Loading...
CEB Minutes 09/25/2003 RSeptember 25, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida September 25, 2003 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:05 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Clifford Flegal Albert Doria Sheri Barnett Roberta Dusek George Ponte Christopher Ramsey ALSO PRESENT: Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney Shanelle Hilton, Code Enforcement Coordinator Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA AGENDA Date: September 25, 2003 at 9:00 o'clock a.m. Location: 3301 E. Tamiami Tr., Naples, Florida, Collier County Gov~nment Center, Administrative Bldg, 3rd Floor NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 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. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 28, 2003 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. HEARINGS 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 PATIALLY CONSTRUCTED SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE ABANDONDED AS PERMIT NO. 92-0010786 EXPIRED. DEEMED CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2003-038 5657 JOSE MARTI DR., NAPLES, FLORIDA AVISAI GONZALEZ JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: ORD 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.7.6.1 MOBILE HOME ON SITE WITHOUT INSPECTIONS PROPER BUILDING PERMITS AND ORD 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.7.6.5 MOBILE HOME ON SITE WITHOUT OCCUPANCY OBTAINING A CERTIFICATE OF CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: TENANT: - INSPECTOR: 2003-028 10823 TAMIAMI TRAIL UNIT A, NAPLES, FL GUY AND MELINDA FRACASSO CHRISTOPHER CASSELL SHAWN LUEDTKE VIOLATIONS: ORD 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 1.5.6 9/18/2003 CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: UTILIZING DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE AS SEATING AREA CONTRARY TO THE PERMISSIBLE USE. ORD 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.7.6.1 AND SEC 2.7.6.5 DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE ERECTED BEHIND THE SHOPPING PLAZA WITHOUT PROPER BUILDING PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION OR.D 93-64, AS AMENDED, SEC 4 DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE WITH RIGHT OF WAY AN ENCHROACHMENT INTO THE COUNTY 2003-034 12323 UNION ROAD, PORT OF ISLANDS, FL GOPAL MOTWANI JEAN NADEU 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, AND THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE (FBC) 104.1.3.5; 104.6.2, AND 106.1.3 AS ADOPTED BY ORD 2002-01 STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING IMPROVEMENTS MADE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING REQUIRED BUILDING PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ORD 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 1.5.6 LAND AND STRUCTURES NOT BEING USED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ZONING DISTRICT FBC I01.4.9.2, 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 REROOF 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 PERMITS OR INSPECTIONS CREATINGN A POTENTIAL SAFETY HAZARD AND ALL OTHER IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING NO SWIMMING POOL ENCLOSURES AT MAIN STRUCTURE ARE CONSIDERED SAFETY HAZARDS FBC 104.4.1.6, AS ADOPTED BY ORD 2002-01 STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING IMPROVEMENTS BEING DONE WITHOUT A LICENSED CONTRACTOR NEW BUSINESS A. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC vs. Haldeman Creek Enterprises, LLC 2. BCC vs. Wilma Britton 3. BCC vs. Wilma Britton 4. BCC vs. Carl and Linda Weber CEB NO. 2003-023 CEB NO. 2003-014 CEB NO. 2003-015 CEB NO. 2003-029 9/18/2003 Be Request for Reduction/Abatement of Fines No request (as of the date this agenda was prepared) Request to Forward to County Attorney's Office 1. BCC vs. Claude Martel 2. BCC vs. Claude Martel 3. BCC vs. Lorraine Burgress 4. BCC vs. Wayne Simpson D. Motion/Request for Extension of Time No requests (as of the date this agenda was prepared) 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Affidavits of Compliance 1. BCC vs. Wilma Britton 2. BCC vs. Wilma Britton 3. BCC vs. Carl and Linda Weber B. Affidavits of Non-Compliance 1. BCC vs. Haldeman Creek Enterprises, LLC 2. BCC vs. Lorraine Burgress 3. BCC vs. Wayne Simpson 7. REPORTS 1. Recent survey of other Counties regarding higher imposition of fines. 8. COMMENTS 9. NEXT MEETING DATE October 23, 2003 in the Board Room 10. ADJOURN CEB NO. 2003-001 CEB NO. 2003-002 CEB NO. 2003-016 CEB NO. 2001-085 CEB NO. 2003-014 CEB NO. 2003-015 CEB NO. 2003-029 CEB NO. 2003-023 CEB NO. 2003-016 CEB NO. 2001-085 Jennifer Belpedio 9/18/2003 September 25, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Please make note, any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a report 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. 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. Phone number 239-774-8380. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the County Commissioner's office. May I have roll call, please? MS. HILTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. For the record, Shanelle Hilton, CEB Coordinator. Cliff Flegal. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Here. MS. HILTON: Bobbie Dusek. MS. DUSEK: Here. MS. HILTON: George Ponte. MR. PONTE: Here. MS. HILTON: Gerald Lefebvre. (No response.) MS. HILTON: Sheri Barnett. MS. BARNETT: Here. MS. HILTON: Albert Doria. MR. DORIA: Here. MS. HILTON: Christopher Ramsey. MR. RAMSEY: Here. MS. HILTON: Rona is out of town, and Gerald did call me and Page 2 September 25, 2003 tell me that he may not be able to make it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have four regular members. present and two alternates. The alternates will participate and will vote. If Gerald shows up, we'll make a change to that. May I have approval of our agenda? Are there any changes to the agenda, additions, corrections? MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director. Staff has no changes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. I see none. I would entertain a motion to accept the agenda as submitted. MR. PONTE: So moved. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the agenda as submitted. All those in favor signify by saying aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) Approve all of our minutes from August 28th this year. Are there any additions, corrections? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the minutes from last month's meeting. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the minutes as submitted from last month's meeting. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Page 3 September 25, 2003 MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) We'll now open our public hearing. The first case is 2003-036. MS. HILTON: This case was continued from last month. Board of County Commissioners versus Diana Hall. CEB case number 2003-036. We've previously provided the Board and respondent with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. MS. DUSEK: I make the motion that we accept the county's Exhibit A. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and second to accept County Exhibit A. All those in favor signify by saying aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: I'd like to ask if the respondent is present. Let the record show the respondent is not present and I did not receive any faxes or any information from her. The alleged violation is a section 104.5.1, paragraph four of ordinance 2002-01 of the Florida Building Code. Page 4 September 25, 2003 The description of the violation, observed a primary structure that was originally permitted under Collier County permit number 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 application expired on March 17, 1999. Location where violation exists, 790 12th Street Northeast, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as folio number 3926720009. Name and address of owner in charge where location exists, Diana Hall, 925 Southeast 43rd Street, apartment 39, Gainesville, Florida 32641. Date violation first observed, March 24, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation, March 25, 2003. Date on which violation was to be corrected, April 7, 2003. Date of re-inspection was this past week. As a result of the re-inspection, the violation remains. At this time I'd like to turn the case over to the code investigator, Jeff Letourneau, to present the case to the Board. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? MR. LETOURNEAU: I do. For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. I want to correct one thing. It said I responded to an anonymous complaint. It was actually a patrol case on March 24th. I noticed this building right here looked like it had been a long time since anybody had worked on it. So I checked the records and found that it had been permitted back in '92, and Ms. Hall had re-upped the permit a couple of times and had never had an inspection or got the Certificate of occupancy. The last permit that she pulled expired March 17, 1999, so it's considered an abandoned structure, according to ordinance 2002-01104.5.1, paragraph 4. Page 5 September 25, 2003 I sent a Notice of Violation to Ms. Hall. She called me right after she got it, and stated she knew she was in violation and, you know, if she could, could I give her some time to try to get maybe some funds to help her out. Somebody, you know, maybe the SHIP program could loan her some money so she could complete this project. So going by a few months she kept trying to get funds to help her out, and I eventually called Wendy Cuff from the SHIP program and she stated that she could not authorize her funds for this project. So I turned the case over for the CEB and it was scheduled for last month. Ms. Hall called and asked for an extension. She said that she had a contractor that was probably willing to do the job, but since then I haven't heard from Ms. Hall or the contractor. That brings us up to date. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jeff, she didn't advise you who this contractor was, did she? THE WITNESS: She actually talked to Shanelle but, I mean, I never heard anything about what his name or anything. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. PONTE: This place does not appear to be boarded up. It seems to be wide open, as a matter of fact. Is that the case? MR. LETOURNEAU: It's wide open. MR. PONTE: Is it in the area where there are -- I don't know -- do kids play, or homeless people, or are vagabonds in there getting out of bad weather? What's going on? MR. LETOURNEAU: I didn't notice any homeless people. I did notice a little bit of graffiti on the inside of the house, so I'm sure kids have been playing in there. MR. PONTE: Any danger? MR. LETOURNEAU: I don't think so. MS. DUSEK: For her to begin the process now, she would have to start from the very beginning. I mean, the application is -- Page 6 September 25, 2003 MR. LETOURNEAU: She would have to most likely get a new engineer to do the drawings and confirm that what's done already is going to meet today's standards, and that she'd have to go from there with the re-app and new permit. She could probably use the same plans as long as the structure was worthy of today's standards. MR. PONTE: How old is it? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, she started it in '92. I'm not really sure what part was built when on the three permits, so. I would imagine the slab was probably poured back in '92, and then after that, I have no idea. MR. PONTE: That would mean a lot of hurricane code changes, wouldn't it? MR. LETOURNEAU: Probably. MS. DUSEK: In a case like this, this is just an informational question that I'd like to have. If she does nothing and this is deemed abandoned, what does the County do? I mean, I know we're going -- if we find her in violation, we will ask her to do certain things and if she doesn't complete those, what does the County do? Do they step in and secure the building or demolish it? MS. ARNOLD: Well, let me answer that. It would dePend on what this Board directs us to do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Our Order will have to say that -- I would think -- that after some period of time, and Jean, would I be correct, if the lady fails to, if she just abandons it and we're that concerned, we can order, or direct the County rather to do something. MS. RAWSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Whether it's Board it up or tear it down, I suspect boarding it up would probably be the easiest way to keep people out of it, but that would have to be part of our order, right? MS. RAWSON: Yes, it would. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Page 7 September 25, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other questions for Jeff?. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anyone else making comments under the hearing portion? If not I'll close the public hearing portion of this case and open it up to Board members. We first must decide if in fact there is a violation. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Diana Hall that there is a violation in this CEB case number 2003-036. The violation is of section 104.5.1, paragraph four, of ordinance 2002-01 of the Florida Building Code. The description of the violation, observed a primary structure that was originally permitted under Collier County permit number 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 application expired on March 17, 1999. MS. BARNETT: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that in fact a violation does exist. Any further comment? If none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed say nay. (No response.) Unanimous. Next order of the Board. MS. BARNETT: I just have a comment. I was looking at the recommendations that the CEB had suggested, and if I recall, this Page 8 September 25, 2003 lady is having some financial hardship, which is why the house is not completed, and I'm wondering if we couldn't lessen their suggested fine to maybe $75 a day rather than 100. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: My only comment, I guess would be, I understand your concern. MS. BARNETT: I think there's enough of a bite. We've determined it's not necessarily a risk, a safety risk. MS. DUSEK: I personally don't feel that 75 or $100 is going to make any difference. This has been going on since 1999. I don't think -- it doesn't matter what value amount we put on the fine. I don't know that it would make any difference, in my opinion. MS. BARNETT: Okay. I just was throwing it up as a -- MR. PONTE: Only that it's reflective of a pattern that we might establish for seriousness of a violation. And because there is no threat here to anyone, no danger, as far as the inspector is concerned, I would think that the $100 might even be regarded as excessive, and that $50 might be more realistic in this case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The only thing I caution you on is, think of the structure, how long it's been there, that even though she may be having a hardship, she had been trying to do something. If we take the approach that we want to fine less because of, strictly because of a hardship, basically, you set a precedent for the future that somebody could walk in and say well, I have a hardship too. Now you're setting up, your cases could be totally based on hardship ahd not on the fact of we have a structure that has been abandoned, that is in violation of certain land development code articles which is where we should be putting the emphasis, not that there may be a hardship. MR. PONTE: That's a good point. And I don't make my suggestion on the basis of it being a hardship case, but rather, it is the severity of the violation. It isn't a danger. It has nothing to do with hardship. Page 9 September 25, 2003 MS. DUSEK: I think I would go along with you, George, on that basis. However, if this had been a shorter period of time that this violation had existed, I would be more inclined to agree with you and Sheri but the fact that this has been going on, and then taking into consideration what Cliff just said, there's probably some deterioration in the structure. MR. RAMSEY: I think also we're giving, I think it's 90 days as a suggested time. In 90 days she's either going to make some arrangements for completion or she's not going to do anything. So, I mean, is $100 a day punitive? You know, it's been existing for a long time. And if she does do something within 90 days, she can always come back before the Board and ask for some relief under the auspices that she is having a hardship or trying to do something, you know, making efforts to comply with the Order. Although I understand what you say, George, I think probably giving the length of time that it's gone on, the fine may not be out of line, given the facts. MR. PONTE: But as the $100 accrues, that mounts up very rapidly. And our solution then, if she elects to do nothing, is to put a lien against the property with a huge big fine on it. And I don't know what the property is worth. It just seems that it's counter productive for the $100. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Having had a mini debate, is there anyone willing to make a recommendation? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case, abate all violations by submitting a complete and sufficient building permit application, or the described structure or improvement, or remove the structure within 90 days of this hearing, or a fine of $100 per day be imposed for each day the violation continues. Respondent must also get the required inspections and obtain a Page 10 September 25, 2003 Certificate of Occupancy within 90 days after obtaining the required building permits, or a fine of $75 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. The respondent must also notify the Code Enforcement that the violation has been abated and to request the inspector to come out and perform a site inspection. MR. PONTE: I have a problem with part of the phrasing here that says that the respondent must obtain a Certificate of Occupancy within 90 days. Obtaining the Certificate of Occupancy -- or be fined. Obtaining the Certificate of Occupancy is not something that's totally in control of the respondent. Part of that, obtaining the Certificate, will depend on the response time on the part of the County to issue that Certificate and for an inspector to get to the site and inspect the area in order to issue the Certificate. So I don't know that we can really say, hey, if you don't have the Certificate of OccUPancy in 90 days, it's going to cost you $100. MS. DUSEK: Michelle? Do you have a comment? MS. ARNOLD: I just want to note for the Board when inspections are called in, they're generally done the next day. Turnaround is no more than 48 hours. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Very good. The one thing I think-- I don't have any problem with the motion so far, but I think we need to maybe add an item. And we talked before about if the lady does nothing, do we want to direct the County to take some action. I would think at the least we might direct the County, if the respondent does nothing, we might direct the County to Board the structure up to make it safe. MR. PONTE: I think that's a good idea, because I think we can assume that she is going to do nothing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: At a minimum I think we could board it up rather than tear it down, because maybe her only option would be, if she can't do anything, maybe she could sell it, but, you know, that's up to her. But I think to protect the citizens of the county, we Page 11 September 25, 2003 should direct the County to Board it up if the lady takes no action. MS. DUSEK: I'm just thinking out loud now. We're asking her to remove the structure if she doesn't comply, and then we ask the County to board it up if she doesn't comply. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, remember that to remove it is going to cost her something. If she doesn't have any money to fix it, she's not going to have any money to tear it down. So, I think at that time maybe, Jean, would we be out of line? I know what was said that you either get your permits or tear it down. If we said something that like, I guess, at the end of the 90 day permit or removal process, if respondent fails to comply, the County is directed to board the structure up for safety sake. Would that permit the $100 fine to still keep going? MS. RAWSON: It would because that wouldn't make it come into compliance, would it? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, it wouldn't be in compliance, it's just boarded up. It hasn't got any permits. It hasn't been torn down. We just board it up so no one can get in. MS. DUSEK: Are you saying in lieu of her taking -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't know the proper words. I'll need Jean's help. What I'm looking for is, I'm just trying to eliminate the availability of an abandoned piece of property for anybody to utilize. MS. BARNETT: I think if you inserted it somewhere before she had to tear it down, but, you know, if she has not started any permit applications or contacted the County within 90 days, we could direct the County to board it up. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Maybe better wording, Jean, would be something like, at the end of the initial 90 day period, if the respondent has taken no action, the County is directed to secure the building by boarding it up, period. They just go out and board it up and it still just sits there, it hasn't relieved her of any responsibility, her 100 bucks still accrues, all we've done is say, gee, she hasn't done Page 12 September 25, 2003 anything yet, and 90 days has passed, so now we want the County to board it up. That's the best we can do. Rather than go out and board it up today, let's give her a 90-day period to do something. If she doesn't, then we'll board it up while she's trying to decide what else to do. Would that be okay? MS. RAWSON: That would be fine. MS. DUSEK: Now that would eliminate that part that says remove the structure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, no. If she can still remove it in 90 days. But at the end of 90 days if she's done nothing, I think we should just add an item that says -- it would be your next item. At the end of this initial 90 day period, if respondent has failed to take any action, the County is directed to secure the structure by boarding it up, period. So all we're saying is, go out and board it up. MS. DUSEK: And a fine of $100 per day? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, that still goes in that first part. This is a new item three, then a must request cause would be item four and respondent must notify would be item five. How does that sound? MS. DUSEK: That sounds all right. Then my next question is, how long does -- how long does the County leave it boarded up, if it gets to that point or do we just let that go into -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It stays boarded up until we direct the county attorney to foreclose on the property. It's boarded up forever, unless the respondent does something, which she's allowed to do. It's her property. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just add for clarification that if the County is to board up and secure the property, that the cost for doing such would be assessed to the property owner? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We can make it part of that same sentence. MS. DUSEK: Would that not be considered all operational? Page 13 September 25, 2003 MS. ARNOLD: Yes, but I just want to clarify and put it on the record. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Operational is to get it to this point. Once we issue the Order, that's not operational. That's something different. Unless we direct that she reimburse the County, that cost would be lost. Operational brings it to the hearing phase. MS. DUSEK: So once they get to the hearing, all operational costs stop? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, that's the way I understand it. MS. DUSEK: Is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, that's what we've done thus far. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's it. It's prosecution of the case, and once you get here, you're done prosecuting. We've issued an Order, so it's done. So we need to change that sentence to include. MS. DUSEK: Okay. So Jean, did you understand what we're -- MS. RAWSON: I did. MS. DUSEK: Do the board members understand what we've done? We've just gone ahead and asked the county -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Add to that sentence, Jean, that the cost for securing the building be reimbursed to the County by the respondent. MS. RAWSON: Correct. Subject to the respondent -- MS. BARNETT: Are you going to amend your motion? MS. DUSEK: It has been amended, yes. MR. PONTE: Will you amend the motion further to recognize that the $100 is a bit excessive? It's $2,800 a month. Two thousand eight hundred dollars a month for a not dangerous or overwhelming infraction. I think it should be $50. I really do. I urge you to consider that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would recommend we leave it at $100. Right now it's 100 unless she wants to amend it. Page 14 September 25, 2003 MS. DUSEK: It's 100 and 75 on the second part. And I'll leave it as I have presented it, and then if it fails, then we'll address it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Understand the second 75 doesn't kick in unless she actually gets permits. So we're only dealing right now with the first hundred. So I'm not willing to amend that number. Do we hear a second on the existing amended motion? The numbers are 100 and 75 respectfully, with the -- and there's one, two, three, four, five items, as I remember, Jean. MS. DUSEK: With the amended part being that the County will secure the building by boarding it up and that the respondent will pay the cost for doing so? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. Is there a second to that motion? MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? MR. PONTE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Five to one. Motion passes. Thank you. Back to public hearings on case number 2003-038. MS. HILTON: Our second case is Board of County Commissioners versus Avisai Gonzalez, A-V-I-S-A-I. CEB case number 2003-038. We have previously provided the Board and the respondent with a packet of information that we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. Page 15 September 25, 2003 MS. DUSEK: I make the motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and second to accept the County's Exhibit A. All in favor signify by saying aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: Is the respondent present in the courtroom? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. MS. HILTON: Let the record note that the respondent is present in the courtroom. The alleged violation is of sections 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance number 91-102 as amended of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation, a double wide trailer 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, 5657 Jose Marti Drive, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as folio number 00456120000. Name and address of owner in charge where violation exists, Avisai Gonzalez, 1701 Mabbette, M-A-B-B-E-T-T-E, Street, Apartment 16-103 Kissimmee, Florida. Date violation first observed, January 23, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation, February 10, 2003. Date in which violation was to be corrected, February 24, 2003. Date of re-inspection, September 12, 2003. Result of re-inspection, the violation remains. Page 16 September 25, 2003 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. MR. LETOURNEAU: On January 23rd, I responded to an anonymous complaint about somebody building or placing a mobile home on this agricultural property. I went out there and observed that double wide mobile home, went back and researched that no permits were ever pulled for the property. I mailed the Notice of Violation to Mr. Gonzalez for Ordinance 91-102 section 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5. He needed to get a permit to place that mobile home on the property. After a while, he didn't contact me, so I kept putting notices out there on the mobile home. One time I went out there and I noticed it was gone. The next day, Mr. Gonzalez called me and stated that he was going to try to get a permit for the mobile home. So over the next few months he went through the process of trying to get a permit dealing with septic and everything, and he found that he couldn't afford the whole thing, so he told me that he was going to remove it. But then when he tried to remove it, he found he didn't have the title for the trailer. And he had to wait, from the person who sold him the trailer, to get the title. So I gave him a couple months to do that. Nothing happened. He didn't get rid of it. So I turned the case over for CEB. On my re-inspection last week, I found that the trailer had burnt to the ground, but was