is -- you can see it on-- that's a good picture there. On the north-- that's U.S. 41 running down toward the right-hand comer. And in the middle of that wooded property to the north, there's a cleared area there. You can see that. That right there. And that -- I have a plan here, if we need to, we can put that up on the board -- that shows that DOT -- there's an existing DOT permit for a driveway Page 78 May 22, 2003 that goes into that area. And what caused the clearing in the first place was that some pipes that go under the driveway in the existing U.S. 41 canal were put in that area and stored for future construction of that driveway, and that's what caused most of the clearing in the first place. And what we're up against now is we're doing a rezone. Actually we started on a PUD several months ago, but we -- when we got into the process, we realized that it would be better to do a straight rezone for that property than do a site development plan, which we're in the process of doing. And when we found -- when staff alerted us to this problem, we got an environmental consultant to do a mitigation plan for that area. Mr. -- Mario intended to go in and replant that area to satisfy the county's requirements. But it's -- we found out that in order to go in to replant that area, it would cost a little over $20,000, which is a lot of money, considering the fact that as soon as we get our plan approved, the road's going through there and we're going to clear it. At least that's what our plan is at this point. So that's why we'd like to get an extension on time, get through the county process with a rezone, get the site development plan approved, and then see how that works out time-wise. You might ask how long that will take, and I'm thinking if everything goes well, which it usually doesn't, it takes about six months to get through that process. And what I'd like to propose is that we have a time extension to see where we are within six months and come back and say this is where we are, we either have our approval or we don't, we have our site development plan approved or we -- you know, I can give you an update of where we are in the process, to see if we can make headway that way. But it just seems a -- it seems a waste to me for him to spend $20,000 to meet county requirements, mitigation requirements, and then have to, you know, take it out. Thank you. Page 79 May 22, 2003 MS. BARNETT: Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MS. BARNETT: When we originally had this, didn't he have a couple of options that he could choose to do? It was either mitigation or something else? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I didn't read that part of the order, so I just read he had to do something by a certain date. MS. BARNETT: Because if I recall, he had to either replant or he had to subsidize somehow. I mean, like a donation to another -- like a MS. ARNOLD: government -- MS. BARNETT: MS. MS. MS. MS. MS. Right. ARNOLD: -- agency or something? BARNETT: Right. ARNOLD: Yeah, let me see. BARNETT: I'm going from memory, so -- ARNOLD: It says by obtaining all -- abating all violations within 90 days. And then the second paragraph, it says if the respondent doesn't comply with that, that a fine of $50 per day. So we weren't specific. I think when we were discussing the case, there may have been some discussion about donating to an alternate site, but that wasn't specified in the board's order. MS. BARNETT: Okay. MR. CURIALE: Would I be able to elaborate to what ! -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir, go ahead. MR. CURIALE: -- what memory was? At that time, what it came to be was since there is some of the land that need to be mitigated on this area here, which we presently right now going for the rezone, we plan to incorporate whatever the deficiency is now into the mitigation. That way we mitigate it all simultaneously at one time. That's where we were at. I don't know why that has not put in in there at that time, but Page 80 May 22, 2003 that was the concept to do that. That was the alternative. Instead the plan that included that into the mitigation. And then I left it there because I didn't know where else to go. When I -- I went back to the engineer and they hired the environmental person to figure out what to do, and that's how we got to this point. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. BARNETT: I just remembered there was something. MR. CURIALE: You're right, I -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, there was originally in staff's recommendation, off-site mitigation. So in those -- in that scenario, if · he were to come up with the cost for revegetating the site, whatever that cost, would be donated to an agency, like an environmental agency for off-site mitigation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anything else, sir? Any other questions? MR. CURIALE: That's it. MS. GODFREY: I'd like to -- did you have permits for this property that you cleared? Did you have any permits or -- MR. CURIALE: I had the -- yes, I did have the permit of DOT permit. And at that time when I took the DOT permit, I thought the DOT permit would supersede the Collier County permit. That's why it didn't require for me to get a clearing permit. But this time, as we speak right now, we have a DOT -- I mean, we have a utility permit to put in -- we put in right now the utility right alongside where we stripped right now, and we have -- when you get a utility permit, they'll also allow you to clear. Okay, so I took that for granted at the time when I got the DOT permit to put the pipes in, which I did on the second entrance down the road, about 800 feet down. And I had no problem on that one, okay, because I did that. So why all of a sudden it's a problem on this one? And I -- it just cut me different. And I said, okay, if there is a deficiency that I made a mistake Page 81 May 22, 2003 on my part, then why did you fine me for not to take the permit? Was a penalty twice the cost of the permit? I'll be glad to pay you that. But don't make me do something that -- it just has no justification to that, because it's going to have to go there. The rezone -- the first rezone I got here was about seven years ago. And the entrance has been seven years ago that it's been designed. As a matter of fact, right now the road, the 41, already has got the built-in left-hand turn in there. So it's not like that we cleared over here, now the road is going to be down 200 yards down at the south or north or whatever. It's going to be there at that point. And now, right on the same point where we consider right now the fact the deficiency of clearance, we clear the strip of 20 feet all alongside the whole property there, but in order to get myself assure what it was, and I don't want to get myself in trouble again, even though I don't need it, I went ahead and get the clearing permit. So I got that, just to protecting myself, not to do duplicate. If somebody comes out and says, well, why didn't you get it this time? I says before I did anything, I made sure I got the clearing permit. So I tried to obey what's the code, and what is supposed to do that. This was just like something, a misconception, misunderstanding, what it was. Because staff, usually when you get a permit, permit department, they give you the paperwork what you need to require to. If it was any additional things prior to you go do that, it says right on the page, it says, well, you need to get a clearing permit for this or need to do this, or notify the agencies. Well, I did that first phase, I had no problem. This one here, I really don't know. So I hope you guys could be able to simplify this matter. I really appreciate your help. