Loading...
CEB Minutes 06/26/2003 RJune 26, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida June 26, 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 at the Collier County Library Headquarters, 2385 Orange Blossom Drive, Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Clifford Flegal Albert Doria Roberta Dusek Gerald Lefebvre Christopher Ramsey ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney Shanelle Hilton, Code Enforcement Coordinator Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA AGENDA Date: June 26, 2003 at 9:00 o'clock a.m. through 1:00 p.m. Location: Collier County Library Headquarters, 2385 Orange Blossom Drive, Naples, 34109 in the Sugden Library Theater 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 - May 22 2003 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS B. HEARINGS 1. BCC vs. Haldeman Creek Enterprises, LLC and CEB NO. 2003-024 Harriet McCarthy as its Manager and JeffM. 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, offBayshore 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 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 continued from May 22, 2003 Agenda. 2. BCC vs. Manuel and Miriam Rosa CEB NO. 2003-019 Location: Golden Gate Alleged Violation: structural and electrical improvements (enclosed lanai) without first obtaining a b uilding permit a nd without having received a certificate of occupancy for said enclosure. 5o NEW BUSINESS A. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC vs. Lorraine Burgess 2. BCC vs. Lorraine Burgess and Lindell McFadden 3. BCC vs. Shirwin Inc. B. Request for Reduction/Abatement of Fines CEB NO. 2003-017 CEB NO. 2003-016 CEB NO. 2003-018 C. Request for Foreclosure o OLD BUSINESS A. Affidavits of Compliance 1. BCC vs. Shirwin Inc B. Affidavits of Non-Compliance 1. BCC vs. Lorraine Burgess 2. BCC vs. Lorraine Burgess and Lindell McFadden CEB NO. 2003-018 CEB NO. 2003-017 CEB NO. 2003-016 7. REPORTS 9o 10. COMMENTS In September we would like to have a Planning Workshop. What information would you like to be provided from the Planning Director? This will be discussed in more detail at the July 24, 2003 meeting. Please write down anything that you would like more information from the Planning Director. NEXT MEETING DATE July 24, 2003 at the Board Room ADJOURN June 26, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Call the Code Enforcement Board to order, please. Please make a 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 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. The roll call, please. MS. HILTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. For the record, Shanelle Hilton, CE Coordinator. Clifford Flegal? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Present. MS. HILTON: Roberta Dusek? MS. DUSEK: Here. MS. HILTON: Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. HILTON: Albert Doria? MR. DORIA: Here. MS. HILTON: Christopher Ramsey? MR. RAMSEY: Here. MS. HILTON: Kate called me this morning. She is not feeling well. Her heart has been bothering her. Sheri is not -- has got an excused absence, George has an excused absence, and Rhona has an excused absence. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have three regular members present, four regular members absent. Our two alternates are here. They will participate. We do have a quorum. We will proceed. Approval of our agenda. Are there any changes, additions to our agenda as submitted? Page 2 June 26, 2003 MS. HILTON: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: the agenda as submitted. aye. I would entertain a motion to approve MS. DUSEK: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Second, please? MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) Aye. Any opposed? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Approval of our minutes from May 22nd? MS. DUSEK: I have just one comment on the minutes and that is on the very first page. It says Chairwoman and it should be Chairman or Chairperson. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So noted. Any other corrections? If not, I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes as corrected? MS. DUSEK: So move. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes as corrected. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Page 3 June 26, 2003 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: hearings. Any opposed? Thank you. We'll now open the public Are there any motions to be made? MS. HILTON: No. Michelle sends her apologies. She has budget hearings today before the Board of Collier County. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. MS. HILTON: Our first case of the day is Board of County Commissioners versus Haldeman, H-a-l-d-e-m-a-n, Creek Enterprises, LLC and Harriet McCarthy, as its manager, and Jeff M. Novatt, Esquire, as its registered agent, and Mark Hendry, as tenant and manager of Haldeman Creek Boat House Grill and Marina. I would like to ask at this time if the respondent is present in the courtroom. He is not. We have previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit "A" at this time. MS. DUSEK: I'd make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit "A". MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and second to accept the County's exhibit. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Page 4 June 26, 2003 (No response.) MS. HILTON: The respondent was served with the notice of hearing by certified mail return receipt requested and I have all the green cards back. The alleged violation is of Section 1.5.6, 2.1.15.1, and 2.7.6.1 of Ordinance No. 91-102 as amended of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: On December 17th, 2001 did witness an alteration, enlargement and addition made to the kitchen area of Haldeman Creek Boat House Grill and Marina, including electrical hook-up, without first obtaining a building permit and without having received a certificate of occupancy for said addition. Prior verbal warnings has not corrected the violation. Location where the violation exists: 2891 Bayview Drive, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 6183536006. Name and address of owner in charge of location where the violation exists: Jeff M. Novatt, Esquire, registered agent, care of Cheffy, Passidomo, 821 Fifth Avenue South, Naples, Florida, and Mark Hendry, manager and tenant of Haldeman Creek Boat House Grill and Marina, 2891 Bayview Drive, Naples, Florida. Date of violation first observed: October 24, 2001. Date owner or person in charge given notice of violation: April 9, 2002. Date on which violation was to be corrected: April 26, 2002. Date of reinspection: April 22, 2003. Result of inspection: The violation remains. And Harriet McCarthy is present. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Michaelle Crowley, Code Enforcement Supervisor, to present this case to the board. MS. CROWLEY: Good morning. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good morning. Page 5 June 26, 2003 MS. CROWLEY: As Shanelle indicated, my name is Michaelle Crowley. I have been with code enforcement for three and a half years. I started as an investigator and was promoted to supervisor approximately a year and a half ago. So when the case first started, I was an investigator out in the field and continued to keep the case even after my promotion. I would indicate that the background information that Shanelle has given is correct. On October 24th of 2001, while I was at another location, an individual came up to me and said he wanted to make a complaint about an addition made to the kitchen area of the Haldeman Creek Boat House Grill and Marina that was done, he knew, without permits. When I asked how he knew that that was the case, he indicated that he used to work there. He was aware that the construction was going on and that no inspections had been made. I pulled the property cards -- and there were numerous ones from the property because it has existed for quite some time -- and determined what the footprint and/or the dimensions of the building were as of 1995. I then did a site visit and visually confirmed that an addition had been made to the western edge of the building. That would be the side farthest away from Bayshore Drive. I have some additional photographs that I took on Friday that I will pass around. Since we don't have the visualizer, we have to use the low tech methods of passing them around. The first photograph consists of a long shot of the particular building. You can see on the left-hand side of the photograph is the addition to the kitchen area that has been painted and incorporated as if it looks like the entire rest of the building. The second photograph is