Loading...
CEB Minutes 08/28/2003 RAugust 28, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida August 28, 2003 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Library Headquarters, 2385 Orange Blossom Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Clifford Flegal Sheri Barnett Roberta Dusek Gerald Lefebvre George Ponte Rhona Saunders ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney Shanelle Hilton, Code Enforcement Coordinator Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA AGENDA Date: August 28, 2003 at 9:00 o'clock a.m. Location: Collier County Library Headquarters, 2385 Orange Blossom Drive, Naples, 34109 in the Sugden Library Theater NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. OFFICE. 2. 3. 4. ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 24 2003 PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS B. HEARINGS 1. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 2003-035 939 CHURCH STREET, COPELAND, FL BARBARA GALLOWAY CAROL SKYORA ORD 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.7.6.1 MOBILE HOME HAS BEEN PLACED ON SITE WITHOUT PROPER BUILDING PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS ORD 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.7.6.5 MOBILE HOME HAS BEEN PLACED ON SITE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2003-036 790 12TM ST NE, NAPLES, FL DIANA HALL JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: FBC 104.5.1, PARAGRAPH 4, AS ADOPTED BY ORD 2002-01 PRIMARY STRUCTURE DEEMED ABANDONDED AS PERMIT NO. 92-0010786 EXPIRED AND WAS REAPPED TWICE, NO INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED AND NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAS BEEN ISSUED CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 2003-031 160 WILSON BLVD S., NAPLES, FL CORA SNEIBRUN JEFF LETOURNEAU ORD 91-102, AS AI{'IENDED, SEC 2.7.6.1 WOOD FENCE AND ANIMAL PEN/ROOFED STRUCTURE BUILT WITHOUT PROPER BUILDING PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS ORD 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.7.6.5 WOOD FENCE AND ANIMAL PEN/ROOFED STRUCTURE BUILT WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING CERTIFICATES OF COMPLETION FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2003-029 491 SEABEE AVENUE, NAPLES, FL CARL E AND LINDA M WEBER SHAWN LUEDTKE VIOLATIONS: ORD 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.7.6.1 LARGE TRELLIS TYPE STRUCTURE WITH ROOF APPROXIMATELY 10 X 10 BUILT WITHOUT PROPER BUILDING PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS ORD 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.7.6.5 LARGE TRELLIS TYPE STRUCTURE WITH ROOF APPROXIMATELY 10 X t0 BUILT WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING CERTIFICATES OF COMPLETION FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL 5o CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2003 -034 12323 UNION ROAD, PORT OF ISLANDS, FL GOPAL MOTWANI JEAN NADEU VIOLATIONS: ORD 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.7.6.1, 2.7.6.3, 2.7.6.5, 2.1.11, 2.2.8.2.1, 3.3.3, 3.3.9 AND 3.3.9.1 STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING IMPROVEMENTS MADE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING AUTHORIZATION OF BUILDING PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FROM A BUILD1NG OFFICIAL ORD 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 1.5.6 LAND AND STRUCTURES NOT BEING USED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ZONING DISTRICT FBC 101.4.9.2, AS ADOPTED BY ORD 2002-01 STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING IMPROVEMENTS NOT BEING PROPERLY MAINTAINED FBC 103.9, AS ADOPTED BY ORD 2002-01 CONSTRUCTION CONTINUING AFTER STOP WORK ORDER WAS ISSUED FBC 103.10.1, AS ADOPTED BY ORD 2002-01 PERMIT NO. 2003040559 ISSUED FOR RE=ROOF OF AN EXISTING SHED WHICH WAS A MISREPRESENTATION OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS RESULTING IN THE PERMIT BEING REVOKED BUT THE IMPROVEMENTS REMAIN FBC 103.11.1, AS ADOPTED BY ORD 2002-01 ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLIED TO NOTED PROPERTY ILLEGAL (WITHOUT INSPECTIONS) CAUSING POTENTIAL SAFETY HAZARD AND ALL OTHER IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING NO SWIMMING POOL ENCLOSURES AT MAIN STRUCTURE ARE CONSIDERED SAFETY HAZARDS FBC 104.1.3.5, AS ADOPTED BY ORD 2002-01 STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING IMPROVEMENTS MADE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING AUTHORIZATION OF BUILDING PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FBC 104.4.1.6, AS ADOPTED BY ORD 2002-01 STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING IMPROVEMENTS BEING DONE WITHOUT A LICENSED CONTRACTOR FBC 104.6.2, AS ADOPTED BY ORD 2002-01 STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING IMPROVEMENTS MADE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING AUTHORIZATION OF BUILDING PERMITS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY OF QUADRUPLE (FOUR TIMES) THE PERMIT FEES FBC 106.1.3, AS ADOPTED BY ORD 2002-01 BUILDINGS BEING OCCUPIED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING AUTHORIZATION OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FROM A BUILDING OFFICIAL CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2003-026 5643 TAYLOR ROAD, NAPLES FL THOMAS L. AND MARIAN BAKER TOM CAMPBELL VIOLATIONS: ORD 91-102 AS AMENDED, SEC 1.9.2 AND 2.1.11 SALVAGED, CONFISCATED AND OPERABLE COMMERICAL AND PASSENGER VEHICLES BEING PLACED UPON REQUIRED TENANT PARKING, HANDICAPPED PARKING, LOADING DUMPSTER AND RIGHT OF WAY FACILITIES AS DESIGNATED ON SDP NO 98-154 o ORD 91-102, AS AMENDED, SECS 2.2.16.4.7, 2.3.12, 2.3.13, 2.3.21.4 AND 2.3.22.2.1 UTILIZING IN EXCESS OF THE (19) PARKING SPACES DESIGNATED IN THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SDP) NO. 98- 154 IMPROPERLY USING THE REQUIRED TENANT PARKING, HANDICAPPED PARKING, LOADING DUMPSTERS AND RIGHT OF WAY FACILITIES AND CAUSING OVERFLOW OF OFF STREET PARKING INTO COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY. ORD 91-102, AS AMENDED, SECS 3.3.9, 3.3.9.1, 3.3.9.2 AND 3.3.11 IMPROPERLY USING SDP NO. 98-154 THEREFORE CAUSING CHANGES IN USE ARE A VIOLATION TO THESE ORDINANCES AND ARE TO BE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR ON AN AMENDED SDP NEW BUSINESS A. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens B. Request for Reduction/Abatement of Fines C. Request to Forward to County Attorney's Office D. Motion/Request for Extension of Time 1. BCC vs. Baywood Manor Antiques and Jewelry Inc., and Joseph A. Giallana, as its Registered Agent and Director CEB NO. 2003-003 2. BCC vs. Robert Chipman CEB NO. 2003-007 3. BCC vs. Robert Chipman CEB NO. 2003-020 4. BCC vs. Robert Chipman CEB NO. 2003-025 OLD BUSINESS A. Affidavits of Compliance B. Affidavits of Non-Compliance 7. REPORTS 8. COMMENTS 9o 10. NEXT MEETING DATE September 25, 2003 in the Board Room ADJOURN August 28, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Please excuse the delay. I'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 insure 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. All registered public speakers will receive up to five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the chairman. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. It says, please contact Collier County Facilities Management, but since you're here, you ask us, we'll try to make you comfortable. May I have the roll call, please. MS. HILTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. For the record, Shanelle Hilton, CEB Coordinator. MS. HILTON: Clifford Flegal. MR. FLEGAL: Here. MS. HILTON: Bobbie Dusek. MS. DUSEK: Here. MS. HILTON: George Ponte. MR. PONTE: Here. MS. HILTON: Rhona Saunders. MS. SAUNDERS: Here. MS. HILTON: Catherine Godfrey has resigned her position. Gerald Lefebvre. MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. HILTON: Sheri Barnett. MS. BARNETT: Here. Page 2 August 28, 2003 MS. HILTON: Albert Doria and Christopher Ramsey. (No response.) MS. HILTON: And I will follow up on those two. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You haven't heard from either of those gentlemen? MS. HILTON: the process of stuff. I talked to Chris yesterday. He was moving, in I know the packet did get delivered to him. Albert has moved, and I've got to get ahold of him. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Approval of our agenda. Are there any corrections? I believe -- MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director. There has been a request by the respondent for. Items 5(D), 2, 3 and 4 to be heard, placed on the agenda earlier. They're requesting an extension. And I understand that there's also a request for Item 4(C) to be heard earlier. That was the CEB 2003-026. MS. BARNETT: I had a case, CEB 2003-019 that I didn't find on my agenda. It is also a motion for a 90-day extension. MS. HILTON: Which one? MS. BARNETT: 2003-019. MS. ARNOLD: Rosa. MS. BARNETT: Yep. MS. HILTON: Oh, Rosa's there. It's in the beginning, as they're requesting an extension of time. MS. BARNETT: Right. But all the other extensions are in number five, and it's not listed on the agenda anywhere. MS. HILTON: Then we need to. amend the agenda. That just came in. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't see Rosa anywhere. MS. BARNETT: It's in the first part of your packet. MS. ARNOLD: Where is it on the agenda? Page 3 August 28, 2003 MS. HILTON: It should be on the extension, request for extension. They just got it to me this week. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That would be item 5 under 5(D)? MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What's the name? MS. HILTON: BCC versus Rosa. R-O-S-A. MS. ARNOLD: Manuel and-- MS. HILTON: Manuel and Miriam. MS. DUSEK: Also, didn't we at some point ask that all motions be put at the beginning? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, there's one motion for a continuance and the -- MS. DUSEK: You mean extension of time, shouldn't those be also? MS. ARNOLD: No, those aren't motions. MS. HILTON: Are those motions or requests? MS. ARNOLD: Those are requests. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'll ask Jean. Based on what I'm seeing here, we have a motion for extensions of time. And yet we also, I believe, have -- MS. DUSEK: I thought with those motions, if we're going to extend it, then we won't be hearing the case. But they have the case listed first and then the extensions. MS. ARNOLD: Right. And these cases were previously heard, and they're requesting an extension of time under the time that you gave them in their order. MS. BELPEDIO: They're old business. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, they're old business. MS. RAWSON: We usually hear those last. It's really a request rather than a motion. It legally means the same thing. MS. BARNETT: Also, under new business, No. 1, BCC versus Baywood Manor Antiques, the gentleman's name is not Giallana. Page 4 August 28, 2003 MS. HILTON: It's -- Mr. Giallanza, if you remember, was the original party to the case. MS. BARNETT: Correct. MS. HILTON: He sold the property. MS. ARNOLD: She's saying that the name is misspelled. MS. BARNETT: It's misspelled. MS. HILTON: Oh, it's misspelled. Oh, Giallanza. But it's correct on the paperwork. MS. BARNETT: But because this is part of the record, I'd like that corrected. MS. HILTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So we're leaving 5(D) where it is. Is that the idea? And what was the other item? You asked that somebody be moved. MS. ARNOLD: Under your hearings, item number -- MS. HILTON: Six. MS. ARNOLD: -- six is being requested to be heard. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Give me a reason why we should do that. MS. ARNOLD: That is a request that they made this morning. And the counsel is here. MR. FERGUSON: If I could address the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. You want to give me a reason why we should do that? MR. FERGUSON: Yes, sir. For the purpose of the record, Tim Ferguson. I represent Tom Baker. Mr. Baker has broken his arm and is not feeling very well. And I have a closing in the Tampa area later on this afternoon. And what we're doing today is hoping to present a plea before the board and we don't intend to take any extended amount of time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a request to move case 6 to the number one position for the reason given by the Page 5 August 28, 2003 attorney. What's the board's pleasure? MS. BARNETT: I need to recluse myself from that case. MS. SAUNDERS: I think it's a reasonable request. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear a motion to move? MR. PONTE: I make the motion that we move the position on the agenda. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. DUSEK: ,Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) Second? All those in favor, signify by saying Aye. Any opposed? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Now we need a motion to approve the agenda, as changed. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we approve the agenda as amended. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion to approve the revised agenda. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Approval of our minutes from the Page 6 August 28, 2003 January 24th meeting. Are there any changes, additions, corrections? THE COURT REPORTER: January? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm sorry, July. So I'm behind. What's new? July 24th. MS. DUSEK: July 24th. MR. PONTE: I make a motion that we accept the minutes from Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the minutes as submitted. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We open our public hearings. First item is a motion to continue. MS. HILTON: We are in the process of getting the respondent -- unfortunately we're not in the boardroom, so we don't have the telephone in here. One of the code officers has graciously allowed us to use his Nextel, and he's getting the respondent on the phone right now. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: On this particular item, the investigator was wanting to give the board -- make a brief statement for the board's consideration before they make a determination. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. That's not a problem. Have we got him on the phone? MS. HILTON: We're doing that right now. MS. ARNOLD: Stand over there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's wait till we get him on the phone so that hopefully he'll be able to hear what we're saying. Tell him what we're going to -- it's kind of difficult, but do we swear both of them in, Jean, on a motion? Page 7 August 28, 2003 MS. RAWSON: You can't really swear the person on the telephone in unless he has a court reporter there with him. You can ask somebody if they recognize his voice so that we'll know that he is who he says he is. His testimony -- his request, I guess, will be unsworn, because she can't swear him in, unless we have a notary there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let's hear what he has to say and then we'll hear what you have to say, okay? MS. HILTON: Jai, you're now in front of the board, so you need to tell them the reasons why the case should be continued. MR. MOTWANI: Good morning, everyone on the board. My name is Jai Motwani and I'm Gopal Motwani's son. My father had an unexpected emergency in India and he had to leave the country, and he will not be returning back until September 14th. And I would really like it if the board would give him an extension until he gets back to hear the case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: This is his son, right -- MS. HILTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- the fellow that wrote the letter? MS. HILTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's all he has to tell us. Okay, tell him to bear with us for a moment. MS. HILTON: Okay, bear with us for a moment. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's hear what the county has to say. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. NADEAU: For the record, I'm Investigator Jean Nadeau, and since day one Mr. Motwani has shown no progress in the violations on his property. He's contacted us to create two meetings with the county staff. He's not shown up. The last meeting we had, he called 10 minutes before the time we were supposed to meet and said he couldn't make it. He's just dragging his feet. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And you have personally, Page 8 August 28, 2003 throughout however long this has transpired, conversed with him up to some point??? MS. NADEAU: Yes. I've had no contact with him since July. I did not know he was out of the county or even out of the country. I've been trying to contact him day in and day out, left messages everywhere. No contact. This is the first I heard of it this week that he was out of the country. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody have any questions for the county??? All right. MS. DUSEK: I do. MR. PONTE: Yes, I have a question. MS. DUSEK: I want to know -- this is -- having looked over the case, do you consider this a safety issue??? MS. NADEAU: Yes, I do, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: George??? MR. PONTE: That was the question. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions for Mr. Motwani? I hope I'm not saying it incorrectly. Any questions for his son??? He's obviously out of the country. MS. BELPEDIO: I have a question. Does his father know that today is a hearing scheduled before the Code Enforcement Board??? MS. HILTON: Did you get that, Jai.'? Did your dad know that today is the hearing scheduled before the board.9 MR. MOTWANI: He did not know before he left. He never received any correspondence at all. He does now. I've spoken with him in India. But once again, I told you he had a personal emergency there. I mean, it was unexpected that he left. But he had no knowledge of the meeting or hearing prior to his departure. And at this point in time it's a three-day or four-day journey for him to come back, unless he flies straight, which would take him at least a good 24 hours. And at this particular time he was unable to make it. Page 9 August 28, 2003 So that's why I contacted you last week, and I sent you out a letter and I'm also following up today on his behalf. And I'm personally out of town myself or I would have been personally representing him there at the court today. But at this point, that's all, you know, the situation we're in right now. Unfortunately no one could be there. MS. BELPEDIO: So from what I'm hearing, Shanelle, it sounds like he knows now. Just ask him yes or no. MS. HILTON: So your dad understands that the hearing is today; he knows now of the hearing? MR. MOTWANI: Yes, he knows of the hearing as of Monday when I spoke with him. And I told him about the hearing. There was no way for him to get back. Like I said, if he had knowledge, I don't think he could have made any other, you know, plans, because like I said, he got an extreme emergency, and that's why he left the country. And as far as the board is concerned and the resolution, I think that my father's side should be heard. I think he has tried to come into compliance with the property. I can understand that the code enforcement gentleman has not been able to get in contact with him due to the fact that, you know, he's been out of town, but other than that I think he's been pretty good at trying to -- you know, he doesn't want any problems with the city, he's been trying to bring the property into compliance and-- he has, you know, executed-- he has found a notary. He actually did pull the permits, regardless of, you know, how they interpret it or he interpreted it as being misrepresented. But he is trying to come into compliance and he wants to come into compliance, and he wants to bring the property up to code in Collier County. And he will be working every day, day in, day out, as soon as he gets back, to bring it into compliance. MS. BARNETT: Jean? The fact that he didn't receive the notices but he's been told by his son, does that keep us legal as far as notifying him? Page 10 August 28, 2003 MS. MS. MS. MS. under the MS. MS. RAWSON: I need to ask the county what kind of notice he got. MS. HILTON: The notice was mailed regular mail, which I did an affidavit of mailing. It was mailed certified mail, and it was also posted. MS. RAWSON: Did you get the return receipt? MS. HILTON: I have not got the return receipt back yet, no. That's why it was posted -- MS. RAWSON: It was posted at the property and -- HILTON: And the courthouse. RAWSON: -- the courthouse? HILTON: Yes. That's sufficient notice under the rules and RAWSON: statute. BARNETT: MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to clarify that. But obviously someone -- his son received it prior to the hearing as well. He didn't physically receive it, but someone did. MS. BARNETT: I just wanted to get it on the record that we were okay as far as him receiving proper notification. MS. BELPEDIO: Would you like me to address that question? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. If the county has something to say, we'd like to hear it. MS. BELPEDIO: 162.12 requires that all notices, whether it's the NOV or Notice of Hearing be sent, of course hand delivery but also certified mail, return receipt requested. If the cards come back, the local jurisdiction or the county can send the notice by regular U.S. mail and also post. It sounds like the notice was served in accordance with 162.12. Keep in mind that actual notice is not necessary, it's just that the county has followed through with the statute and done its due diligence. So if the county sent the notices, yes, it's sufficient, legally sufficient. Page 11 August 28, 2003 MS. RAWSON: I agree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for either the county or Mr. Motwani? MS. BARNETT: In looking over the case -- I can't go there? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. MS. BARNETT: Okay, never mind. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We haven't had the case presented, so you can't go there. Any questions about the request for extension until next meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, thank you. Let's make a determination. My first comment would be, I guess, hearing both sides, understanding what's going on, having not had the case presented to us, I'm inclined at this point to say that waiting till next month is the better part of valor. And I think it should be done, based on what has just been presented to us. Remember, anything you have, other than what you've just heard in this last five minutes, anything you've heard or read prior to this cannot enter into a decision to grant the time. MS. DUSEK: I-- MR. PONTE: Mr. Chairman, I'm inclined to go along until we hit the fact in question about the safety issue, which we heard. And we were given this morning a notation or a memo from the Isle of Capri Fire and Rescue District -- MS. ARNOLD: You can't-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, you can't-- that's not evidence, so you can't consider that. MR. PONTE: Well, we did hear from an inspector this morning that there was a safety factor, a safety issue. Based on that, I don't see how we can just let this thing keep on rolling. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Would it help -- and Jean, am I at Page 12 August 28, 2003 liberty to, before we make this decision, ask what the safety issue might be.'? MS. RAWSON: I think that the county can tell you why they do or do not want it continued. And apparently from the testimony already from the inspector, that he does not want it continued. You certainly have the right to ask him why he doesn't want to continue. You can't consider any evidence that you got in your packet, because it has not yet been introduced into evidence, so it's not relevant for you to discuss that yet. But if you ask the county their opinion on the continuance and why, you certainly have a right to do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. SAUNDERS: So ask. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's ask the county what their opinion of the request is first. We've heard from the inspector, but let's hear the county's position. Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Well, I think that the matter is more -- or the request or statement made by the investigator was more in line with the fact that there was little good faith effort on the part of Mr. Motwani during the prior proceedings to come into compliance. And that's hence why we're here today. There are some safety elements, because the structure is accessible. And there's also a pool involved. And I don't know whether or not that has been secured. So those are the safety elements, the fact that the structure is accessible and the pool. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we deny the continuance and hear the case. MR. PONTE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion and a second to deny the request for a continuance. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by voting Page 13 August 28, 2003 aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Opposed. MS. BARNETT: Opposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Three. Rhona, what was yours? MS. SAUNDERS: I was for denying it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Three-three. It's one of those unusual cases where we have six members present. MS. RAWSON: It didn't pass if it's a tie. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. So can we automatically continue it, or do we do it again? Do we try to convince some member to swing? MS. RAWSON: Well, the motion was to deny it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: To deny it, right. MS. RAWSON: The motion to deny has failed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. So now we need a motion to either deny again or continue it, right? MS. DUSEK: If we make a motion to continue and we have the same vote, then in which direction do we go? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, then we have to convince somebody, correct? MS. RAWSON: You do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Under parliamentary rules. MS. SAUNDERS: Perhaps we could have a little more discussion first. MS. DUSEK: Well, let me just say my reasons for asking that it not be continued are the two very obvious reasons: The fact that Page 14 August 28, 2003 there's been no cooperation, and this has been going on for quite some time, and also that there is a safety issue. Now, heaven forbid somebody falls into the pool and drowns. I mean, it's just -- we're here to protect the public, and I think it's a strong enough issue that we should hear the case so that this can be corrected. MS. BARNETT: Can I ask if the pool has been secured? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. Is he still on the phone? MS. HILTON: Yes, he is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What we'd like to know is has any type of safety measures been taken at the property to prevent harm from the general public -- or harm to the general public? MR. MOTWANI: I only heard parts of that. Have any measures been taken on the property to prevent harm? Yes, we've isolated a section off the building and locked certain areas of the building so if anyone who is ever an intruder comes on the property, they would not be able to enter into pool section of the property. It has been completely shut down. There's no one there. There's been no work there. There's no one living on the premises. A fence has been put up around the pool. The grass has been cut for visibility. The numbers have also been put on the side of the building so people know the exact address of the building. And I have visited it periodically to make sure everything's fine and there's no hazards or any type of things that would, I guess, hurt anyone or any intrusion or anyone getting hurt on the property. MR. PONTE: I think that's testimony. And if it is, we have to ask the inspector to confirm those observations. MS. RAWSON: Just remember that it's unsworn testimony. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Unsworn testimony. MS. DUSEK: I'd like to ask him, even though this is unsworn testimony, if there are No Trespassing signs on the property. Mr. Motwani? Mr. Motwani, are there No Trespassing signs on the property? Page 15 August 28, 2003 MS. HILTON: Did you get that? MR. MOTWANI: No. I'm sorry, can you please repeat that? MS. HILTON: Do you have No Trespassing signs posted on the property? MR. MOTWANI: I remember seeing one, yes. I can't specifically say if-- actually there's four, from what I was told, on the property, I'm sitting next to one of our employees. But what I can do to bring it into compliance, I can send one of my relatives to go check out the property again over the weekend and make sure. But I am told right now there is four trespassing signs. And I will make sure again. Once again, I will send someone over on the weekend to check. If you'd like us to post additional ones, I'd be more than happy to do that. MS. DUSEK: Jean, am I allowed to ask the inspector if he can confirm this? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. DUSEK: Can you confirm if there are? MS. NADEAU: Yes, there are. MS. DUSEK: There are? Good. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. SAUNDERS: I have one more question. The gentleman indicated that there was no one living on the property, yet the fire and rescue district -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Excuse me, that's evidence and you cannot consider that. MS. SAUNDERS: The gentleman indicated there was no one living on the property. Can the inspector tell us if that is correct? MS. NADEAU: That's correct at this point. There previously has been someone living in there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So there is no one living there, and there is No Trespassing signs, there is a fence around the pool. MS. DUSEK: I'm going to ask a question to the inspector, and Page 16 August 28, 2003 somebody can stop me if this is not appropriate. Can you tell me what the safety -- you stated that there are safety issues on the property. Can you state what those safety issues are? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I thought that's what we just did, and it seems to be the pool and people that could get on the property. Now we seem to be getting into the case. I think we're getting way far afield from getting into a let's continue or not continue. This is more like doing a case. We need to back off of that. MS. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I will change my vote and move that we -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we need a motion to grant the continuance or not. MS. DUSEK: Well, I would just like to say one more thing. We've heard unsworn testimony and we've heard sworn testimony. They conflict. And the unsworn testimony said there is a fence around the pool, that he felt that things had been secured. The sworn testimony seems to be on the opposite side of that, and that's why I wanted to hear specifically, since the unsworn testimony has given specifics on the safety issue, why we couldn't hear from the inspector. Is that inappropriate, Jean? MS. RAWSON: You can ask the inspector questions in order to ascertain whether or not you want to grant a motion for continuance. And in terms of who's saying what, you are the trier of fact and so you have to judge the credibility of the witnesses in making your decision. MS. DUSEK: Well, my question is, I'm asking for specifics. The inspector has said there are safety issues, but they haven't been identified. And can I ask him to identify those? MS. ARNOLD: If it would please the board, maybe just simply asking the investigator whether or not he can confirm if there's a fence around the pool, maybe that would help. Page 17 August 28, 2003 MS. DUSEK: Well, I don't know if there are other issues. All right, then I'll ask that. Is there a fence around the pool? MS. NADEAU: There is a fence in two areas. It is knocked down. MS. DUSEK: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. MS. NADEAU: There is a fence, a rigged up fence, but in two areas it's knocked down to the ground and there is access to the pool area and also the pump area. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, I think we also need to take into consideration -- I think we're belaboring a safety issue, because people can get into anything, unless you build a concrete building around it. People can cut through screens to get into pools. I think the gentleman said he put up No Trespassing signs. The county said they're there. The gentleman said there is a fence, now we know it's knocked down. He can put it up and they can knock it down tomorrow. At least it sounds like he was trying to do something, and that's been verified by the county. I think we need to make a decision either to extend this to next month, grant him a continuance, or not. Try to keep in mind that safety is one thing. If there was, you know, bare electrical wires or that type of thing that were endangering -- that there's a swimming pool, I know a lot of swimming pools that don't have fences around them or screened cages around them in the county, just because of when they were built and where they are. So I think they're trying, and that's what we need to keep in mind. And he's tried some things. And maybe we can ask him, when they go to check the trespassing signs, reposition the fence and, you know, that type of thing. MS. DUSEK: All right. of electric, am I allowed to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, since you have raised the issue That wasn't brought up. I just said if it Page 18 August 28, 2003 was electric. MS. DUSEK: I know, and I'm saying since it was mentioned -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, I mentioned it, they didn't mention it. MS. DUSEK: I understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm not giving testimony. MS. DUSEK: I understand that. But, Jean, am I allowed to ask about electrical issues? MS. RAWSON: I think you're allowed to ask anything that's going to help you make up your mind whether or not it ought to be continued. If there's a serious health and safety reason not to continue it, I think the inspector can tell you that. If there's not, you know, then I don't know that we need to just go on a fishing expedition. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. DUSEK: Well, I don't want to go on a fishing expedition, but I feel quite strongly about the health and safety for the public. And even though there are members who feel that it's okay to go ahead, I feel quite strongly that we should hear this case, because I think that we may -- I mean, we're somewhat limited in what we can ask the inspector at this point. And he's already said that -- he made a general -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What she said. MS. DUSEK: -- what she said, that there are safety issues. She has not been allowed to identify those safety issues, and that's a concern to me. MS. BARNETT: With that said, from the testimony that we've heard, I'm going to go ahead and move, if there's no more discussion, to make a motion that we go ahead and continue this case. MR. PONTE: I will second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and A second to grant the continuance. All those in favor, signify by raising their hand, please. Page 19 August 28, 2003 MS. BARNETT: (Signified.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (Signified.) MR. PONTE: (Signified.) MR. LEFEBVRE: (Signified.) MS. SAUNDERS: (Signified.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One, two, three, four, five. Those opposed? MS. DUSEK: (Signified.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 5-1. Continuance is granted to our next meeting, which will be September 25th at the Collier County Commission boardroom. Mr. Motwani, did you understand that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Shanelle, if you can get him back, tell him we've granted it to our next meeting, the 25th, please. MR. MOTWANI: If I heard correctly, I heard that the extension was granted. I appreciate the board's response, and I appreciate the extension. I just want to let them know that we are working on the SDP, the site development plan, for the property and we are (unintelligible.) Since my father's absence I will be keeping the ball rolling. And, again thanks for the extension. And also, I also have shut down the electrical on the inside and left the external lighting on. So if any, you know, intruder comes inside, there's no possibility of getting shocked or anything like that. MS. HILTON: I have a question. Do you waive notice for the next hearing? MR. MOTWANI: Is that set? MS. HILTON: September 25th is the next hearing. And we wanted to know if you waive notice. MR. MOTWANI: No, I would still like to have notice. I do know the date, but I still would like to have a physical copy mailed. Page 20 August 28, 2003 Do not send it certified, because once again, no one's there to sign for it. My dad is gone until the 14th or 15th. I know he will be able to make it, and I would appreciate it if the board could resend it. Yes, I'm aware that it's September 25th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Shanelle. What I'd like the county to do on this, go through the normal process of mailing everything and placing it, whether there's a decision or not is immaterial. Make sure that we do all the stuff. MS. ARNOLD: We have to, because he didn't waive notice. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we've agreed to move the Case 2003-026, BCC versus Thomas and Marion Baker, up to the number one spot. So we'll do that at this time. It is the last case in everyone's packet, I believe. I thought we had a -- MS. HILTON: It's the last one in your packet. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Okay. MS. HILTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Our first case of the morning is Board of County Commissioners versus Thomas and Marion Baker, CEB No. 2003-026. We have previously provided the respondent with a packet of information we'd like entered as Exhibit A at this time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'd entertain a motion to accept the County's Exhibit A. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept County's Exhibit MS. SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Motion and second has been made to accept the County's Exhibit A. All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: The respondent is present in the courtroom, Page 21 August 28, 2003 along with his counsel, Timothy Ferguson. The alleged violation is of Section 1.9.2, 2.1.11, 2.2.16.4.7, 2.3.12, 2.3.13, 2.3.21.4, 2.3.22.2.1, 3.3.9, 3.3.9.1, 3.3.9.2, and 3.3.11 of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The alleged violation is: The existence of salvaged, confiscated and inoperable and operable commercial and passenger vehicles having been placed upon required tenant parking, handicapped parking, loading dumpster and right-of-way facilities, as designated on Collier County site development plan, SDP No. 98-154, utilizing in excess of the 19 parking spaces designated in the SDP. All same impermissible uses of the above mentioned facilities not having received prior Collier County review and approval. All same impermissible and unapproved parking use in violation of the terms of SDP No. 98-154. Location where violation exists: 5643 Taylor Road, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 00242800000. Name and address of owner in charge of location where violation exists: Thomas and Marion Baker, 2759 Lake View Drive, Naples, Florida, 34112. Date violation first observed: December 12th, 2002. Date owner/person in charge given amended notice of violation: April 25th, 2003, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Date on which violation was to be corrected: May 15th, 2003. Date of reinspection: Was yesterday, the 27th. Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And at this time I would like to turn the case over to the code investigator, Tom Campbell, to present the case to the board. MS. ARNOLD: I believe that the attorney wanted to enter into an agreement. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, he mentioned he would, so let's have the attorney for the respondent give us his -- Page 22 August 28, 2003 MR. FERGUSON: For the purpose of the record, my name is Tim Ferguson. I represent the Bakers -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since you're going to give us this, we'd like you to be sworn in, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. FERGUSON: Okay, for the purpose of the record, Tim Ferguson. The way I'd like to proceed today is, we have been working with staff to try to come up with a stipulated agreement in this case, and the way I'd like to handle it is I would like to basically plea this case, and then if we can't come to some kind of an acceptable plea, then I'd like a continuance. I have been working and we believe that we were going to -- I think all of us believed in good faith that we were going to come to a stipulated agreement, and I've got a continuance to give my defense packet in this case, and I haven't because I don't intend to defend it, basically, except for the right-of-way issue. So we had a stipulation before the board, and I can go through it, I can read it. But basically what we're doing here today is Mr. Baker understands that his SDP, the way it was originally drafted, is a problem for him, because the SDP, the way it was originally drafted, allowed tenants to use the building, which he's never done. Because when he decided to do that -- he does quite a bit of business with law enforcement, and they explained to him that he can't have his salvaged or towed or impounded vehicles in the same place where tenants would have access to them, because they would have access to evidence and they could tamper with evidence. So he could never open the tenant portion of his building, so he never has, he's just using it as a storage yard. Now, we understand that doesn't comply with the SDP the way it currently exists. And what we've been trying to do is we've been trying to -- there's a vacant lot next door to his establishment, and we Page 23 August 28, 2003 have been in good faith negotiations with and have secured financing for the purchase of that lot. The gentleman that owns it has been very ill, and the information that we had is that he might have passed away. We've been in contact with his wife. The contract is with the attorneys. If we're able to purchase that property, the problem goes away because we just move all the cars over onto that property and then the spaces are open. Of course after we get the appropriate zoning request to do that. And I think we still may have to have an SDP drawn up in order to be able to do that, which we're willing to do. If we can't do that within a reasonable period of time, as outlined, as we've been negotiating, then what we'll do is we'll amend the SDP to remove the ability to have tenants in the building at all, and that will reduce the parking requirement by probably 16 spaces, which will give us ample room to put the cars and come into compliance. And we'll do that within a reasonable amount of time. We basically want to address that issue. We've been working at trying to do that. As far as the issue with the right-of-way goes and the trucks in the right-of-way, it is our position that the jurisdiction for that is with the sheriff's department and not with this board, and we will continue in that position. So that's where we want to go. We want to go ahead and take care of the problems before the board as they exist and leave the jurisdiction of the sheriff's department to the sheriff's department. The sheriff's department is quite aware of the situation, they've received a bunch of calls about it. They've talked to Mr. Baker about it. Mr. Baker understands that if his trucks cause a problem, if he's proximately -- because of any kind of harm to anybody out there, that he could be civilly liable for that. He's got insurance. His drivers have been instructed on that. So we believe that issue is not before the board, but we have addressed it. Page 24 August 28, 2003 The issue that we believe is before the board is the SDP and the problem with that, and we're willing to do what the board feels is necessary to correct that problem within a reasonable amount of time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Couple things come to mind. First of all, you said something that's news to me, that Collier County Sheriffs Department has power over Collier County ordinances. That's a new one. The ordinance says no parking in the right-of-way. The sheriff can't tell you you're allowed, unless there's some change to an ordinance I'm not aware of. MS. ARNOLD: I believe what Mr. Ferguson is referring to is the right-of-way ordinance exempts commercial or industrial areas, and that's what he's referring to. It refers actually -- it doesn't make reference to those areas, it specifically makes reference to residential areas. It's his position that it's the sheriffs jurisdiction to enforce it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But you're telling me that the county wrote him up for parking. MS. ARNOLD: We wrote him up for failure to meet for-- failure to meet with the site development plan. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Site development. Jean, we can't -- our power does not rest in mediating between a respondent and the county. If they can't work out something, we're not here to try to work it out for them. MS. RAWSON: You're not the mediator. I think Mr. Ferguson has admitted to a violation on behalf of his respondent. And now you need to hear from the county what, you know, they want him to do to come into compliance. And then Mr. Ferguson will tell you, I think, how long he thinks it will take to do that, and then you make your own decision. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: So do I understand that we're -- that's hearing the case or that's just excerpts of the case on each side? Page 25 August 28, 2003 MS. RAWSON: It's excerpts of the case. Because what you've done is you've short-circuited the system so that the inspector doesn't have to go through and tell you about all the violations one by one, because Mr. Ferguson has just admitted on behalf of his respondent that they in fact exist. So you need to take a look at the ordinances to make sure that you have not cited him with an ordinance that you're not supposed to. And I'm not sure that that's the case. And then hear from the staff as to what they propose to you to do to rectify it to come into compliance, and see if the time limit is acceptable. But it's your decision. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Ferguson, you didn't -- in saying you've been trying to work with the county or willing to work with them and that there is in fact a violation, do you have some time limit that you've been talking to the county about, or is there a time limit you're proposing to the county to solve these problems, rather than -- what I heard was no time limit other than you're trying to talk to the people next door to buy the property, which then has to go through the process to get all the proper paperwork to let you do what you want. If that doesn't work, then you want to go back and amend the current SDP to correct the problem. Do you have a timeline for that? MR. FERGUSON: Yes, sir. There is a stipulation that hasn't been agreed to yet. And I can read it for you if you'd like, or if you just want me to give the dates. I mean, basically we want to try -- we understand that the county has given us ample time to try to -- in ordinary circumstances, I suppose, the county has given us ample time to try to get this contract signed. However, these aren't ordinary circumstances. But we understand that at one point or another we either have to get it signed or we have to move on and please the county with this. So what we had was we had a September 15th date, which is like two weeks from now, basically. If we can get it done, if we can Page 26 August 28, 2003 get a signed contract within that amount of time, we can provide the county with the bank statements saying that we have the money to buy the property. If we got a signed contract, we can present that to code enforcement. We'll present them with that information in writing, return receipt requested, so nobody's confused about the thing. And if we cannot get that done by September 15th, then what we will do is we would request 30 days from September 13th (sic) to file an application to the development, community development department, to amend the site development plan so that we don't have the requirements for the tenant parking that we do now. Because, quite frankly, there's never been any tenants in there, you know. So basically this is a matter ofjust some semantics here. I mean, the thing's being used as a storage yard. The SDP says it can be used otherwise, but it never has been. So what we just need to do is go remove the ability to have the public, as far as tenants, in this building. And once we do, we'll have the space to put the cars in there and provide the parking. And so once we do the application then we'd ask for a reasonable time to allow the county to process it and go forward with all reasonable speed and with all good faith. We could have a show cause hearing or we could have a status hearing set, or whatever the board's pleasure is on that. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Ferguson, I have one question. You said that your client has accepted the fact that he's been cited for 11 violations and he says he's in violation of all 11 ? MR. FERGUSON: Well, I'm not exactly sure about every single one of them. However, in the totality we know we're parking in tenant parking spaces, we know we're parking in -- wherever we're parking junk cars that are supposed to be open to the public, we admit that we're doing something that we shouldn't be doing there. We admit to those violations. Because the site development plan doesn't allow for it. We understand that. It's just a matter of the site development plan was created to do something that he couldn't do. Page 27 August 28, 2003 So really it was a mistake to have the site development plan the way it is to begin with. And so if we amend it, we'll have plenty of room to do what we need to do and remove all the vehicles from all the spaces where they don't belong. MS. DUSEK: I'd like to ask Michelle-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, let's hear if the county likes what he's saying. MS. DUSEK: That's what I wanted to ask her. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're waiting for him to get done so the county can respond. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold. Mr. Ferguson is correct that there has been discussions back and forth between him and Jennifer Belpedio and some members of my staff. We're not comfortable with just an open-ended stipulation, as was being presented to you this morning, because that's not what we do customarily. We need to have some assurance that this is going to be completed and a good faith effort is going to be taken to get it completed. The issue with a contract for another property, I don't think that we desire putting that into our order, because we have no case against another property. The only property that we're concerned about is the one that we're bringing to you today, with the violations that exist. Our position is that we'd rather that they make a commitment and an effort to come into compliance on the property that is in violation. And I think that you've heard that we have given them ample time to do that, to get an amendment to the existing SDP and try to bring the property into compliance. So we would rather have an order that states such facts, that they would make every effort to amend the existing SDP and bring that property into compliance with the SDP. The time frame that we were suggesting is 60 days from Page 28 August 28, 2003 this hearing that they make an effort. And in the event that they enter into a sales contract with another property owner to move some of these other properties, they'll have to go through the site development plan for that particular property and address the requirements that the county would for that particular property. And they could do that in conjunction with amending this site development plan that we're considering today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle, in amending an SDP, amending an existing one, they can accomplish that within a 60-day period? MS. ARNOLD: What we were requesting is that they submit something to the county for their review within that 60-day time period. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now, if they -- let's make a big assumption, first of all, that they buy the property next door and have to start fresh. What's that time period to get an SDP or whatever is required for that piece of property, once they start that? MS. ARNOLD: To get one? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. If this would be a vacant piece of property that they want to do something with, so they're going to have to get permission from the county or to do whatever it is they -- MS. ARNOLD: They would have to submit, just like he submitted for his current property, a site development plan. I don't know how much time it took his engineer to prepare that particular plan, but I think a 60-day time period probably is reasonable. He's already negotiating with somebody. MR. FERGUSON: IfI could add to that, we don't have any problem with 60 days to get the ball rolling on the SDP. The issue that I'm concerned with is once we file the application with the department, that we have the opportunity to see that through. And I don't -- you know, I've had a lot of applications go through the Page 29 August 28, 2003 county and sometimes they go smoothly and they're done in a few months and sometimes they don't go smoothly or staff is busy and it takes a lot longer than that. So I'm in agreement with Michelle on the 60-day period to make the effort to get the ball rolling, no matter what that takes. I suppose that's easy enough to say. We've got 60 days to make sure that we satisfy the county, that we're doing what we need to be doing. So I suppose it's just how we, you know, put any kind of time table on it other than that. I suppose all reasonable speed or a good faith effort, you know, terminology like that. And as long as, I suppose, county staffs not going to walk in here and say we've dropped the ball on it, then we're in compliance and so we can get it done. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me ask Michelle a question. Michelle, if the board were to entertain issuing an order for an amended site development plan to be submitted within this 60-day time limit, would the county -- would that be acceptable to the county? Is that date sufficient? MS. ARNOLD: To submit an -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Submit an amended SDP to resolve all these problems. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That would be acceptable to the county? MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. Well, we did have other conditions, of course. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that. I'm working on it one at a time, because to get you two on the same page, what I'm trying to understand is for us I think it's important that we know what the county wants and what the respondent's willing to do, and we don't want to sit here and issue an order and then have him say, well, gee, we really didn't want to do that, we'd rather have an extension of Page 30 August 28, 2003 time and we'll just fight the case in front of you. So if we're going to try to work it out quickly, I need to understand and I think the other board members need to understand that we both are on the same page. MS. DUSEK: Jean, I have a question for you. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. DUSEK: Since we haven't heard the case but the respondent has admitted to violations, we haven't identified those violations. MS. RAWSON: Well, you can assume that whatever is in the statement of violations to be factual. MS. DUSEK: Okay. So from there, the fact that he's admitted without us hearing all of the evidence, we can go ahead and issue an order? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. BELPEDIO: Jean, just for the technical aspect of the order, if it's issued, I think it best -- it sounds like Mr. Ferguson is saying that he believes that sufficient -- that competent and substantial evidence exists to support violations. So he's admitting there are -- the board isn't saying there are, but he believes that if he came before the board that they would find violations. Maybe the board can think about it that way. MS. RAWSON: It's like a no contest. MS. BELPEDIO: Exactly. Exactly. MS. DUSEK: So with a no contest then we can issue an order? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. SAUNDERS: As a show of good faith, is the defendant, whatever, prepared to remove the cars and the vehicles from his property immediately until the site development plan is finished? MR. FERGUSON: With all due respect, that's impossible, because there are requirements, when you tow vehicles that are evidence for the highway patrol or for the sheriff's department or Page 31 August 28, 2003 whatever, there are requirements that you have to keep the car there until it's cleared or you have to keep the car a certain amount of days, so that would be impossible for us to do. We'd like to, but we can't. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think, and Michelle, correct me if I'm going astray here, based on what the county has submitted to us, that if we could -- if in issuing an order ordering them to submit an amended SDP within 60 days, in essence what we would be doing is during that 60-day period everything would remain as it is. In other words, the way the cars are currently kept would just remain that way until he gets his amendment submitted and/or rejected or approved or whatever. Everything would stay the same, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. Unless the board were to include in their order that he had to correct it in accordance with the SDP and then amend it to do what he wanted to do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. But I think right now what the county has submitted, you're basically saying, if I'm reading this correctly, submit an amended SDP. You're not requiring him to move any vehicles. You've given him -- you said item one -- item two was to remove them, or the other item two is an SDP. You didntt ask for both, you asked for one or the other. So if the board would order him to do the SDP amendment, the vehicles stay as they are -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- correct? MS. ARNOLD: Right. If you gave him a choice to remove or amend, then you would have to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. And based on what he said, because it's evidence, I understand it would be almost impossible to move the vehicles. I can relate to that. So what I'm trying to do is take one of the balls out of the air so we don't have so many up there. MS. DUSEK: Well, what concerns me is number two in this recommendation from the county, that he cease all parking and storing of all -- Page 32 August 28, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what I just went over. MS. DUSEK: I know, but it says -- but it bothers me, so if you don't mind letting me air how I feel about it. It says in all unauthorized locations. I don't understand why he should be allowed to keep these vehicles in unauthorized locations. And even though it may be a physical hardship, they've been there for some time and they don't belong there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I think part of the unauthorized part is the current SDP, correct me if I'm wrong, Michelle, is that he can't park in certain spaces, whether it's tenant or handicapped or whatever. And he's doing that. Because his SDP says he wouldn't do it, but he is doing it. Plus he's parking out on the street, and I understand -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. It's our position that the site development plan, as Mr. Ferguson said, called for tenants. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. ARNOLD: And it identified the required parking for those tenants that would be occupying the building, as well as his company, the towing company. But what he's -- how he's utilizing the property is for towing only and there are vehicles everywhere. Every stitch of the way, there's a vehicle. And that's -- and it's our belief that that is not how the site development plan authorized him to use his property. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, if there was an amended SDP, then it's possible that he would be allowed to keep the cars where they are; is that my understanding? MS. ARNOLD: Let me just answer and you can -- okay. If he amends his site development plan, the county would then probably -- he's probably going to ask that it's a one tenant occupied building, and then the parking requirements would change, but the site development plan would identify where he can keep his stored vehicles, because that's what he's doing. It's not really tenant parking Page 33 August 28, 2003 or customer parking or employee parking, it's his stored vehicles. And currently the site development plan doesn't allow for the storage of those vehicles. So he's going to be addressing that. The county would tell him how much area can be used for storage, how much should be used for parking, how much should be used for whatever other use there is on the property. MR. FERGUSON: What I'd like to suggest is first of all, you know, in Mr. Baker's defense, the land use that's on his SDP says towing and storage. That could be a little confusing for somebody that doesn't do this every day. The other side of that is that there would be -- that the county would require him to have maybe a couple of spaces, whatever he's required for his business alone, and then the rest of it he would be able to use just like he's using it. But there would be spaces where he would not -- still would not be able to park cars, but there would be ample space to park them once the SDP is -- the amended SDP is approved. MS. DUSEK: Let me ask a question just among the board members, and more specifically to Cliff. If we granted the SDP for him to try to get an amended SDP within 60 days, then would we further carry this to say that he needed to get the other part of this recommendation? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, I just haven't worked down that far yet. There would be more to the order than just submit an SDP. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I was trying to take them one at a time, to work them out between these two parties, so to speak, even though that's not our job. But by getting the information, maybe they could work it out while we're asking questions. And I think they so far have come to an understanding that the county is willing to accept them submitting it and he seems to be willing to submit it. Regardless of what else you might do about buying property, we don't care. You Page 34 August 28, 2003 can do whatever you'd like. We're just -- we would probably order you to submit an amended SDP. If you choose to do something else, that's fine. You could come back later and say we didn't submit your SDP but we bought this piece of property and we're doing this, and we may say fine, as long as you get the problem solved, that's really what we're after. We're looking at the easiest way to do it, which seems to be an amended SDP. That seems quick. Buying another piece of property doesn't seem real quick to me. Anything can happen with people; they could back out of a deal, you know how that goes. But amending the SDP seems the easiest. MR. FERGUSON: Ms. Arnold's point's well taken. Even if we buy the property next door, we're still going to have to do an SDP on it, if it isn't already zoned for what we want to do with it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MR. FERGUSON: So I think almost regardless of what we do, we'll probably still have to file something and make a good faith effort to come into compliance. In 60 days we may just tow all the cars off of there and say, you know -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. That's where I'm coming from from the board. I thing our recommendation -- we want to see something concrete happen, and I think the most concrete is an amended SDP, because that's something you can do now. It's not on the whim of somebody else trying to sell you something. You can actually do that. And if we order you to do that, that's what we'll expect. Then we'll know we've done the best we could do. Along with that, our order might say, and I use the word might, because we haven't discussed it among ourselves yet, so I'm trying to -- Michelle, let me ask a question. The county is asking that the respondent advise you how they're going to abate these violations. If we give them -- if the board orders them to submit an SDP amendment in 60 days, I think-- Page 35 August 28, 2003 MS. ARNOLD: That's it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- that covers that item and we don't need to -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- ask them to notify you in 15 days what they're going to do. We order them to do it and that covers that. Will you be satisfied with that? MS. ARNOLD: Right. That was in there because we had two -- an either/or. You could do thiS or that and they would have to tell us one. I do want to raise one issue, that we have had instances where applicantS have submitted, in accordance with the board's order, and it's going through the review process but is not proceeding through that process very diligently. And so I just wanted to raise that. And that's a concern of ours, that we don't kind of leave it open-ended. And I don't know how we would address that legally, because, you know, you don't really have a time frame. And we want to stay away from the drop dead time frames, because as Mr. Ferguson pointed out, it could take six months in some cases, it could take eight months in other cases for the review, just based on work load of the county and everything else. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think the board's position would be we could order him to submit the paperwork in 60 days, and then how the county works with it or asks for corrections or that, that's -- the county will have to do their due diligence. MS. ARNOLD: No, I'm not saying the due diligence of the county. The process would be there's a review and their comments and it requires some revision, and the applicant sits on the revision instead of responding to it. And essentially there's really not very much time frame with respect to when they have to respond back, and it could drag on forever. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But again, we would have no way of Page 36 August 28, 2003 knowing and ordering him to -- you know, I guess -- I don't remember us ever doing it in the past. Once you submit something and it gets reviewed and then it comes back, and oh, by the way, when and if you get any comments from the county, you have 15 days to respond. I'd hate to see us start issuing orders to that. That's kind of micro management. MS. ARNOLD: Well, that's not what I'm suggesting. I just want to make it -- I guess put it on the record that they have to proceed once they're into that process of due diligence. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, I think they'll proceed. When the board equates a fine to that, and I haven't gotten finished yet, there's a couple of items others of the board may put in this order which will, I think, keep the due diligence on the respondent's part moving. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Ferguson, I have a question for you. Do you just -- do you and your client want to just abandon the present SDP and work toward an amended SDP? MR. FERGUSON: Yes, ma'am. Because we're not using -- we never have used the property the way the current SDP is designed. It's never been used that way. Because we didn't know -- he didn't know at the time that the law enforcement agencies were going to say, hey, wait a minute, you can't do that or we're not going to do business with you. And that's his bread and butter. So at that point he had to say, well, I guess I would have liked to have done something like that down the line but I can't do it and I understand that. So he's never done it that way. And what I was going to suggest as far as the due diligence is that we maybe have a status hearing in maybe six months after the 60 days runs, when we're supposed to get our application in in 60 days. We do that, then in six months we come back in here and tell you how it's going. And at that time, if Michelle's not happy with it, she can bring a planner or whoever is responsible for the application and they can come in and say either yes, they've been on top of the ball Page 37 August 28, 2003 or no, they haven't. That would be an easy way to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, if the board so choose, could they make a line item in their order stating that he -- and I'll just pick a date off the wall, six months from the date of the order that the respondent will appear before the board to show progress being made or lack thereof or something? MS. RAWSON: You could do that. They'll have to give notice, unless he waives the notice. And I'll put it in the order. Maybe that would be sufficient notice. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Michelle, would that work for the county -- MS. ARNOLD: That sounds great. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- if the board so chose to do something like that? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Ferguson, would that be acceptable to you if the board -- in addition, like we order you to. amend your SDP in 60 days and say six months from today we ask you -- we order you to return here and tell us what's going on. And at that time if we hear you're not doing something or the county's not doing something, we could then make a decision to amend our order to maybe put more force on it, for lack of a better word. MR. FERGUSON: Yes, sir. I think what I'm requesting is six months from the date that the application is filed. Because that's -- that is a good rule of thumb on how fast the application should go through the process. And, you know, it is a doable goal, if everything goes smoothly, to get it done in six months. And then if it's not done in six months, I can come back in and tell you why, you know. And Michelle can bring in the planner that's responsible for the application, if she doesn't believe that we've been diligent about what we've been trying to do. But I assure you that my client has the intention of being diligent. Page 38 August 28, 2003 MS. RAWSON: What you could do to really zero in on the dates is if you give him 60 days, which is, I think, part of your discussion, but at that point your order allows 60 days for the SDP, then you can, from that 60-day period, which is October 27th, six months later look and see when our board meeting is going to be and that would be the date he would be back. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle, would that work for the county? MS. ARNOLD: Sure. I'm not sure about the six months, but -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's why I'm asking the question. You need to tell me. He's saying it's six months, but once he submits paperwork, so to speak, is that unreasonable or reasonable? MS. ARNOLD: I agree that the date should start from the submittal rather than this hearing. But I'm trying to think in my head whether or not -- if we're truly getting a progress report, whether a four-month period would be more appropriate, because then at that time there should have been at least one review, and we can track to see whether or not they're submitting timely responses. Whereas six months may be dragging it out a little bit too long. MS. DUSEK: I'm inclined to agree to that also. MR. FERGUSON: The reason why, just so you know why I picked the six-month period, is because we may able to get done in four months and it may take eight months. So I just chopped it right in the middle. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine, I understand. What we want to do is, the board would be interested in issuing an order. And since it is a progress report, it tells us that you're doing something and the county likewise is doing something, and all it costs is 15 minutes of your time to come here and tell us. MR. FERGUSON: We have no objection to that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And once he gets -- once the respondent gets everything, we Page 39 August 28, 2003 would -- the board may put in its order that you have so many days to obtain whatever permits or any other things are required. I don't know what may be required once you submit -- it may be nothing -- once you submit your amendment. I honestly don't know. Michelle is better equipped to tell us. If he would amend his SDP to -- basically what he's doing is rearranging his parking spaces. I don't know if permits or all that are required for that or just a submission of the SDP and approval is sufficient. I don't think he's going to ask to build any new buildings in his amendment, I think it's just a reallocation of space. MS. ARNOLD: I don't believe that there's a structural building permit that is required -- will be required. And I'm just guessing based on what he may submit. But there may be some sort of development order that's required for site improvement. So you may want to put in there that upon approval of the site development plan, any development order that's required be obtained within so many days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: How about if we said-- if we were to do this: We said something like obtain any and all required permits or orders within "X" days. MS. ARNOLD: Development order would be good, yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Rather than actual building permits. Okay. MS. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I have to express my thoughts on this. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. MS. SAUNDERS: I'm disturbed, not because of the violation as much as the lack of interest up until this point in making any kind of corrective action whatsoever. In reading the materials, the case began more than eight months ago, nearly nine months ago. Mr. Baker has been uncooperative, is I think how it was characterized in here. And that makes me Page 40 August 28, 2003 concerned as to why we have to get to this point before anything happens. And it's going to obviously take another year in which he will continue his business exactly as it's been continuing, until they get to where they want, maybe give or take a month. I really would like to see something in our order that is a show of good faith, beyond taking 60 days to submit a site plan which may take six months or more to get through. And I've got two rather drastic suggestions that I'll put out on the table and we can discuss. One is that he takes in no new vehicles to park them illegally. So if you have to keep -- I know that will hurt your business dramatically. That means that -- I understand the sheriff has a requirement there, I don't want to tamper with evidence or anything else, but there's nothing saying that we have to endorse the continuing violation of the business while this is going on. The second is a pledge or something to say I won't park in the right-of-way. Whether we say the right-of-way is the sheriff or us. I'm not seeing any evidence of good faith, and that concerns me. That's my thoughts. MS. DUSEK: I concur. MR. PONTE: Those are very good thoughts. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since we're kind of discussing among ourselves here, why don't you give us your thoughts on what you just heard. MR. FERGUSON: I don't think my client wants to go out of business. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that. But you understand where we're coming from. MR. FERGUSON: I understand where you're coming from, and I don't know that there's been any showing in the record that's there's been any lack of cooperation. I know that there has been a considerable amount of time since the original violation, but I don't know that there's any lack of cooperation to try to handle a difficult Page 41 August 28, 2003 situation. What I'd like to stress is if he -- you know, the SDP does say towing and storage, it doesn't say tenant building. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, let me ask you this question, because I think I'm going to guess where Rhona is coming from. Right now you have a lot of vehicles, based on pictures I've seen, parked in the right-of-way. Obviously to me those aren't evidence, because everybody and their brother has access to them. So right away I think those could disappear somewhere. Where that is, I don't know. But you could put them somewhere, because they're not evidence. If you've got to rent to a space, I suggest you do that. What I'd like you to tell us is that you would take it upon yourself to do that, because since it's not quote, unquote, evidence, we can order you to get them out of there because we think they're a danger to the public. We'd rather that you tell us you're going to do something to at least alleviate that. What's behind your fences, I can accept for this time being. Let's address these other things which seem to be, at least from pictures, a cause, okay? MR. FERGUSON: First of all, I think that we're going to try to do everything to make the board happy, okay? The problem with the right-of-way -- and Michelle asked if we would take a good faith step to keep everything out of the right-of-way. The problem with the right-of-way, first of all, is we're reserving that jurisdiction argument. But be that as it may, people come and dump their cars out there, and it's not Mr. Baker that's doing it, okay? People drop them off and they leave them there. He doesn't have any control whatsoever. And it's going to be extremely difficult to try to get involved in trying to determine whether somebody dropped the car off there or whether it's Mr. Baker's responsibility. And we'll be constantly dealing -- you know, I'm just going to say it, the code enforcement officer and my client don't have a very good relationship, okay. And I'm not even Page 42 August 28, 2003 going to get into that. But what I don't want to see is I don't want to see a situation where we're constantly in here saying well, whose car was that, when was it dropped off?. I mean, I'd rather have some other solution than that, if we can. I mean, if there is a good faith solution, and I can take a second to talk to my client about if there's a good faith showing that we can try to propose. But that particular one is going to be very difficult to manage. MS. SAUNDERS: Are you saying, sir, that people just drop their cars off and then your client takes them in as salvage? Is that what's happening? MR. FERGUSON: What I'm suggesting is that people just drop the cars off. My client doesn't have any responsibility to take them in. I don't even know if he does or not, but I think he does. But he has no obligation to do that and people arbitrarily do that. MR. PONTE: I don't understand that. They just drive a $30,000 car and leave it there? I don't understand that at all. MR. FERGUSON: No, sir, they're not $30,000 cars, okay, they're $500 cars. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me ask this another way from the county attorney's office. This right-of-way item which, based upon pictures, looks like there's cars everywhere. Is that an ordinance violation? MS. BELPEDIO: No, there's no jurisdiction for code enforcement to enforce in the right-of-way in this particular case. There may be some other in residential. However, it's my understanding that the code enforcement mentioned that and brought pictures to your attention because that's indicative of the failure to comply with the site development plan. The right-of-way isn't even on Mr. Baker's property. So there's really no jurisdiction. This board can't find him in violation for something that's not even occurring on his property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The reason I asked that Page 43 August 28, 2003 question is so the board in its mind can erase that from considering what they're supposed to do. So really everything behind his fence is really the only thing we're concerned with. And other than parking illegally to your current SDP, you don't have a problem. Anything that's outside the fence isn't your problem is the way I'm taking that from the county. MS. BELPEDIO: Wherever the right-of-way begins, I can't say exactly for sure. The outside perimeter of his fence may still be on his property if there's no specified line, but-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I understand there's probably maybe a foot or something. MS. ARNOLD: I understand where Rhona was going with the right-of-way, to show some sort of effort to bring the property into compliance. I think that we understand also that there are vehicles that are left in the right-of-way on his property. But those things have quickly resolved as they are at other salvage yards along that road. But that is not the only issue that we wanted to express, that there (sic) are his vehicles and not only that his right-of-way, but other right-of-ways have been-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that, but if we have no authority on it, then I don't want us to think about it or be concerned about it. Because it's just a waste of our time and a waste of everybody else's time. So if the right-of-way is not under the authority of this board to do anything about, then we just wash it away and move on to the next item and not consider it. MS. SAUNDERS: Then where I'm coming from still is a plea bargain that says that both sides give something. I haven't heard any giving of actual -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that everything of his is behind the fence, so -- MS. SAUNDERS: Then that's fine, and there is a violation, and Page 44 August 28, 2003 I'd like to see what Mr. Baker is going to do to convince us that he intends, after nine months of not doing anything -- and I'm sorry the code enforcement officer and you don't get along. Perhaps Michelle can assign somebody else, I don't know. But in any case, I'm not seeing any evidence of good faith. And in a plea bargain, I want to see a compromise from both sides, and I need to get that in order to vote for anything here. MR. FERGUSON: To try to hopefully address that, I could have come in today and made a big deal out of the fact that the SDP has some stripes on it. But the use of the -- right on the SDP says towing and storage. It doesn't say tenant storage. And I suppose I could have come in here and played that game, but it's still going to cost my client quite a bit of money to go and do this. I don't -- wasting the time's board (sic) about arguing about semantics, I didn't think made any sense. So we're in here in good faith saying yeah, we're going to have to spend an awful lot of money. He's going to have to pay me, he's going to have to pay an engineer, and if he has to buy the property next door, that's a whole bunch of money. He is, quite frankly, taking on an economic burden to handle this problem. It's not painless. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess, Rhona, the only thing that's in my mind is understanding what they have just said about -- I won't say all, most of the vehicles behind the fence being, I guess, involved with the sheriff's office as evidence, so forth, that they're parked all over. As long as they're behind the fence, I'm willing to accept that he's been illegally parking on his own property for eight months, now that he's told me why. Let's just get it solved, because it seems like it has been an SDP semantics problem since day one. And what we're going to try to do is resolve that by asking him to amend his SDP so that everybody's working on the same page, the county's hap. py, and we're happy, and we never see the gentleman again, hopefully. Page 45 August 28, 2003 MR. FERGUSON: And also, we can document over 60 cars that we've junked in an effort to try to clear up the problem along the way. It's not been that we haven't done anything, it's just a difficult problem and a matter of time. As soon as we can get them off the lot, they're gone. MR. PONTE: I've got to say that I concur with Rhona. What I'm seeing when I look at these photos is not just the cars parked helter skelter outside the fence, it's Mr. Baker's trucks. A number of them. I mean, page after page after page of photographic evidence of cars and trucks outside the fence. MR. FERGUSON: this board. MS. SAUNDERS: Once again, that's outside the jurisdiction of Except if they are Mr. Baker's cars and trucks, they should be parked on his property and not on the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand what you're saying, Rhona, except we must remember that if he chooses to park outside his fence, we don't have any authority to make him park inside his fence, okay? MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: The question I have is, getting back to purchasing the property next door. What I'm trying to comprehend is when this problem was brought to your client's attention, according to this summary we have, it seems like there was a lot of avoidance, I guess you could say, on complying. What -- was your original plan to purchase the property next door and then go and get an SDP and so forth on that property to correct the problem, and now that it's dragged out so long, you might just think that doesn't work out? What I'm trying to get at is, when did you start trying to purchase that other property? MR. FERGUSON: We started trying to purchase the other property, made contact with the very elderly gentleman immediately Page 46 August 28, 2003 upon receipt of the violation. We've been out on-site, we walked around it, we looked at it and we said look, the easiest solution for us is to be able to go ahead and -- because quite frankly, if he can buy the property next door, he can use the property for what he's using this property for, and then it's possible that he can keep the SDP on this property just like it is so if he ever wanted to in the future use it the way it's designed he could still do that. So that left his options open. That was the least painful of the options. Because then he has to foreclose his future on something if he doesn't buy the other property. So the problem is, and we said in good faith that we'd go forward. I mean, avoidance, I don't know that we've avoided anybody. There's been some time -- if I tell you on the phone that I've been talking to the old gentleman and the old lady over there and they say they're going to do something and they don't do it, you might think it's avoidance, I'm might be thinking I'm telling you the truth. And I suppose that's the problem that we're dealing with here. It has taken some time. I'm not going to stand here and tell you it hasn't. It has. And, you know, we've thought we've had -- the guy's going to do something, then he's not, then he is, then he's not. I mean, we've been jerked around somewhat on this. And Michelle finally said hey, enough's enough, you guys got to do something here, and we agree, so that's what we're in here trying to do. MR. PONTE: And what's the game plan if you're not successful in getting the property? MR. FERGUSON: We'll amend the SDP and use it like we're using it now. The only problem is we've never used it the way the SDP suggests we could. We've never used it that way. The problem is he's got the wrong SDP for what he's doing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what I think the board, if we chose to issue an order, would order him to amend his SDP, not give him -- tell him to buy another piece of property. Just tell him to Page 47 August 28, 2003 amend and have to do it within "X", and then he will do it; otherwise, face a fine or whatever. So I think that's where we're trying to get these two parties to agree on, that if we're going to consider this so-called plea, that it be toward an amended SDP, period, as far as the board would be concerned. If the county and the respondent are acceptable to that, then I think that's where we should lean all our consideration. Let me just add -- Cherie, do you need a break? Well, we're probably going to deliberate a little bit. Does anybody have anymore questions for the county or Mr. Ferguson? If not, I'd like to take about ten minutes, let all this sink in and then we'll come back and deliberate. Anybody got any objections to that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Take ten minutes. (A brief recess was held.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we're back to the public hearing. And unless the board has some additional questions of the county or the respondent's attorney, I'm prepared to ask him to sit down and us to find if there is in fact a violation and proceed to making an order. Any additional questions? MR. PONTE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, sir. MR. PONTE: It's a question for the board. I don't want to let go of Rhona's thought. And I think that we should try amongst ourselves, before doing anything else, to explore any avenues that would put good faith to test here. I'm concerned by the fact this has dragged on for quite some time and that everything is -- what we're going with right now, we're following the lead of the respondent's attorney. And I think there should be some give and take. I don't see the give. All I see is the take. MS. DUSEK: George, in-- I have in this recommendation a motion to make which might help your thoughts. I want to ask Jean, Page 48 August 28, 2003 do we have to go through the -- can we find the violations, since he's already admitted? MS. RAWSON: Yes, you do, because that should go in the order. Even though on the order, it would be by stipulation. MS. DUSEK: Now, the only thing, in reviewing this, all of the violations that have been cited, I don't know whether there were any violations in reference to the right-of-way which we have now determined is not our jurisdiction. Do you know which one of those violations -- MS. ARNOLD: There aren't any in there. MS. RAWSON: No, there are not. MS. DUSEK: There weren't any? Okay. I read through them last night but I can't remember. Okay. I make a motion that in the case of Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Thomas L. and Marion Baker, CEB Case No. 2003-026, that there is in fact a violation. The violation is of Sections 1.9.2, 2.1.11, 2.2.16.4.7, 2.3.12, 2.3.13, 2.3.21.4, 2.3.22.2.1, 3.3.9, 3.3.9.1, 3.3.9.2, and 3.3.11 of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: The existence of-- I'm going to eliminate that part of it. Now, let's see. In describing the violation I'll need some help there, because the way it's described here, we're talking about the parking spaces, which I don't know if we can include in the description. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, the -- he's in violation of the SDP call out on parking spaces on his own property, so none of this applies to right-of-way. So I think we're safe in reading it that it is required tenant parking because that's in fact what's in the SDP. MS. DUSEK: All right. Then I'll just read it as is. The existence of salvaged, confiscated and inoperable and operable commercial and passenger vehicles having been placed upon required tenant parking, handicapped parking, loading dumpster Page 49 August 28, 2003 and right-of-way of facilities, as designated on Collier County site development plan, SDP 98-154, utilizing in excess of the 19 parking spaces designated in the SDP. All same and impermissible uses of the above mentioned required facilities not having received prior to Collier County review and approval. All same impermissible and unapproved parking uses in violation of the terms of SDP No. 98-154. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Ferguson? MR. FERGUSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: May I ask you at this point -- what we're trying to do is again, paperwork. And we understand what you told us, but having just read what our order is going to say and our finding that there is a violation, do you stipulate that there in fact -- these violations exist? In other words, I don't want to get into a big argument match with you when we issue the order. MR. FERGUSON: I stipulate to all the code violations that exist on his property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir, fine. Thank you. Do we need to describe the property, too? MS. RAWSON: You can give the address. It's a very long legal. MS. DUSEK: All right. The address of the property is 5643 Taylor Road, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 0000000242800000. And do I need to go through all of that? The rest of it? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Did you give the address? MS. DUSEK: Yes. I think that's probably enough. MS. RAWSON: I'm going to attach the legal. Because it's long. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that in fact violations do exist. Do I hear a second? Page 50 August28,2003 MR. PONTE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that in fact violations exist at the subject property. All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, order of the board. MS. DUSEK: I'll make a motion, this will get us started, that the respondent do the following: Number one, that the respondent pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case. Number two, submit a complete and sufficient amended site development plan, SDP, for all improvements within 60 days with due diligence from the date of this hearing, or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Number three, that a progress report be made within 180 days from the date of this hearing. Number four, upon obtaining SDP approval, obtain all required permits or development orders for prescribed improvements within 60 days of approval, with due diligence, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Number five, must get all required inspections and obtain certificate of completion within 90 days after obtaining the required permits or development orders, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: My only comment would be on your item three, your progress report. If you could word it so that they must appear before the board to give their progress report. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't want them to mail us something, I'd like for them to come and talk to us face-to-face. MS. ARNOLD: And I think that she stated so many days from Page 51 August 28, 2003 the hearing rather than so many days from the approval? MS. DUSEK: That's right. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that -- MS. DUSEK: That's right. Which would make it exactly six months, but that gives them the two months for their submittal and four months after that that we would like to have -- I would advise that the progress report be made before the board within 180 days. Does that satisfy you? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. RAWSON: Would be the February meeting, I think. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: As long as they come before the board. That way we can work out with them and/or the county if there seems to be a problem. Other than that, I don't have a problem with the motion. Do we have any changes or do I hear a second to Bobbi's motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second on the floor. 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? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Motion carries. We're done, Mr. Ferguson. Do you understand what we said? MR. FERGUSON: Yes, sir. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Did you want to -- MS. ARNOLD: There has been a request from the Webers to Page 52 August 28, 2003 be moved up to the next item. I believe Ms. Weber said she had a doctor's appointment. We do have a witness that is on her way from development services right now, so before the public hearing is closed, I'd just request that her testimony be granted. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. It's Case No. 2003-29, which is number four on our list under public hearings, is requested to be moved up because of a medical appointment. Is there any objection to the board in moving that up? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If none, do I hear a motion to move that up? MS. BARNETT: I'll make a motion that we move Case No. 2003-029, Collier County against the Webers, forward on the agenda. MS. DUSEK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to move the case forward to our next case. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. HILTON: Our second case will be Board of County Commissioners versus Carl E. Weber and Linda M. Weber, CEB Case No. 2003-029. We have previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information we'd like entered as Exhibit A at this time. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. MS. BARNETT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A. Page 53 August 28, 2003 All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. HILTON: We had also at the beginning of the hearing provided you their defense packet and a copy of an e-mail from Susan Murray that we would like as Exhibit B. MS. DUSEK: I'd make a motion -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. HILTON: I guess the defense packet would be B and ours would be C. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Their Exhibit A and your Exhibit -- MS. HILTON: B. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- B, okay. MS. ARNOLD: You may want to request, because I'm showing the e-mail to the respondent to whether or not he has any objection. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit B into evidence. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And you can, under the same motion, accept their Exhibit A. Can't she, Jean? MS. DUSEK: Jean, I have to do separate two motions, one for the defense? MS. RAWSON: Well, we can mark them separately because -- yes, I would just do two separate motions, because one's going to be the county's exhibit and one's going to be the respondent's exhibit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion for Exhibit B on the county's behalf, the e-mail. Do I hear a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: I second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept Exhibit B. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 54 August28,2003 (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGA.L' Okay. Now a motion for the defendant's package. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the defendant's package, Exhibit A, into evidence. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have a motion and a second to accept the Respondent's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we've got everything in, hopefully. MS. HILTON: The respondent is present in the courtroom. 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. The description of the violation: Large trellis type structure with roof approximately 10 feet by 10 feet in the east side yard, erected without a building permit. Location and address where violation exists: 491 Seabee, S-E-A-B-E-E, Avenue, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 27589520000. Name and address of owner in charge of location where violation exists: Carl E. Weber and Linda M. Weber, 491 Seabee Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34108. Date violation first observed: May 29th, 2002. Date owner given notice of violation: May 29, 2002. Date on which violation was to be corrected: June 27th, 2002. Date of reinspection: The investigator went out there yesterday, and the result of reinspection: The violation remains. Page 55 August 28, 2003 And at this time I would like to mm the case over to the code supervisor, Shawn Luedtke, to present the case to the board. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LUEDTKE: On May 29th of 2002, I responded to 491 Seabee Avenue about a structure that was built in the east side yard without permits obtained. Upon my arrival, I observed a wood frame structure that consisted of a roof, that was about 1 O-foot by 1 O-foot in diameter, and no permits were obtained for that structure. I then issued a notice of violation to the property owner, Mr. Weber, for failure to obtain a building permit for that structure; gave him 30 days to either remove the structure or obtain permits. On the 28th of June, 30 days later, I spoke with Mr. Weber on the phone. He requested a six-month extension, because he was out of the country -- or out of the state, excuse me. And due to it being such a large extension, I went ahead and consulted a director on it and we agreed that six months would be fine. He had six months to either obtain the permits or remove the structure, you know, when he got back. On December, six months later, I did a recheck. The violation remained, so we sent a CEB warning letter. No permits had even been applied for, the structure still remained there. On January, 2003, Mr. Weber informed me that he was advised by the building department that if he removed the roof of the structure, it would be considered a trellis and would not be required to get a permit. So I went over and I spoke with the chief builder for the county, at the time, Mr. Ballard, Jerry Ballard, and showed him photographs of the structure. And Mr. Ballard informed me that due to the location, being in the side yard right against the sidewalk along Vanderbilt Drive -- it's a comer lot, Vanderbilt and Seabee -- and the size of the structure, that it would require a permit even if it didn't have a roof. Page 56 August 28, 2003 So I called back Mr. Weber. I wasn't able to make contact with him, but I did leave a message on an answering machine that stated you're going to have to get a permit for it or remove the structure. I did numerous follow-up visits and checks in the computer, CD Plus system, to see if permits had been obtained. None have been obtained to this date and the structure still remains, so we processed it for CEB hearing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anyone have any questions for Shawn? MR. LEFEBVRE: Was there a roof on this structure? MR. LUEDTKE: It's a wood frame roof. It isn't a solid roof. It has -- it's just like the sides are, if you've seen photographs. MR. LEFEBVRE: Like the trusses are. MR. LUEDTKE: Exactly. Perfect. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Rather than a trellis, Shawn, I'll ask you, did anyone in the county reidentify this? MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct. The chief builder did identify it as an arbor. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Arbor. MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It looks more like I guess what I'm used to seeing as pergolas. But I won't -- MR. LUEDTKE: And it was defined as that by one of the training techs -- or permitting techs, who we do have coming in, and that's the witness that Michelle mentioned earlier. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Shawn? Okay, thank you, Shawn. read MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Weber, you're up, sir. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, I think Jennifer just wanted to into the record something. Page 57 August 28, 2003 MR. WEBER: Good morning. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Just before we start, sir. MS. BELPEDIO: I just wanted to read you the definition of a structure from the Land Development Code that's located in division 6.3 of the Land Development Code. And a structure is defined as anything constructed or erected which requires a fixed location on the ground or in the ground or attached to something having a fixed location on or in the ground, including buildings, towers, smoke stacks, utility poles and overhead transmission lines. Fences and walls, gates or posts are not intended to be structures. That's the definition of structure. I can pass it around for the members to review, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's okay. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. MR. WEBER: Good morning. I don't want to take up too much of your time. However, when I went there the first time to apply, to see if I needed a permit, they specifically told me that, as this young lady just said, trellises and fences do not need permits. Fine. I saw a picture of what I felt in a magazine for a way for us to go to our backyard and also give us some relief from the noise on the roof. In regard to a roof, there is no roof, it's just spans of bars across the top. If they want me to purchase a permit, I'm more than happy to purchase a permit. That isn't my question at all. All's we want to know is what do we need to do to keep this. I mean, that's an interpretation of whether this is a trellis or an arbor. It's a trellis. It says it's a trellis in the dictionary. But that's semantics. That's -- it's a trellis to us. It's a place for us to grow flowers and get some relief from the noise. And on our way out, this -- just this morning, taking a look, you know, the county has gone through a lot of problems, a lot of trouble Page 58 August 28, 2003 making -- beautifying this. Ali's we're trying to do is add to it. I mean, that street is gorgeous. You should see it, what it looked like when we came there. And all's I -- you know, like I say, if you want us to purchase a permit, more than happy to. Just please help us, what we can do so that we can keep it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. WEBER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody have any questions? MR. WEBER: And one more thing. If you folks would do me a favor, because I'm a little hard of hearing, if you'd talk a little bit louder, I'd appreciate it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not a problem, sir. MR. WEBER: Thank you. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Weber? MRS. WEBER: Yes. Before you sit down, you did go to the building MS. DUSEK: department? MR. WEBER: MS. DUSEK: Yes, ma'am. And they did tell you that you needed a permit. know the first time you said you spoke to someone, they said you didn't. MR. WEBER: MS. DUSEK: done? MR. WEBER: MS. DUSEK: MR. WEBER: That's right. Did you show them a drawing of what you had Sure. It's right in here. The first time that you went -- Not the first time, no, ma'am, I didn't. had no idea -- they told me a trellis doesn't need a permit. trellis, that's what I did. MS. DUSEK: All right. Did you have a second meeting at the building department with a drawing of what you had done? Because I Put up a Page 59 August 28, 2003 MR. WEBER: MS. DUSEK: permit? MR. WEBER: MR. WEBER: I think we did, didn't we, Linda? MRS. WEBER: We've been there several times. Yes, we went to the planning department. Did they tell you at that time you needed a I would be remiss in telling you yes or no, because I don't remember. MRS. WEBER: I think what they said was -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're not sworn in, ma'am, so -- if you want to come up here, we'll swear you in. MS. DUSEK: Would you like to speak-- if you would like to speak-- you're Mrs. Webber? Then you need to be sworn in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MRS. WEBER: When all this started, within the next month or so we must have been to the building department at least 10 times, trying to talk to people to find out what we needed to do to keep it, or what he needed to do. And nobody would really give us an answer. We talked to Mr. Ballard and he said something about taking the roof off of it, and then it would constitute a trellis. But it's not a roof, it's just slats of boards. And if you've seen trellises in other yards -- and they want to say an arbor. To me an arbor is something where they put these big things over the front of a building, you know, it's almost like a structure type of thing, a building in itself. This was made mainly to grow flowers on. And so when we went several times, we kept asking, well, what do we need to do? And nobody ever said you need to get a building permit. They said something about a variance or something about getting a variance, and if we got a variance, it would cost us $2,000. And then there was no guarantee that if we got the variance that we would still be -- because if it went before a variance committee or something like that, they could deny it and then you'd just lose your $2,000. And to us, it really wasn't worth $2,000 to have to go Page 60 August 28, 2003 through all this. Even though we wanted to keep it for the yard, and we've had so many comments on it from people going by. But we have been to the county I don't know how many times, at least 10 or 12 times, trying to talk to somebody. We tried to talk to Susan Murray. My husband sent her many, many faxes. And then we just got this thing today from Mrs. Murray that I think they put in exhibit. We had no idea. They said they tried to contact us and call us. We have an answering machine when we're out of town. There was never an answer or anything from the county to contact them in relation to this. And so when we got some of these notes, I said, well, they never contacted us. The only real contact we had was a week ago when we -- right after my surgery, got up and they didn't even ring the door bell. I found this big sheet on the door saying that we are in violation of the code. And we had no idea. We thought that everything was okay. You know, because we've been gone about four months now. And so that's been sort of hit or miss. But we've tried to do everything we could within our reason to do what needed to be done, and we're just -- either we're not understanding or something is not right. So that's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anymore questions for Mr. or Mrs. Weber? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. WEBER: Thank you. MR. LUEDTKE: Mr. Chairman, ifI could just make two quick notes real quick. Just to clarify a little bit, when we did give him the six-month extension on June 28th, we did explain that he needed to obtain permits or remove the structure at that time. That's why we gave six months. So we made sure we did understand that. And just to elaborate a little bit on what Ms. Weber said on the Page 61 August 28, 2003 variance process, I'm pretty sure they are going to be required to go through the variance process, because they are on the main thoroughfare and they are violating their setbacks. So they're going to have to get the variance before they could get the building permits. MS. DUSEK: Shawn, I have a question. MR. LUEDTKFJ: Ma'am? MS. DUSEK: If it's an arbor it needs a permit, if it's a trellis, it doesn't; is that correct? That's not correct? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She didn't use the word trellis or arbor in her definition out of the code, if I remember. MS. DUSEK: With these different definitions, it sounded as though one needed one and one didn't. I know you said a fixed structure in the ground, which is what this is, so it wouldn't matter whether it had sides on it or a roof or anything, it's a fixed structure. MS. BELPEDIO: No, it wouldn't matter. And the provisions cited require that all structures obtain building permits. And what I read to you was that a structure is something that's affixed into the ground. So whatever you end up calling it, if it's affixed into the ground, then it's a structure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think basically the only exception I think was in this case would be a fence, and this isn't a fence. I'm not worried about the utility poles and such. But this is a structure, according to 6.3. Okay. Any other questions for Shawn? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Shawn. MS. ARNOLD: We only had -- we had one other witness and that was a permitting tech that the Webers spoke to initially, and I don't know where she is. We did make a call for her to get here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: My question for you, Michelle, to give us a handle, since this is -- seems to be in the setback area, as Shawn has said, it seems like a variance would be their first item to require, Page 62 August 28, 2003 and then if in fact they're granted a variance, then they would go for the required permits after the fact. Can you give us some sense of time frames? MS. ARNOLD: A variance application is no different from a building permit in that you fill out the application and submit it. So he would just be required to complete the application, submit it and they would set a public hearing for the board's consideration. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And this is something that must be done by the commissioners, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And that process is, timewise, three to six months; is that reasonable? MS. ARNOLD: Probably three months, because it would still depend on the workload of-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Then if that is in fact granted, then his -- for this type of structure, permits are -- MS. ARNOLD: One day in this particular case. There's not really very much. I mean, there's -- MR. LUEDTKE: Just a quick structural inspection. MS. ARNOLD: He would just show how the actual support beams are affixed into the ground and he could get it -- MR. WEBER: Time out. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me just get some information for us, sir. MS. ARNOLD: It's a quick turnaround for the permit side of it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So he just has to show how he affixed it into the ground and put it together, basically. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Which, I think, is close to what he has submitted in a drawing in his package. Yes, sir? MR. WEBER: Well, just saying what we are thinking. We Page 63 August 28, 2003 have no intentions of going to a variance. We have no -- it's not -- it's sheer foolishness to go to a variance and spend $2,000 to do something like this. It does not make sense. First of all, the young lady who just read over there and read in regard to whether this is an arbor or a trellis, blah, blah, blah. Trellis, fences, all those things can be built without a permit. That's all this is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, the word trellis wasn't in that, as I remember what she read. The word trellis does not exist in the writing of 6.3 of our Land Development Code. So that word isn't there, okay? A fence is, but that word isn't. MR. WEBER: If there, you know, is -- is there an alternative? Is there some way, you know, if we take those slats off the roof, the top, whatever, so that we don't have to destroy the integrity of what's happened. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, you need to understand first of all what this board does. This board merely is empowered to find out you either violated an ordinance or you didn't. We can't say oh, take the slats off and you'll be okay. That's not within our power. We can only decide did you in fact violate one of the county's ordinances. If you did, then we're going to tell you how to correct it, based on what the county tells us is the proper procedure. In my mind, based on that -- your item seems to be built in a setback area. You understand that from the road there are certain setbacks that the county has. Even though you may have a deed that says "X", there are setback requirements that creep into there, okay? MR. WEBER: But trellises don't come into that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me finish, sir. If your item, your structure, is in that setback area, then you need a variance from the county commissioners to say that's okay to be there, we don't care, okay? They can either do that or not do that. That's not for us, that's for them. But if you're standing there saying you're not even going to ask them, that helps us, because then there's Page 64 August 28, 2003 only one thing for us to tell you to do and that's tear it down. I mean, if you don't want to go for a variance, and that's what you just testified that you're not going to do, we're only left with one alternative. If you're in violation, we're going to tell you to remove it. Otherwise we'll say go for a variance and then the permits, and if you can't do that, then tear it down. But if you're just going to stand there and testify that you're not even going to try to get a variance, we'll just order you to tear it down. MR. WEBER: It's not the variance, it's the fact of costing $2,000. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we have no power over that. Whatever the -- MR. WEBER: I understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- cost is, the cost is. MR. WEBER: I understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We can tell you that this is the procedure we're going to order you to follow and, you know, we have no way of saying that we'll waive the money. That's not for us to say. MR. WEBER: I hear you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay? MR. WEBER: I hear you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Our hands are tied, and we're very limited, we have a very small space that we work within. And it is -- if you violated something, we agree you did or you didn't violate it. Then we agree how you're going to correct it. And that's an order and it's just like coming from a judge. You either obey it or you're going to get fined until you do. And if you choose not to, the fine goes up to some point at which we ask the county attorneys to foreclose on your property. So we're very limited. MR. WEBER: I hear you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay? Page 65 August 28, 2003 MR. WEBER: I hear you. Did you want to say something, Linda? MRS. WEBER: No, I just want -- could somebody clarify again the variance procedure, what exactly -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, you need to talk to Michelle. Evidently it sounds like you have to fill out paperwork. And how detailed that is, I can't tell you, but she can. And submit it and it goes through a process, and it requires a public hearing before the public by the county commissioners, they would read it in one of their meetings, and I don't know, is there more than one required meeting? I can't remember. MS. ARNOLD: Just one. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. It's read there. And if nobody in the general public comes up and objects and all that, then I assume the commissioners would vote to approve or disapprove, based on whatever the county would recommend to them. MS. ARNOLD: It goes before the planning commission, as well as the Board of County Commissioners. MS. SAUNDERS: Jennifer, did you say that a gate is permitted for that? MS. BELPEDIO: Let me read you that definition. MS. ARNOLD: We don't need to go through what the definition is. It's already been determined by the county building department that that structure needs a permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's not a -- MS. ARNOLD: Regardless of what the definition says. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: In this view in the picture it's really a pergola, not a trellis. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's irrelevant, it's a structure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, a structure. And the word trellis doesn't appear in the county code. Anything else, sir? Page 66 August 28, 2003 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right. MR. WEBER: Help me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're going to try. I'd like to ask you one more question, okay, just to make sure on the record, sir. Are you willing to try the variance route? MS. DUSEK: Why don't we just give him that option and decide later. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I'd like to know what he, you MS. DUSEK: MR. WEBER: pictures. It might be putting pressure on him right now. It's such a beautiful thing, as you can see in the CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. I've seen the pictures. MR. WEBER: You know, I'd just hate to do anything to interrupt it. Give me some time and let me think about that. I have a lot of things going on. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Fair enough. MS. BARNETT: Excuse me, Cliff. Jennifer wanted to give us a definition, and even though Michelle said that we've had it, I think Jennifer wants it for the record. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't have a problem with that. Reread the definition, please, Jennifer. MS. BELPEDIO: Anything constructed or erected which requires a fixed location on the ground or in the ground or attached to something having a fixed location on or in the ground, including buildings, towers, smoke stacks, utility poles and overhead transmission lines. Fences and walls, gates or posts are not intended to be structures. And this is a definition that our planners utilize when making decisions as to whether or not permits are necessary. It's all Page 67 August 28, 2003 intertwined, but it's the county's position that a permit is necessary. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And from the picture it's definitely not a gate and it's not a wall. So having determined that, we're now -- we'll close that section. Yes, sir? One last shot. MR. WEBER: Linda and I are just talking. You know, because they told us a -- it was agreed with us it was a trellis, obviously we have never ever seen that, what she's just read. We wouldn't see it, because we weren't a part of it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I'll close that section of the public hearing, and we'll move on to finding of fact, if in fact a violation does exist. MS. SAUNDERS: I have some thoughts on that, as usual. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, go ahead. MS. SAUNDERS: I understand that the planning commission has ruled one way. I disagree with them. I believe you can equally make a point for this being considered a fence or a gatepost leading into the backyard, rather than an outside structure. I don't -- I'm not going to get into the definition of fence and gates and the rest. I just don't see what we're trying to -- I mean, this doesn't make sense to me to what -- the prosecution that we're going through here to gain compliance. I don't think it's a -- I realize the code enforcement has to follow up with any anonymous complaint. I truly do not believe there's a violation here. MS. BARNETT: Rhona-- MS. SAUNDERS: I know. MS. BARNETT: -- no disrespect to you. I don't know if we've got the right violation. I believe the violation is it's in the setback and does not belong in the setback, so therefore it was built in an improper location. MS. SAUNDERS: That could be, and I would look at that differently, but that isn't the violation that we got. Page 68 August 28, 2003 MS. BARNETT: Is that stated on there anywhere, Michelle? MS. SAUNDERS: Is there anything about a setback on there? MS. ARNOLD: The violation is for a building permit. MS. BARNETT: But in order to get the building permit, they would have had to get the variance first for where it's placed, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Because we're dealing with something that has been erected and now it's after the fact, the fact that it has been placed in the setback on the property has to be addressed. But we did not address that in our case to you. The case is that-- irregardless of where this structure was placed on the property, it would be required to obtain a building permit. If they placed it in the rear yard and it didn't encroach into the setback, it would still require a building permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Adding my own comment, looking -- I mean, it's a beautiful structure. There's no way that I could even fathom to call this a fence or a gate, I'm sorry. It is a structure, it's square, it has dimensions, it does not run the whole length of the property on that side, so I'm on the side that in fact a violation does exist. So having said that, any other comments? If not, I would entertain a motion that there is or is not a violation. MS. BARNETT: I'll attempt a motion. The Board of County Conunissioners versus Carl E. Weber and Linda N. Weber, CEB No. 2003-029, I find that a violation does exist. The violations are of Section 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation is: A large trellis type structure with roof approximately ten-by-ten in the east side yard erected without a building permit. The locating is 491 Seabee Avenue, Naples, Florida. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion that in fact a violation exists. Do I hear a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. Page 69 August 28, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: saying aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MR. PONTE: Aye. We have a motion and a second. Any If none, all those in favor signify by Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? MS. SAUNDERS: Opposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 5-1. Order of the board. MS. DUSEK: I'll give this a try. The order would be that the respondent pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by submitting a complete and sufficient permit application for described structure, or go for a variance, or remove the structure. Now, I'm going to have to backtrack that, because I'm going to have to break this into time frames. A permit application -- well, they have to get the variance first; is that correct? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. So they'll have to submit the paperwork within "X" for a variance. MS. DUSEK: All right, let's just go back a bit. Do the operational costs, submit the application for a variance within 30 days, or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. If they get the variance, there would be another 30-day period to get the permit application and certificate of occupancy. And I would say that would be a 30-day period. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thirty days after variance approval? MS. DUSEK: After the variance approval. That they get the Page 70 August 28, 2003 permit and the certificate of occupancy within 30 days or a fine of $50 per day would be imposed for each day the violation continues. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, now, if they don't get the variance, are you going to have a line item that -- MS. DUSEK: They remove the structures. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- if the variance is denied, within 30 days they must remove the structure or a fine? MS. DUSEK: Yes. Now, I don't know whether we can incorporate that into that 30-day period. If they get the variance that they get their certificates and their permits within the 30 days, or within that 30 days remove the structure. Can we put all three of those in that 30-day period, to be one or the other? MS. ARNOLD: Your last two was -- you're saying if a variance is approved, you have 30 days to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: To get the permits. MS. ARNOLD: If denied, you have 30 days to remove -- MS. DUSEK: Is that feasible? I mean, it -- MR. PONTE: I don't want to interrupt your concentration, but I think the questions is how long would it take to get the variance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we already know we have no idea about that. MS. DUSEK: It's just whenever they do get it, there would be a 30-day period. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They have to submit for the variance in 30 days and once they get it they have 30 days to either submit for the permits or tear the structure down. MS. BARNETT: And in order to tear the structure down, do they need a demolition permit? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, which is probably a one-day -- MS. BARNETT: That needs to be incorporated in that. MS. DUSEK: Now, I also put in there that they need to get Page 71 August 28, 2003 their CO's within that 30 days. Now, Michelle, is that feasible? So the 30-day period after they get their variance, or if it's denied, they either get the permits and the CO's, or they get the demolition permit and remove. MR. PONTE: Can I ask Michelle -- MS. DUSEK: Does everybody understand what I've said? MR. PONTE: Can I ask Michelle a question, please? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. MR. PONTE: To you need -- in order to get the variance, is he going to be required to get engineering drawings. MS. ARNOLD: Shawn is shaking his head. For the variance, or the building permit? MR. LUEDTKE: That would be for the building permit. MR. PONTE: I just wondered if he has to go that way. MS. ARNOLD: For the variance, no. But possibly for the building permit. MS. DUSEK: Then he might have to have an engineer. MS. ARNOLD: I don't know about the engineer. MR. PONTE: I'm only asking that question because of the time frame. MS. ARNOLD: I don't know for a fact whether or not engineering drawings are required. If the building -- permitting tech were here as we requested, she would have been able to answer, but I don't know. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. If in fact the time frame that we put on it, the 30 days after approval of the variance, if he needed engineering drawings and that was insufficient, he always has the option of coming back to us and saying, you didn't give me enough time so I need help, and we can do that, rather than sit here and trying to ballpark. Because none of us really know. So I think if we let it ride, Mr. Weber will have the option that if he has insufficient Page 72 August 28, 2003 time that he can come and ask us for more time and we'll gladly give it to him. We don't want to penalize him for something out of his control. You know, we don't do that. MR. PONTE: I just want to make sure the time frame is adequate. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Rather than trying to guess a number, let's leave the number as it is, and if he needs more assistance we'll gladly give it to him. How's that sound? MR. LEFEBVRE: Regarding the terminology of CO. MS. ARNOLD: Certificate of occupancy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does everybody understand Bobbie's motion? MS. RAWSON: How long does he have to get this certificate of completion? MS. DUSEK: That's all within that 30-day time frame, and after the variance is either granted or denied. He either gets the permits and a certificate of completion or the demolition permit and demolish it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does everybody understand? MS. SAUNDERS: I'd like to ask the board if they'd consider in this case, since we have testimony that the people went to the permitting offices 10, 12 times, have made an honest effort to figure this out, I believe, that we waive the operational costs until -- from now through the 30-day period -- I mean, from the beginning of the case, I'm sorry, the 30-day period until after they apply, and at that point I believe they should pay if they don't get the county permits. But I really -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The prosecutorial costs are everything that got them to today. MS. SAUNDERS: I would like to ask the board to consider waiving those costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But if you do away with them, we Page 73 August 28, 2003 can't add any costs later, because we don't have any power to add costs after today. Only from day one to today can we put operational/prosecutorial costs in. Other than that, we have no right to add any costs. MS. SAUNDERS: Then I can make it simple. I would like to request that we waive the operating costs in this case. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think we should wait until if there's an imposition of fines to review it at that point. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I agree. So we have a motion that has not been amended. Do we have a second? MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a second now. We have a motion and a second on Bobbie's -- and I won't go over it. I think we've all heard it. I don't want to miss anything. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? MS. SAUNDERS: Opposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, 5-1. Mr. Weber, do you understand? What we're going to order you to do is, you have from today 30 days, you can get with Michelle, Michelle will put you with somebody, to submit the paperwork for a variance, okay, whatever that paperwork is. Okay? That's your first item. Page 74 August 28, 2003 Then once you get the variance or get denied the variance, you have an additional 30 days to get whatever paperwork is required: Either a permit to have the structure or a permit to tear the structure down. Okay? That's what we're ordering you to do. If any of those times are a problem, then you can ask Michelle to let you come back before the board and ask us for more time, okay? MR. WEBER: Thank you. MRS. WEBER: One question? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MRS. WEBER: You mentioned something about when you get the permit, about engineering drawings. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, that's an item that we can't address because we don't say yes, you need them, no, you don't. That's an item that Michelle can lead you to the person that would tell you yes, you do or no, you don't. And that's why we were talking about the time line. In that second 30-day period, if you need some kind of engineered drawings which are going to take longer than 30 days, then I've said you can come back and ask us for an extension rather than the fines start going in, and we'll see what we can do to help you. But that's out of your control and we honestly don't know. So we'd rather put a time line on it right now, but you can come back and ask for more, if you need it. Okay? MRS. WEBER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Case 2003-36, is that -- MS. HILTON: I think we're to 2003-35. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 35, okay. That's right, we put two ahead of it. I'm sorry. MS. HILTON: The next case is Board of County Commissioners versus Barbara L. Galloway, CEB Case No. 2003-035. The alleged violation is of Sections 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of Page 75 August 28, 2003 Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: Observed a mobile home placed, erected without first obtaining authorization of a Collier County building permit and having all of the required inspections and receiving the certificate of occupancy. Location where violation exists: 939 Church Street, Copeland, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 113180000. As described in legal description, quitclaim deed, OR Page 1804, Page 2250 through 2251, which has a scrivener's error in the legal description, and the warranty deed with the correct legal description attached hereto at OR 1655, pages 1008 through 1009. Name and address of owner in charge of location where violation exists: Barbara L. Galloway, P.O. Box 196, Everglades City, Florida, 33929. Date violation first observed: November 13th, 2002. Date owner given notice of violation: November 12th, 2002. Date in which violation must be corrected: November 25th, 2002. Date of reinspection: This morning. And the result of reinspection: The violations remain. And at this time I would like to mm the case over to the -- before I do that, we have previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A as evidence. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) Page 76 August 28, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: We have previously provided the notice to the respondent via certified mail, regular mail and posting. And she is not present in the courtroom. And at this time, after that, I would like to mm the case over to the code enforcement investigator, Carol Sykora, to present the case to the board. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. SYKORA: Good morning. For the record, my name is Carol Sykora, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. On November 13th, 2002, I received a phone call from Deputy Kistner (phonetic) of the Everglades substation that Barbara Galloway had placed a mobile home on her unimproved property at 939 Church Street, in Copeland. I checked the computer system and found that no permits had been issued for this. I also spoke to permit technician Wanda, who stated a week prior to this incident that Ms. Galloway had been in there inquiring aborn placing a mobile home there and was told that she must have a contractor move it there, an owner/builder could not do this. But she moved it anyway there. I had sent an NOV, a notice of violation, to her, but on a recheck visit, she happened to be at the property, so I obtained her signature on the notice of violation at that time. Also, there were workers present, demolishing a foundation stem wall on another section of this one parcel of land, and I placed a stop work order on that, due to the fact there was no demolition permit. And she had intended-- she told me that she intended to put a second mobile home there, a double wide, at that location. At that time, I advised her that it was one parcel of land and only one structure could be on that parcel. Consequently, after that stop work order she did go down and Page 77 August 28, 2003 apply for a demolition permit for the foundation to be used pretty much as fill for that section of the land. I had several attempted conversations with her throughout, trying to explain to her what is necessary to be done to obtain the permits. Either I couldn't get ahold of her or when I did, she basically did not want to speak to me, screamed at me, hung up, and I could not have very much communication with her. So I sent a Code Enforcement Board warning letter to her. Consequently out of that, she did come down and speak to my supervisor at the time, Ed Morad, who advised her what needed to be done. She did hire a contractor, Jackie Williams, to obtain a permit, and it was applied for in Immokalee. However, this permit remained in apply status and then became ready for pick up, but was never picked up. I had several conversations with the contractor, Jackie Williams, reference this, and he stated that Ms. Galloway would not pay him to pick the permit up, so he would not do it. And this permit would expire September 3rd of 2003. Pretty much this home is unoccupied; however, I've heard from neighbors that it's being used off and on for kids to go in there to do whatever, and no one is really living in it, but it could be unsafe due to that fact. It's not been tied down. And our recommendations are that she be given 14 days to pay and pick up this permit or $100 fines be imposed, and/or demolish the structure. Any questions? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You said the permit runs out September 3rd? MS. SYKORA: Yes. It's been in ready status for quite a while. Possibly -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If she needs an extension, is there an extension possible? Page 78 August 28, 2003 MS. SYKORA: I believe that they would allow her to pick this up, even if it says expiration, since it's been in ready status. It has been reviewed. But basically, Jackie Williams advised me that she's pretty much refusing to pick it up. And this property has a For Sale sign on it from Glades Realty. And I did advise Jan Brock, the owner of Glades Realty, that it does have code violations on the property. MS. DUSEK: Did the owner give a reason why she's not picking it up? Is it because she's selling it or she can't afford it or she's changed her mind or whatever? MS. SYKORA: I've had no conversations with her, but Jackie Williams stated that he's finally got ahold of her and she just won't pay him and has not really given a reason. She has moved, I believe, somewhere up in Fort Myers, so I don't know if that's her intention is just to sell the property. MR. PONTE: Ms. Sykora, just help my memory. Has Ms. Galloway done this before? Have we had a case with you and Ms. Galloway in the not distant past on this very similar subject, different property? MS. SYKORA: No, I have never brought Ms. -- I personally have never brought her before the board before, but she has had past violations. I did have an unsafe structure of a home that had been burnt by a fire removed from the property. And I do have an outstanding citation on another violation on her that she has not paid. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But no presence before this board? MS. SYKORA: Not I, no. MR. PONTE: Thanks. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Carol? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MS. SYKORA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That would close the public hearing Page 79 August 28, 2003 portion of that case. Finding of fact; does a violation exist? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Barbara Galloway, CEB Case No. 2003-035, that a violation does exist. The violation is of Section 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance No. 91-102 as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. Description of violation: Observed a mobile home placed/erected without first obtaining authorization of a Collier County building permit and having all the required inspections and obtaining a certificate of occupancy. Location is 939 Church Street, Copeland, Florida. MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that a violation in fact does exist. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board? MS. DUSEK: Well, I'll make a motion. MR. PONTE: Before you craft your motion, the only thing I'm sensitive to is picking up an expired permit by September 3 -- or one that is subject to expire on September 3. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's why I asked the question if it could be extended, because we don't have 14 days or less to -- well, we have less, but -- to give her to pay this gentleman. So I asked that question so I could get an acknowledgement from the county. Would they do something if we -- MR. PONTE: I know you asked the question, but do we get an acknowledgement from the person in Immokalee or-- MS. ARNOLD: Just a nod but -- Page 80 August 28, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: A nod from the county that in fact an extension could be given. That's what-- when I asked that question, Michelle was nodding her head yes. So I'm satisfied that yes, we could get an extension for the lady -- or that the county would give one, not that we would give it. MS. DUSEK: Well, I'll structure it a little bit differently. I make a motion that the respondent pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by obtaining a completed building permit within 35 days, or a fine of $100 per day be imposed each day the violation continues; or remove and/or demolish the structure within 30 days of the hearing after obtaining demolition permit, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. That the respondent get all required inspections to be performed and obtain a certificate of occupancy within 30 days after obtaining the required permits, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, my only comment is you put the paying the operational costs, you combined that with abating the violation. I'd like the operational costs to be a separate line item. MS. DUSEK: That's fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So whether they abate the violations or not, they're going to pay the operational costs. And then my next item was you gave them 35 days to -- MS. DUSEK: Thirty. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. DUSEK: Oh, I did? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You said 35. I have 30 written down. Then you gave them 30 days to demolish. And I was going to say 30 and 35 don't match. They have to be the same, okay? So it's 30 instead of 35. MS. DUSEK: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Other than that, I'm with you. Page 81 August 28, 2003 MS. BARNETT: I only have one problem. Because she does owe the gentleman that put together the permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We can't make her pay somebody else. MS. BARNETT: He'd have to take her to civil court, okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She has to get the permits and the quickest way to do that is to pay him. If she doesn't want to pay him, we can't force her to pay somebody else. We can only order her to get permits, otherwise get fined. We can't order her to pay somebody. MS. BARNETT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other comments on Bobbie's motion? MR. PONTE: Just one. It's sort of moot. Did you delete or did you include the respondent must notify code enforcement? MS. DUSEK: I did not put that in, but that can be put in. MS. RAWSON: Would you put that in every time? MS. DUSEK: All right, I will. Respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and to request that the investigator come out and perform the site inspection. MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other comments? We have a motion and a second. If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Yes, sir? MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to excuse myself, I have a prior appointment. Page 82 August 28, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now 2003-036. MS. HILTON: Our next case is Board of County Commissioners versus Diana Hall, CEB Case No. 2003-036. We have previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A as evidence. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MS. HILTON: This morning I handed out to you a note that I received late last night from Ms. Hall that we would like entered as Respondent's Exhibit A. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the Respondent's Exhibit A as evidence. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the letter from the respondent as Exhibit A to the respondent. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. HILTON: We have provided the respondent with -- which obviously she got notice since we got this letter -- certified mail and regular mail, and posting of the property in the courthouse. Page 83 August 28, 2003 The alleged violation is of Section 104.5.1, paragraph four of Ordinance No. 2002-01 of the Florida Building Code. The description of the violation: Observed a primary structure that was originally permitted under Collier County Permit No. 92-0010786, and was reapplied for twice and has been deemed abandoned. There were never any inspections scheduled and the structure never received a certificate of occupancy. The most recent reapplication expired on March 17th, 1999. Location where violation exists: 790 12th Street Northeast, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 3926720009, Golden Gate Estates. Name and address of owner in charge of location where violation exists: Diana Hall, 925 Southeast 41st Street, Apartment 39, Gainesville, Florida, 32641. Date violation first observed: March 24th, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: March 25th, 2003. Date on which violation was to be corrected: April 7th, 2003. Date of reinspection: The investigator went out there yesterday. And the result of reinspection: The violations remain. And at this time I would like to turn the case over to the code investigator, Jeff Letourneau, to present the case to the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Before we hear Jeff, Ms. Rawson, the Exhibit A for the respondent, after reading it -- MS. RAWSON: It appears to be -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Basically it's a request for a -- MS. RAWSON: A continuance. I think so. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: A continuance. And I think that's important to get before everybody. Since she is not here, if you read the letter she submitted about her situation, problems, so on, so forth, and that she has obviously contacted a construction company and a bank to work out her problems. She then goes on to basically ask for some more time. So I throw that out for everybody to understand. Page 84 August 28, 2003 You can -- we could hear the case and make an order, or we could grant her a continuance. So -- MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we grant the continuance until -- she hasn't given a time frame, but I would say by the next meeting. MR. PONTE: I imagine that's kind of-- pretty fast. She has exhausted one avenue of financial support already. MS. DUSEK: What do you feel is -- 60 days, 90 days? MR. PONTE: Yeah, I think 60 or 90. Sixty days. MS. DUSEK: All right, I'll amend the motion to 60 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'll throw out for consideration the fact that she has requested this continuance. We might also possibly, if we didn't grant a continuance and heard the case, take into consideration what she's trying to do and give her sufficient time to do it, which it seems is what the county has recommended, 90 days to at least, I guess, get all her permits and such. So I think both of those should be in the back of your mind in that if we wanted to give her 60 days to come back to us, I think the county has also taken that into consideration in looking at giving her 90 days to get it. So think of both of those. MS. BARNETT: Can I ask a question of Mr. Letourneau in regards to the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we haven't taken any evidence from him yet, so-- MS. BARNETT: Well, because we're looking at a continuance, I just want to ask him a question about whether or not there's a safety issue at the property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, I don't have a problem with that question. Where's Jeff?. What we want to know is, is there a safety problem there, Jeff?. MR. LETOURNEAU: I don't think so, no. Page 85 August 28, 2003 CHAIRMAN MS. DUSEK: CHAIRMAN MS. DUSEK: FLEGAL: Thank you. I still-- FLEGAL: You still have a motion. I still have my motion. I still think it should be a continuance. And this may eliminate some extra cost to her by coming before the board if she can complete this. MS. ARNOLD: My recommendation would be 30 days, rather than 60. MS. DUSEK: I'd like to keep it at 60. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion for a 60-day continuance. Do I hear a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear another alternative? Is Ms. Hall living in Gainesville, is that where MR. PONTE: she is? MS. HILTON: Yes. MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes. MS. SAUNDERS: I'd like to go with the staff recommendation, not because I don't want to help the lady, but because I feel if she is -- that in this case having some time pressure would be a good thing for her to get something done. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So why don't you make a motion we deny the request for a continuance? MS. SAUNDERS: Oh, okay. I move we deny the request for a continuance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear a second for that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We've got to do one or the other. MS. DUSEK: All right, I make a motion that we grant a continuance for 30 days. MS. BARNETT: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're going to give her 30 days' Page 86 August 28, 2003 continuance to our next meeting in September. 25th, is that the date? I think. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. PONTE: We have a second on that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MR. PONTE: The lady lives in Gainesville. We have 30 days and a national holiday in between. It just doesn't seem reasonable to me. MS. DUSEK: MR. PONTE: it got shifted to 30. MS. DUSEK: down to 30. MR. PONTE: more appropriate. You should have seconded my 60 days. I thought we were going 60 or 90. And suddenly Because nobody seconded my 60. Now we're Now we go with 90, which I think is actually She's exhausted one avenue-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right now we have a motion for a 30-day and we have it with a second. So all those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's two. All those opposed? MR. PONTE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Rhona? MS. SAUNDERS: I'm in favor. MS. DUSEK: It's up to you, now. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So you're in favor of 30 days? MS. SAUNDERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And Bobbie is and Sheri is, correct? Okay, it's three to two. So she gets 30 days. MS. SAUNDERS: And then we're back where we were. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So we'll see this case next month. Page 87 August 28, 2003 2003-031. MS. ARNOLD: Before we begin, we have to get this particular respondent on the phone. (Brief recess.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we'll call the board back to order. We have the gentleman on the cell phone, so rather than run up somebody's phone bill for him. MS. HILTON: The next case we're going to hear is Board of County Commissioners versus Cora Sneibrun. I'm not sure how you pronounce that, but it's spelled S-N-E-I-B-R-U-N. CEB Case No. 2003-031. We have previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. MS. DUSEK: Exhibit A. MR. PONTE: I make a motion that we accept the County's Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. HILTON: This morning I provided to you a copy of a stipulation from attorney Michael Hagan that we would like entered as Respondent's Exhibit A. MS. BARNETT: I'll make a motion that we accept the Respondent's Exhibit A. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept respondent's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying Page 88 August 28, 2003 aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right. MS. HILTON: The respondent is appearing through counsel, who is appearing telephonically. The alleged 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. The description of the violation: Observed a wood fence and animal pen/roof structure erected without first obtaining the authorization of a Collier County building permit, and having all of the required inspections and receiving the certificates of completion. Location where violation exists: 160 Wilson Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, Golden Gate Estates. More particularly described as Folio No. 37221041002. Name and address of owner in charge of location where violation exists: Cora Sneibrun, 160 Wilson Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: April 7th of 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: April 7th, 2003 by certified mail and follow-up posting at the property and courthouse. Date on which violation was to be corrected: April 17th, 2003. Date of reinspection -- Jeff, did you go out there? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yesterday. MS. HILTON: Yesterday. Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And at this time, I would like to mm the case over to the code investigator, Jeff Letoumeau, to present the case to the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. PONTE: Is there a reason to do that, since we have a Page 89 August 28, 2003 stipulation? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That was going to be my next question. Ms. Rawson, could we hear the stipulation? MS. RAWSON: The stipulation is in the form of a letter from Mr. Hagan. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, and he's on the phone, I guess. MS. HILTON: He's on the speaker phone, so he can hear us. MS. RAWSON: Well, if we have a stipulation, I think we need to hear that first before you go through the whole case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. HILTON: And I spoke to Mr. Hagan regarding number five, and it's been corrected to reference paragraph three and paragraph four. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. That was one of my questions. I had a couple more, but -- MS. ARNOLD: I think that the only thing that we wanted to enter in the record is regarding paragraph two. I mean, we don't need to go through the whole case, but the investigator wanted to speak to that paragraph, and then if we can then hear from Mr. Hagan, that would be great. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I don't understand the concern, because we don't assess liability. He either violated the -- MS. ARNOLD: No, it's more pertaining to the notice. MS. BARNETT: That she wasn't given notice, and she was. MS. HILTON: Are you there? Can you hear us? MR. HAGAN: Yes, I am. I'm hearing some of what is being said. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, let's have him do his stipulation and then I as a board member have some questions about it, so -- let him present it. MS. HILTON: Okay, go ahead and present your stipulation. MR. HAGAN: Okay, thank you. Page 90 August 28, 2003 Members of the board, thank you for allowing me to appear by telephone. Can everyone hear me all right? (All respond yes). MR. HAGAN: Okay, great. Thank you. This is Attorney Mike Hagan from Fort Myers for Cora Sneibrun. And I appreciate Shanelle's allowing me to appear by telephone, which I did to try to keep my client's costs down to a minimum. I also appreciate Michelle Arnold's assistance in arriving at this stipulation. As you will note in the stipulation, Ms. Sneibrun is agreeing to pay $681.10 for the cost of enforcement. In paragraph two, she purchased this home and the animal pen or barn was already in place, so she did not personally construct that, and therefore, she asked me to put some language to that fact in paragraph two. However, the key language is that she is acknowledging the code violations and accepting the terms of the stipulation. And pursuant to my discussions with Shanelle, Ms. Sneibrun would apply for the fence permit and apply for a building permit for the barn within one month, and then obtain all necessary inspections and a certificate of completion for both the fence and the barn within two months, that is, October 28th, 2003. And then finally, in paragraph five, in the event that she does not comply with those deadlines, a $50 fine would accrue, beginning upon the applicable deadline date. So I appreciate the board's consideration and, hopefully, approval of this stipulation, which I understand has been reviewed by Michelle Arnold, the Code Enforcement Director. And my client will do everything within her power to meet her obligations under this agreement. And finally, I would just apologize on her behalf for this going on as long as it did. I was not retained until Monday of this week, and I immediately tried to take action to get this resolved on her Page 91 August 28, 2003 behalf. I stood on the City of Fort Myers Code Enforcement Board, so I know the work that's involved on behalf of code enforcement as well as yourselves, and for that, the time that it took to resolve this, I do apologize. And that concludes my comments. MR. PONTE: Mr. Hagan, did you inadvertently skip number four, or did I not hear it? MS. ARNOLD: No, he said it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, he did it. MR. PONTE: Did he say that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, he covered them all. MR. HAGAN: I basically just summarized paragraphs three and four. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, he did that, George. Okay. Any questions for Mr. Hagan? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, I believe, Michelle, did you say the county wants to say anything in regards to this? MS. ARNOLD: We -- the investigator wants to clarify for the record the issue stated in paragraph two, that Ms. Sneibrun did not receive notice, and he just wants to put it on the record what notice he provided to Ms. Sneibrun. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Did you hear that, Mr. Hagan? MR. HAGAN: I understand that. I guess Ms. Arnold was referring to Ms. Sneibrun's statement that she did not receive certain notifications? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. The county wants to go on record as to disputing that. MR. HAGAN: Yes, I understand that. And I also, of course, did review the affidavits that were submitted by the code enforcement officer, so I do understand that the county would dispute Page 92 August 28, 2003 Ms. Sneibrun's statement. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we're going to let the county do that. Jeff, if you'd like to make a comment. We need to swear Jeff in, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, all's I wanted to say was I went out there on April 7th of this year and posted an NOV and had an NOV mailed. After I posted the NOV -- this isn't in my description on my case, I don't know why I didn't put it in there -- but Ms. Sneibrun called me and asked me what the violations were. I explained them to her and she asked me to have a meeting on the property with her. I went out there and -- the original complaint had some setback complaint on it, so I measured from the side of the property to the shed with Ms. Sneibrun and it was 24 feet so it didn't meet setbacks by six feet. We discussed the situation and she agreed on that day to remove the structure and get the fence permit. So I didn't go back, you know, I just took her for her word. I didn't make her sign an NOV. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What date was that, Jeff?. MR. LETOURNEAU: That was probably -- I think it was two days later, April 9th, one or two days later. The following time when I went out there, nobody was there, and it looked like that she had removed some of the steps to the shed on the south side. I left a note and then I came back later, I think it was on April 5th -- no, March 5th, and I met her outside, and she had a whole different attitude. She said she had talked to a lawyer and that he told her that he was of the opinion that the shed would be grandfathered in and she didn't think she had to get a permit for it, and she didn't even say anything about the fence. So I went to serve her an NOV on that date and she received refused to sign it, so I gave Page 93 August 28, 2003 her a copy of it and she said she wouldn't sign it until she discussed it with her lawyer. I haven't seen her since. Since then I've posted at least three or four warnings on her gate. And then last week I posted the CEB notice appearing on her gate, and that's what she claims that was the only notice she got, but she had numerous notices before that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, all the dates you just talked about were prior to April 17th. You talked about. April 4th, then April 9th and then March 5th, so that's all before the April 17th, which she says -- you know, she acknowledges that she talked to you then, but nothing else until August, so -- MR. LETOURNEAU: All right, you're right. But I had posted numerous things on her gate, there's no doubt about that. I just wanted to make that clear. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, that's fine. I have a couple of questions. And one: Michelle, this 681.10, that's something that the county is satisfied -- that's the number you and Mr. Hagan negotiated? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, that's the cost. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And you're satisfied with that? MS. ARNOLD: We're satisfied with everything else in the stipulation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The item that I'm not satisfied with is -- maybe needs clarification, the $50 a day, as far as I'm concerned, would be $50 a day for item three and then $50 a day for item four. You must complete one or get a fine and then you must complete the other one and get a fine. That would be my recommendation to the board, if we accept this, that it be specific, $50 for the application for the fence and then $50 for the building permit for the barn, not $50 -- MR. HAGAN: Yes, sir. Again, Mike Hagan for Cora Sneibrun. I believe that that was my intent for drafting this, that those are two separate items. And you are correct, that failure to comply with Page 94 August 28, 2003 either the application for the fence permit or for the building permit for the barn would be separate items, subject to the $50 per day fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Any other questions for any board members? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Other than that, I have no problem with accepting the stipulation, and we'll issue an order thusly. Okay? MS. SAUNDERS: We have to vote on this? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, we're going to have to do a regular finding of fact and then order of the board, which will basically be the stipulation. Okay? We'll close the public hearing portion and then go to the finding of fact. Do you understand that, Mr. Hagan? MR. HAGAN: Yes, sir, I do. And again, I appreciate the board's consideration of this. I did not mean to cast any dispersion whatsoever on Mr. Letourneau's actions. The language I included in paragraph two was simply at my client's direction, and I had no involvement in this case until Monday of this week. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No problem, I'm sure. MR. HAGAN: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Finding of fact. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Cora Sneibrun -- sorry for the incorrect pronunciation -- in CEB Case No. 2003-03 l, that there is a violation, that the violation is of Sections 2.7.6.1, and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance No. 9 l- 102, as amended, Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: Observed a wood fence and animal pen/roof structure erected without first obtaining the authorization of a Collier County building permit and having all of the required inspections and receiving a certificate of completion. Page 95 August 28, 2003 The location where the violation exists is 160 Wilson Boulevard South, in Collier County, Naples. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion -- MS. SAUNDERS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- that in fact a violation exists. MS. SAUNDERS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Rhona seconds it. Any other comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. We have a stipulation. What should be in our order is basically items one, three, four and five. MS. SAUNDERS: Can I just move that we accept the stipulation as presented, or do we have to read the whole thing? MS. DUSEK: The only part would be on number three, you'd have to put a $50 fine, and in number four. MR. PONTE: I think it's -- I didn't have any confusion with it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. It's probably better to put it in the record, especially since you are probably going to omit paragraph two. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You want us to read it in? Would that be best? MS. RAWSON: I think so. And I also need to understand in paragraph three whether there are two separate fines that attach. When you get there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, okay, I see what you're saying. I would say yes. My thought would be for the board to think about is, Page 96 August 28, 2003 under item three, what Ms. Rawson is talking about is submit an application by September 29th or a $50 fine, and then it says and obtain necessary inspections and CO by October 28th. That to me would be another $50 fine if that doesn't occur, that you do the same thing for item four. Everybody is -- MR. PONTE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- on board? MS. SAUNDERS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And as Ms. Rawson said, I think it's for our order that we make an order of the board. And actually, if you want to read this -- but the only items that I believe apply in the order are again, one, three, four, five, and five you have to readjust the numbers. It's three and four, not two and three. And it's -- the $50 would -- in fact, if you -- you don't even need five -- MS. DUSEK: That's right, we don't need five. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So it would be one, three and four. And we add the $50 in each part in three and in each part in four. Bobbie, you want to tackle that? I'm sorry -- Rhona? MS. DUSEK: Go ahead, Rhona. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm looking down at a page and not paying attention. Sorry. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay, I move that Ms. Sneibrun shall pay, by October 28th, 2003, a total of $681.10 to reimburse Collier County as payment in full for any and all fees, inspection costs, mailing costs, publication costs, and associated costs of enforcement. Second, that Ms. Sneibrun shall submit, by September 29th, 2003, a completed application for a fence permit or a fine of $50 per day shall accrue, and shall obtain all necessarily inspections and a certificate of completion on or before October 28th, 2003, or an additional fine of $50 per day shall accrue. Thirdly, that Ms. Sneibrun shall submit, by September 29th, 2003, a completed application for a building permit for the Page 97 August 28, 2003 unpermitted animal pen/barn or a fine of $50 per day shall accrue, and shall obtain all necessary inspections and a certificate of completion, or shall remove the structure on or before October 28th, 2003, or an additional fine of $50 per day shall accrue. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion, as Rhona has read. Do we hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second it. 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: Mr. Hagan, did you understand? MR. HAGAN: Yes, sir, I did. And once again, my thanks to the board, I appreciate your assistance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. HAGAN: Have a good day. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Okay. Case -- are we done? MS. BARNETT: No. We're done with the cases. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we're done with the cases, correct? MS. HILTON: Yes. We have extensions. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have -- close the public hearings on our cases. Now we'll do new business. Do we have any imposition of fines? I didn't see any in the package. MS. ARNOLD: No, we don't have any. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No requests for reductions. We have no foreclosures to forward to the county attorney, so we're now down to our request for extensions. First one being Baywood Manor Antiques and Jewelry. Page 98 August28,2003 MS. ARNOLD: And the respondents are present at this time, if you want to hear from them. They're requesting an extension of time for their particular case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, since it's their request, they must come forward and tell us why. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. LOPEZ: We've been trying to purchase this property since June, and finally closed on it about two weeks ago. I understand that by August 20th there was a permit to be issued -- or to be -- not permits, but the applications for the permit had to be put in, which is the fees. Because we purchased it on the 16th, I'm hoping to have an extension so that I can get everything that is needed to put the permit in process. I would like to ask the board, from my understanding it takes a bit of time to get everything that is needed in order for the permitting process, and I would like an extension. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I need to ask Ms. Rawson a question. We issued an order to Baywood Manor Antiques and this registered agent, and now the property has been sold, so I assume Baywood Manor Antiques and Jewelry doesn't exist anymore. Did you buy that company or-- MS. LOPEZ: No, I just bought the property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You just bought the property, okay. So, Ms. Rawson -- MS. RAWSON: It runs with the land, so it's Mr. and Mrs. Lopez's problem. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I just wanted to get that on the record. Since it's now become Mr. and Mrs. Lopez's problem, I understand the request for some time, because you're getting this when there's almost no time left. Since August 20th is gone. MS. DUSEK: Ms. Lopez, I have a question for you. You were Page 99 August 28, 2003 aware of the violation when you were negotiating on the property? MS. LOPEZ: Yes, I was. MS. DUSEK: And did you know the time frames when you were negotiating on the property? MS. LOPEZ: Yes. And we based the decision on purchasing the property. Because we were supposed to close on it back in June. So I figured that by June to August I would have enough time to put in the application. MS. ARNOLD: And just for the board's information, she's unable to do anything with the county until she's actually owner. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, she has to have ownership before she can do anything. So since she just closed two weeks ago, I understand the problem. Do you have anything else to tell us, ma'am? MS. LOPEZ: That's it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, thank you. I would -- based under these conditions -- and I think this is probably the first time we've had one of these, at least that I can remember -- I don't have a problem, since they just closed on the property. We gave the person that owned the property 90 days to get the permits. Since Ms. Lopez has now owned it and started, I have no problem coming up with some number and amending our order to give them proper time before any kind of penalties kick in. MR. PONTE: I think it should be the same 90 days. MS. SAUNDERS: I do, too. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What we would need to do, Ms. Rawson can correct me if I'm wrong, is -- in looking at the order, item one states remove the mobile home, which obviously I don't think that's been done. MR. LETOURNEAU: That's been done. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It has been done? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes. It's all gone. Page 100 August 28, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So item one has been complied with. So now we have left -- Jeff, is there a partially built structure still there? MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. I think the new buyers are going to use that structure as the building. They're going to build on top of it. They've had contact with architecture and they're going to go ahead and just complete the building. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So we would need to amend our order by rewording item one, basically leaving out the part of the mobile home, the first part of that sentence from the word by to the comma, and changing the 90-day date from August 20th to whatever 90 days is from today. MS. ARNOLD: I have a question for Jean. Do we need to remove that, since it's already complied with, or just extend the time frame for what's still out of compliance? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If the trailer doesn't exist, you can't extend the time frame on something that doesn't exist. MS. ARNOLD: Well, removing the record that a violation -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, this is an amendment to the order, so the record is still there. They were to comply by June 21st. Either they did or they didn't. And when we amend it, we're taking that out, because it's done. They did, I assume. Jeff said it's gone, so they've complied, right? MS. RAWSON: Well, it depends on if you're going to make this -- you're giving them an extension of time, so basically you're asking me to amend the order. And if I'm going to do it nun pro tunc, which is going to go back to the date of the original order, I'm not sure I want to do that because now we have new owners and so it's going to run to the new owners. MS. SAUNDERS: Can't we just issue an extension for 90 days? MS. RAWSON: I can just do an order granting an extension of time, without having to amend the order at all. Page 101 August 28, 2003 MS. DUSEK: That's what seems appropriate to do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And that time will fall into every other item? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. DUSEK: That seems to be the simplest route. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So since we have new owners, when we do the amendment -- or do the extension of time, do we at the same time change the ownership? MS. RAWSON: Well, I don't have a new deed. MS. HILTON: I'll get you one. MS. RAWSON: But if Shanelle will fax me one, I can do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, I ask that question because granting an extension to somebody that doesn't own something is to me kind of useless. MS. RAWSON: Just to keep the record straight, I'll get a faxed copy of the deed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess we need a motion to grant a 90-day extension, if that's what the board's pleasure is. MS. BARNETT: I will make a motion that we grant the new owners, Ariel and Lenia Lopez, a 90-day extension. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a request for a 90-day extension. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, done. We have a request from Mr. Chipman. Is Mr. Chipman here? (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir? MR. CHIPMAN: First of all, I would like to apologize to the Page 102 August 28, 2003 board. I missed last month's meeting, and I did not know I was scheduled. I don't know whether you remember it or not, but I came to the June meeting by mistake. I talked to that gentleman there, and so I thought I was on the schedule for June and I wasn't, and I came to that. And I certainly would not have missed the July meeting if had I known. We were out of town for the whole month, and there are my notices and they were sent back. So I didn't know about it. And as soon as I did return, ! called Carol and told her I had been out of town. So I apologize for not making the meeting. I'm requesting the 90 days. I'm going to -- I feel that there's no way that I can bring my violations into code, so I'm getting rid of the two pieces of property, the mobile home and the houseboat. I have ads running right now to give them away. I figure that they were really only valuable to me. I set them up, fixed them up and made them usable, but I cannot meet today's codes, and so I am removing them. I have, I think, a party that will take the houseboat. The mobile home, whoever might take it, will need a little time to probably get some of their own permits. But we actually had to unplug our telephone, we were getting so many calls. When you give something away, especially a mobile home -- we had so many calls, we just -- anyway. But some people want to know what size motor was in it and all these kind of different things. But we are trying to find a home for the mobile home and we'll be off the property within the 90 days. The houseboat will be off the property. I am dismantling the little apartment that I built under my mobile home. My mobile home is up on stilts. And I ran into a problem last week when I went over and talked to the county and code enforcement, because I had been led to believe that to -- what was going to be necessary for me to do on the apartment was just basically dismantle the apartment, take out the kitchen and the Page 103 August 28, 2003 bathroom and make it unusable. And I had no problem with that. But during our meeting I was told that I had to remove everything from under the mobile home, all the walls, everything. And to be honest with you, I was devastated. I mean, losing all of this is bad enough, but then when they said you're going to lose everything, which is basically storage under there. The home has been there 35 years and over a period of the 35 years, these little -- I mean, they are just like little storage rooms that were built under there. Not all at one time, over the 35-year period. And so I was -- you know, that was a new situation for me. And then they said I would need engineering drawings, all the walls, if I left the walls. And so if I tried to apply for a storage permit, they're telling me I've got to have all these walls. I said I can't do it. You know, they were put there 30 years ago, most of them. And so I'm sort of an impetus (sic) on what I'm going to do there, whether I'm going to have to rip out everything. So I do need some time to deal with that part of my situation. The other two, I mean, they're going to be gone. And I've already dismantled the apartment, stove, refrigerator, toilet; everything is out. The cabinets, they're still inside. I haven't disposed of them, but it's destroyed. And it was very difficult for me to do, because I built it. I did all of my own work. And it's been -- the whole thing has been a real situation. Because I just retired, and that's about a third of my income, and just to have it just wiped out was difficult. I would also like to sort of comment, because you're probably going to be dealing with more of this on Plantation Island. But I feel the county should hold a little bit of responsibility for what's happening to us down there. They have left us alone, we're down there where most people don't want to be, where there's so many mosquitos and no-see-ems that code enforcement people don't really want to be there. Page 104 August 28, 2003 And they have allowed us to do things over the years. And I've been there 15 years and when I first got there I said, well, I want to do this, what do you do about a permit? Well, they don't bother us down here, you just sort of do as you please. I'm not saying it's correct, but that has been the attitude of code enforcement and the county for Plantation Island. MS. ARNOLD: I have to object. MR. CHIPMAN: We have no mosquito control, we have no, you know, no sewer system out there. And we have been left alone, which I appreciate. Because if you know, if you try to get a permit -- I've tried, I won't go into how hard I've tried to get permits. But to allow these things and then come in and if a neighbor gets mad at you and turns you in, to start enforcing all these things that have been allowed for all these years. Carol -- and I'm not trying to get Carol into any trouble. I like Carol. But she lives on the island. My point of view, there's no way that lady should be our code enforcement lady. It's a very difficult situation for her to have to start dealing and turning in people that she's living with. My next door neighbor had a swimming pool, the biggest violation in the world. After I was turned in I said, Carol, well, look at that violation. I'm not going to turn it in. See, that's -- in my point of view, that's accepting these things, that's allowing it. Our county commissioner came to a fish fry at my place. He saw the pool, he saw my houseboat. Didn't say a word. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What we need to talk about is -- MR. CHIPMAN: I know I got off the subject, but I'm just saying that's what's been going on on Plantation forever. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That has no bearing on whether we're going to grant you an extension or not. MR. CHIPMAN: I understand that, too. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So you're kind of beating yourself. Page 105 August 28, 2003 Let's just state why you want us to grant you an extension. MR. CHIPMAN: Why? I just want to make sure that I have time to get these things off of my property. Hopefully they'll be done away with before that, but I am removing it, they're going to be gone. But when I wasn't here last week, I had no -- or last month, I wasn't able to ask for or appeal for a little longer time. And you sort of tightened the numbers on me, so I'm just asking that you give me time to get these off my property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Was this an actual case that we MS. RAWSON: Yes, three orders, actually. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We don't have any orders. MS. BARNETT: Do you -- I can tell you. Do you remember the houseboat? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I remember them. We don't have a copy of the order and that's what I'd like to have. What I have is the executive summary, which doesn't tell me anything. MS. ARNOLD: Shanelle said she just received the final recorded documents the other day, so she inadvertently left them out of the packets. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Because I don't know what time limits we put on the gentleman. MS. HILTON: They basically followed the recommendation. I gave them 30 days for the permits. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. SAUNDERS: And 45 days for removal. MS. HILTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, you don't have your -- MS. RAWSON: I don't have it with me, and I apologize. But there are three signed, recorded orders. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. CHIPMAN: Sir, one other comment. Two of my units Page 106 August 28, 2003 were rented and they had leases, and I just got them out this month. That held me back on two of them. They were rented. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So this is basically just like the last one. We have a 30-day time period and he's asking for a 90-day extension. MS. SAUNDERS: Actually, he had a 45-day time period for removing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Removing, yeah. MS. SAUNDERS: And I think he's asking for 90 days for removing. I would be in favor of granting a 90-day permit. I think the gentleman's shown real action moving forward on it. And I'd like to give him the benefit rather than continually having him do something, come back, give another-- more extension. I think 90 days is reasonable. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: ! need to make sure we understand something. Are you saying 90 days from the hearing last month or are you saying 90 days in addition to the time? Because almost 30 days have already passed. And I think he's asking for 90 days from today. MS. SAUNDERS: As a compromise, I would be prepared to do 90 days from the hearing date. I realize he wasn't here. That kind of splits it between what we had given originally and what we're -- so hopefully he could get it all done in 60 days from today, which is 90 days from the time our orders were issued. And if not, then there is the option to come back. But hopefully that would be sufficient time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you give him a total of 90 days, the order gave him 45, so you're only granting him an additional 45 days. MS. SAUNDERS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I just want to make it clear. MS. DUSEK: Well, I don't have a problem in granting him 60 days from today, because I do think that he's shown quite a bit of Page 107 August 28, 2003 action on his part. And as we have said many times, what we want is compliance, and he has been moving forward. So it doesn't -- I don't see a problem in giving him another 60 days from today. MS. SAUNDERS: Which is extending the order another 45 days. Whichever way Jean wants to write it up, I don't care. MR. PONTE: Sixty days from today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He still has 15 days to go. So you either give him another 60 days onto the 15 or you're reducing the 60 to 45. MS. DUSEK: What I'd like to do is the 60 onto the 15. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. BARNETT: I'm in agreement with you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Why don't you make a motion. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we grant the extension for another 60 days beyond the 15 days that he has coming. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We want to put 60 days onto the original order of 45. Jean, do you understand that? MS. RAWSON: I got it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion to add 60 days. MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to add 60 days to the existing time limit. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You have an additional 60 days, sir. MR. CHIPMAN: Thank you, folks. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The last one, Rosa. MS. ARNOLD: This is our last one. Page 108 August 28, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We only have one. MS. ARNOLD: The last item on your agenda is Board of County Commissioners versus Manuel and Miriam Rosa. And that's Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2003-019. And you have a request in your packet, apparently there's a delay on the side of the person drafting the plans for the petitioners. They were here today, but they had to leave. So they did appear, but they're not here at this point. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, what is your position? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, they had to submit for their permits by July 26th? MS. ARNOLD: June 26th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That says July 26th. By abating violations or obtaining any and all permits within 30 days, i.e. July 26th. They're already 30 days past that. And they're saying a 90-day extension. MS. HILTON: If you remember correctly, they were the ones who -- they were given windows as a present, and they installed them and they had to track down who the windows were from. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Got it. MS. HILTON: They're waiting on those certified drawings from the window company from California. And they had to pay for the drawings as well. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since a month has already gone by, that would only give them another 60 days, and who knows if they're going to get it in that time period. MS. HILTON: I think they were asking 90 days from today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Why don't we give them a 120-day extension, that takes care of the 30 days that's already past and gives them an additional 90. MS. SAUNDERS: So granted. Are you making a motion? MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. Page 109 August 28, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I make a motion we give them a 120-day extension. MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. MS. DUSEK: From the original? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: From the original. Jean, you understand? MS. RAWSON: Got it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, ma'am. 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: We have no affidavits of compliance, no affidavits of non-compliance. The next meeting is September 25th MS. DUSEK: I make a motion we adjourn. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- at the board room. We have a motion to adjourn. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Bye. Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:00 p.m. Page 110 August 28, 2003 COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, CHAIRMAN Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 111