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anything else? MR. CURIALE: That's it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. Jean, I have a question for you. Page 82 May 22, 2003 MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Would I be correct in that our two options are we can amend our order to change the time -- MS. RAWSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- or we can leave it stand and when it's all said and done, he can come back and ask us to waive any fines and all that because of all these problems. Is that basically the two options we have? MS. RAWSON: It is. I think, as I understand it, all you've done is given him an order that would tell him to do certain things within a certain amount of time. And there have been no fines assessed yet, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Well, we haven't done the imposition of fines CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I don't remember anything on impositions. So far the county hasn't asked us to impose any fines. MS. RAWSON: Right. So there's no -- you can't-- you don't have the second option yet because there are no fines to reduce. He -- I don't know when his time limit is up, because I don't have the order in front of me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. ARNOLD: It is up CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's up. already. It was up in April. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, April 23rd. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They just haven't submitted anything to us to impose the fines. I'm saying that -- MS. RAWSON: So you can either amend the order -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- leave it run and, you know, six months from now or whenever, and they -- he comes in and says gee, you're fining me $20,000 and I'd like to ask you to waive it because of these problems, and then he can tell us what all he went through and we can make that decision. Is that basically our second option? Page 83 May 22, 2003 MS. the April MS. MS. time. MS. RAWSON: Those are your two options, that's correct. MS. ARNOLD: And staff has no objection to the recommendation that Mr. Davidson made with respect to coming back to you in six months with a progress report on, you know, them obtaining PUD, SDP or whatever the requirements are. MS. DUSEK: Jean, I have a question. Since he was supposed to have accomplished this by April 20, the staff has not asked us to impose fines. MS. RAWSON: Correct. DUSEK: If we were to change the order, does that negate 20th date? RAWSON: Yes, it would. DUSEK: Okay. I'm inclined to give him the extension of MS. SAUNDERS: I concur. I think rather than waiting-- imposing the fines and then asking him to come back, we've heard it already; he's brought in an expert to testify and tell us what's going on. I think an extension of the time limit is very reasonable. MR. PONTE: I agree. And if staff has no objection to that plan put forward by the respondent, I think we ought to go ahead with it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me get the order and -- MS. ARNOLD: We could just leave it alone and come back. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we have those two options. And if it seems that you would like to amend the order, you know, it's whatever the pleasure of the board. If you want to amend the order, I've got the order in front of me, and if you'll -- MS. BARNETT: I have a question. If we amend the order and he gets his PUD and they allow the road to go in there and allow for the clearing to be done, does this negate this whole thing? MS. ARNOLD: No, there's operational costs with filing the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, the operational costs would still Page 84 May 22, 2003 be applicable. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All we're saying is right now the existing order said abate the violations by April 23rd. What we would do is we amend this order and say abate all violations by coming into compliance within -- and you have to tell me what that date is, and we plug that in. MS. DUSEK: Would it be six months from the April 23rd or six months from today? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, since we're amending the order, you would amend it-- MS. DUSEK: From what the order says. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- back to the beginning, wouldn't you, Jean? MS. RAWSON: I would do an order. If you change the order, I would do an order nun pro tunc, which would be -- go back to the date -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Back to day one. MS. RAWSON: -- that we had a hearing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. In other words, what we'd do is change the existing 90 days to if you want to add six months to it so we add, you know, 180 to 90 and that would be the date that we put in there. MS. SAUNDERS: I would suggest that perhaps we just say November 1 st. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So you have to now converse with yourselves and reach a meeting of the minds of what date you would like to put in. MS. BARNETT: I'm not so sure I want to amend it. I think we could do the second option that you mentioned. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Just let it lay and -- MS. BARNETT: Let it lay and let him come back. Page 85 May 22, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- down the road have him come back to us and say gee, I'm done now and it's eight months later and would you waive all this stuff because of these problems? MS. BARNETT: I think at that point we would be able to make a better decision as far as what has taken place, how quickly he got it done, was it accomplished. MS. DUSEK: I think you can do that still. If you give him the six months, he's going to come back and say this is what I've done, this is where I am. MS. BARNETT: I hate to say this, but I'm afraid what's going to happen is that we're going to end up going back to he got it done so why did we have to do this to begin with. MS. DUSEK: Well, if we change the order, we're basically saying we're not going to impose the fines if he does it within the six-month period. MS. ARNOLD: Well, we'll still get-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess the only