still in violation, since it was still on the property. I contacted Mr. Gonzalez and told him he had a Board meeting scheduled for today and he needed to remove the trailer. It would be in his best interest if he tried to get it out of there before the Board meeting. This is the first time I met him this morning. MR. PONTE: Investigator, in the photo packet that we were given on page 14, there seemed to be two trailers and a lot of debris. Is it one mobile home or are we talking two? MR. LETOURNEAU: Originally when I first went out there, Page 17 September 25, 2003 there was a mobile home and a bunch of debris, but he removed everything but the mobile home in time. MR. PONTE: Okay. Thanks. MS. DUSEK: I have a question. Since it is in a different form now, but it's still the trailer, so to speak, do the same violations exist? MR. LETOURNEAU: I think it's going to be pretty much a moot point because Mr. Gonzalez told me this morning that he has removed the trailer. But I think, I mean, that's a determination whether it's got value or not. It might be a litter case now, but I would still say we could go ahead and say that it's still a trailer on the property, because the frame is still viable. I mean, I would have went out and checked it yesterday, but I've been on a vacation all week 'till today. Normally I go out and check the violation the day before the Board meeting, but I was on vacation yesterday. The last time I checked it was the 12th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm trying to think of a way to put the question. Since this trailer has burnt and we now have a, I mean, the frame may be there, but I suspect if it was on tires or something they're probably gone, too. There's no way you can get a permit for what's sitting there because it's a pile of junk? MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. I think now you probably have to consider it litter basically. I mean, it's probably a whole new ballgame now actually. The only reason we brought it before the case is more for operational costs right now probably than anything. I think if you get Mr. Gonzalez up here he's going to tell you that he removed it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other questions for Jeff?. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Gonzalez, you're turn, sir, if you would come forward, please. Page 18 September 25, 2003 MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's swear you in first. Then I have a couple of questions before you tell us your side just for information for the Board. The young lady will swear you in. Raise your right hand, please. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. GONZALEZ: I do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: First, let me ask you, did you get a package sent to you by the County? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They submitted it to the Board to review. Do you have any objections to that? MR. GONZALEZ: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You may proceed, sir. MR. GONZALEZ: Well, like he says, I was sitting it down there. It cost me $20,000 for the old trailer, so I put it up for sale, and I build a the house. It's a lot of money for that. And I found out they never send me the title. So I wait a couple of times over there. I even hire a lawyer for that. Those people, they don't have address. They have a P.O. Box. He tell me it's impossible to send a letter to a P.O. Box. They didn't know if they are going to get it or not. I don't want to spend $250 dollars for nothing. So I keep calling the people, I go to the place that I bought the trailer, and they tell me to go to North Fort Myers. They going to meet me over there in a gas station to hand me the title. So that's what I do. It was like the 26th of last month, so it was too late. I got people that want to buy the trailer, and all the papers, and they going to move it to another place. They want to move it. So they don't get the title in time. So by the time I get the title, you know, the people, they buy another trailer already. Page 19 September 25, 2003 So I go find out over there they call me, my neighbor over there, somebody was setting fire to the trailer. So, I go over there, and go to the fire department close in the area, and they tell me they received a call and they go over there and, you know, extinguish what's left. They say somebody burnt a couple trailers in the area. They looking for, they investigating that. And last week I go in and clean the whole thing out. There's nothing there. I take all the aluminum and whatever and, you know, recycle, so the area is clean now. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So what we're seeing on this picture, all this is gone? MR. GONZALEZ: It's gone. It's clean. It's burnt down to the ground. It's like the roof so it's nothing there. I lost all the money, and so I do nothing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But everything is gone? MR. GONZALEZ: Clean. I should get some pictures, but he told me, call me when you clean it so I can go by there. He was on vacation, that's why. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. I understand. MR. GONZALEZ: I'm very sorry I did that mistake because when I bought the property it was old, single trailer, so I give it away. I buy that one, I said, well, I started looking for the company to tie it down, you know. It was like a long process, so everything happened. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Gonzalez? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. GONZALEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. BELPEDIO: Good morning, I'm Jennifer Belpedio. I'm an Assistant County Attorney. I recognize that this Board had some Page 20 September 25, 2003 concern about whether or not there was violation currently, because now the mobile home is destructed and on the ground. I want this Board to understand that when we prosecute our violations, we're prosecuting the Notice of Violation. So what you can do, if you believe the violation existed at the time we issued the NOV, you can certainly make a finding of violation from that date on the NOV, which I believe was in February, then certainly you can give whatever period of time to correct with whatever fine amount, and if it's true what this gentleman is saying that the debris is gone, the mobile home is gone, then there's really nothing more for him to do, and the investigator can conduct a site visit in the next couple of days, and file an Affidavit of Compliance if that's the case. I hope that helps you with your determination. If you have any questions, certainly you can ask me. MS. DUSEK: I have a question. It appears as though there was a violation when the Notice of Violation was given. I don't know whether this question is for you or for Jean. Do we have to cite a violation, or can we go on testimony that was given today, that there is no violation, and then just ask for operational cost? MS. RAWSON: Well, the violation existed. It may be, and this is not the first time we've had a case where the violation existed at the time that the County investigated, then brought the case. As of today's date, the violation may not exist anymore, so when we -- I mean, you can make a finding that the violation existed on that day. You can order him to come into compliance if he's already in compliance. I mean, there's no fine that's ever going to happen. MR. PONTE: Isn't there a second violation here, and that being the one cited as in violation of 2.7.6.5 which suggests that work has been done. And in the packet we received the photo of a hole that was possibly a work for a septic tank, so there is, I think, a second violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: In all honesty, looking at the picture, a Page 21 September 25, 2003 hole dug in the dirt doesn't impress me as much as the trailer being there. MR. PONTE: But 2.7.6.5 is not any different than the trailer. It says no site work removal or whatever. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that point. Bobbie asked the question about operational cost. You can't order someone to pay operational cost unless you find them in violation of something. So we'd have to find him in violation for the -- well, prior to this point give him, you know, five days to correct it, which he says it's already corrected. Jeff could run out and look and agree that it's been corrected, so there would be no fine, but at the same time we could order the operational cost to be paid. Jeff wants to say something. MR. LETOURNEAU: If you could just do one week because I go back on vacation. I just came in for -- just give it one week and I'll be back. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. We can accommodate that since the gentleman already said he's corrected the problem. But we would need to find him.. in violation of something to get the operational cost down. MR. PONTE: Well, what he's in violation of, unless the County is stepping away from the violation is 2.7.6.5. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The hole in the ground? MR. PONTE: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The hole in the ground, is that what you're talking about? MR. PONTE: Whatever they cited. MR. LETOURNEAU: All the violations are gone, including the hole in the ground, except for the mobile home. That was the only thing that was left. So all the other secondary violations -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He had previously filled the hole in? MR. LETOURNEAU: Right, everything is done. MR. PONTE: Thank you. Page 22 September 25, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Gonzalez? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: portion and we can-- Any other questions for either Jeff or If not, I'll close the public hearing MS. BARNETT: I'll attempt to make a motion that I find that there was a violation in the case of Board of County Commissioners, Collier County versus -- I can't say the name. Avisai Gonzalez, CEB number 2003-038. The violation is of section 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of ordinance number 91-102 as amended of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation at the time of the NOV was a double wide trailer placed and erected without first obtaining the authorization of a Collier County building permit and having all of the required inspections and receiving the Certificate of Occupancy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that in fact the violation did exist. MS. DUSEK: I still have one question before we vote. And this is going to be for you, Jeff. Sorry. If you hadn't been on vacation and you had been able to go out and a week ago see that this had all been abated, would this still have come before the Board today? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion on the floor that in fact a violation did exist. MR. PONTE: I will second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying aye. Page 23 September 25, 2003 MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Before we get to the Order I want to ask Jean a question. Jean, since we've had testimony from Mr. Gonzalez that he in fact has cleared the property, resolved it, if we were to order operational costs and rather than give him some time to correct the violations, since he's already stated he corrected it, could we reword it to that effect and somehow state that the respondent has given testimony that the violation has been corrected and we want him to notify the County within say seven days to come out and inspect to see that the violation has actually been removed or something? MS. RAWSON: I always put in all of the Orders that the respondent has the affirmative duty to notify the County when the violation has been abated, so that will be a part of the Order. Yes, I think we should put it in there because you don't have any contradictory testimony to his that he's cleared it off. So you have testimony that it's been cleared, and you don't have any testimony from the County that it hasn't been cleared. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. What I guess I was looking for is, do we need to, since we found a violation, do we need to state you 'have seven or ten days from today to correct the violation? MS. RAWSON: If it hasn't been corrected. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. Or a fine of X will be imposed. I mean, again, having just heard testimony, I know we have nobody to refute it, but at the same time I think we're obligated -- the Page 24 September 25, 2003 gentleman under oath said it's done, it's done. I just feel -- I'm torn about saying you have X days to correct something that we already know doesn't exist. I was looking for another way to word it and I don't know if there is another way and I'm asking you. MS. RAWSON: You can word it in such a way that he has X amount of time to -- I mean, he has I guess in fact notified the County today that he's in compliance. But he has so many days to notify the County to come out and check that he is in compliance. And if he's not in compliance, then he has to come into compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Order of the Board. MS. RAWSON: Is it only 2.7.6.5? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I think 2.7.6.1 also applies. MS. RAWSON: I just wanted to be sure that I heard your motion correctly. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There's two sections. At least that's what I heard. MS. BARNETT: I'll take a stab at it. I'd like to make a motion that the CEB Order the respondent to pay all the operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case, and to notify the County that all violations have been abated within ten days, so that the County can go out and inspect the property. As long as all the violations have been abated I do not deem that we need to put in a fine. However, if the County finds that they have not been abated, a fine of $25 a day will incur until the abatement is satisfied. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is that sufficient, Jean? MS. DUSEK: The only part of it is that he has already notified the County. MS. RAWSON: He has, today. MS. DUSEK: Today. MS. BARNETT: I just want to put it in a time frame so the County can respond because of Mr. Letourneau being out on vacation. Page 25 September 25, 2003 MS. RAWSON: Well, what you could say is, he needs to come into compliance by abating all violations if they have not been abated within so many days. That will give the County time to go out and inspect. And that will also protect you in case they are not all abated. MS. BARNETT: Okay. I will amend my motion to say such. MS. DUSEK: I wouldn't dare ask you to repeat that. I understand what you said but -- okay. My understanding is that we have said that he has notified the County, that the County has so many days to go out to assure us that this has been abated. If not, then he will have so many days. What, ten days? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's ten days now for the County to go out and check. MS. DUSEK: All right. And then how many days -- in the event that it's not abated, how many days are we giving him? MS. BARNETT: I did not give him any days because he has claimed that he had already abated it, so I said the $25 a day would start. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: At the end of the ten days, if Jeff finds that it's still there, the $25 just clicks until he cleans it up. MS. DUSEK: So that would begin after ten days from this date? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. We have a motion on the floor. Is there a second to it? MR. DORIA: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Albert seconded it. and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: aye. We have a motion All those in favor signify by saying MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. Page 26 September 25, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Gonzalez, do you understand, sir? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. GONZALEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Back to public 2003-028. MS. HILTON: Our Commissioners versus third case is Guy and hearings, case Board of County Melinda Fracasso, I would like to ask F-R-A-C-A-S-S-O. CEB case number 2003-028. if the respondent is present in the courtroom. (No response.) MS. HILTON: Let the record show the respondent is not present in the courtroom. 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. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A. All those in favor signify by saying aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. Page 27 September 25, 2003 MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of sections 1.5.6, 2.7.6.1, and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance number 91-102 as amended of the Collier County Land Development Code, and Section 4 of Ordinance number 93-64. The description of the violation, observed the following: One a dumpster enclosure on the southwest comer of the property erected behind the shopping plaza encroaching into the right of way without building or right of way permits obtained. Two using the permitted dumpster enclosure on the left south side of the plaza for outside seating of restaurant. Location where violation exists, 10823 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as folio number 62410760004. Name and address of owner in charge where violation exists, Guy and Melinda Fracasso, 750 Southern Pines Drive, Naples, Florida. Date violation first observed, November 20, 2002. Date owner given notice of violation, November 21, 2002, by certified mail, return receipt requested, which was returned unclaimed and on July 2, 2003 by certified mail, return receipt requested, regular US mail, and posting of the property in the Courthouse. Date on which violation was to be corrected, December 21, 2002 and July 30, 2003. Date of re-inspection was this past week. And result of re-inspection is the violation remains. And at this time, I would like to mm the case over to the supervisor -- to the code enforcement supervisor, Shawn Luedtke to present the case to the board. MR. LUEDTKE: Good morning. For the record, Shawn Luedtke. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony that you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. LUEDTKE: I do. On November 20, 2002 I responded to the location of 10823 Page 28 September 25, 2003 North Tamiami Trail about a dumpster that was encroaching into the Collier County right of way. Upon my arrival, I observed a three-sided structure encroaching into the right of way by at least five foot. No permits were obtained. It's in the southwest comer of a shopping center behind the shopping center. No permits have been obtained on that. I made several attempts by posting business card, and a Notice of Violation. I sent a Notice of Violation to the property owner and never got any response. On July 2nd of 2003 I sent an amended Notice of Violation because we were going to process it for a Board hearing and posted the property a second time. I did get a call from Mr. Fracasso on the phone and explained exactly what he needed to do. He needed to get a permit for the enclosure or he had to remove it from the site. I did a re-check two months later on September 12th, and the violation remained. No permits have been applied for, so we processed it for a CEB hearing. I did speak with the Planning Department last week, and Mr. Fracasso has since had a meeting with the Planning Department to amend his site plan to correct this violation, along with some parking violations that he has. He had an architect come in and had a pre-app meeting. So he just started last week to abate this violation. Basically what has happened is this is the enclosure that he is supposed to have that was approved originally for the dumpster. It is located on the left side of a restaurant in that shopping center. The restaurant is using it for outside seating. And they placed the dumpster directly behind that at the back of the property. So with the amended SIP, their site development plan that they're going to be doing, they're going to be rearranging the parking lot and moving the dumpster back into the main shopping center. The problem we're having is it's encroaching into the right of way, and the garbage truck has to go across this day care property to Page 29 September 25, 2003 empty the dumpster weekly, so it is a problem. MR. PONTE: Just help me a little bit. I'm having difficulty understanding the photographs. Is the table and chairs, or are the table and chairs where that dumpster is located now, I mean, that green dumpster or is it in that little alcove? MR. LUEDTKE: Right here is where it was originally approved to be, the dumpster. They moved the dumpster and built this unpermitted three-sided enclosure, which is what you see now. MR. PONTE: I see. MR. LUEDTKE: Then they converted the old place into a seating area.. MR. PONTE: Got you. MS. BARNETT: And it's in the right of way? MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct. MS. BARNETT: So there's no way it would be permitted? MR. LUEDTKE: No, ma'am, not without a variance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Out of curiosity, Shawn, if this little gray enclosure and pad that it's sitting on is in the right of way, I assume these six-foot tall shrubs are also in the right of way? MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any further questions for Shawn? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. LUEDTKE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anyone else to present anything to the Board? If not, we'll close the public hearing section and the Board will discuss it. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Guy and Melinda Fracasso, in the case of CEB number 2003-028, that there is a violation. The violation is of sections 1.5.6, 2.7.6.1, and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance Page 30 September 25, 2003 number 91-102 as amended as the Collier County Land Development Code and Section 4 of Ordinance 93-64. The description of the violation, a dumpster enclosed, southwest comer of the property erected behind the above noted shopping plaza encroaching into the right of way without building or right of way permits obtained. Using the permitted dumpster enclosure for outside seating of a restaurant. MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that in fact a violation does exist. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none all those in favor signify by saying aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. Before we do that, Michelle, I'd like to ask you a question. Since Shawn has stated that the gentleman has started his process, I just want to make sure, is the 90-day period for this, I guess revised SDP is what he's asking for, is that sufficient time? MS. ARNOLD: I think it would be a good start, and if he needs to get additional time because of circumstances outside of his control, he can come back to us and request an extension and we'll bring it to the Board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: Well, I'll make a motion that the CEB order the Page 31 September 25, 2003 respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case, submit a complete and sufficient, I guess it's a revised site development plan for all improvements, or remove said structure within 90 days from the date of this hearing, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Upon obtaining the revised SDP approval, obtain all required building permits for desired structure improvements within 30 days, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. After that he must get all required inspections to be performed, and obtain Certificates of Completion within 30 days after obtaining the required permits, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. The respondent must notify Code Enforcement that the violations have been abated, and to request the investigator to come out and perform the site inspections. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'd like to maybe ask you to modify it a little. Let me ask Jean a question first. Our authority is up to 250 per violation. Following the recommendation of the Board, if Bobbie's motion goes forward right now, I see $300 at various stages. I'm going to ask Bobbie to amend her motion to item two, where she says submit a complete and sufficient revised site development plan. I would say that that is a violation of section four of the Land Development Code as I read it. So that's one violation, as we have many paragraphs called out. She then went on to say, after obtaining the revised SDP to get building permits, I would like her to revise that to say, due to the violation of section 2.7.6.5, because as I read it, it's a violation of that section. Then where she asks to call for inspections to be performed within 30 days or $100, I'm going to ask her to revise it because that's a violation of 2.7.6.1 as I read the Land Development Code. So that's three separate violations, which gives us the authority to do the $100 Page 32 September 25, 2003 or up to 250 per violation. Am I on the right track, Jean? MS. RAWSON: You are. Are you asking her to amend the amount? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. I'm going to ask her to include in her description of the Order that -- like item two where she says submit complete and sufficient revise I would say under violation of section four of Ordinance 93-64, respondent shall submit blah, blah, blah or $100. MS. DUSEK: I understand what you're saying. And I have a question for Jean. Is it necessary to state in this motion each of those violations since we've already stated that they are in violation? MS. RAWSON: In determining how you want them to come into compliance in order to determine the fine, I think that Mr. Flegal is suggesting that you put them all separate so that we show that there are three separate violations. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And that does away with any chance of an appeal because we went over the $250 limit. MS. DUSEK: I realized that when I was reading that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That happened once. I'm looking for ways that we can be specific so that doesn't happen again. MS. DUSEK: Okay. I just thought since it had already been stated -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It didn't work before, that's why I thought we should do it a different way. The only other item I think we might want to add, if you would, is that we order the respondent to immediately cause his tenant to cease utilizing the area for anything other than a dumpster as enclosure as permitted. Right now he's using a dumpster permitted item for seating at a restaurant. I think we should order him to cease that. Otherwise he's still using a permitted item for something that's not permitted. He's using someplace you put a garbage dumpster for Page 33 September 25, 2003 people to sit and have dinner. I think we should order him to cease that until he gets his revised SDP. MS. BARNETT: I have a comment. I agree with you on that, but I think it needs to go a step further because the dumpster, where it's currently being used, is the problem, and it's encroaching on other peoples' properties in order to be emptied. So I think they need to quit using that site, because that is also an unpermitted area. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Looking at the size of it, I don't think it's going to fit where his permitted site is, but where else he can put it, I don't know. I was just wanting to get -- I didn't think of that part, so it's a good item, to get the patrons out of something that's not permitted for restaurant use. MS. BARNETT: If we're doing one, we need to do both. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's a great idea. MS. DUSEK: Now, Shawn, let me ask you a question. MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: If he gets this revised site development plan, do you think that this would allow him to do what he's doing right now. MR. LUEDTKE: By keeping the dumpster where it's located? No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You said, Shawn, that he was working on putting it somewhere else, correct? MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct. He's going to re-configure the parking spaces and have it so it's like a horseshoe instead of where you have two lanes to pull in. Then he's going to put the dumpster between the parking areas. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: So what you're suggesting is that we order him to remove the dumpster from its present location and also to cease any activity in the enclosed original place for the dumpster? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We want him to cause his tenant to cease utilizing the permitted site for restaurant use and to relocate the Page 34 September 25, 2003 dumpster from the unpermitted site to somewhere else on his property. I guess in doing that, Jean, are we safe when we order him to put the dumpster somewhere else, even though wherever else he puts it isn't going to be, quote, a permitted location under the County? It's either going to have to go back in that cubbyhole or nowhere, right? MS. RAWSON: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Which just based on the size I saw, it's not going to fit. MS. BARNETT: They can probably order a different size. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He's going to have to get a much smaller dumpster. So I guess we would want to reword it that way. Like Respondent shall immediately cause tenant to cease utilizing the area for anything other than a dumpster enclosure as permitted, remove the dumpster from its current unpermitted location to the required permitted location, and then size is his problem. MS. DUSEK: Sounds good to me, what you just said. And we'll include those violations by the statute of the ordinance. MR. PONTE: What you're suggesting, if I am following all of this, is that the actual violations, each of those three, will carry a separate fine. And so that in the -- following the recommendation or the fining procedure, we're going to list each of those separately and each fine separately? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. Bobbie has amended her motion, so do I hear a second? MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. Page 35 September 25, 2003 MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, I think we have six items or seven items. Six items. MS. RAWSON: Well, yes, you have six plus, you know, I'll put in a few more. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Whatever else you do, naturally. MS. RAWSON: I think there's six. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what I had come up with. The operational costs is one, the revised plan is two under section four, the permits is three under 2765, inspections is four under 2761, notifying code enforcement that they've all been abated is five, and then we added to cease and desist and get his dumpster back in place would be six. MR. PONTE: Mr. Chairman. I just make an observation here. If we're going to, in the future, isolate and be very specific about the · violations and come up with separate fines so that they are not all accrued and we don't run the risk of overfining, just as we have in this case, then is it possible for the staff to, when they see this coming up, to, in their recommendations, tie them together rather than say okay, we find them in violation of and have a string of citations. In the recommendation rather than one, two, three, four, five, actually cite the specific violation, specific ordinance so that when we are trying to craft it here and grabbing at words out of air, we are at least all focused on the same page and know what we're talking about. If we were to go back and try to redo that here, it becomes Page 36 September 25, 2003 very difficult. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think it's very doable. It's something that happened, and Michelle and I have not had a chance to talk about, because the packet having not been submitted to us as evidence, I'm hard pressed to call her in advance and say can you revise this and submit -- MR. PONTE: No, no. I don't mean revise it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, in the future she can, but she and I haven't had a chance to discuss these types of changes. MR. PONTE: That's because I just had the idea. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I know. Let's move along because we have another case. Back to public hearing. Let's take ten minutes. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Call the board back to order, please. Next public hearing, case 2003-034. MS. HILTON: It's board of County Commissioners versus Gopal, and that's G-O-P-A-L, Motwani, M-O-T-W-A-N-I, CEB case number 2003-034. At this time I would like to ask -- I know the respondent is here, but I'd like to ask if the respondent is present in the courtroom? MR. MOTWANI: Yes. MS. HILTON: Let the record show that the respondent is present in the courtroom. We have previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information that we'd like entered as Exhibit A at this time. MS. DUSEK: I make the motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and second to accept. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 37 September 25, 2003 MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sir, you could have a seat because we're going to let the County go first and then we'll call you up. MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of sections 2.7.6.1; 2.7.6.3; 2.7.6.5; 1.5.6, 2.1.11; 2.2.8.2.1; 3.3.3; 3.3.9; and 3.3.9, of Ordinance Number 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code, and sections 101.4.9.2, 103.9, 103.10.1, 103.11.1, 104.1.3.5, 104.4.1.6, 104.6.2, and 106.1.3 of Ordinance Number 2002-01, of the Florida Building Code. The description of the violation: One structural, electrical, and plumbing improvements made without first obtaining authorization of a Collier County building permit and having all of the required inspections and receiving the Certificate of Occupancy. Two, all construction activity completed without first obtaining the required Collier County planning review and approval for all same site improvements in Site Development Plan. Three, electric power supplied to noted property illegally without inspection causing potential safety hazards. Four, permit number 2003040559 issued for the re-roof of an existing shed which was a misrepresentation of the existing conditions, resulting in the permit being revoked, but the improvements remain. Five, no swimming pool enclosures at main structure as required by the Florida Building Code. Six, both noted buildings are being occupied without first obtaining a Collier County Certificate of Occupancy. Location where violations exists, 12323 Union Road, Port of Page 38 September 25, 2003 Islands, Florida, more particularly described as folio number 1058920500. See the attached legal description. Name and address of owner in charge where the violation exist is Gopal Motwani, 1158 Peregrine Way, and that's P-E-R-E-G-R-I-N-E, Weston, Florida. Date violation first observed, April 30, 2003. Date owner given Notice of Violation, April 30, 2003, by personal service. Date in which violations were to be corrected, May 15, 2003. Date of re-inspection was this week. Results of in re-inspections, the violation remains. And at this time I would like to mm the case over to the code enforcement supervisor, Shawn Luedtke, to present the case to the Board. MS. DUSEK: Before you do that, Shanelle, there was just one part, and I'm sure it was just an error that you didn't realize. You said the first date of the violation was April 30th and it was April 3rd. Just for the record. MS. HILTON: Okay. MR. LUEDTKE: I just met with Mr. Motwani outside. He's willing to stipulate to all the violations that they did have occurred in the past. He's corrected the majority of them. He had permits issued this morning to cover all the building permit aspect of fire hazards, electrical, plumbing, the whole nine yards. He does have a '98 site development plan. The only thing the County would be asking is that he follow through on the permit that was issued this morning. And that he come into compliance with his '98 site development plan. Mr. Motwani does not have any problems with that, if you want to speak with him. MS. BARNETT: I have one question. This is continued from last month, I believe. There was a question as to whether or not the pool was safely enclosed. MR. LUEDTKE: It is safely enclosed. I did a site visit two days ago, and they do have a fence around it at this time. Page 39 September 25, 2003 MS. DUSEK: electrical and plumbing permits? MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct, ma'am. MR. PONTE: Are there still, you know, there no trespassing signs are still in place. MR. MR. MR. MS. MR. it at all. MR. MR. MR. now that, done, but Shawn, are you saying that he has the structural, is it still posted are LUEDTKE: Yes, sir, they're still on site. PONTE: And it's vacant? LUEDTKE: It is not occupied, that's correct. BARNETT: Is it secure, front and back? LUEDTKE: Yes. I wasn't able to gain access interiorally PONTE: It's secured, I mean it's locked? LUEDTKE: That's correct. PONTE: Are there any safety hazards existing out there I mean, I understand the electrical work and all that will be existing right now? MS. DUSEK: I re-roof which was -- MR. LUEDTKE: MR. LUEDTKE: Not to my knowledge. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Shawn? do, yes. The permit that was issued for the MS. MR. MS. MR. Revoked. DUSEK: It was revoked? LUEDTKE: Is that the one you're talking about? DUSEK: Yes. LUEDTKE: Yes, that one was revoked and the permit that was pulled this morning does cover that structure along with other items, the electrical and plumbing. MS. DUSEK: And the electric power that was supplied illegally to the property? MR. LETOURNEAU: That was disconnected and has since been restored legally to the property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Shawn? Page 40 September 25, 2003 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. Mr. Motwani. You need to be sworn in. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the troth, the whole troth, and nothing but the truth? MR. MOTWANI: I do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me ask you a question or two first, sir. Did you receive a package from the county? A lot of information in the mail. MR. MOTWANI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have any objections to them giving it to us? MR. MOTWANI: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right. Proceed, please. MR. MOTWANI: I'm sorry I was late this morning because I was going to another area and they called. Then I found out the meeting was in this place. Not that I was late, I left my house at 6:00. About the property which was closed. I have been going to city and county officials about the planning and zoning approval around December the 17th. Only thing left was to get the fire marshal to okay the building, because it was old building. I did not get the letter finally in writing from the Capri fire department until September the 18th, that what it was they were looking for. Unless I knew what they were looking for, I could not submit all the drawings to the county officials. So right after that, since that day I have been going every day to the officials trying to submit the rest of the drawings to see exactly what I'm exactly planning to do. So they were submitted finally yesterday. And coming back to illegal power supply, there was never Page 41 September 25, 2003 illegal power supply. Power has been on since last March, which is about 18 months ago. There was a little shed that I made, that shed which took the power. And that was only for people having Coke and Pepsi. But, anyway, I accept Shawn's recommendation. Yes, I'm in violation of everything they can say. I agree to blame, yes. I did make a little mistake, but now I've filed all the paperwork necessary to improve the site, to do what they want me to do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody have any questions for Mr. Motwani? MS. DUSEK: I guess my general question is perhaps directed back to Shawn. In the description of the violation that has been given to us, I know at one point that all of these, that he was in violation, but now are you saying that all these violations are being corrected or have been corrected. MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct. As long as he gets a CO on the permit that was issued this morning, that would cover all the electrical, plumbing, the building permits basically, and he follows through on his site development plan, yeah, he would be in compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Again, any questions for Mr. Motwani? MS. BARNETT: Have you done any other developments or things like that in Florida other than this particular site? MR. MOTWANI: In what sense? This is first development. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think that was her question, if this was your first time, sir. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. You may sit down. MR. MOTWANI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anyone else have anything for the Page 42 September 25, 2003 board? If not the public hearing section will be closed. Since Mr. Motwani has gotten a permit this morning, this is similar to the other case, you can find him guilty of the violations because they did exist. And what he must do now is basically comply with the permit. Maybe the only thing we don't know is, some time period for him to do that, which Shawn or Michelle may be able to help us out. MR. PONTE: Mr. Chairman, could we, in light of these sudden changes, ask the County what their new recommendation is, because certainly the recommendation that we have before us doesn't any longer apply. MS. DUSEK: Let's find him in violation first. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: First, he was in fact in violation of everything they submitted to us. MR. PONTE: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now as to a recommendation currently, that's why I wanted to know the time period since he's got a new permit. MS. ARNOLD: I asked Mr. Motwani out in the hall how much time he thought he would need to get all the remodeling done and comply with the site development plan, and he indicated to me 90 days would be sufficient. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. BARNETT: I'll go ahead and make a motion that we find, the board of County Commissioners, Collier County versus Gopal Motwani, CEB case number 2003-034 in violation. The violations of sections 2.7.6.1, 2.7.6.3, 2.7.6.5, 1.5.6, 2.1.11, 2.2.8.2.1, 3.3.3, 3.3.9, and 3.3.9 of Ordinance number 91-102, as amended, in the Collier County Land Development Code, and sections 101.4.9.2, 103.9, 103.10.1, 103.11.1, 104.1.3.5, 104.4.1.6, 104.6.2, and 106.1.3 of Ordinance number 2002-01 of the Florida Building Code. The descriptions of the violations were the structural, electrical, Page 43 September 25, 2003 and plumbing improvements made without first obtaining authorization of a Collier County building permit and having all the required inspections and receiving the Certificates of Occupancy. All construction activity completed without first obtaining the required Collier County planning review and approval for all same site improvements and site development plan. Three, the electrical power supplied to the noted property illegally without inspections, causing potential safety hazard. Four, permit number 2003-040559 issued for the re-roofing of an existing shed, which was in misrepresentation of the existing conditions, resulting in the permit being revoked, but the improvements remain. Five, no swimming pool enclosures at main structure, as required by the Florida Building Code. Six, both noted buildings are being occupied without first obtaining Collier County Certificate of Occupancy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Just one correction in the section violations. The second, 3.3.9, it should be point one. MS. BARNETT: So noted. MS. DUSEK: And just one other verb change, instead of is in violation, was in violation. MS. BARNETT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Motwani -- Can we have a motion that Mr. MR. PONTE: Just a thought here. He still is in violation? MS. DUSEK: Well, the inspector has testified that he is. MR. PONTE: He stipulated that he agrees to all of the violations, but nothing has really been corrected yet. He has gone for the permit. He doesn't have it yet. So he's still in violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He is still in violation. He has obtained a permit, but he hasn't complied with the permit. So he is still in violation. Page 44 September 25, 2003 MS. DUSEK: I read it differently. When I asked Shawn about the violations, he said that he does have the building permits for all of these, that the electrical power is all taken care of, so. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He hasn't had all of his inspections and everything else, which he is still in violation. He hasn't gotten the CO. So he is still in violation of all of them. Until he gets inspected and a CO, he's violation. Is that correct, Shawn? MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, sir, that is correct. MS. BARNETT: I'm going to leave my motion as is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So we have a motion that a violation in fact does exist. Is there a second to that? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that the violations do exist at this point. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. MOTWANI: I have -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not now, sir, we have closed the public hearing. Order of the board. Now, as George has asked before, since we have testimony from both the County and the respondent that he has obtained his permits, does the County have a new recommendation for us rather than the one that they submitted, knowing that a lot of Page 45 September 25, 2003 things have been brought current, other than the inspection part of it. MS. ARNOLD: That they comply with their permit, including inspections and Certificate of Completion or Occupancy, whichever is applicable, as well as complying with the previously approved site development plan within 90 days would be our recommendation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And if they fail to do that? MS. ARNOLD: If they fail to do that, the $100 would be sufficient. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: With all the violations that exist, you're satisfied with that? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Did every member of the board hear that? MS. DUSEK: Yes. She, I think stated that they have to follow through with the required inspections and certificate of occupancy. They already have their permits is my understanding, so they just need to do the inspections and the CO and follow through with the site development plan; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: Part of what the problem was is they were occupying prematurely the structure without having modified it as well. So, we don't want any -- we don't want any occupancy until we're sure that they comply with their building permit. MS. BARNETT: Michelle, they were also doing renovations without the proper permits, correct? MS. ARNOLD: They obtained their permits now. MS. BARNETT: After the fact. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. PONTE: Following the same logic that I expressed earlier today, I think the $100 fine in this case, possible $100 fine is too low. This has been a flagrant violation that has gone on. It's been a dangerous violation, and in this instance I think $100 is too lenient. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is someone willing to make a motion Page 46 September 25, 2003 on the order of the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's start with that. MS. DUSEK: I'll give it a try. I make the motion that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case, that the respondent complete his permitting process by getting all required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy, that the respondent follow through on his site development plan. All of this within 90 days or a fine of $150 per day will be incurred. That the respondent notify the Code Enforcement board -- Code Enforcement, that the violations have been abated and to request the investigator to come out and perform the site inspection. MR. PONTE: I think that's excellent. You really did a good job. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: George, did you second that? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? MS. BARNETT: I was kind of hoping for 200 a day. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I can live with the 150. I think it's reasonable at this point because the respondent has finally made an effort and got his permits and I think he understands the gravity at this point, so I can accept that. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. Page 47 September 25, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any oppose? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Motwani, do you understand now what we're ordering you to do is, the permits that you've received this morning, is follow through and do what you're required, contact the County to get any inspections, get your Certificate of Occupancy at the end of those inspections, and whatever else the site development plan says you're supposed to do with the property, do that. Accomplish all that in 90 days. If in fact you do not do that in 90 days, a fine is going to start at $150 a day. Now, if some unforeseen problem comes up, you always have the right to ask the County to let you come back before this Board to give you some relief if you can justify to us that it was beyond your control and you couldn't comply within 90 days. MR. MOTWANI: Yes, when I talked to her outside, plumbing, electric, structure, everything could be done in less than 90 days. But I took another permit today for the five sprinkler system, which I think permitting and designing which we submitted today, but I think it's going to go through a lot of channels. It's an old building. All the piping and the sprinklers, that I need at least 180 days on that. Just the sprinklers, that's what I'm saying. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand your concern. At this point, since we've issued the Order, what I would recommend is, if that is a problem, ask the County for permission to come back to us and tell us that it is a problem and ask us for some relief. Okay? In other words, go ahead and proceed as you're doing, but we've already issued the Order, so to change it, I think it's easier now to just proceed and come back and ask us for some help later. It's easier to yotl. Page 48 September 25, 2003 Under those conditions, I would say fairly certain that the board will probably give you some relief. It's not a guarantee, but based on what you just said, I think they would be understanding that the problem is out of your control and we could help you. Okay? MR. MOTWANI: Yeah. I appreciate it very much. Only thing that I was thinking is of coming back again, I know the sprinkler system is going to be almost impossible, because the way they do it, all the plumbing, to go through all the whole hotel, it's going to take them two, three months just to install it. And by the time it goes through how many inspections here, I really don't know. And the design and things like that. They might change the design after three weeks and say, no, this needs to be changed and after another three weeks maybe this needs to be changed. Assuming I know how the system works. I'm an engineer myself. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think this is probably the most expedient way to do it. Just proceed full steam ahead like you're doing, and if you need some assistance, ask the County to make an appointment for you to come back before the Board. MR. MOTWANI: I appreciate it. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. That was our last case, so the public hearings are closed. We'll go to new business. Request for imposition of fines and/or liens. MS. ARNOLD: The first item on your agenda, is Board of County Commissioners versus Haldeman Creek Enterprise, LLC. That's Code Enforcement Board case 2003-023. This particular case was heard by the Board on June 26, 2003, and a violation was found, and the violation consisted of alterations and enlargement of a kitchen area on the facility and some electrical work without obtaining a building permit. The Board at that time ordered the respondent to abate the violation by applying for the required site development plan and applicable building permits within 30 days and 90 days respectively. And if the violation did Page 49 September 25, 2003 not, was not corrected, that fines of $50 per day would be imposed for not obtaining a site improvement plan; and fines of $75 a day would be imposed for not attending or complying with that site development plan and permits. On September 8th we did do an inspection and the violation did remain. However, a demolition permit for the structure had been applied for. And it was a submittal for a site development plan, but it was subsequently withdrawn by the respondent. MS. RAWSON: Michelle, if you were not sworn, would you get sworn if you're going to be giving testimony? MS. ARNOLD: Okay. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MS. ARNOLD: I do. Also, the demolition permit was, apparently there was a rejection by the fire department and three other departments as of today. So, they don't really have a completed demolition permit that has been issued. Since the structure still remains and no permits have been obtained for the modifications and/or removal, staff is at this time requesting the board impose fines in the amount of $2,950 for the period of July 28, 2003 through September 25, 2003 at a rate of $50 per day, plus $1,787.85 for the operational costs. And I believe a representative for the property owner is here, Anne Frank. MS. FRANK: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am Anne Frank. I'm the attorney for Haldeman Creek Enterprises, LLC. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Excuse me just a moment. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Page 50 September 25, 2003 MS. FRANK: I do. Good morning, ladies and gentleman. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good morning. MS. FRANK: Thank you. I represent Haldeman Creek Enterprises, LLC. The owner of that LLC is a woman by the name of Harriet McCarthy who is an 80-year-old widow who had leased -- this property is on Bayshore Drive and it was a bar and grill that she leased to some gentleman for a number of years. He did not pay her any rent. And approximately in June he was the one that added this kitchen addition and caused all the problems with the property. She has since gotten rid of him out of the property and now is trying to correct the problems that he created for her. She has applied for the demolition to remove the kitchen addition, but it was rejected because the -- and a site plan was submitted, but the different departments within Collier County, one wanted one thing, one wanted another thing, and so they didn't like the plans, so she had to re-submit a plan which she has hired an engineering company, Averan Pultin, to do, and they are in the process of doing a new site plan. But the problem is the different departments in the County won't tell the engineering company what they want. The transportation department wants something. There's a gentleman by the name of Ross Glockenheimer who is involved in this process. I have a list of about eight different names of people that are involved in this process of trying to get the site plan so she can get the demolition permit to comply with your Order. There's a Michelle Crowley, John Kelly, Greg Garcia, who is with the County Transportation Department, told her to do one thing, and now he's left and someone else is telling her to do something else. We are actively -- she is actively pursuing this. Initially she tried to do it on her own and became so frustrated. It's going to be done and she wants it to be done, but she's working with the County. Page 51 September 25, 2003 And I'm sure you've heard the story before, it's very difficult to get everybody on board. And it's not her fault that she has not complied with your Order. She did apply for the demolition permit and it was rejected. She did put a site permit -- a site plan in and it was rejected. So all she's trying to do is find out what she needs to do to get the site plan accepted and to get the demolition accepted. I guess that's all I have to say. MS. ARNOLD: I just want to make a point of correction. The site development plan is not required for the demolition permit. They're two separate things. And so if she's wanting to remove the portion, or the addition that was done without permits, she merely obtained -- she merely needs to obtain a demolition permit for that portion that was done. MS. FRANK: Well, then why was it rejected? That's what she did. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I can't ask you why the demolition permit was rejected, you'd have to review the comments that are provided when it's rejected because there's letters that are provided when -- MS. FRANK: I'm sorry. I've just become involved just recently. I've just learned of this hearing yesterday. But, she applied for the demolition and it was rejected. You know, I don't know what you have to do to get a -- to demolish a portion of a building. I'm not up on your requirements, so please, excuse me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anything else you want to tell the board? MS. FRANK: Regarding the fines, while I was sitting here I noticed that someone mentioned that the requirements, you can only have $50 maximum fines for each-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, $250 per violation. MS. FRANK: Per violation. Okay. Well, it's in the Order-- I'm a lawyer. In the Order it says that there was a $50 application to Page 52 September 25, 2003 remove the -- for the kitchen addition that there was no permit for. But then it appears that -- that fine, $50 per day. Then it also appears that there's $75 violation or fine for the same thing. It all revolves around the kitchen permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I'm with you so far. So what's the problem? 