the close-up of the addition and it is the portion with the roof that sits up a little bit farther from the rest of the building. It's been installed on pilings on a platform so that it matches in most respects the level -- the elevation of the building. Although, there is a step down-- a small one -- from the existing Page 6 June 26, 2003 kitchen to the new kitchen. The next photograph just indicates -- it shows the roof line. That it is a roofed and completely enclosed structure without windows. The next photograph shows the view as I was standing in the existing kitchen of the Haldeman Creek Boat House Grill and looking through the doorway that has been cut into the exterior wall looking into the addition, which is 6 feet deep and 12 feet long. You can see that it has electrical connections. This is a cooler on the right-hand side as you're looking at it and then the balance of the storage space is set up with shelving for dry storage for food products and paper products. MS. RAWSON: Before we pass it for the board, why don't we have that introduced as Exhibit "B" for the petitioner. You probably need a motion. MS. DUSEK: Do you want to enter it first? Do you want to ask us to enter it? MS. CROWLEY: I would. At this point I would ask that this be admitted as Composite Exhibit "B". MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Composite Exhibit "B" MR. RAMSEY: I second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit "B". All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) Aye. Any opposed? Page 7 June 26, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MS. CROWLEY: On my initial site visit, after I pulled the property cards and done the research on the property, which was on December 19th of 2001, I met with Mark Hendry, who identified himself as the manager of the restaurant, the Haldeman Creek Boat House Grill, on site. I explained to him why I was there. He admitted at that time that the addition had been made and that he did not pull any building permits or any inspections. He indicated that space was at a premium and he needed some additional storage space. He acknowledged that that addition was made in approximately August of 2001, about four months before my site visit to confirm it. At that time I explained to him that a permit would need to be obtained for that addition, inspections issued and certificate of occupancy issued. When I was there on that first visit the building extension was being used just as it was when I was there last Friday. In January of 2002, shortly after my contact with him, Mr. Hendry did attempt -- he came into Community Development and Environmental Services and attempted to pull a building permit for what he characterized as a deck. When I discovered that, I went to the planning and explained to them and showed them my photographs and indicated that this, I did not believe, was a deck. That it was fully enclosed with a roof. They agreed and at that time his permit application was rejected. We further discussed it with planning and Mr. Hendry at that time acknowledged that he would attempt to obtain an amended site improvement plan for the property, which is the start of a fairly lengthy process. So I knew it was not going to be resolved immediately. It was anticipated that the original site improvement plan would be amended to include a kitchen addition, as well as he did want to include an additional dining deck. So at that time in January of 2002 Page 8 June 26, 2003 he obtained the services of an architectural engineering firm to begin the process to draw up some plans. Nothing had been accomplished of any significance three months later in April, which was when I mailed out the initial notice of violation to Harriet McCarthy -- excuse me -- to her registered agent, Mr. Novatt, at the attorney's office, and also served a copy personally at the restaurant. The green card was returned and signed on May 6th. On May 20th Mr. Hendry advised me that he had changed architectural and engineering firms because finances were a problem. He was having some difficulty securing the money to pay these professionals for their services. By August and into September of 2002 still no site improvement plan had been submitted to the County. Although, a pre-ap meeting had been held. At that point, a code enforcement warning letter was sent. And that precipitated a little flurry of activity to try to get things resolved. And it was at that point that the hearing notice was signed for by Mr. Novatt for the Code Enforcement Board initially and two days later Mrs. McCarthy called me at the office and we made an arrangement to meet in my office the following day on November 1st of 2002. Mrs. McCarthy came to my office with a gentleman who was her assistant. And we had a lengthy discussion about the nature of the violation and the status of what had happened since my initial contact and what needed to be done or what could be done to correct the violation. In November -- on November 20th, 2002, Mr. Hendry advised that rather than a site improvement plan he was going to be incorporating some even additional modifications to the structure and he would be going through the site development plan amendment process. His additions at that time anticipated were additional rest room facilities for both the men and the women's toilet facilities, a Page 9 June 26, 2003 gazebo out from, a further expanded dining area and deck closer to Bayshore Drive, as well as the freezer deck to incorporate the freestanding railroad car kind of structure that sits outside of the restaurant at the present time at ground level, as well as the addition. So, again, further architectural drawings have been -- architectural renderings would be required. A pre-ap meeting was held with the planning department in January of this year, January the 22nd. At that time, the transportation department indicated that they might be requiring a right-hand turn lane from Bayshore Drive onto the dead-end Bayview Drive and that -- it was ultimately decided I think by Mr. Hendry and those people involved that that might quash the project because it would eliminate his already reduced parking space and parking area, as well as affect some landscaping deficiencies that are present and that perhaps may be coming -- may have to be resolved in the near future. When no further progress was made at that point, I determined that we needed to go to the Code Enforcement Board. The hearing was set. Subsequent to that, on May 21st, Mr. Hendry did submit through his engineer and his architect an amended site development plan and a pre-ap meeting was held with that. And as of this morning, of the eleven reviews that are required, there are four reviews still pending. Completed reviews would be one. That is the fire and that was approved. Additional reviews by the utilities department, water management, current planning, transportation and addressing were all rejected. Now, some of those were for some fairly insignificant matters. In one case he needs to distinguish or put on the plans what the maximum building height is for that zoning district. There has to be some additional distances placed upon to show how far from the property line the building sits. So some of those can be corrected fairly quickly. The transportation reject does not refer to a right-hand turn lane. Page 10 June 26, 2003 So perhaps they might have reconsidered that. But that all reviews are anticipated to be completed by the County on or before July 1 st. So the first part of next week. As it stands now, the structure still remains on site. It's still being used. It still has electrical hook-ups without inspections and without COs. I met on Friday in my office with Mrs. McCarthy again to discuss her -- she is the owner of Haldeman Creek Enterprises, Limited Liability Corporation, about what she could do to resolve the violation. One of the things that she asked about is could she possibly have the addition removed and have the building restored to its approved condition. And I indicated that, yes, that could be done, but also that would stop the process of the further additions to the building that are encompassed in the anticipated site development plan amendment. It's an amendment because the site originally did have a site improvement plan in 1989 when it was Moby Rick's. I was not around when that happened, but somebody may have been here when it was Moby Rick's. I guess, I'm available for any questions that you may have. MS. DUSEK: I have a couple of them. Right now we have a violation just of the addition to the kitchen; is that correct? MS. CROWLEY: That is correct. MS. DUSEK: And in order to get the permits just for that