Loading...
CEB Minutes 07/24/2003 RJuly 24, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida July 24, 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 9:05 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Clifford Flegal Sheri Barnett Roberta Dusek Gerald Lefebvre George Ponte G. Christopher Ramsey Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Shanelle Hilton, Code Enforcement Coordinator Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA AGENDA Date: July 24, 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 - June 26, 2003 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS Motion to Continue: 1. BCC vs. Thomas and Marian Baker CEB NO. 2003-026 B. HEARINGS BCC vs. Thomas and Marian Baker Location: Taylor Road Alleged Violation: Salvaged, confiscated and inoperable and operable conmaercial and passenger vehicles having been placed upon required tenant parking, handicapped parking, loading, dumpster and right of way facilities as designated on Site Development Plan (SDP) #98-154; utilizing in excess of 19 parking spaces designated in the SDP without prior Collier County Review and approval of changes to SDP. CEB NO. 2003-026 BCC vs. Michael Palmer Location: Golden Gate Estates Alleged Violation: Wood and wire fence erected without first obtaining the authorization of a Collier County Building Permit and having all of the required inspection(s) and certificate of occupancy(s). CEB NO. 2003-030 BCC vs. Robert Chipman Location: Plantation Island Alleged Violation: Houseboat placed/affixed to land and converted to a permanently affixed living space without obtaining the required building permit(s), inspections, and certificate of occupancy. CEB NO. 2003-007 BCC vs. Robert Chipman Location: Plantation Island Alleged Violation: Mobile home raised created 2nd floor structure with lower portion of structure without obtaining the required building permit(s), inspections, and certificate of occupancy. CEB NO. 2003-020 BCC vs. Robert Chipman Location: Plantation Island Alleged Violation: Occupied mobile home without obtaining the required building permit(s), inspections, and certificate of occupancy. CEB NO. 2003-025 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC vs. Lorraine Burgess B. Request for Reduction/Abatement of Fines C. Request for Foreclosure D. Motion/Request for Extension of Time 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Affidavits of Compliance 1. BCC vs. Valdes 2. BCC vs. Billington B. Affidavits of Non-Compliance 1. BCC vs. Lorraine Burgess 7. REPORTS o 10. CEB NO. 2003-016 CEB NO. 2002-013 CEB NO. 2001-063 CEB NO. 2003-016 ADJOURN 1. Ellen T. Chadwell, Assistant County Attorney will be providing a Quarterly Foreclosure Report COMMENTS NEXT MEETING DATE August 28, 2003 at the Collier CourtW Library Headquarters, 2385 Orange Blossom brive, in the Sugden Library Theater, 34109 Code Enforcement Workshop on August 21, 2003 at 10:00 a.m. at the Collier County Library Headquarters, 2385 Orange Blossom brive, in the 5ugden Library Theater, 34109 July 24, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Everybody ready? We'll call the Code Enforcement Board to order, please. Please 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. May we have roll call, please. MS. HILTON: Good morning. For the record, Shanelle Hilton, CEB coordinator. Clifford Flegal? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Present. MS. HILTON: Roberta Dusek? MS. DUSEK: Here. MS. HILTON: George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. HILTON: Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. HILTON: Sheri Barnett? MS. BARNETT: Here. MS. HILTON: Christopher Ramsey? MR. RAMSEY: Here. MS. HILTON: Rhona and Albert have an excused absence, and I will double check my messages for Catherine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Approval of our agenda. We were given a revised agenda a few moments ago. Are there any additional changes, corrections? MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director. The changes that are reflected on your revised agenda are the Page 2 July 24, 2003 only changes we have. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the revised agenda. MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the revised agenda we were given this morning. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If not, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. We'll move on and we'll open our public hearings. First item under public hearings is a motion to continue. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, this -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, I'm sorry, I skipped the approval of the minutes. Let's back up. Getting ahead of myself. We'll go in reverse. We have minutes from our June 26th meeting. Are there any corrections or additions to those? MS. DUSEK: I make the motion that we accept the minutes from the June 26th meeting. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept our minutes from June 26th. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If not, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? Page 3 July 24, 2003 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Now, public hearings. First item, motion to continue, BCC versus Thomas and Marian Baker. MS. BARNETT: Cliff?. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. BARNETT: Before we go any further, in regards to this case I want to recuse myself from anything involved with it, due to the fact that my husband deals with this company on a regular basis through the sheriff's department.. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: The motion -- you should have a copy of the motion for continuance that was presented by the attorney representing Thomas and Marian Baker. The respondents are not present. The attorney was given information how to be here telephonically, and we left a voice mail message with him just before this meeting started, and he needs to call us. The system's already connected, but we haven't heard from him yet this morning, so -- Assistant County Attorney Jennifer Belpedio may want to speak to this issue. MS. BELPEDIO: Good morning. Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney. I spoke with Mr. Ferguson yesterday and he advised me that this morning he has a hearing in Tallahassee. He is three on the list, and it was likely that he would not be in his hearing until after 9:30, but certainly there's always, you know, the likelihood that a case before him may resolve and that he may have went first. I suggest that we just roll this case for now, keep the speaker on, and if he calls in, we can hear it at that time, or in between the cases, if that's what the Code Enforcement Board desires. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean? Page 4 July 24, 2003 MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Can we more or less not take action on this motion and proceed to another case, just in case the gentleman calls in, and then at that time make a decision on this motion for a continuance? MS. RAWSON: You can. Basically what you're doing is you're amending your agenda, which of course you have the right to do. And then if you want to interrupt another hearing at the time he calls in, for a few moments, since he's calling from Tallahassee, you may do that. But you certainly have the right to move it to a later time on today's agenda. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's probably the recommendation I would make to my colleagues on the Board, that we postpone, for lack of a better word, move this to a -- let's say on a continuing downward scale. Let's take the next case. If the gentleman calls in, we'll interrupt. If he doesn't, we'll proceed with the next case. And if by the time we're finished with all other cases, if he has not called in, I would recommend we then take action on the request for a motion for continuance. How does that sound? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we do exactly what you said, because I can't repeat it exactly right. But it's in essence moving this and letting it just ride out there until we do hear from the attorney. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, very good. Do I hear a second? Thank you. MR. PONTE: I second that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? I better ask that Page 5 July 24, 2003 question. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, let's move on to Case No. 2003-030, BCC versus Michael Palmer. MS. HILTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. At this time, I would like to ask if the respondent is present in the courtroom. (No response.) MS. HILTON: This is Case-- this is Board of County Commissioners versus Michael W. Palmer, CEB No. 2003-030. We have provided the respondent and the Board 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. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A. Do I hear any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If not, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of Section 2.7.6.1, and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: Observed a wood and wire fence erected without first obtaining the authorization of a Collier County building permit and having all of the required inspections and receiving the certificate of completions. Location where violation exists: 2310 Wilson Boulevard, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 37741280000. Page 6 July 24, 2003 Name and address of owner in charge of location where violation exists: Michael W. Palmer, 2310 Wilson Boulevard North, Naples, Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: April 8th, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: April 8th, 2003. The respondents have been served with a notice of violation and order to correct violation by certified mail, return receipt requested, which was returned unclaimed. Notice was also provided by posting of the property and the courthouse on April 8th, 2003 and regular U.S. mail. Date on which violation was to be corrected: April 18th, 2003. Date of reinspection: June 19th, 2003. Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And at this time, I'd like to turn the case over to Jeff Letourneau, Code Enforcement Investigator, to present the case to the Board. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, my name's Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. Good morning. I first responded to this case on April 8th, 2003. There was an anonymous complaint about a bus being occupied in the rear of the property. While I was doing the case, I had been out to this property previously and noticed that in addition they had built a wooden wire fence. I posted a notice of violation for both violations, the bus and the fence. Upon returning a week later I observed that the bus had been removed, the fence remained. I put another notice on the gate, stating that the fence didn't have a permit and needed to get permitted. In subsequent visits, I left notes to Mr. Palmer, stating that he needed to get the fence permit issued or remove the fence or I was Page 7 July 24, 2003 going to take further action. I received a phone call by Mr. Palmer on May 2nd, stating that he was just waiting to get his survey. This is the only time that I ever had actual contact with Mr. Palmer. I gave him another two weeks. A permit never got applied for. I left a note that I was going to start CEB proceedings and sent a CEB warning letter. A couple weeks later I went out there, no permit had been pulled, fence remained, so I took steps to prepare for the CEB; I got the deed and everything else. I posted -- later on I posted the property with the CEB packet and posted the courthouse also. As of yesterday, the fence still remains, no permit has been applied for. MR. PONTE: Inspector, just one question: Is it possible that Mr. Palmer has moved away for the summer? Does it look like that to you? MR. LETOURNEAU: No, there's evidence of people still living there. Every time I go there, there's vehicles out front. The only thing is, I can't -- you know, because of the gate, I can't go to the front door. Plus he's got a couple big dogs in the yard. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MS. BARNETT: So besides the bus, there's an actual building there that people are residing in? MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct, there is -- it's an improved property with a house on it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jeff, how long would it take him to get this permit, or what does he need to get it? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I mean, if he didn't have the survey, it would probably take some time to have a company come out there and survey the property. But, I mean, he's had three or four months already to do that. And he had called me on May 2nd, so that Page 8 July 24, 2003 was, you know, two and a half months ago, that said he was getting a survey. So that's the main, you know, roadblock. The fence permit's real easy to apply for and get. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If he's got a house on this property, wouldn't there be a survey? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I mean, if he -- depends when he moved in. It could have been lost. I mean, you know, that doesn't necessarily mean he has a survey on hand. But like the fence permit's one of the easiest ones to get. It's not really that hard. You got the survey, and then basically you have to draw it on there and submit it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And once he hands that in, is that what, 30 days, 15 days to actually get the permit, something like that? MR. LETOURNEAU: Probably 15 to -- you know, two to three weeks, I'd say. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Just for your information, I think a fence permit is one of the those that you can get the same day. I think you can fill out an express application for those, if you have a complete application. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, thank you. Anyone else have any questions for the investigator? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Jeff. Since the respondent is not present, next item is finding if there in fact is a violation. MS. DUSEK: I'll make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Michael Palmer, CEB Case No. 2003-030, that there is a violation. The violation is of Sections 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. Page 9 July 24, 2003 Description of the violation: Observed a wood and wire fence erected without first obtaining the authorization of a Collier County building permit and having all of the required inspections and receiving the certificate of completion. MS. BARNETT: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that a violation does in fact exist. Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next item of business, order of the Board. Before we begin that, Michelle, let me ask a question. When they get a fence permit, after they get it and erect their fence, is there some kind of inspection or-- what is actually done after-- when they're finished, by the County? MS. ARNOLD: Once they are completed erecting the fence, they would request an inspection. A final certificate of completion would be issued, once everything was done, according to the code. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Very good. Thank you. Order of the Board? MS. DUSEK: Well, I'll give it a try. I suggest, or make a motion, that we order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and to abate the violations by obtaining any and all building permits required for the unpermitted structure within 30 days of this hearing, or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Also, obtain a certificate of occupancy within 30 days after Page 10 July 24, 2003 obtaining the required permits, or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. If no building permit and/or CO is obtained, then respondent must obtain any and all permits for demolition for unpermitted structures, and a certificate of occupancy within 60 days, or a fine of $75 per day will be imposed. MS. BARNETT: If you will change occupancy to completion, I'll second that motion. MS. DUSEK: Okay, yes, that's what I have written down. MR. PONTE: And if you change one other thing, just for point of clarification. Change structure to fence. I mean, this is really a simple situation, and what we have here is a very complex order. It's a fence, not a structure. I don't see a certificate of occupancy is what we're talking about either. MS. DUSEK: Occupancy was the incorrect term. It's completion. But it is a structure, and I -- I mean, I guess we could use -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, it is under the definition of the County, as I remember. A fence is considered a structure. MS. DUSEK: Right. But I change it to certificate of completion. MS. BARNETT: Then I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. For my own clarification, I'm reading this and I want to understand what we're doing. He gets to -- we're ordering him to obtain the permits within 30 days or a fine of $50, and then after he obtains the permit, he has to -- MS. DUSEK: Obtain a certificate of completion -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. DUSEK: -- within 30 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Within 30 days, or another $50. MS. DUSEK: That's right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And then if he can do neither Page 11 July 24, 2003 of those, then he has to remove everything within 30 days, or a fine of $75. MS. DUSEK: Well, what I did is I combined if he can't get the permit for the fence, then he has to get a permit for demolition and a certificate of completion within 60 days. I'm just kind of condensing this -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. DUSEK: -- instead of breaking it up. So the first part of it is he has to get a permit for the fence. The second major part of it is if he can't get that, then he has to get a demolition permit. And in each case, there has to be a certificate of completion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I just wanted to make sure really on the first one that we had two sections with two possible fines. And the third one is it's all one item-- MS. DUSEK: That's right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- with one fine. MS. DUSEK: That's right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Go ahead. MR. PONTE: Yes, because I am a little confused still. In that third portion, that is, if he cannot remove the fence, then there is a fine of $75? MS. DUSEK: If he doesn't get a permit and a certificate of completion for demolition. MR. PONTE: Just for consistency, why is there an increase in that particular area, where everything else is $50? MS. DUSEK: That was a combination of two into one. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, but the first one, George, is really -- could be $100. You know, it's 50 and 50. So it could be 100. So since the second -- I'll call it the second one, I think what Page 12 July 24, 2003 Bobbi was doing is it's really one item. You get the permit to take it down and the CO, so she's just combining that in one thing, because you don't actually have to build anything, you're now just tearing it down. I think that's what she was trying to do. MR. PONTE: Okay. Just as an aside, it strikes me as odd that you have to get a permit to put up a fence, and once -- if you don't have that permit, you have to get a permit to take down the illegal fence. Something -- I'm missing something. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Motion passes. Jean, did you understand it? MS. RAWSON: I think so. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, next case, 2003-007, BCC versus Robert Chipman. There are Case 07, 020 and 025. Do they need to be separate, can they be combined? Tell me the easiest way to do this. MS. ARNOLD: I think we can combine all cases for -- under one hearing, because the same visits occurred on the same days. But you'll have to do separate -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. ARNOLD: -- motions. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that, I just wondered if we could do it all once -- MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- to save everyone a lot of time, rather than repeating everything three times. Page 13 July 24, 2003 Okay, we'll hear the three cases together and the decisions will be independent of each other, based on the same testimony given. Okay. MS. HILTON: All right, the first one is Board of County Commissioners versus Robert Chipman, 2003-007. At this time I would like to ask if the respondent is present in the courtroom. We have provided the respondent and the Board with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. Can I do that for all three of them? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, Exhibit A for each case. MS. HILTON: And that would be Exhibit A for 2003-007, 2003-020, and 2003-025. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A for 2003-007, 2003-020 and 2003-025. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's exhibits on each case. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? MS. HILTON: For 2003-07, the alleged 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. It's the same violation for 2003-020 and 025. The description of the violation for 2003-007: Houseboat placed or affixed to land and converted to a permanently affixed dwelling structure without first obtaining authorization of Collier County building permits and required inspections and certificate of Page 14 July 24, 2003 occupancy. The description of the violation for 2003-020: Mobile home raised, creating second floor structure with lower portion of structure without first obtaining authorization of Collier County building permits and having all of the required inspections and certificates of occupancy. And the description of the violation for 2003-025: Occupied mobile home with no permits, required inspections and certificate of occupancy. Location where violation exists for 2003-007:59 Clary Street, Plantation Island, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 1211680001. The location for 2003-020:39 Clary Street, Plantation Island, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 1211720000. And the location where violation exists for 2003-025:56 Clary Court, Plantation Island, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 1205680004. MS. BARNETT: Shanelle, one question. When you were reading that, you said street, and then the very last time you said Clary Court. Which is it? MS. HILTON: It's street -- oh, it's Court? It's Clary Court. Sorry. The owner in charge of all three code cases is Robert Chipman, P.O. Box 37, Everglades, Florida, 34137. Date violation first observed for all three cases: December 27th, 2002. Date owner in charge given notice of violation for all three cases: December 27th, 2002. Date on which violations were to be corrected: January 27th, 2003 for all three cases. Date of reinspection -- when did you go out? Yesterday, right? MS. SYKORA: Right. Page 15 July 24, 2003 MS. HILTON: July 22nd, 2003. And result of the reinspection is the violation remains for all three addresses. And at this time I would like to turn all three cases over to the code enforcement investigator, Carol Sykora-- and that's S-Y-K-O-R-A -- to present the cases to the Board. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. SYKORA: For the record, my name is Carol Sykora, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. Good morning. Initially I received a citizen's complaint through Commissioner Coletta's office, reference all of Robert Chipman's properties that he owns. He has four parcels of land right in the same area. I'll show this, hopefully by this overlay. I spent almost a month researching all of these parcels of land to find out if there had been any permits. That was initially what the complaints were about, that he had several mobile home structures back there without any permits and which he was renting out for income. After doing thorough research, I discovered that the first case, a houseboat, was converted into a mobile home structure affixed to the land, and it was being rented out for income. This would be located right in this particular area of land, right here. At this point in time, I don't believe anyone's living in there. It was rented out periodically, and right now I don't believe anyone's been living in there. But the intent is to bring this out. The next actual one I discovered was where Mr. Chipman lives himself, the mobile home is up on stilts. The mobile home itself I found a permit for from a prior owner. But Mr. Chipman had enclosed the bottom portion of the mobile home and converted it into a living space and was renting this out to an individual. That individual is still living in there. I had checked -- this is just one picture of an air conditioner in Page 16 July 24, 2003 the bottom portion of it. It was running when I was there yesterday, but no one would answer the door, so they are still living there. Then the third is another parcel of land where there's a mobile home with no permits, which is being rented out currently. Initially when I notified Mr. Chipman, he did come down to the County offices and spoke with Ed Perico, the director, and it was discovered that he would have to raise everything to today's standards above flood elevation. Mr. Chipman pretty much kept coming back and forth a little bit, trying to decide what to do. He didn't know whether to get them permitted, remove them or -- and then he pretty much lost contact with me. And once summer came, they left town, but they arrived back to receive their mail. And in June, Commissioner Coletta called a meeting for all Plantation Island residents, and I spoke to Mr. Chipman there briefly. He handed me an envelope that he was going to try to get the houseboat through engineered drawings permitted. But that was in June, and I haven't had any contact with him as of this date. I did verbally tell him that this would be going to the Code Enforcement Board, because I've given him a lot of time to comply, and pretty much I have to have certain dates set for him to comply. It's been stretching out too far. Any questions? MR. PONTE: Yes, I have a concern, so I guess not a question, and that is the safety of the residents underneath the trailer that was described in here as on stilts. If that's correct, the mobile home is resting on stilts and Mr. Chipman simply closed in the underneath portion and rented it; is that -- MS. SYKORA: That's correct. The-- MR. PONTE: How dangerous is it? MS. SYKORA: It's not allowable. Ed Perico, the director, told Mr. Chipman that this would not be permittable. He could enclose the bottom, but no one could live under there. And it has a living Page 17 July 24, 2003 space with electrical, and it could be very dangerous. Plus we're in a flood zone out there, so -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Have you-- MR. PONTE: My concern really is the immediacy of the danger. I mean, you also have a wind factor and -- MS. SYKORA: That's correct. The area is right on the canals, and it's flood and wind factor out there. It is very dangerous for someone to be living under the home. At one point he said that he had left, he was going to leave and not live there, but then I discovered through several things that he is still living there. MR. PONTE: You mentioned too that it might be a new resident, that the old tenant moved out and a new tenant moved in? MS. SYKORA: I had thought that at one point because he had told me that he was going to leave. And I discovered that it's the same tenant, through a neighbor, plus the sheriff's office had been there on two complaints recently. And then when I did recheck on the property, the air conditioner was running, so I knew someone was in there, but they did not answer. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MS. BARNETT: I had a question in regards to the houseboat structure. Is there any type of septic or -- was that evident, or-- MS. SYKORA: That is the concern Mr. Chipman had. He came down to the health department and wanted to redo and put in one septic for all the structures. And he was told he would have to combine all of the land into one folio, one parcel number, to do this. And then I advised him that he couldn't do that and have a structure -- all these structures on there. So he decided against that. So it's pretty much unknown to me right now if he has any septic system in there for all these structures or not. MS. BARNETT: That to me raises -- MS. SYKORA: It's a possibility -- Page 18 July 24, 2003 MS. BARNETT: -- a big red flag. MS. SYKORA: That's a possibility why it's been taking so long for him to act on getting permits. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: For all three of these structures, we don't know if there's any kind of sewer system, be it septic or anything else, so -- and there's people living in at least one of them? Well, and he lives in one of them, but he's out, right? MS. SYKORA: He's in the state, I believe. He goes up north -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But he comes and goes to this place? MS. SYKORA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, so -- MS. SYKORA: And in the wintertime he lives there full time. And right now at current there are two of the mobile homes occupied, underneath his home, the one that's on stilts, and the other unpermitted mobile home that's in there, that's occupied. The houseboat, I don't believe -- I couldn't get any answer, there was no vehicles around it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, so what, two other structures were -- MS. SYKORA: Plus there is one permitted one that was permitted -- the fourth parcel, it was permitted by a previous owner to be a living space. That's way out here on the other parcel of land. But I found a permit for that from a previous owner. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So two of three of his have people living -- MS. SYKORA: Yes, currently. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- when we don't know if there in fact is any type of sewer system. MS. SYKORA: Right, it's septic system out there. There's no regular sewers. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. SYKORA: And I couldn't tell you what he has as far as all Page 19 July 24, 2003 these units. He may have one for his home, because that was originally permitted, the one he lives in where he's got it enclosed underneath. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. SYKORA: There may be one there. He may be running them all off of one, I don't know. But I believe that was his main concern why he wasn't actively seeking permits. The original complaint came through and several residents out there were very concerned because they believed that he was going to create a little rental park back there. I did have two prior cases that he complied on where he had travel trailers in there with people living in them also, campers, and he complied on that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Looking at your drawing you have on here, the "X" is the -- is that the -- that's the houseboat, right? MS. SYKORA: That's the houseboat where -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That he's brought up on land. And is it sitting on just dirt or is it on -- blocked up, or -- MS. SYKORA: Yes, it's on dirt, but it's a pretty good-sized houseboat. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And then right below that is his MS. SYKORA: Below that is permitted. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And that's the one that's up on stilts? MS. SYKORA: No, the one up above the houseboat is the one on stilts. Right over here in this comer. These are like sheds. Over here in this right-hand comer-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, where the boat is parked. MS. SYKORA: -- is the home on stilts. Someone's living in underneath. The one over here in this comer is the other mobile home structure that is not permitted. Page 20 July 24, 2003 MS. DUSEK: Clifford? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, let me ask one more question. The one underneath the houseboat is not in question, correct? MS. SYKORA: There's nothing underneath -- oh, the one property, no that-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's something else? MS. SYKORA: -- I found a permit from a previous owner-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. SYKORA: -- to convert that to a living space. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, thank you. MS. DUSEK: Carol, so that I understand the property, besides the individual units, he has property out there with four structures right now, one permitted mobile home, one up on stilts with an enclosure which is not permitted, another-- the houseboat, which is not permitted, and then another mobile home which is not permitted. MS. SYKORA: That's correct. MS. DUSEK: Now, how is this zoned? Is he allowed to have multiple homes on -- or are they each individual parcels? MS. SYKORA: They're each individual parcels. So he could have one structure on each parcel. It's single-family zoned-- mobile home zoned, with an agricultural sensitive overlay. MS. BARNETT: Carol, in your original pictures of the houseboat, there's a couple of bicycles and a trampoline. Have those been removed? Because that indicates to me that there were children in the area. MS. SYKORA: Right, there were children living in there at one point. Like I said, this particular property seemed to have different renters in it periodically. I believe now -- I didn't see any -- anyone living in there. MS. BARNETT: So those things are -- MS. SYKORA: Yeah. MS. BARNETT: -- the trampoline and everything's gone? Page 21 July 24, 2003 MS. SYKORA: Yes. MS. DUSEK: If there was a septic tank on any one of these properties, would there be a permit with the health department? MS. SYKORA: I tried to locate anything back there, and they -- they couldn't go back that far in their records. And I couldn't confirm if there was separate septics for each parcel. MS. DUSEK: So what you're saying is the health department has no permits for septics on any one of these properties? MS. SYKORA: I could not locate -- they could not locate any. There may be some from years ago. But most of these have been put there recently within the past five to six years, so I couldn't determine if there was a septic system or not. Plus flood elevation. Because permits weren't obtained, he has to comply with today's standards to elevate above flood elevation. MR. LEFEBVRE: You said you were there on a previous case? MS. SYKORA: Yes, I had -- at the time when the initial complaint came through Commissioner Coletta's office, it was several items. The main was unpermitted structures and people living in travel trailers, campers, RV's. I did notify him and he did have those people that were living in the RV's removed, because that's not allowed -- MR. LEFEBVRE: But it was in conjunction with this? MS. SYKORA: It was a separate case, but brought about all on the initial complaint. Mostly their concern was that he was creating a little park back there and renters in and out. And trouble, as it was proved by the sheriff's office, which was out there recently, so -- MR. PONTE: Carol, have you ever-- well, you probably haven't seen them, but I'm back to the stilts. That concerns me. Are these -- because stilts in my mind are thin sticks. Are these, do you think, big support beams as opposed to stilts? I mean -- MS. SYKORA: I'm assuming -- MR. PONTE: -- how much is the danger there really? Page 22 July 24, 2003 MS. SYKORA: Right, I'm assuming that it would be stable, because the mobile home was originally permitted to be there back in '69, I believe. MR. PONTE: On stilts? MS. SYKORA: Yes. But what he did then was enclose it. And my main concern is that he created a living space underneath, which is not really allowable. This is the structure right here, the one that's up on stilts. MR. PONTE: Yes. MS. SYKORA: And that's all enclosed. There's electric, there's a washer and a dryer on this side, and the entrance is here, and the -- this was on the other side of the air conditioner, right there. So -- MR. PONTE: Yeah, I guess the answer to my question, or that pulls me off the concern, is that it was permitted to be on a support structure of some kind. MS. SYKORA: Right. MR. PONTE: I understand-- MS. SYKORA: But it's the enclosure -- MR. PONTE: -- the violation but-- yeah. MS. SYKORA: My main concern was someone living there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Carol, to do what needs to be done, which is get permits, can he do this in 30 days? Is that feasible? MS. SYKORA: Well, probably not, because it -- he has to elevate everything. In fact, the mobile home on stilts -- the -- on stilts, that one, I believe he can't have that permitted as far as a living space, so he would have to remove that. But to get a permit to have it enclosed, if he wants to keep the enclosure, that's fine, if he can get approved for that. But the problem I have is I've had this case open since December 27th, and nothing has been done. In fact, they leave town without even notifying me that they have left. They just -- well, what they intend to do. Page 23 July 24, 2003 And then when I saw Mr. Chipman, I believe it was in May, I spoke to him on the phone, because he received my warning letter for Code Enforcement Board. And he contacted me and ! advised him that I have been waiting long enough, and he left town without talking to me. And then I saw him at the meeting in June, and I advised him then as to the Board, because of the extended time I've given him. I've tried working with him on this for several, several months. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The enclosure underneath the trailer, you have never been inside that? MS. SYKORA: No, I never have. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So you don't know if there's a kitchen or anything like that in there or restroom facilities or -- MS. SYKORA: No, I have not seen that. But I believe someone is, I know for a fact, living there. I know it has electrical, because the air conditioner was running the day I was there. There's a washer and dryer on the other side of the enclosure. And I know someone lives in there. And probably a bathroom, if he's living there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If there's a washer and dryer, the water must be going into something. MS. SYKORA: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any further questions for the investigator? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Carol. MR. PONTE: No, but just as a point of clarification, this is -- you've been on this case before, and Mr. Chipman then corrected the violation; is that correct? MS. SYKORA: No, at the same time I received the complaint and I investigated for permits, but I -- the part of that complaint was the two campers that were back there, which is not allowable to have someone living in them. I determined that someone was living in Page 24 July 24, 2003 them; this was back the same time that I gave him these notices of violation, December 27th, I gave him separate notices of violations for each of those campers, which they did remove them. They left. So those were separate cases, but brought about by the initial complaint. MR. PONTE: But at the same time. So we're not looking at -- MS. SYKORA: It was sev -- it was a complaint with several complaints on it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Carol. MS. SYKORA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: First order of business, to in fact determine if violations exist at each location. And remember, we're dealing with three separate orders. MS. DUSEK: I'll make a motion on the first order in the Board of County Commissioners versus Robert Chipman, and CEB Case No. 2003-007, that a violation does exist. The violation is of Sections 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. Description of the violation: Houseboat placed, affixed to land and converted to a permanently affixed dwelling structure without first obtaining authorization of the Collier County building permit and required inspections and certificate of occupancy. MS. BARNETT: I will second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion and a second that a violation exists in the first case, 2003-007. Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor that a violation exists, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) Page 25 July 24, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? Okay. Jean? Do we need to do the order on each case, or can we do the finding of the violation? MS. RAWSON: I would keep them together. I would do the findings of fact on the one case, then the order on the same case -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: -- and then when you're done with that one, move to the next case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Next order of business is the order of the Board. MS. DUSEK: I would suggest that we follow the recommendation by the County. And if you'd like, I can read all of that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, the one thing that we might should change is that I noticed that it says submit complete sufficient permits within 30 days, and then get a CO within 30 days. Based on what Carol has told us, we might want to maybe change that to -- Carol, let me ask this: Would 45 days be more realistic than 30 days? Or give us a little help, please. MS. SYKORA: It may be more realistic, but the problem is, he's had since December to correct these violations; even start on one, I was willing to work with him. And due to the fact he pretty much was at a standstill from after the first initial visit -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that, but I don't want the Board to give him an order that he can't meet. I understand maybe he didn't do what you wanted, but now we're going to tell him to do something. If he doesn't do it, he's going to get fined. But I don't want to tell him to do it in 30 days when that -- when he can't do it in 30 days. That's what I'm looking for. Is 45 more realistic? Page 26 July 24, 2003 MS. SYKORA: Yes. MS. DUSEK: Well, let me ask you a question. The first part of this says complete sufficient building permit application within 30 days. Is that realistic? MS. SYKORA: Yes, I believe so. MS. DUSEK: I mean, is -- MS. SYKORA: What he would have to probably do is have -- and according to a letter he handed me in June, dated June 5th, he had obtained an engineer to try to get the houseboat, just the houseboat permitted. But since then I have had no communication with anyone since that letter was handed to me. So I really don't know if this was just to try to put me off or if it was indeed being worked upon. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, apparently what he has to do, my understanding, is put this up on stilts in order to get it permitted, if they're going to allow it at all. MS. SYKORA: Not necessarily on stilts. They do bring them up on cement block or build the land up with fill to raise up -- MS. DUSEK: To raise it above the flood level. MS. SYKORA: Yes. MS. DUSEK: Now, is getting the building permit to do this, is it a matter of filling out an application, or does he have to get an engineer to do -- MS. ARNOLD: With this particular structure, because they've converted a boat to a living structure, they'll have to prove to the County and provide the engineered drawings that it will meet the building codes as well as the wind-- you know, the wind loads and those type of things. So they will have to submit an application, they'll have to submit engineered drawings -- MS. DUSEK: With the application? MS. ARNOLD: -- with the application. MS. DUSEK: And that could take some time then. Page 27 July 24, 2003 MS. SYKORA: And also they would have to have pretty much a mobile home contractor, because they do not do owner/builder anymore. So he would have to -- and which he has not even -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And I suspect any kind of engineered drawings they're going to have to go back to the boat manufacturer, because a boat's built differently than a house. I mean, unless you start from scratch, which an engineer isn't going to do. So yeah, I just -- 30 days is a little I think short even to submit something. MS. DUSEK: I agree. I just didn't know what was involved in that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't know that 45's any better, but it just seems a little short on time for me. I don't have any problem with anything else, it's just the time limit that bothers me. MS. DUSEK: Okay. Well, what about the -- MR. PONTE: I have a problem with the fine, the level of fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I haven't got that far yet, but we need to solve the days first. MS. DUSEK: Before we get to the fine, so if we change the 30 to 45 days for submitting and completing the building permit application, is the certificate of occupancy 30-day limit, is that realistic, or should we move that to 45 days? I mean, we're trying to be as fair as possible to get this completed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And once he gets his permit, Michelle, he'll have to have all this work done -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- and we're saying to get it done in 30 days. MS. ARNOLD: Which is pushing it. MS. DUSEK: All right, so we'll change that to 45. What I had suggested in following the County -- well, we haven't finished, because George wants to talk about the fine. So before I make any amendments to the original, we'll talk about the Page 28 July 24, 2003 fines. But right now we're changing the 30-day for the application for the permit to 45, the certificate of occupancy for 45 days also. You're on, George. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, George. MR. PONTE: Okay, I just think the fine level is low. Mr. Chipman has been deceitful in all of his dealings with the County practically since day one. He must regard all these violations and notices and visits as some sort of new sport, when in fact we're dealing with the law here. And I think that the fines should be increased substantially. And in the case of the -- well, let's just leave it at that and see what everybody else thinks. MS. DUSEK: Your suggestion for a fine? MR. PONTE: $150. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me throw out another suggestion. I'm with you on it's too low. He's in -- we found him in violation of two sections. I would like to recommend that we increase the fine to $100 a day per violation. We have two violations, that makes it $200. That's within our prerogative, is it not, Jean? MS. RAWSON: Well, it's in your prerogative, but remember, you have to consider all of these factors in deciding what kind of a fine -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, I think both of them fall into meeting the factors that there is a major concern that we have a boat on shore and we don't know how it's connected to any type of a sewer system or water supply system or -- I mean, I think it's sufficient to warrant -- MS. RAWSON: You all can make that determination. I just want to remind you that you must consider one, the gravity of the violation; two, any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation; three, any previous violations committed by the violator; and four, any other relevant factors. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Page 29 July 24, 2003 MS. RAWSON: And then it's your decision. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. So there are no previous violations that we're aware of presented to us? MS. BARNETT: Would this become excessive to the value of the property would be my one concern. MS. RAWSON: I can't answer that question. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not really a concern for us to determine whether we fine somebody because their property's only worth $5,000 and they could build up $50,000 worth of fine. MS. BARNETT: Okay. I just wanted to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's really not a consideration, seriously. MS. BARNETT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If we did that, we'd never really fine anybody based on the gravity of the violation, because some of these things occur maybe out in the Estates where you're looking at a $4,500 lot and, you know, way out in the boondocks where there's -- we've had some. So I don't want to start considering value of property on something. That I think taints what we're trying to do. MS. DUSEK: Let me go back to George. You said $150 per day. Now, as Cliff pointed out, we've got two violations here with $50 each, the way that we're recommending that he correct, and one is on the building permit application, $50 per day if he doesn't. Are you suggesting that we go to 150 on that -- MR. PONTE: Yeah, I suggest we go -- MS. DUSEK: -- for not getting a building permit? MR. PONTE: Yeah. It just would be even -- what we have to do is to get Mr. Chipman's attention, and we have failed to do that. And perhaps this will get his attention. MS. DUSEK: And you're suggesting that we do $100 instead of 150 on that, plus 100 on the certificate of occupancy? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Page 30 July 24, 2003 MR. PONTE: I'm not in -- adamant about what position it might be, what exactly the fine might be, I just think it should be whatever we decide, we should keep in mind that it should be sufficiently strong and heavy to get the man's attention. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, he has been talked to and then obviously has now been avoiding the County, for whatever reason. He really hasn't shown any evidence of wanting to comply. MS. DUSEK: Well, I -- MR. PONTE: No, and he still hasn't. According to what we have before us in the executive summary, midstream he decided to say I'm thinking about it. Well, he's already supposed to have talked to the engineers. Now, quote, unquote this, I'm thinking about it. He said I'm thinking about it three separate times. He's playing games. MS. BARNETT: I agree with you, I just am curious to caution -- and I don't know how to do this. We had a case come up before that we had fined an individual and it ended up being more than the $250 limit that we had. So how we write this up is of importance, correct? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. And Jean and I have talked about that a couple of times. I don't believe that mistake will happen again. I think it will be nice and clear-cut for any judge or appeals judge that reviews the next one. MR. PONTE: We have three separate cases here. MS. DUSEK: Well this is -- right. This is -- on this particular one, though, this is per violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. MS. DUSEK: We can't go over 250 per violation; is that correct? MS. RAWSON: Correct. MS. DUSEK: So we're asking for either 150 from George or 100 from Cliff. And the part that bothers me is the gravity of the violation. The Page 31 July 24, 2003 only part that I can see that is of any real major concern is a health issue, which is major, because this could be filtering into the canals as well as to other areas if it's not properly taken care of with the septic. My tendency is to go with $100 per violation. That's going to make him move very quickly, I would think. So I'm amending my motion, which can be amended again, or subjected to change, to -- we changed it to 45 days, and now ! will change the $50 to $100 per day for-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Per day, per violation. MS. DUSEK: Per violation, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. In both instances, correct? MS. DUSEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And-- MS. DUSEK: And then the second part, I would change the $75 -- I would keep, "remove all unpermitted structures within 45 days", if, of course, they cannot get the building permits. And get the inspections and certificate of completion within 30 days after obtaining the required permits. This is for demolition. Or again, $100 per day. MR. PONTE: If that is the motion, I'll second it. MS. DUSEK: That's a motion. MS. RAWSON: Before you vote, let me see ifI understand this: He's got 45 days to abate the violation or 30 days to demolish it? MS. DUSEK: Thirty days to get the required -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's 45 days to abate it and then after -- he has to get a permit to tear it down, naturally. But he has 45 days to tear it down. After he does the tearing down, he then has an additional 30 days to ask the County to come out and inspect that he in fact did tear it down. Okay. Page 32 July 24, 2003 MS. RAWSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right? MS. DUSEK: Uh-huh, that's correct. It's basically just following the recommendation of the County, with the exception of changing, in the second part, 30 days to 45 days, $50 to $100, and in the third part, changing the $75 to $100. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any further discussion on the motion for the order? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If not, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, the order stands. Jean, do you think you have that one? MS. RAWSON: I think I have it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now we'll do Case No. 2003-020. And we first need to find in fact there is a violation, and this deals with the living space underneath the raised mobile home. MS. BARNETT: I'll take a stab at it. In the case of the Board of Collier County Commissioners against Robert Chipman, CEB No. 2003-020, I find that there is a violation. 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: A mobile home raised, creating a second floor structure with the lower portion of the structure, without first obtaining authorization of Collier County building permit and having all the required inspections and certificates of occupancy. MS. DUSEK: I second the motion. Page 33 July 24, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that a violation does in fact exist. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the Board. MR. PONTE: I think-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Before somebody makes a motion, I think we ought to keep in mind again, as Jean has brought to our attention, the gravity of the situation. Remember now, you're on a different item than the houseboat. You're now on something totally different. And remember the gravity of this situation. MR. PONTE: The gravity of this situation is exacerbated by the fact that there is someone living underneath the mobile home. MS. DUSEK: And your motion is? MR. PONTE: If it's dangerous, how do we protect the person under there? How do you move him out? I mean, shouldn't the sheriffs give him a warning? I mean, if it's a serious situation, someone is living under a mobile home that's sitting on stilts, that concerns me a lot. I don't know the age of the person living under there, the condition of the stilts, but I don't think they ought to be there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me ask Jean a question, ifI may. MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Understanding that this condition has probably existed for some time, we're not aware of exactly how much time, if our order -- I'm trying to think of how we could structure an order under conditions -- you know, if we had a hurricane threat or something, I would not want anybody living in that area, period. Page 34 July 24, 2003 And if we would structure an order to give them "X" days to do something, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, could we also, without a fine attached, make note in our order that should the weather conditions so come about to, you know, put someone in peril that, you know, he's ordered to immediately remove them? MS. RAWSON: Whose determination is that going to be? I mean, obviously if we have a hurricane warning, you know, they'll tell people that are in mobile homes to vacate anyway. But if you're going to leave that subjective decision as to the weather conditions to the respondent, I don't think that's very enforceable. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. What I'm trying to do is -- I understand George's concerns, I have some of the same ones. But I don't know how we can -- I'm a little reluctant to order him today to remove his tenant immediately. I mean, that I think is unfair. I understand the condition, but I'm a little reluctant to order that drastic of a measure. I'm more interested, I guess, to on this particular case -- this would make me increase the fine significantly to get his attention to act in a whatever time limit we put on him, because of the conditions of a living person there that's in danger, and now we do need a bigger hammer. So I'm more interested in saying, you know, I've got your attention now. This one is you've put somebody in peril, so now I am excited. MS. DUSEK: Okay. Let me -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You know, trying to find a way to alleviate the problem. MS. DUSEK: Let me add a couple of things to that which are in a way devil's advocate. This structure, the mobile home was permitted, if I remember correctly, in 1969. That obviously is not today's standards. So it is a permitted structure. He is allowed to enclose the bottom part but not have someone live there. I don't know, and I'm going to direct this to Michelle. If he were -- let's say Page 35 July 24, 2003 the stilts were high enough that he could build the land underneath the mobile home to today's floodplain, would he then be able to keep it enclosed and have someone live there? Do you know the answer to that? Do you understand what I'm saying? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, I understand. If the floor level, the elevation of the bottom floor could be raised to an elevation that is consistent with our flood zones, yes, they would be able to occupy it as a living area. But I think Carol testified that the question -- a similar question was posed to the building director, and he said that it was not doable. I don't think there's enough room underneath to meet the height elevations for a living structure, as well as raise it to the level that you need to under today's standards. MS. DUSEK: The reason I pointed that out, and I knew that that would most likely be your answer, is that I think what my colleagues are feeling is that there's a danger with wind or the structure falling on the person. MR. PONTE: Just from the weight of the stuff that's in the mobile home above it. I have no idea as to the structural quality of those stilts. MS. DUSEK: We don't know, but it was permitted. And so I'm only bringing this out because we talk about the gravity of the violation. And it was permitted for whatever weight load that mobile home has. So, I'm not so sure that -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, but the gravity is -- permitting for that weight load is one thing, but now you put human beings underneath it. It wasn't permitted to have people sleeping under this weight load. It was just permitted for the weight load to be up there. Period. Now you put people underneath it, that's where the danger comes. MS. DUSEK: And I -- I agree with you. But I -- that's why I brought it out, if it were ever high enough or allowed to be high Page 36 July 24, 2003 enough that weight load would still be okay. Do you follow me? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I understand. My concern is the people underneath. I'm not as concerned for the people -- having lived in mobile homes -- laying in bed and all of a sudden the pilings give out and you drop eight feet to the ground, or nine feet, however high that is, it's probably about nine feet. That's not that big a deal. You know, been there, done that, sorry. What concerns me is the person underneath, when you have a mobile home drop on top of them. There's no protection there. And right now that's the condition. That's where I'm concerned. MS. BARNETT: Adding to that, I don't think it's been permitted for the electrical to be hooked up underneath or the potential of the septic to be hooked up. So all those things are additional -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we have a lot of things we don't know. MS. BARNETT: -- concerns. MS. DUSEK: Right, there's definitely a violation. I just don't want us to go off in the wrong direction about the gravity of the violation. That's the only thing that concerns me, when thinking of the fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, we have a recommended motion? MS. DUSEK: I don't think anybody's done that. We were waiting for George. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we were all talking and trying to help each other, I guess. George, do you want to try a motion? MR. PONTE: We are at the -- MS. DUSEK: Number-- MR. PONTE: At the numbers, fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 020. Page 37 July 24, 2003 MR. PONTE: Yes, yeah, I know. But we're at the numbers for the fines, and I think all of the arguments that we've just had put forth and that of the preceding case are so much the same that the fine could -- I feel I'm defending a lost position. I go to 150 again. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You got one supporter. MR. LEFEBVRE: You've got two. MR. PONTE: So without reading the entire thing, I think we're all -- just take the same mechanisms that we put in place for the previous case, all the same verbiage, only change the fine to 150. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, the 30 days to 45; is that what MR. PONTE: CHAIRMAN MR. PONTE: CHAIRMAN pay all operational MR. PONTE: Yes, yes. FLEGAL: Yes. FLEGAL: costs. Yes. In both instances? In item -- first of all, the respondent to CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Second item, when abating, we're going to give him 45 days rather than 30 -- MR. PONTE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- is that what your -- MR. PONTE: That's right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- motion would be? And you're saying $150 per day per violation. MR. PONTE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: the 30 days goes to 45 days? And then in obtaining the CO, again, And the fine of $50 goes to $150. Per violation per day. MR. PONTE: CHAIRMAN MR. PONTE: CHAIRMAN MR. PONTE: Correct. FLEGAL: Correct. FLEGAL: Yep. Page 38 July 24, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And then the next item, where he is to remove all the -- well, he's -- I'm trying to think, he's allowed to get a permit to enclose it, so can we order him to remove it? MS. DUSEK: Well, it's not permitted right now. MR. PONTE: You can't remove that particular structure in fact CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I -- MR. PONTE: -- without the mobile home falling down. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Bobbi's right. He can remove it if he can't get it permitted. MS. ARNOLD: What he would be -- we would be asking him to remove is the improvements, the enclosure -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. ARNOLD: -- the lower enclosure -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. BELPEDIO: -- not the structure itself. MR. PONTE: So remove the enclosure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, the unpermitted structure, which would be the siding and whatever else he's put under there. Okay, that's right. And we're still going to just allow him 45 days. And the $75 goes to $150, right, George? MR. PONTE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Everybody understand George's motion? MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. RAWSON: I'm with you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any Jean, are you with us on this one? All those in favor, signify by Page 39 July 24, 2003 saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MR. PONTE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? Okay. Good work, George. Okay. Last one, 2003-025. And this one is on an occupied mobile home on another lot. This is not a raised mobile home, this is just -- MS. DUSEK: Unpermitted. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- an unpermitted mobile home. First order of business, is there in fact a violation. MS. DUSEK: Want to do it again, Sheri? You did a good job. MS. BARNETT: Sure, I'll go ahead. I'll make the motion that a violation does exist with Board of County Commissioners of Collier County versus Robert Chapman (sic), CEB No. 2003-025. 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: Occupied mobile home with no permits, required inspections and certificates of occupation (sic). MS. DUSEK: Occupancy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Occupancy. MS. BARNETT: Occupancy, excuse me. MS. DUSEK: I second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that in fact a violation exists. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none, all those in favor of a violation, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 40 July 24, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Next, order of the board. MS. BARNETT: In discussion with this one, it's a mobile home that's not permitted. I don't know whether it has septic or not, but I don't think it's quite as grave a situation as the other two. If I can go ahead, I'd like to make a recommendation that we just accept the County's position, except for extending the days to 45. MR. PONTE: I agree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we're going to change the days from 30 to 45, and are we going to do $50 a day per violation? We have two violations. MS. BARNETT: That's what I was suggesting. MR. PONTE: I'll second it. MS. DUSEK: Now, in this particular case, if it's not permitted, we still don't know whether the septic -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. DUSEK: -- is hooked up. That always concerns me when there's a health violation. So now I'm going to suggest that we go to 75 throughout. MS. BARNETT: I'll amend it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sheri has amended it from $50 to $75 a day. George, you seconded it. Do you have a problem with that? MR. PONTE: No, I don't. I'll second that motion as well. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We're doing that in both areas, right, Sheri? MS. BARNETT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And we're going to leave the third item as it is, $30 -- or 30 days and $75 per day, or actually removing MS. BARNETT: Actually, it's 45 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Forty-five days and then a certificate of completion within 30 days and $75. MS. BARNETT: Correct. Page 41 July 24, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: So, there's only one 30-day limit there? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, that's where -- the inspection to show that he actually removed the structure. Okay, everybody on board? Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, as presented for the order, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, you with us? MS. RAWSON: I got it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good. Thank you. Having gone through everything, I would bring back to us the motion for a continuance, since we have had no phone calls from attorneys. Shanelle, I assume you've heard nothing by any method? MS. HILTON: No, and I just tried calling the attorney again on his cell phone and didn't get him. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So we have a request for a continuance on Case 2003-026, the items being that the attorney is out of town and that the defendant is recuperating. Pleasure of the Board to grant the motion to our next meeting? MR. PONTE: I just have a question. What's our alternative? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess I would refer to Jean and probably with a comment that since they have said the defendant has had surgery and that, that trying to hear the case is really not giving them the opportunity to present their side. MS. RAWSON: I think so. This is the first request for a continuance. Your alternative, of course, is to hear it. But because he's not requested a continuance before, and because it's my Page 42 July 24, 2003 understanding that he and the attorney have been working with the County, I would recommend that you give him another 30 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Do I hear a motion to accept the continuance request? MS. DUSEK: So moved. MR. PONTE: I make a motion to accept. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And this is to our next scheduled meeting, which will be August 28th. MS. DUSEK: George's motion, I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further discussions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor of the continuance, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: public hearings. We have new business. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Any opposed? Okay, thank you. That closes our Request for imposition of fines. This item is Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2003-016, Board of County Commissioners versus Lorraine Burgess. This case was heard by the Board on April 21 st, and at that time the Board found a violation, the existence of three mobile home structures, one being an occupied travel -- and an occupied travel trailer in zoning that only authorized mobile homes. And actually, one unit per parcel. And the Board at that time found a violation and gave the respondent 15 days to obtain permits, and if not, a fine would be imposed at $500 per day. This particular case was a prior case. I mean, it was a repeat violation, because the Board had previously heard a similar violation Page 43 July 24, 2003 of this nature on this particular property. So this particular case was a repeat violation. The Board had adjudicated under the first case, there was a violation, and again found a violation under this case. The respondent was also ordered to pay operational costs. So at this time staff is requesting that the Board impose fines in the amount of $3,300 for a period of June 21st, 2003 through July 24th, 2003 at a rate of $100 per day. Is that correct? MR. PONTE: Michelle, that's -- no. No, that's not -- I was just going to wait for you to get to that. I think that the calculation is certainly not right for $500 a day. MS. ARNOLD: It should be -- are you sure? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me back up. Maybe I'm getting confused here. We have -- MS. ARNOLD: I'm sorry, I stand corrected. This was not the repeat violation. The order is attached and should be behind this particular executive summary, and it was an original. So it was at a rate of $100 per day, rather than 500. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. I was reading the order, I'm wondering where we got the $500. MR. PONTE: My notes indicate it was a violation of a fence that -- in 1999. MS. BARNETT: I know in this particular case, I'm not sure if this is the old case, but when it came in front of us, it was a repeat violation, and we went with the strongest amount that we could to catch the attention because it had never been abated. MS. ARNOLD: I think that we have two different properties that we're dealing with. In this particular one, and let me just read through the order first before, because obviously the executive summary's not correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So one thing we've got to remember now, we can only impose a fine based on the order. MS. ARNOLD: Exactly. Page 44 July 24, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And if the order says $100, that's it. Where the other money comes from is immaterial. The order says $100, that's all you can do. If you've got something mixed up, do your calculations based on $100 per day from the time period. That's all you're allowed. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Well, you don't have a page number, but the order that the Board imposed on April 21 st was the existence of three mobile home structures and one occupied travel trailer placed on village residential zoned property without-- ma'am, you're going to have to wait till it's your time to speak. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm looking at an order that you enclosed in our package. MS. ARNOLD: Right, and that fine per day was $100 -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. MS. ARNOLD: -- not 500. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. So, that's what you have to base the time period on. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If we're dealing from June 21 to July 24th, then recalculate it at $100 per day. And what do we come up with? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, I think the calculation was correct, but the body in the past order summary indicated $500 per day where it should have said $100 per day. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So the $3,300 is -- MS. ARNOLD: Is correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- the correct number and your $1,130.45 for operational is correct. MS. ARNOLD: Exactly. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And Ms. Burgess is present, and it's the pleasure of the Board whether you want to hear from her. Page 45 July 24, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is she asking for a reduction? I mean, we haven't even imposed a fine yet, so we can't reduce something we haven't imposed. MS. ARNOLD: Well, we have not -- I haven't gotten any information or any written information from Ms. Burgess as to whether or not she wants to request a reduction or whether she has any other requests. So since we haven't received anything in writing, perhaps it would be good to hear from her to see what exactly she's wanting to speak to the Board about. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Burgess? (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What would you like to tell us, ma'am? MS. BURGESS: Well, we have this -- they had us move one of the trailers. We moved one of the trailers already. We got in the process of getting it removed. But I would like to try to waive the fines until we get the permits for the other trailer. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, what we're doing now is -- I'll try to explain the process, okay. We've issued an order to you, asking you to do certain things by a certain date or you would be fined. Now, from an administrative standpoint, what the County is asking us to do is impose a fine through a certain period. Now, you still have the right, even though this fine would be imposed, to come back to us and say gee, for these reasons we'd like you to waive the fine, reduce the fine, okay? Until we impose it, we can't reduce anything. We first have to -- you know, we kind of have to give you the bill before we can say oh, we'll take the bill back. We haven't given you the bill yet. So that's what we're about to do. But you still have the right, and if these permits are being held up for some reason, I'd say, you know, you have a legitimate means to come back to us, let's say at our next meeting next month and say Page 46 July 24, 2003 gee, everything's done now, could you take the fine amount and waive it, reduce it or whatever. You're not giving up any rights or anything. MS. BURGESS: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Can I make one clarification? I'm over here. Ms. Burgess, do you realize that we're talking about four -- the property on Singletary, the 246 Singletary property, that's the property that we're here discussing the corrective action for. On Singletary. MS. BURGESS: I didn't know we had one on Singletary Street to be corrected. Because I moved a trailer there, but I obtained-- I went and got a demolition license to take down one trailer to put another trailer in there. But they told me I had to move that out -- to tear that down before I put one there. So I haven't even put the other trailer in there yet to have a violation. MS. ARNOLD: Let me just show you the property that we're talking about. If you want to come over and look at it. But the property that we're talking about is this property right there. This is Singletary. And this property is in your name. And these are the structures in question. These are the photographs that were presented to the Board. MS. BURGESS: Well, the trailer back there, that's the one I'm living in. I've been living in that trailer ever since -- I mean, when the trailer had been already there for five -- I mean, they put that trailer there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we're getting somewhere we don't need to be. This is not a hearing of the case or a rehearing of the case, this is really an administrative function to impose a fine. And when we do that, you still have the legal right to come back to the Board, once we impose it, and ask us to reduce it or waive it for some reason. I mean, you have to give us a reason to do that. So if you have some reason, or maybe what you need to do is get clarified Page 47 July 24, 2003 on the exact property and so on, because there seems to be some question between you and the County, so I think you need to work that out. But from the Board's standpoint, we're going to either impose a fine or not now, but you have the right -- I want you to understand that you're not giving anything up, you're not waiving anything. You can still come to this Board at, say, our next meeting, which is next month, if you.have this all worked out, and ask us to do something about the fine. You have that legal right, okay? MS. BURGESS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does that help you? Probably not satisfy you, but does it help you a little bit? We can't rehear the case right now, that's not in our purview at this time. This is strictly for us to impose fines, okay? MS. BURGESS: Yes, sir. MS. RAWSON: She would be allowed to testify, however, if she has anything contrary to what the County is presenting. The County is presenting fines based on when -- their testimony is that the permits were not obtained within the time in the order. If she has anything contrary to that that she wants to testify about before you impose the fine, to that extent she's allowed to say. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. And I don't believe we've had an affidavit of compliance on this item, have we? So obviously it hasn't been done yet, so -- but now the County has told us that through July 24th, you hadn't done anything on this particular piece of property. We have to separate all your properties and just get to this one piece. MS. BURGESS: And what property is that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: This is the one on Singletary. What is the address, 240 -- MS. DUSEK: 246. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- 246 Singletary Street. Page 48 July 24, 2003 MS. ARNOLD: And it's in Lorraine Burgess and Lindell McFadden, those two names. MS. BURGESS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So through July 24th, the County has said you hadn't done anything yet. MS. BURGESS: Well, I went to the County up there, I went to Horseshoe Drive to get everything straightened out. They gave me the runaround, telling me to come back and do this right here. I mean, I've been trying to get it done. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I guess a suggestion that I would give you, and I don't know if you have counsel or something, but that's a reason to ask the Board to either reduce or waive the fine, okay? If you feel you've not been getting the kind of service you should be getting from the County, or help, or whatever word you would like to put there. But what we need to do as a Board is first impose something. In other words, since we haven't done it, we can -- we hear what you're telling us, but first we need to impose something. The County has said this is the date that they want to do something, and I'm reluctant for the Board to say this isn't true, since you haven't complied. I'm more willing to hear you at a later date to possibly reduce it because you've been having trouble. Okay? You understand what I'm saying? MS. BURGESS: Yes, sir. cHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Today -- I guess clear-cut is I'm not willing to help you today, but based on what you've told me, I think I'm willing to help you a little later. Okay? MS. BURGESS: Yes, sir. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. McFadden is here, as well as the investigator, Carol Sykora, if the Board has any questions about the progress on the case. MS. DUSEK: May I just say something to expedite this? The County has said as of July 24th -- that's today -- Page 49 July 24, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Today, right. MS. DUSEK: -- okay, thank you -- that nothing has been done. These violations still exist; is that correct? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: I'll have Carol answer that more definitively, because she's been out to the property several times. She's filed -- and that's identified in your booklet as well -- an affidavit of noncompliance. She's made inspections on the property and she can tell you exactly if there's any structures that have been removed. MS. DUSEK: Does the violation still exist -- MS. SYKORA: Yes. MS. DUSEK: -- as of today? MS. SYKORA: Yes, it does. Basically-- (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. DUSEK: Does the violation exist? MS. SYKORA: Yes. MS. DUSEK: Still exist, as of today? MS. SYKORA: Yes, it does. MS. DUSEK: Okay. Then I think this is the route we take. We make a motion that a violation does exist, and then at some future time these people can come back and hear -- we'll hear their side of the story. At that time we can possibly make an adjustment. For whatever reason, the violation is still there. You may have a very valid reason why it's still there, but we can't hear it today. We have to wait-- MS. BURGESS: So, I mean, so why did they have to send me to come up here to talk and you can't hear nothing today? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, what -- I think what -- MR. MCFADDEN: If you can swear me in, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me just say one thing, sir. Page 50 July 24, 2003 What you were given is a notice that there would be a -- we're having our normal hearing process, and one of the items on our agenda is to impose a fine on you for failing to comply. There wasn't, I don't believe -- and let me look at it before I speak out of mm. Okay, yeah, they did say you should attend. So that defeats the purpose. Okay. Yes. So let's hear what -- MS. BARNETT: Do we need to swear him in? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, we will. I'm sorry, sir, I don't know your name. MR. MCFADDEN: Lindell McFadden. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. McFadden. Let me hear what Mr. McFadden has to say. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. MCFADDEN: So we are trying to apply (sic) with the County. We were plying -- we were trying to apply with the County ever since we got these mobile homes and put them there. And every time we go there to get everything straightened out, they put a obstacle in our way. They tell us we had to have this, they told us we had to have licensed contractors to do this property, you know, to get the permits for us. We went, got the licensed contractor, and had him to go up there to get the permits. Okay, my brother permits, it's up there right now. All he got to do is get a licensed contractor who do electrician (sic). And then they'll be able to put -- have the -- you know, the permit right there on the spot. On mine, the one I had, I had a permit but I didn't got the inspection and the licensed contractor, so it ran out in six months. But I know what you're saying, you want to impose a fine but, you know-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, it's -- the process works this Page 51 July 24, 2003 way, and it -- we give you an order that says do something by a certain date, and if you don't do it, a fine starts. MR. MCFADDEN: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Then step two is at some point the County asks us to impose the fine. Now, even though you're still trying to solve the problem -- MR. MCFADDEN: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- we impose a fine and the fine -- the clock still runs till you're done. MR. MCFADDEN: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And the County inspects and says yes, they did what you asked them to you do in step one. But in step two, once we impose this, you still have every right to come back to the Board whenever you're done and say look, you imposed "X" on us, and for these reasons we'd like you to waive "X", reduce "X", do something. And if your reasons are good enough, the Board will consider that and possibly do what you request. MR. MCFADDEN: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But we have to do step two first -- MR. MCFADDEN: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- rather than -- you know, we can't skip anything. MR. MCFADDEN: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So right now this is -- we just want to impose it. You keep doing what you're doing, because I think you're trying to solve the problem. MR. MCFADDEN: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And then come back to us when you're all done and ask for our help to waive or reduce this, and give us all these reasons, okay? That's what you need to do. MR. MCFADDEN: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay? Will that help you? Page 52 July 24, 2003 MR. MCFADDEN: That will help me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. MCFADDEN: And on one part of the property, they told us to move one trailer off. Because the County supposed to be done closed on it or something. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Just keep track of everything that you're doing with the County and they're telling you and everything that happened, so when you come back to us, you can give us all these reasons. That's the kind of information we want when you come back. Okay? MR. MCFADDEN: All right. I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not a problem, sir. MS. SYKORA: He was speaking of the violations on another street. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's okay. Let's not confuse an issue by what violations we'll -- when he comes back, we'll worry about that, Carol, okay? This has got way bigger than it should have. Thank you, sir. MR. MCFADDEN: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Carol. MS. SYKORA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I would entertain a motion to impose fines as requested by the County. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we allow the County to impose the fines. MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the fines that are requested by the County. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying Page 53 July 24, 2003 (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Requests for reduction, we don't have any of those. Requests for foreclosure, none of those. Motion to extend, none of those. New business is over. Old business: Affidavits of compliance. MS. HILTON: Yes, we have two affidavits of compliance. They're old cases. First one is Board of County Commissioners versus Victor and Isabelle Valdes, Case No. 2002-013. They're in compliance. Second affidavit of compliance is Board of County Commissioners versus James Billington, Case No. 2001-063. And we have one affidavit of noncompliance, and that's Board of County Commissioners versus Lorraine Burgess and Lindell McFadden, Case No. 2003-16. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, I've forgotten, do we need to accept these affidavits or just -- MS. RAWSON: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: This is automatic? MS. RAWSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, thank you. Finally, the reports. Ms. Chadwell. She's waiting with baited breath, I can tell. MS. CHADWELL: Good morning, members of the Board. Ellen Chadwell, Assistant County Attorney. I think in your package you have a little memo dated July 1 lth, 2003 from me, which Greg sent out again, the number of pending cases. What I've tried to do is kind of keep track of the number of cases that we actually resolve or dispose of so you can see, hopefully, some progress in that direction. Page 54 July 24, 2003 Just since the last time I appeared, which, I believe, was towards the end of March, we had at that time 49 cases, I believe -- 47. And we disposed of or have resolved successfully 10 cases since that period of time. You all have authorized three more cases and sent those to our office. So the net loss is only seven cases. But we're keeping ahead of the -- as long as we can say there's a net loss, that's a positive thing. I did want to also add that we did foreclose on a property since my last appearance before you, and that was Mrs. Burgess' property. So that currently we are giving them a little time to get the occupants out of the trailer and get the trailer off of the property. Otherwise, we have to avail ourselves to the sheriffs and take care of the trailer ourselves. So hopefully that will be done this weekend and we'll clean up the property and then decide if it needs to be surplussed or auctioned off, or what will happen with the property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Just general information, if you could give it to us. Since we started this procedure, how is this being received by the public when they get notified by you that you're going to proceed? Are they willing to try to work this out or -- MS. CHADWELL: When I send out my letters, I get -- I would say probably eight times out of 10 I'll get a response. And, you know, I get an earful. But generally they recognize that now's the time for them to try to correct the problem. And we work very hard at trying to assist them to do that. And that takes a lot of time, so -- a lot of these cases aren't in litigation, as you might note on the back page. But that's in an effort to work with them, help them clear the violation. Because really, we don't want to foreclose on property and have additional expense of having to clean it up and fix the problem ourselves. So that takes a lot of time, a lot of coordination with staff and the property owners and their contractors or whoever in trying to help them to come to some resolution on that. And I think the general perception is I think we have, since I've Page 55 July 24, 2003 started this, probably I think after the first year started noticing that, really, we get some response. People realize now that these aren't just hanging out there in the public record, that we're going to take some action and they may lose their property, so I think it's been effective and will continue to be effective. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good. Thank you. MS. CHADWELL: Any other questions? MR. PONTE: I've a question, Ellen. You mentioned that seven cases have been disposed of since the last report. How were they disposed of?. And just to remind you, I brought this little prop along, because I have a simple approach to life. You made all these wonderful pictures at one time and they were so -- is that you? Sure. MS. CHADWELL: I can't do that. I'm too old to learn that new trick. MR. PONTE: But gee, they were easy to understand. MS. CHADWELL: What does it say there? MR. PONTE: Oh, this is just an example. There were other -- this is for fines, CEB fines assessed and those collected. But is there a way, just so that we can have a fast overview and know what has happened to, like, how those seven cases were disposed of?. MS. CHADWELL: Sure. And I would say that I think all but -- I think most of these were just paid in full. You know, I think some of them we had -- I had a few -- a number of them had to fix the violation, and -- but most of them were -- the violation had been cured by the time it got to my office, but not prior to the imposition of the fines. So it was a matter of having them recognize that they needed to make payments on some of those. Sometimes we do let them make payments over time, you know, if it's a short period of time. One did resolve itself from a sale, a foreclosure sale. But I can break that out for you, certainly. MR. PONTE: No, it's just out of curiosity, just to know what actually happens after we've done the work and you've done the Page 56 July 24, 2003 work. MS. CHADWELL: Absolutely. I will do that next time. Anybody else? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MS. CHADWELL: All right, thank you. MR. PONTE: Thanks very much. MS. CHADWELL: And we look forward to the workshop next month. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There are no other reports. Any comments from anybody? MS. HILTON: No. Just a reminder, we're at the library. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, our next meeting's the 28th at the library. MS. HILTON: And we have the workshop on the 21st at the library. MS. DUSEK: I have a general comment to make. In light of what happened yesterday in New York City at New York City Hall, Town Hall there, and the tenor of people taking action, feeling that it should be done through violence, I would like to go on record as requesting the County -- this may not be the place -- but to put some security in this building for all boards who come into this particular room. MS. RAWSON: I know usually we have a court bailiff in here with us, and of course I know there are a couple of security guards downstairs. I don't see the court bailiff today, but we usually have one with us. But even so, we don't have the security in this building for you or the County Commissioners that they have in the courthouse, for example. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. DUSEK: And that's what I'm talking about. MS. RAWSON: I understand. MS. DUSEK: I'm just going on record as making a request. I Page 57 July 24, 2003 know this is not a formal way of doing it, but anyhow, it's a notice. MS. HILTON: But you do have panic buttons up there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Okay, any other-- MR. PONTE: Just one other thing before we go. Could we just get a little better line on what is expected of the Board in the way of participation in the teach-in? I mean, what are we being asked to bring to the party? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: George is asking about the workshop, Shanelle. MS. HILTON: Just yourselves. MS. RAWSON: I would like for you to bring all your questions. Because I'll be there, Ellen will be there, Jennifer will be there. And then we'll have Michelle and Shanelle, and we'll have a general discussion, we'll try to answer all of your questions and -- you know. So think about what you want to know and have been afraid to ask. This is the time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does that help? MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other comments, questions? If none, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. PONTE: So moved. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you very much. Page 58 July 24, 2003 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:55 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, CHAIRMAN Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 59