50 and 75 is only a hundred and a quarter and we go to 250. MS. BARNETT: 250 per day. MS. FRANK: Per day? Well, I just -- let me see what else. I'm asking this Board that she'd have an extension of time to complete, to get her demolition permit. I guess that's all she has to do, and to find out what we have to do to get the demolition permit, because no one has explained to us what we need to do. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She has the right, for your information, that when and if this is all finished, when she does, in fact, comply, everything is done and she's met what we've ordered her to do, whenever that takes place, whatever the fine is at that point, she has the right to ask us to reduce it or abate it altogether for whatever reasons. I tell you that because I think doing it now, understanding that she's trying to find out what to do, she's still got time to go. At this point I don't think the board would probably entertain amending their Order to change the time. We would be -- based on past history of the Board. We're more prone to let things run its course when she's done and has complied, come back to us and say, gee, the fine is now X, I've done everything you say. Because of these reasons, would you waive the fine or reduce it or whatever. That's basically how the history of the Board is run. And I would say it probably isn't going to change. But she has that right when she's all done to come back to us, send you back to us, and say, here's my list, this is why she couldn't do what you ask, now we're asking you to waive or reduce the fines because of these items. Page 53 September 25, 2003 Okay? She has that right. MS. FRANK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any discussion by the Board on the imposition of fines? Entertain a motion to do it or not do it? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we ask the County to impose the fine of $2,950 plus the $1,787.85 for operational costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have a motion to impose the fines as requested. MS. BARNETT: Is that through a specific period? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, that's just through September 25th. And they will continue to run -- the other one has not taken place because it doesn't come into effect until she does item one, and then she has so many more days to do item two. MS. BARNETT: If Bobbie would include the date in her motion, I'll second it. MS. DUSEK: That's fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The fine is for the period July 28, 2003 through September 25, 2003. So we have an amended motion. Do I hear a second? MS. BARNETT: I second it if she amended it. MS. DUSEK: Yes, that's fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She agreed to amend it. We have a motion and a second to impose the fines as requested. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: signify by saying aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Hearing none, all those in favor Page 54 September 25, 2003 MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next one, 2003-014. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. This is a Code Enforcement Board case, board of County Commissioners versus Wilma Britton. Case number 2003-014. And I'll discuss with you the next case as well. It's the same respondent, 2003-015. Both cases were heard on the same day, April 21st, although the second executive summary says the 23rd, and both cases were found in violation. The first case, the respondent was ordered to abate all violations within 45 days by obtaining -- actually, abate the violations by obtaining permits for the improvements that were made within 45 days. She was also instructed to obtain Certificate of Occupancy with all the applicable inspections within 30 days or a fine of $50 for each violation that continued past the days specified would be imposed. The violation was abated as the Board requested for the first one, so the staff is at this time just requesting that we impose operational costs in the amount of $914 for that first case, and $448.05 for the second case, because both came into compliance as requested. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a recommendation to impose a fine for the operational costs only on the two cases against Ms. Britton. Do I hear a motion to do so? MS. DUSEK: I make the motion that we ask the County to impose the fine in the first case, 2003-014, just for the operational cost of $914. And, Jean, can I do an and for the next case for the same person or do I have to do it separately? Best to do it separate? MS. RAWSON: Best to do a separate motion because they have separate case numbers. Page 55 September 25, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion to impose the fines as requested on 2003-014. Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The motion and a second to impose the fines as requested on operational costs. All those in favor signify by saying aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The next case against Ms. Britton is 2003-015. Do I hear a motion to impose the operational costs on that case? MS. DUSEK: MR. DORIA: So moved for $448.05. Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second impose the operational costs on case 2003-015. signify by saying aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Case 2003-029. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. The next case was Board to All those in favor of County Page 56 September 25, 2003 Commissioners versus Carl and Linda Weber. This case was heard by the Board on August 28, 2003 for a pergola structure being constructed within the setbacks and without building permits. And the Board found in violation and ordered to correct within the time specified on the executive summary. The respondent did comply and staff is at this time requesting that the operational costs in the amount of $673.75 be imposed on this property. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we ask the County to impose the fine on Carl and Linda Weber for the operational costs of $673.75. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second for the Board to impose the fines for operational costs in case 2003-029. All those in favor signify by saying aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's all our new business. Down to request to forward to the county attorney's office some items for foreclosure processing, I assume. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. In your packet, you should have a memo. I apologize, it's on the second page. And the memo is requesting that we forward the following cases, respondent, Lorraine Burgess for case number 2003-016, respondent Claude Martel for cases number 2003-001 and 002, and respondent Wayne Simpson for case number 2001-085. All of these -- two of them have complied but we have not received payment, and there are two non-compliance. Page 57 September 25, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would recommend to the Board that we direct the county attorney's office to proceed with foreclosure on these four cases. MS. DUSEK: Is that a motion? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MR. PONTE: I second. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to direct the county attorney's office to proceed on these four cases. All those in favor signify by saying aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: New business is complete. Old business. Affidavits of Compliance. MS. ARNOLD: Staff is just reporting that we are going to be filing Affidavit of Compliances on cases number 2003-014, 2003-015, both against Wilma Britton; and case number 2003-029, which was Carl and Linda Weber's case with the Board. We also are filing Affidavits of Non-compliance for case number 2003-023, which is Haldemann Creek Enterprise, LLC, 2003-016, which is against Lorraine Burgess. And finally, 2001-085, which is against Wayne Simpson. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Old down to reports. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we do attorney's office, Jennifer Belpedio. MS. BELPEDIO: business being complete, we're have a report from the county Hello, again. I'm Jennifer Belpedio. I want Page 58 September 25, 2003 to make this presentation brief. I've provided you information in the materials that I think are pretty thorough. For the benefit of those persons watching who do not have the materials in front of them, as you all know, there's a County Ordinance that allows this Board to impose fines of up to $250 for a first violation, up to $500 a day for a repeat violation, and up to $5,000 a day for an irreparable or irreversible violation. There is statutory authority to increase those upper limits and this Board is authorized-- would be authorized to increase the limit for the first violation from 250 to 1,000, for the repeat violation from 500 to 5,000, and for the irreparable or irreversible from 5,000 to 15,000. What would be necessary is that this Board would, upon its determination to increase the upper limits, rule on a motion, and that information would be placed into an executive summary by Code Enforcement staff. Our office would review that information and it would be placed on the Board of County Commissioners' agenda. They would consider the item, and if they approved and decided to increase the upper limits, then our office and Code Enforcement would be directed to amend the current County Ordinance to reflect their decision. So there is authority and it's really up to this Board to decide whether or not to request the Board of County Commissioners to make a decision to increase the upper limits. Michelle may have some additional information she wants to present to this Board regarding the staffs position. MS. BARNETT: Jennifer, I have one question for you. On your chart where it says upper limits as set forth in Statute 162.092D, are those the upper limits that we're talking about as to 1,000 per day and 5,000 for repeat? MS. BELPEDIO: Yes, ma'am. And certainly this board could decide that it wants to increase the upper limits of the 1,000, for Page 59 September 25, 2003 instance, instead of 1,000 to 900 or whatever the case may be. It's only up to 1,000 for the first violation. And something also to keep in mind is that if these limits were increased, that that doesn't mean that this Board would have to necessarily impose them each and every time. It would just give you a broader range of fines to impose in any given case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're scurrying because Bobbie didn't have this in per packet. George has found his. And she's looked back and front. If you remember it our workshop this was an item that came up and I asked Jennifer if she would be so kind to get us some more information and that's what she's done. Michelle, do you have anything to add? MS. ARNOLD: The only thing is, you know, Jennifer has provided you all a list of those counties that she received, or response or inquiry on, and there are about 17 counties that meet the population criteria. And of those 17, there's about seven of them that have adopted ordinances that would allow for that. I think that, as Jennifer indicated, we don't -- the Board doesn't necessarily have to impose that level of fines, but there may be the situation or case that those levels of fines would be warranted. So I would recommend that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We, at least you and I have talked, and I think once with Jennifer, too, if I can remember correctly. This came up and I hadn't thought of it, then when I thought of it I thought it was a good idea and that's why I asked to have it brought up at the workshop, and again why I asked Jennifer to look into it. I think for our county, this would be a good thing, based on our population and the way things have been growing, so on and so forth. I know the county residents do a pretty good job in complying with everything, but I think having the ability to do this is important for the county personally. We don't have to decide on it this five Page 60 September 25, 2003 seconds. I know some of this information is new to a couple of people who weren't at the workshop, so they need to digest it if they haven't already done so. And if there's anything any of the board members would like to ask the County to provide us as to more information, I'm sure they'd be glad to try and do it. I would like the members to give it good consideration, because I would, before recommending to the commissioners, that this change take place. Any questions for Jennifer or Michelle at this time? MR. PONTE: Just Jennifer. Lee County, where there is a $5,000 maximum, whether it be a repeat or initial violation, do they have a top figure, or is it just up to 5,000, we'll stop? MS. BELPEDIO: It's up to $5,000 across the board regardless of whether it's a first, second, or third or whatever violation. Something to note that I don't think I included in there, is that they have all their cases heard by a hearing examiner. MR. PONTE: Explain to me what the difference would be. How would that make a difference as far as we're concerned, whether they hear theirs by hearing examiner? MS. BELPEDIO: It really doesn't. It's just something that may be interesting or important for you all to know just where their cases are heard. It's not relevant for determination, no. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jennifer, you were probably the one to tell us this, the statutes give the counties the right to set up these Boards. The counties don't have to set boards up like we have. They could probably go this other route instead, which Lee County obviously has done. MS. BELPEDIO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So it may have been Lee County's decision that rather than look for volunteers to make these decisions, they thought a hearing examiner is the easiest way out, where Collier County has decided to set up the Board and over many, many years Page 61 September 25, 2003 has worked well, I think. MR. PONTE: Is there any reason for to us consider -- I don't know what they are, I'm just thinking out loud here, to put our fining mechanism or limits, the same as those of Lee County? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I think Jennifer would probably tell us that under the -- now that we have this Board, the only option left to the County is this. I don't think they can go back to straight across the board 5,000. When I read the statutes, it was pretty clear. We can do the 250 or go to this 1,000. MS. BELPEDIO: Your options would be 1,000 maximum for first, 5,000 max for a repeat, and 15,000 for irreparable. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We just don't have that option anymore now that the Board has been established. MS. BARNETT: Maybe this is a question just out of my inexperience that I'm going to ask. Jean, would this help us in those cases that we've had come back that we've extended the 250 and all of a sudden we've realized that we've hit them with more than a $250 a day fine? MS. RAWSON: Yes, it would. And also it may serve as a deterrent because -- and you don't have to, you know, go around fining people $1,000, but you can up to that limit. MS. BARNETT: So it would give us a little more latitude in other words? MS. RAWSON: You have more latitude, absolutely. Especially for repeat violators. And it might have a deterrent effect. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think that's probably one of the -- I don't like to use the word good, but one of the good things about increasing the amount is when the public understands that there is now more -- MS. BARNETT: Bite in our bark? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, bite in the bark, that's a good one. That they may be prone to listen to the code enforcement Page 62 September 25, 2003 investigators that come to their property because now they can get hurt a little more. Not saying we would do it, or some Board after us would do it. I just think that it's a good thing for Collier County because we all understand that Collier County is different than any other county in the State of Florida. If you look at real estate and everything else that's here, it's totally different. And with all our construction and everything else and the people that move here, I think this is a good thing. I really do. Not just so that we could use it. I just think it's always good to have a deterrent and the ability to do it. I hope everyone will consider it. That it would be a recommendation. MS. BARNETT: Cliff, I agree with you. And I also think because this county is growing as it is, this would be a step in the right direction of helping us meet future potential issues and already have the statute in place. MS. DUSEK: I'm going to play the devil's advocate. I think it's good to have that latitude to do it. My fear is that it might be abused. Most of the people coming before us are average citizens. The fine of even $100 a day I think is difficult. And I can foresee that we may end up having more properties going into foreclosure. I just hope that if we do initiate this, that we don't abuse it. That's my only fear. Because I think our fines, if we go to the 250, that's a steep climb. MR. PONTE: I agree with you. What's missing here is, there isn't a safety mechanism in place that you could really take this Board to get involved and could issue a fine that is truly horrific when you start to multiply the per diems. These mount up, even at 250. If that goes for any length of time, you're looking at a pot full of penalty. It would be nice to get the limits up, if they could go, but if there was some sort of safety mechanism in place so that a fine isn't then just pronounced in the course of ten minutes deliberation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I guess my argument, for lack of a better word on that side, George, is the intelligence of the Board Page 63 September 25, 2003 violations, seriousness strength. members. I think the Commissioners, when they pick people to sit on this Board, don't do it lightheartedly and they try to get a good mix. And as seen from Board members I've seen since I have been here, and they've come and gone, they've all been decent people and they've tried to do the right thing. We all get a vote. It takes at least four to say yes. So I think we have the safety net in that the makeup of the Board itself. Otherwise, you're saying, well, they don't trust the Board members to use good judgment. MR. PONTE: I trust this Board members, but I don't know about future board members. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. Any Board can change and when we all leave, the next Board can recommend to the County that they do it, so. I think if we, having done a great job up to this point, I think you all have made some very good arguments on lots of cases. And we have negotiated good deals among ourselves for the people. If it were instituted, we could set the standard on how and if it was ever used. Because just knowing the makeup of the Board members, unless some weird case, I can honestly sit here and say, I'd be really hard pressed to hit somebody with $1,000 a day unless there was something drastic. As it is, we very rarely use the 250. We've used it a few times. But I think the ability to have it there is what's important to the County. Not to actually use it, but it's just the ability to have it available. MR. PONTE: I think the strongest case is that it removes the problem with hitting the ceiling. That is when we get multiple it enables us to work up and to fine accurately the of several violations in one case. That's certainly a CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. So, again, we could think on it and maybe make a recommendation later, or if everyone is comfortable, I have no problem at this point saying that I am in favor Page 64 September 25, 2003 of making a recommendation to the County Commissioners that they make this change to the existing ordinance. MR. PONTE: How should we timetable it? What do you want to do for a timetable? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If we're not willing to do it now, what I would really like to do, because I don't know what's all involved with the commissioners. They probably have to go through a certain process like everything else. And the staff has to go through I'm sure a bigger process just to get it to the commissioners. MS. ARNOLD: All that would be required is an adoption of an ordinance giving you all that ability. And it could be just an amendment to your existing ordinance, the Code Enforcement Ordinance -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If we, right now today, I made a motion that we recommend that the Commissioners do this and we got enough to agree to it, what's the process to get it done? How long a period are we looking at? I'm sure the Commissioners must go through something. MS. ARNOLD: It would be -- I would bring the issue to the Board saying that this was recommended. They would have to direct the county attorney's office to go ahead and pursue it, and they would draft an ordinance or a resolution. I don't know which one is applicable, but they would do it, and it just depends on the timing of the county attorney's office to get it done. MS. BELPEDIO: Keep in mind, it will have to come before the Board twice. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what I thought. Like a public reading, or however they call that or something. I don't know the proper terminology. MS. BELPEDIO: ordinance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: An advertised public hearing on the So whether we do it today or wait 30 Page 65 September 25, 2003 days, I don't think we should say let's all consider it for the next 90 days and then make a recommendation. I'm almost to the point where I'd be willing to make a motion that we recommend to the County Commissioners that they proceed with this item. MS. BARNETT: If you would go forward with that motion, I can tell you you've got a second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'll make the motion. Let's see what happens. MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If that doesn't work, we can come up with the next date where we might like to consider it. So we have a motion and a second on the floor to recommend to the Commissioners that they make this change to the Ordinance. Any further discussion on it? MR. PONTE: One other question. Again, just along with my concern about this total increase. Is there a way to step it halfway? MS. BELPEDIO: Yes. There's nothing to say that you must ask that the ordinance contain all of the upper limits as set forth in 162092D. You certainly could decide that it's 75, 2,500 and 7,500 instead of the upper limits in the statute. Or you could choose any other numbers in between. I don't mean to put any numbers into your MR. PONTE: That just might give me a little bit more comfort in terms of everything that I said before. MS. DUSEK: I can tell you I'm not comfortable with this at all. I think that our fines the way they read are enough. And again, I just point out that there was a comment made earlier that we know the real estate in Collier County, but most of the people who come before us are average ordinary people. And it's a struggle for them to accept any of these fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since we have a motion and a second at the current rates of 1,000, 5,000 and 15, I'm willing to leave it at Page 66 September 25, 2003 that since we have a second, and let's take a vote and see where that goes. I'm comfortable with that. I don't have a problem with the numbers based on the makeup of the Board. MS. BARNETT: Just as a reminder, the Board we'll be setting the precedent and we don't have to utilize those limits. It just gives us the option if we needed to, to have that leverage. There is one case that I can think back of that it might have put a little more bite to the gentleman and he would have expedited getting things done. And he was one of those few that have come before us that could afford it because he was a developer. I don't think that this Board, in its makeup, would do this to the general public. The majority of the people that have come forward, but I think that would be at our discretion if we would have that ability. The other option is, it would keep us from having things sent back to us from upper court, and I think that that's a big leverage to have as a utilization mechanism. And I trust this Board, having worked with you for almost a year now, that we're all pretty levelheaded. And I would like to see that we would be the ones setting the precedent and utilizing this for future boards. That's kind of where I stand. MR. PONTE: And I agree with what you're saying. But rather than going all the way to cover the bases so that we don't get reversals and charged with overfining, a halfway step would accomplish the same thing. My concern is that we have a minimum threshold in our mind now, but that entire scale is based on the fact that we're stopped at 250. So we start at, you know, in our mind $50 all the way up to 250. If we raise and increase that to 1,000, that limit, or 750, we are -- we will, just human nature, raise our own threshold and think, well I could, you know, is this a $500 fine or is this a $200 fine. And suddenly the bottom -- Page 67 September 25, 2003 MS. ARNOLD: Why don't I make a suggestion since you're not sure if you can control yourselves. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: First thing is, and Jean can help me here. We have a motion and a second on the floor, so I think we have to proceed with it first. MS. RAWSON: You do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's parliamentary etiquette. It's the floor, it must be voted on. It either passes or it doesn't and then we can come up with another motion. I think everybody has made their pitch. Some of us are for it, some are less. So, as it stands, the motion which is seconded, is for the maxed at what the statutes allow, which is 1,000 for the first, 5,000 for repeat, and 15,000 for anything that's irreparable. That's what's on the floor so let's take a vote. All those in favor of that, to make sure we get the proper count, I'm going to ask for a show of hands, please. All those in favor signify by raising their hands. MR. DORIA: (raises hand.) MS. BARNETT: (raises hand.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (raises hand.) MR. RAMSEY: (raises hand.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One, two, three, four. All those opposed? MS. DUSEK: (raises hand.) MR. PONTE: (raises hand.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Two, it passes, four to two. MS. ARNOLD: And what I'll do is see whether or not we can get some additional information from the other counties that have the higher levels and see, you know, what the average of their fines per day, just so you can see that, you know, what it is that other communities are actually doing with that added authority. Okay? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So if you'll proceed with making recommendations or whatever Jennifer needs to do, or Page 68 September 25, 2003 whoever has to do what. Thank you very much, Jennifer. MS. BELPEDIO: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Under comments. Go ahead. MS. DUSEK: I just have one comment. I appreciate the fact that maybe we were trying to save paper on this last bit of information to us, but I would appreciate it if they could be separated instead of having an Affidavit of Non-compliance and an Affidavit of Compliance, et cetera, on one side. MS. ARNOLD: It wasn't a matter of us trying to save paper. It was a matter of our copier did not do the work. MS. DUSEK: Okay. Well, whatever the reason. MR. PONTE: It was confusing, but it's a good idea to save the paper. MS. ARNOLD: It was also late. So, we are working to try to get better service. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle was kind enough to give me an un-marked package and it doesn't tick so I'm going to open it. MS. ARNOLD: You were supposed to open that at the beginning. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is it lunch? It's not lunch. Oh, terrific. A gavel. Okay. Code Enforcement. arsenal. Besides fines, school days. Thank you very much. We'll see that this gets passed along. Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: room. Nothing else. MS. BARNETT: I make a motion that we adjourn. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I hear a motion. Now we have a new implement in our we can rap knuckles now. Reminder of Our next meeting is the 23rd in this Page 69 September 25, 2003 aye. MR. PONTE: I second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Adjourned. (Proceedings concluded at 11:45 a.m.) in favor signify by saying COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY DANIELLE AHREN Page 70