addition, would it have been necessary or is it necessary to do a SIP? MS. CROWLEY: Yes. He had attempted to just pull a permit for that addition, but because of the age of the property, the length of time that the site improvement plan had not been reviewed by the County, and the fact that it appeared as if some usage modifications may have been made from the original 1989 plan -- that would have been even prior to the Haldeman Creek Boat House occupancy. That Page 11 June 26, 2003 is, perhaps, when it was under the name of the Tipsy Seagull, completely different owners, completely different operators -- that there may have been internal modifications made. So it was decided by the planning department that the only way that the addition could be approved would be to go through the site improvement plan at the very minimum. And that's why he started going through that process, but then decided they wanted to do a little bit more than what would be allowed under a SIP, so they went to the SDP process. MS. DUSEK: Now they're in the process of the SDP and you said that by July 1st they should have met all 11 objectives? MS. CROWLEY: No. By July 1st the additional County departments -- stormwater management, landscape planning and environment planning -- have not yet completed their reviews of the submittal that came in on May the 21 st, as well as some additional documents. There were a list of approximately six deficiencies in the initial submission that were corrected before the County began to review them, but now as each division or department is reviewing them there are some things that -- what they do is they list them on-line. And I provided a copy of that information to Mrs. McCarthy on Monday as of what reviews and the comments were and the rejections at that point. The County's review will be finished by July 1st. The supplemental submissions by the architect and the engineer would be perhaps a couple of weeks after that. MS. DUSEK: So, say, by the end of July everything should be complete? MS. CROWLEY: It could be complete by that time, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions? I have a couple. I assume that Haldeman Creek Enterprises owns the property? MS. CROWLEY: Yes, they do. Page 12 June 26, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And do they own the building? MS. CROWLEY: Yes, they do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And they're the ones that have submitted the SDP? MS. CROWLEY: It's been submitted by Mark Hendry on behalf of the Haldeman Creek Enterprises, LLC. The manager of the property has pretty much since his -- since the business opened has pretty much done the day-to-day operations. Mrs. McCarthy has not really been involved in that end of it. Although, I believe she is taking a more active role at this time because of the potential consequences of this action. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I noticed a comment that was forwarded to us that -- from Mr. Hendry. That he would most likely -- this is sometime in March-- pull the plug on the SDP, maybe remove the kitchen, unless the restaurant closes its doors. The restaurant closing its door has no basis. You have an illegal structure on a piece of property. So, again, the owner of the property is still the one at risk. MS. CROWLEY: That is correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Regardless of what Mr. Hendry would like to do. Does Mrs. McCarthy understand that? MS. CROWLEY: Yes, she does. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. CROWLEY: I've explained to her what the responsibilities of the owner are, whether it would be her -- and if she were to sell the property, it would carry over into any new property owner. Mr. Hendry has been the driving force behind the expansion, behind the modification. And, in fact, I'm not even sure that Mrs. McCarthy was even aware that it was installed. The business is still in operating status. Apparently finances are still a problem. It's the off-season, but -- Page 13 June 26, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. CROWLEY: But they're still open for business and I expect they would continue. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: From the County side, how-- the only word I can think of is confident -- are you that this process is going to get approved since you have been working with it obviously very closely? MS. CROWLEY: I would say probably 90 percent. There are some of the modifications that were listed in the initial rejects that are going to take some money. For instance, I know one of the comments made by one of the divisions was that the dumpster enclosure under the code has to be 12 feet by 12 feet and it's only 12 feet by 10 feet. So obviously at some point, unless they get a variance for that, they're going to have to move out one of the walls of the dumpster enclosure to make it large enough. So that some of them are going to have some cost involved, but some of the other ones are a simple matter of completing -- putting in some measurements and some numbers on the plan. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I notice on your pictures -- and I'm trying to keep them in order. I guess, it's the second one. You did state that they have a freezer in there and there is electrical obviously put in this addition and everything. MS. CROWLEY: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: In looking at your second picture -- and I will give it back to you. I notice what looks like a lot of electrical lines and all that coming from the old structure -- I don't know if it goes to the new structure. I really can't tell -- that are uncovered. Did you notice that it goes to the new structure or is that just something -- MS. CROWLEY: Those do not go to the new structure. They Page 14 June 26, 2003 go to the freezer. It's like a -- it's almost like a railroad car. It's a freezer container that's 20 feet long and 10 feet wide that sits kind of in the middle of the parking lot on the south side of the property. So those connections go to that structure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: picture number one. MS. CROWLEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I see it behind this truck in It's painted gray also. Okay. You were talking about a dumpster enclosure. Picture number one shows the dumpster just out in the middle. So there obviously is no dumpster enclosure. MS. CROWLEY: That is correct. They have a retaining wall. They have got a -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's not-- MS. CROWLEY: It's actually in a couple of different places. They store some garbage in a couple of places. MS. DUSEK: When you spoke to Mr. Hendry the very first time you approached him, did you ask him why he did this without permits? He certainly must have been aware that he had to do permitting. MS. CROWLEY: They usually don't admit that they knew they should have got a permit. He indicated -- he said, "Yes, you're probably right. But I just needed space and it was just quicker to do it this way." That's really the answer I got. He was very cooperative. He didn't hide the fact that the addition was made. And I thanked him for not lying to me because I had the plans in my hand and I had already measured the building and I knew that the addition was tacked on. He was very cooperative. He admitted it. He wouldn't tell me who did the work, however. I don't know who that was. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for the County? Thank you. MS. CROWLEY: Thank you. Page 15 June 26, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. McCarthy, would you like to tell us anything on your behalf or -- MS. MCCARTHY: Well-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Would you come up here, please? MS. MCCARTHY: What do you want to know? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Would you come up here? We need to swear you in now. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: Did you want to tell us your side of the story? MS. MCCARTHY: The only -- excuse me. The only side that I have is that-- as Michaelle Crowley explained. This sort of came as a surprise blow. I did not know that this was being put on the building or it had been put on until I got the notice of the violation. And we have -- I have tried to follow the process and find out what is absolutely essential to do. And I'm feeling a little bit frustrated because one thing leads into another and it looks like we might have to -- well, either take the thing down obviously is one solution or go through the site development plan, which I think might be more complex than we want to get into. But I would like to know from the board if it would be possible to hire an outside construction person to simply get the permits and make this little shed legal. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's not a determination for this board, ma'am. You need to discuss that with the County. That's not something we can tell you to do or not do. That's not what we're here for. We're here totally to find out is there a violation. And if there is, then we'll make a determination on what we're going to order you to do about it. MS. MCCARTHY: Okay. Page 16 June 26, 2003 us? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's our limit. MS. MCCARTHY: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anything else you would like to tell MS. MCCARTHY: Well, I don't know. What else-- Michaelle, what should I tell them? MS. DUSEK: I will ask a question. That might help. MS. MCCARTHY: Good. MS. DUSEK: In working on this site development plan you're finding some difficulties. Are the difficulties with the process itself and/or finances? MS. MCCARTHY: What was the last; filing? MS. DUSEK: Finances, money. MS. MCCARTHY: Well, I don't know anybody that doesn't have that difficulty. But, no, the thing that was surprising to me was that the initial response to the site development plan were that out of seven returns, six of them were rejected. But in looking at them, as Michaelle said, some of them look rather inconsequential, put in the numbers and I have what the zoning is and things that -- things that seem pretty easy to solve. But there were a lot of things that -- more substantial, which I don't know whether I want to get into. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you, ma'am. MS. MCCARTHY: It may not be very substantial what I told you, but that's about as much as I know. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's all right. Every little comment helps. Any further questions from any members of the board? If not -- Jean, we made an error, so I need to ask you. We didn't swear in the County when they gave us all testimony. MS. RAWSON: Why don't you now swear her in and ask her if you were to ask her to repeat everything that she said would her Page 17 June 26, 2003 responses and answers to your questions be the same. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Michaelle, come up here for a minute. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michaelle -- MS. CROWLEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- the comments you have previously made to the board and the questions that the board had placed to you, if you were to repeat that and we were to repeat the questions, would you give us the same information? MS. CROWLEY: I would. And everything is -- I stand behind it now as I did then. I would repeat it word for word. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Is that all we need, Jean? MS. RAWSON: That's it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thanks, ma'am. Okay. We'll close that section of the public hearings on this case and we need a finding of fact by the board. MS. DUSEK: I would like to make a motion that in the case of the Board of Collier County versus Haldeman Creek Enterprises, LLC, and Harriet McCarthy, as its manager, and Jeff M. Novatt, Esquire, as its registered agent, and Mark Hendry, as tenant and manager of Haldeman Creek Boat House Grill and Marina in the Case CEB No. 2003-023 that there is a violation. The violation is of Section 1.5.6, 2.1.15.1 and 2.7.6.1 of Ordinance No. 91-102 as amended of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation is an alteration, enlargement, and addition made to the kitchen area of the Haldeman Creek Boat House Grill and Marina, including electrical hook-up, without first obtaining a building permit and without having received a certificate of occupancy for said addition. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that there, in fact, is Page 18 June 26, 2003 a violation. Do I hear a second? MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second on the motion. Any further discussion? If not, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRFJ: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Order of the board. MS. DUSEK: Looking at what the County has recommended, I'll make a motion that we ask the respondent to pay all operational costs, number one. Number two, to abate violation by the following: Either remove unpermitted addition or submit SDP within 30 days from the date of this hearing or a fine of $50 a day be imposed. Number three, obtain all required permits and certificate of occupancy for addition within 90 days of approval of SDP or remove/demolish structure if SDP is not granted or a fine of $75 per day will be imposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Question. Your item two, which is submit a site development plan within 30 days, they currently have one submitted that needs some changes. So if we just ask them to submit it, I don't know what the cycle is. Michaelle, I will ask you. Maybe you can help me. If they submitted it and it had never been submitted, the cycle to approve a SDP would be normally what? MS. CROWLEY: Approximately two months from initial Page 19 June 26, 2003 submittal. Because the County gets approximately three weeks or-- three to four weeks to review it. Each of the departments. And then they provide an opportunity for the applicant to submit those required documents with other supporting materials approximately 30 days. Rather than the SDP submittal, what we would be looking at, perhaps 30 days after the final County's review of the plans and either rejection or approval of that, submit whatever would be required to follow through with a request from the County departments. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. CROWLEY: Thirty days after they completed the last review, which at this point is anticipated July the 1st. MS. DUSEK: So they've already submitted it. MS. CROWLEY: It was submitted on May 21st, which started the initial review process. And initially there were a couple of things that were not attached. For instance, the CAD drawings have to be on a floppy disk now in addition to have hard copies. So the architect was notified immediately by letter and fax that there were a couple of those packet deficiencies and those were immediately corrected. And then now with the review process each division is looking at them. But, I believe, it could easily be done within 30 days after the last review by the County department. MS. BELPEDIO: Mr. Chairman, Jennifer Belpedio with the Office of the Collier County Attorney. I think if the word "sufficient application" were to be inserted into the order correct that that would remedy the problem. Ultimately planning will deem the application sufficient and then they will continue with the review process. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So you're saying a sufficient application within 30 days would be a better terminology? MS. BELPEDIO: Yes, sir. Page 20 June 26, 2003 MS. DUSEK: I will amend it to that. I also had a question. The only -- this is for Michaelle. The only thing they can do now is an SDP? MS. CROWLEY: If they want to continue to incorporate the bathroom additions, the gazebo, the dining deck addition, yes. If all they want to do is incorporate the kitchen addition, I believe they can resort back to a site improvement plan. MS. DUSEK: Well, I'm wondering if I should change it to SDP or SIP, whichever they choose. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. MS. DUSEK: I think that -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Give them the option. If she feels after talking with the County maybe that this is more than she wants to do for future additions, she might just say, "Look, let's just do the SIP to get this over with and get me out of this mess." I mean, I'm thinking out loud for her. I mean, short of tearing it down, that might be just a quicker method. I don't know. But, yeah, let's give them either/or. MS. DUSEK: Okay. I'll amend it to SDP or SIP in both parts of my motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: And to change it to sufficient application. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other questions or recommendations on Bobbie's motion? If not, do we hear a second on the motion? MR. LEFEBVRE' Second. I second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor of the motion -- on the motion that Bobbie made -- I don't know if I can remember it all, but either a site development plan or a site improvement plan within 30 days or $50 was it? Page 21 June 26, 2003 MS. DUSEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And then to remove it or get your COs within 60 days of approval? MS. DUSEK: Well, the first part -- I will go over it real quickly. The operational costs, obviously. And the first part of it was to submit a sufficient application of an SDP or SIP within 30 days or remove the addition. The next part was to obtain all -- or a $50 fine would be imposed. The next part was to obtain all required permits and certificate of occupancy for addition within 90 days of approval of the SDP or SIP or remove/demolish structure if SDP or SIP is not granted or a fine of $75 per day will be imposed. Did you understand that, Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. And under number two, they get the permits or the COs within 90 days or they remove it? MS. DUSEK: It was not really getting COs. It was to remove or get sufficient application or SIP or SDP within 30 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's the first one. MS. RAWSON: That's the first one. The second one, get the permits and the COs within 90 days or remove it? MS. DUSEK: Yes. MS. RAWSON: Within how many days? MS. DUSEK: I had it together. Either obtain all required permits and certificate of occupancy for addition within 90 days of approval or remove. MS. RAWSON: Okay. Or$757 MS. DUSEK: Yeah. MS. RAWSON: I've got it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We've had a motion and a second. Any further questions? Page 22 June 26, 2003 All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: understand what we -- Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Ms. McCarthy, do you MS. MCCARTHY: There is only one point that I would like some information on. That is the -- the request was to either submit a SDP or remove the structure. But I thought we had submitted a SDP, which is what we were talking about that had been partially -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You have. MS. MCCARTHY: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Our formality is we are ordering you to do that, even though you have done it. And if it doesn't get through the process in so many days, then you're going to start to get a fine, okay? We understand you've submitted it, but we have to say that. We just can't leave it hanging out in the air. We actually have to say that we are requiring you to do that. MS. MCCARTHY: That's being submitted -- that must be accepted MS. to speak. MS. MS. days. or rejected within 90 days; is that correct? DUSEK: You have 30 days to finish your submission, so You've already started the process. You submitted it. MCCARTHY: Yes. DUSEK: We want you to finish that application within 30 MS. MCCARTHY: What does that mean though? the 11 items have to be accepted within that -- That all of Page 23 June 26, 2003 MS. DUSEK: No. Then you have 90 days for the approval of the SDP or SIP. If not, within that 90 days you either get approval or you demolish the addition, remove the addition. So you have to finish your process of submitting. You've already started it. Now we want it just to be completed, then you have 90 days in which to get the approval. But if you don't get it-- MS. MCCARTHY: What is unfinished about the original submission or submittal of the SDP? I thought that was completely submitted. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. There is items missing, according to the County. MS. CROWLEY: That was the list that I gave you in the envelope that you came and picked up in my office on Monday. MS. MCCARTHY: Six people that have rejected certain items? MS. CROWLEY: Correct. MS. MCCARTHY: Okay. In other words, those six items -- MR. DORIA: Need to be corrected. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. You have to get all that information back to the County. Whatever it is that is lacking, you need to get all of that back. MS. MCCARTHY: Is that also -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you don't do that, that -- MS. MCCARTHY: Does that also include the four respondents who have not responded yet, but are supposed to respond by July 1 ? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. Whatever is missing from that. And the County could tell you what's missing. We honestly don't know since we haven't seen it. We're just saying in 30 days get every piece of information that the County requires to them. If you don't do that, you're going to start being fined. It behooves you to answer all their questions. Page 24 June 26, 2003 MS. MCCARTHY: Well, the original items that were rejected that we all explained -- some of them were pretty cut and dry, I would say, and could be done quickly. However, if something was in response to one of the rejections -- this is just a what if. Then it can be submitted a second time and third time, if necessary, is my understanding. Must that whole process all be finished within 30 days? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: According to our order, yes. At the end of 30 days if everything isn't done, there is going to be a fine starting. MS. MCCARTHY: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, you do have the right later-- if the fine goes into effect and you're still trying to submit, you can ask to come back before this board and say, "There wasn't enough time. I need some help. Could you extend my time, you know, and abate my fine for this period?" You have that right. But if we don't put a time period on it, I mean, this could go on for another four years. So we're saying based on what the County has told us we think you can comply within 30 days. We are ordering you to do that. MS. MCCARTHY: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, if you can't do that, you always have the right to come back and explain why you can't do it. We'll see if we want to give you some more time. MS. MCCARTHY: However, if we remove the structure, which is okay with me because I'm not in love with it anyway -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, then your problem goes away. MS. MCCARTHY: Then the whole problem goes away? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. But, now, to remove a structure you have to talk with the County because there are some permits that -- you just can't go down there and tear it down today. There is a process you have to go through to do that. But you can remove it and Page 25 June 26, 2003 everything will disappear, okay? MS. MCCARTHY: Would it be possible -- could I get a qualified person, a construction person, or somebody that is entitled to do business with the County to just take charge of that removal and -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That is something this board can't discuss with you because that is not in our power. You need to talk to the County about that. MS. MCCARTHY: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We don't have the power to say, "Yes, you get this person and everything will be okay." That is not what we do. You discuss that with the County. I'm sure they can lead you in the right direction. MS. MCCARTHY: To get it removed. However, I can take it down myself. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Next item on public hearings. CEB case 2003-019, BCC versus Manuel and Miriam Rosa. MS. HILTON: I would like to ask at this time if the respondent is present in the courtroom. They are here. We have previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit "A" at this time. MS. DUSEK: I make the motion that we accept the County's Exhibit "A". MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit "A". All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 26 June 26, 2003 MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: The respondent was served with the notice of hearing by certified mail, return receipt requested, regular U.S. mail, and a posting of the property in the courthouse. The alleged violation is of Section 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance number 91-102 as amended of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: On 10/21/02 and 1/8/03 did witness a building addition (enclosed lanai) illegally constructed on the rear of a single-family residentially zoned property without first obtaining the authorization of the required permits, inspections and certificate of occupancy as required by the Collier County Land Development Code. Location where the violation exists: 3101 54th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 36433400005. Name and address of owner in charge of location where violation exists is Manuel and Miriam Rosa. 3101 54th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida 34116. Date violation first observed: October 21, 2002. Date owner given notice of violation: November 25, 2002 and January 8, 2003. Date