hitch might be at the end of-- if we gave him the additional six months, let's take worst case that I can think of. If he came back to us in six months, all things being equal and all things going bad, he could be standing here again saying well, I haven't made any more headway because none of these people will talk to each other and I need another six months; where, if you just leave the order as it stands, it can run, hypothetically, forever, and at some point, when it's all done and some big number fine is laying there, he then can come back and ask for relief, rather than us amend now, six months from now, maybe be in the same position, taking worst case where he asks for another six months. Paperwork-wise it's easiest just to leave it stand, let it run, and whenever it's all done, he comes back and just says please help me, this has been all my problems. And I would suspect at that point we're all going to remember this and say yes, we understand your problem and we're going to try to help you. Page 86 May 22, 2003 MR. PONTE: I think it's a dangerous course of action to start the taxi meter and think we're going to turn it back at the -- MS. SAUNDERS: Yeah. MR. PONTE: -- end of the ride. I think we should amend the order. MS. DUSEK: I also agree. I want to say that we've said this so many times, what we want people to do is to come into compliance. This is not a health and safety issue, and I think whatever time it needs, reasonable time period that it needs with all that has to be done, we should give it to him. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Do I hear a motion to pick some number of time, and let's say if it passes -- MS. DUSEK: I make the motion that we amend the order to November 1 st. MR. PONTE: I'll-- MS. SAUNDERS: I'll second. MR. PONTE: -- second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to go to November 1st, which is roughly -- we're adding hypothetically a little over six months. So any more discussion on the -- extending the order to November 1 ? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MS. GODFREY: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. BARNETT: Nay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Nay. Those opposed? Page 87 May 22, 2003 MR. FLEGAL: Nay. Three -- 4-3. So it passes. I was the third one. So the amended order will read as follows: It shall be the order of the board, item one, by abating all violations, by coming into compliance, by 1 November, 2003. Item two, if the respondent does not comply with paragraph one above, there will be a fine of $50 per day for each day that any violation continues past that day. Item three, respondent is ordered to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case. MS. ARNOLD: There are two cases in this. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, there are? MS. RAWSON: Yes, there are. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So we'll do that one. That's Case No. 2003-005. I would make that as a motion to amend that, as I just stated. Do I hear a second? MS. DUSEK: Didn't we vote? MS. SAUNDERS: We did that already. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, we just picked a date among ourselves. MS. DUSEK: MR. PONTE: No, I made a motion that we amend the order. And I seconded it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, but there's other things we have to amend because they're all tied into the old date. So that's why I reread it, so -- MS. DUSEK: So you just want me to include besides the date all the other-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. If you'd do that, okay, so we're level? Is that right, Jean? MS. RAWSON: I think that's right. MS. DUSEK: So do we vote on that? Is that a second motion? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. Page 88 May 22, 2003 MS. RAWSON: You need to vote on both motions for both cases separately. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, separately. So let's do this one, as I just read it, which takes in your November 1 st date, to get all three items so they all match. Okay? MS. DUSEK: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to amend Case 2003-005, as I just stated, with the new date. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, the next case number is? MS. ARNOLD: 06. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since I don't have it. 2003-006? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And were the dates the same? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The 23rd and all that, the 90 days, okay. I make a motion that we amend the Case 2003-005 -- MR. PONTE: 006. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm sorry, 006. I'm looking at 005, pardon me. -- by abating -- number one, by abating all violations, by coming into compliance by 1 November, 2003. Item two, that if the respondents do not comply with paragraph one above, there will be a fine of $50 per day for each day the violation continues past that date. Item three, the respondents be ordered to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case. MS. DUSEK: I second it. Page 89 May 22, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: aye. We have a motion and a second. Any All those in favor, signify by saying (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sir, do you understand, we're giving you till November 1st, okay? MR. CURIALE: Thank you. I appreciate your help. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Affidavits of compliance. MS.. ARNOLD: Yes. This is a report to the board that we have filed two affidavits of compliance: The Board of County Commissioners versus Claude Martel, Cases No. 2003-001 and 2003-002. And the third case is for an affidavit of compliance for Board of County Commissioners versus Walter Crawford, Case No. 2003-004. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And just to note for the record that our meeting next month will be in the central library, in that auditorium area. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's the library up on -- MS. ARNOLD: Not the central library, I'm sorry, the north library, up on Orange Blossom. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Up on Orange Blossom. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MS. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I will be out of town for that meeting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. Same time, right, Michelle, 9:00? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it is, 9:00. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Please make note of the location Page 90 May 22, 2003 change, so we don't forget. Any other business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MR. PONTE: So moved. MS. GODFREY: Second. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're adjourned. much. All Thank you very There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:00 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, CHAIRMAN Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 91