of reinspection: April 4th, 2003. Result of reinspection: Violation remains. And Investigator Schwartz went out there yesterday and no permits have been obtained and the violation remains. And at this time I would like to turn the case over to Larry Schwartz, Code Enforcement Investigator, to present the case to the board. MR. SCHWARTZ: Good morning, members of the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good morning. Page 27 June 26, 2003 (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SCHWARTZ: Good morning. My name is Larry Schwartz, Collier County Code Enforcement. I took over this case from Tom Campbell December 31st. He was the investigator that first went out there and observed the violation and he handled it. I have been speaking in the last six, seven months to Ms. Rosa. And what it was is they -- they had a screened-in lanai and they removed the screens and they enclosed it in with windows and door and they made it into, I think, a family room. But no permits were obtained. I know Ms. Rosa faxed me a copy of plans that they did have and I know that she did come to the County to attempt to get permits, but no permits were obtained. And I spoke to her numerous times and -- although there were still no permits that were obtained. I explained to her that you have to do any sort of-- that type of work and she said she would try to get it. But, again, every time I was out there, there was no -- no permits have been obtained and still there is nothing obtained. And you have all new windows, new doors. And if you check photo number 15, the top, and then go to photo 16 -- MS. RAWSON: Did we move this into evidence? MS. HILTON: This is part of the packet. MS. BELPEDIO: I wasn't sure. MR. SCHWARTZ: And then if you go to photo 18, 19, 20, it looks like it was extended even more. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You can't really tell from our pictures. MS. DUSEK: Ours are black. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ours are pretty much black and they don't show anything. MR. SCHWARTZ: Can I -- Page 28 June 26, 2003 MS. DUSEK: Do we have any color ones? MR. SCHWARTZ: Can I -- maybe this is a little lighter. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not much. MR. SCHWARTZ: Again, as of today, still no permit was obtained for these changes of the structure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: In this structure -- I'm sorry. Are you finished? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I assume they added electricity and all that. Since it was a screen enclosure, they must have put electrical wiring or something in? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. They made it into a-- it's like a family room. There is a TV there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But they did run electric and so on and so forth? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: Was any of that preexisting; was there any electric out there? MR. SCHWARTZ: It was a lanai, so I am sure they had some type of electricity. Again, the windows and the door they have to be -- you know, with the new hurricane code, they have to be permitted and inspected up to code. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Normally on the lanai the only electrical outlet may be a waterproof outlet on the side of your house, but I notice they've got a -- what looks like a security light or something on the top of the structure on page 15 hanging out over the center. MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, sir. You get a better view on 16, ! think. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's the only question I had. Page 29 June 26, 2003 Thank you. It doesn't go all the way across, right? Judging in item 18, it only goes, I guess, the original length of the original lanai. MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Schwartz? Thank you, sir. Mr. and Mrs. Rosa, would either one of you like to come forward? MS. ROSA: Yes, sir. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. ROSA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good morning. MS. ROSA: Like Mr. Schwartz says, we have been talking for the past, like, six or seven months back and forth. I try for several times to go where he told me on Horseshoe Drive to get the permits. Every time I went over there, they told me, "You need to -- this paper." So I went and get that paper that they ask me for. I went back. "No, no. You need another paper." I work. I can't be absent from my job all the time. So one time Mr. Schwartz called me and he goes -- he asked me, "What do you have done?" I say, "There is nothing else I can do. I do everything that they ask me and every time that I go they ask me for something new. This is out of my hands." They asked me permit for my windows. That I have to go where I buy the windows and the doors to see if they were 125 miles per hour proof and all that kind of stuff. My husband is a painter and in a job that he was working on they give the door to him and the windows. The door that we put on the house and the windows. Page 30 June 26, 2003 So it was no way for us to go to the store and prove that door was fine and the windows, too. So Mr. Schwartz told me, "We'll have to go to the board and decide what we're going to do." I don't know. The outlets were made over there. The floor was made on the house when we bought the house. The ceiling was made. The only thing that we add to the house was the back wall of the -- of the room. That's all we add. The light was there. It was -- outlets was there. It was -- practically everything. We just made the -- the wall that I said before and where we put the TV, the VCR and the radio. That's the only thing that we add. And we put tiles on the floor. That's -- that's it. MS. DUSEK: You said that you just added the outside wall. The side walls were already there where you put the windows? MS. ROSA: Yes. It wasn't the window. It was a screened lanai. We add the window because it was the washer and the dishwasher -- I mean, the washer and dryer. It was in that room, too. On the lanai, it was the washer and dryer. So we made a little window since we closed it. We put the window, but the electrical outlets and everything were there when we bought the house for the washer and dryer on that room because the washer and dryer are in that room, too. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. One end of the lanai as we're looking at a piece of paper -- if this is your house, one end was already closed because your washer and dryer was there; is that correct? MS. ROSA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What you did is you closed the back portion and the other end? MS. ROSA: The long one like this, yeah. That's all we did. We put a door. There was a door -- a screen lanai door, but we put a normal door and we put a window kind of by the TV, somewhere around there. Page 31 June 26, 2003 And they asked me for-- I don't know if Mr. Schwartz has this papers. Like a drawing or something. I did it. I give it to them, but they keep asking me for some other stuff that it was impossible for me to take to them. MS. DUSEK: You say it was impossible for whatever their request was for you to fulfill that request? MS. ROSA: Yes, ma'am. Because they were asking me about the windows and the door. And, like I say before, it was a present or a gift to my husband. There is no way for me to go back to that house, that has been made -- there is people living in that house and the owners -- and say, "Where you buy your doors? Where you buy your windows?" So I don't know if I could have to move the doors and the windows or I buy new windows, I could do it. I mean, I could do whatever. But I would like to keep my room as it is right now because that is where my kids play. That's their own space to play and spend the day in there. That's -- MS. DUSEK: Mr Schwartz, do you know if-- this is probably a very simplistic question. The window that they have in and the door that they have in now, is there any way for that to be tested since it was a gift and they have no invoices or anything to say what type of door and window it is and if it does meet the hurricane standards? MR. SCHWARTZ: You would need a permit because you need a permit when you change doors and windows. It would have to be inspected by whoever does the inspections for that to make sure it is safe. I don't know what the gauge is of it or how -- what if the kids are playing in there and there is a hurricane and the window is not good and the door is not good and it shatters all over them and hurts them? So that's why we require that there be permits so it can be inspected and make sure it is safe. Not only for her and her children, Page 32 June 26, 2003 but you don't want the window flying out and -- MS. DUSEK: So the only way they would know whether these pass inspections is to have an inspector go out there. And prior to that, they have to file an application for a permit. MR. DORIA: Are they able to get the permit without having a certificate stating that those windows and doors are wind resistant? MR. SCHWARTZ: To be honest with you, I don't know what they asked them to do. It should have a name on the window. They could go to Home Depot or someplace else that sells the window. MR. DORIA: That's what I was going to ask next. If they can get the name brand maybe and go to a glass company. MR. SCHWARTZ: Right. Look up those windows. The supplier -- where did they get the windows and what kind of windows are they? Maybe go on the Internet or go to Home Depot and get a certificate saying, you know, what -- how many miles an hour is that safe for. And then at least they would have that and present that to get the permit. MS. DUSEK: Do you understand? MS. ROSA: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: Is that the only part that is missing now with this application is the information about the windows and doors? MS. ROSA: Yes. As far as I know, yes. They asked me for this and I give it to them. They say then -- I went back and they say about the doors -- the door and the windows. That I need to have the permit and know where I buy it and everything. That's why we stayed, like, kind of in a limbo at that point because we don't -- kind of know how to do it. I ask them and they say, "You have to go to the store that you buy it and that's it. They will tell you." Which store am I going to go? But since Mr. Schwartz says -- if I can do that and try to find out Page 33 June 26, 2003 the name of the door, the window or something. MR. SCHWARTZ: Possibly the construction company that is building the house, they would know where they get their supplies. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. I think it's just going to have to be some investigation. I mean, that's something they will have to work out. But, yeah, there is always a way to find out where something came from. It may take a little work. And I understand that you work and that is difficult, but I think that is what you're going to have to do. Anything else you would like to tell us? MS. ROSA: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Ms. Rosa? Thank you, ma'am. MS. ROSA: Thank you. MS. DUSEK: I have one more for you, Mr. Schwartz. MR. SCHWARTZ: Sure. MS. DUSEK: Assuming they get the information about the windows, now they submit it, how much time do you think it would take for them to get the application and the inspections? MR. SCHWARTZ: I think it would be pretty quick. Once they get that information, a week, two weeks at the most. They can probably do maybe an express permit for something like that. I mean, if they get that information and they come in -- they'll call me and I will go with them. And I will take them to everyone that they need to see. As soon as they make the call and tell me, "Okay. I need you to -- can I meet you here at a certain time," I will definitely make myself available. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any additional questions? We'll close the public hearing part and -- MS. DUSEK: I have the information. Page 34 June 26, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I knew you would. MS. DUSEK: In the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Manuel Rosa and Miriam Rosa in the CEB Case No. 2003-019, I make a motion that there is a violation. And the violation is of Sections 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 an addition (enclosed lanai) illegally constructed on the rear of the single-family residentially zoned property without first obtaining the required permits, inspections and certificates of occupancy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that a violation does, in fact, exist. Do I hear a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. MS. DUSEK: I suggest that we follow the recommendations of the County. And, that is, that the respondent -- I make a motion that the respondent pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by obtaining any and all required permits for described structure, improvements, within 90 days of this hearing. And also get all inspections and certificate of occupancy within 30 days after obtaining the required permits or remove or demolish the structure within 60 days of the hearing after obtaining a demolition permit or a fine of $75 per day will be imposed for each Page 35 June 26, 2003 day the violation continues. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: A couple of questions on your motion. The obtaining any and all permits within 90 days -- MS. DUSEK: That should be shortened. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think that's too long a period of time personally. MS. DUSEK: How about 30 days? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I could live with that. I also think that at that point there should be a fine if they fail to do that. The way it's currently voiced is they're doing three or four things before a fine kicks in. And I think initiative is a wonderful thing. I think if you would change it to 30 days and if they don't accomplish that, then there's -- a fine would kick in for not submitting and obtaining whatever they need within that period. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: Then I will change that first part of the required permits within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $50. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Go ahead. I'm sorry. MS. DUSEK: And then continue with the way I had suggested it before. If they get required inspections and certificate of occupancy within 30 days after obtaining the required permits or remove or demolish structure within 60 days of the hearing after obtaining a demolition permit or a fine of $75 per day will be imposed. So they would do -- either get the certificate of occupancy within 30 days or if they don't do that, then they have 60 days in which to demolish the structure or $75 will be imposed. I know that's still in two parts, but -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I would like to see you make one other change where you're giving them an additional basically 30 Page 36 June 26, 2003 days to demolish the structure. Could we change that 60 to 30? In other words, they get their CO in 30 days. If they can't get it in 30 days, then in-- MS. DUSEK: Okay. It shouldn't take them that long. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, let me back up a minute just to make sure. We don't want to -- MS. DUSEK: That's giving them 30 days to demolish. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let me rephrase it. You're giving them 60 days from the date of the hearing to demolish, but you're giving them 30 days after getting the permits; is that correct? Is that the way you read it? MS. DUSEK: That's the way I read it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I will back off my statement. They will have 60 days from today to demolish. We're giving them 30 days to submit everything and then another 30 days to get their CO, which is a total of 60 from today. Okay. I can live with that. MS. DUSEK: Keep it 60? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Keep it 60. I will back off. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And it was 75 or 50? MS. DUSEK: It was 75 on the second part and 50 on the first. Did you understand that, Jean? MS. RAWSON: I got it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sorry for the confusion, but it worked out. She did a good job. Any board members have any questions on the motion? If not, do I hear a second? MR. DORIA: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second by Mr. Doria. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 37 June 26, 2003 MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) Aye. Any opposed? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Mr. and Mrs. Rosa, do you understand what we have just said? I will try to clarify it if you're confused a little bit. MS. ROSA: It's okay. I understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Very good. MS. DUSEK: And Mr. Schwartz said that he would help you through this. MS. ROSA: I will be in touch with him. MR. SCHWARTZ: Come down and we'll go through it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The public hearing portion of the board is closed. We move to new business. Request for imposition of fines. MS. HILTON: Okay. The first fines we want to impose is in Case No. 2003-017, Board of County Commissioners versus Lorraine Burgess regarding violation of Collier County Ordinance 91-102, as amended, Sections 2.7.6 and 2.7.6.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code. This was a repeat violation case involving the existence of an occupied mobile home structure on an unimproved lot. The issued findings of fact and conclusion of law and order on April 21, 2003 where we ordered the respondent to correct the violation by obtaining all permits within 15 days and -- which she did not. If the respondent did not comply with paragraph one of the order of the board, then a fine of $500 per day would be accruing. And that the respondent was ordered to pay all operational costs Page 38 June 26, 2003 incurred in the prosecution of the case. The respondent is not in violation. And from the period of May 7, 2003 through June 6, 2003, at a rate of $500 per day, her fines are $15,000. And the operational costs are $1,130.45. MS. DUSEK: Did you say -- maybe I misunderstood. You said that she was not in violation? MS. HILTON: She is not in compliance. MS. DUSEK: She is not in compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I heard the same thing. I was getting a little confused. Do I hear a motion to -- MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we impose the fine of 16,000 -- excuse me -- $16,130.45, which includes the $15,000 fine and the $1,130.45 operational costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear a second? MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the fines as requested. Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MS. HILTON: The second case we would like to impose fines in is in Case No. 2003-018, Board of County Commissioners versus Shirwin, Inc., and Edwin C. Skufca, S-k-u-f-c-a, regarding violation to Collier County Ordinance Number 85-57, as amended, a PUD, Page 39 June 26, 2003 planned unit development, Section 5.7, paragraph C. On April 21, 2003, the board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law, and order finding the respondent in violation of an accumulation of prohibited exotics, including, but not limited to, Brazilian Pepper, Melaleuca, Carrotwood and Air Potato. If you'll remember, this gentleman is the gentleman who appeared telephonically and we had so many problems trying to get him through. We ordered the respondent to submit the exotics maintenance plan within 15 days, which he did, and then remove all exotics from the parcel by June 1 st, which he has done. And then if he did not comply that there would be a -- with paragraph one, which was the exotics maintenance plan, there would be a fine of $25 per day. And that if he did not comply with removing the exotics, there would be a fine of $100 per day. The respondent is in compliance and we would like to impose operational costs in the amount of $1,215.70. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear a motion to impose the fine for the operational costs? MR. DORIA: I make a motion that we impose the fine of $1,215.70 for the operational costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion by Mr. Doria. Do I hear a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second. Any questions? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. Page 40 June 26, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. We have no requests for reductions and no requests for foreclosure. Affidavits of compliance? MS. HILTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm sorry. That's under old business. MS. HILTON: We have Board of County Commissioners versus Shirwin, Inc., which we just discussed, an affidavit of compliance which has been filed in the public records. We have an affidavit of non-compliance for Board of County Commissioners versus Lorraine Burgess, which has been filed in the public records. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. No further old business. We have no reports. Comments? MS. HILTON: Comments. The director asked me to convey her message on this. In September we would like to have a planning workshop. What information would you like to be provided from the Planning Director? I know at times the -- we often have building permit issues, we have SDP issues, and we never quite -- we can kind of guess how long it is going to take, but sometimes it takes less time and sometimes it takes more time. So Michelle would like to have the Planning Director come and just kind of give you guidelines of-- if everything is submitted -- a sufficient application is submitted, then it should take this length of time and that information. So she would like you to put together specific information you would like to be provided from the Planning Director that would better help you make decisions which would involve the permit cases and things like that. And we would like to do that in September Page 41 June 26, 2003 because in August we are probably going to be here. The boardroom is not available again. We would like to do it in September when the boardroom is available. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I don't have a problem with a planning workshop. I think probably most of us maybe don't know the right questions to ask until we see a case in front of us and that's when we say, "How long does this take?" So any information that the Planning Director can give us on the process, what is involved. Kind of like somebody walking in off the street to do something, what is involved? What does it take? We just heard a lady stand up here and say every time she went back she was told to do something different. I personally have a little problem with that. I think when you go in you need 47 items. If you go in and they say, "Get one item," and you go away and you come back and they say, "Get this," you can make 300 trips. I think we should be telling them all at once, "You need 300 things. Don't come back until you get them." MS. HILTON: Actually-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think that would help. MS. HILTON: Exactly. What the building department has done is there is a specific person -- at this moment, I should say. There is a routine at this moment. Wanda Warren -- any of our code cases they can schedule an appointment with her and she will look at everything and she will tell them specifically what they need for a permit. That has finally come into place. So they have a specific contact person. So we don't have a problem with our code cases anymore. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think the Planning Director should tell us the current process -- MS. HILTON: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- at Horseshoe Drive so we understand it, realizing that your cases may get a little different Page 42 June 26, 2003 attention. But what we hear people tell us is from day one when they went in to do something. MS. HILTON: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So I think it behooves planning to tell us, "This is the process." I don't know whether they have a sheet that is like -- when you come in, "Okay. Here is the 47 things you need. Take the sheet. Attach everything and bring it back." That is the kind of information we need so that we can legitimately, I think, understand when people say, "Gee, we made six trips back." And we can say, "Wait a minute. The planning department says they hand you this sheet. They tell you to bring it back. If you didn't bring it back, it's not the County's problem. It's your problem for not paying attention." I think those kind of facts and information to us would be helpful. Also, would you ask Michelle to think about -- I would like to see us do a workshop for ourselves. To have maybe some questions that we need to ask Michelle. We would like to have Jean. I'm sure there are some things that she would like to tell us and some questions that we would like to ask her. Just for ourselves we would like to maybe have a little workshop at some point. Anything from members of the board? Next meeting is July 24th in our normal location in the boardroom at nine. Everybody make note. Don't show up here next month. We're creatures of habit. We have driven up Airport Road and now we have to remember to stop at the Government Center. Any other items? MS. HILTON: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Page 43 June 26, 2003 MS. DUSEK: So move. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. So moved. Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:22 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, CHAIRMAN Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Kelley Marie Blecha, RPR. Page 44