Loading...
CEB Minutes 10/23/2003 ROctober 23, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida October 23, 2003 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Clifford Flegal Roberta Dusek Albert Doria, Jr. Gerald Lefebvre G. Christopher Ramsey Rhona Saunders ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney Shanelle Hilton, Code Enforcement Coordinator Page 1 C, ODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COI,I_,IER COUNTY~ FLORIDA AGENDA Date: October 23, 2003 at 9:00 o'clock a.m. Location: 3301 E. Tamiami Tr., Naples, Florida, Collier County Government Center, Administrative Bldg, 3rd Floor NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 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- September 25, 2003 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS Be MOTIONS: Motion for Clarification: 1. BCC vs. Southern Development Co., Inc., and Marlo Curiale as its Registered Agent 2. BCC vs. Southern Development Co., Inc., and Mario Curiale as its Registered Agent HEARINGS: 1. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2003-047 670 20TM ST NE, NAPLES, FLORIDA DREAMSCAPE HOMES JEFF LETOUKNEAU VIOLATIONS: 2. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: CEB NO. 2003-005 CEB NO. 2003-006 FBC 104.5.1, PARAGRAPH 4, AS ADOPTED BY ORD 2002-01 UNSECURED PATIALLY CONSTRUCTED SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE DEEMED ABANDONDED AS PERMIT NO. 97-0001948 EXPIRED. 2003 -053 5233 MARTIN ST, NAPLES, FLORIDA GLADYS RODRIGUEZ JASON TORKEY 10/I 7/2003 VIOLATIONS: CASE NO: CASE ADDR: ORD 98-76, AS AMENDED BY ORD. 2002-01, SEC 103.5.1 AND 103.11.1 UNSECURED VACANT STRUCTURE BEING ACCESSED BY VAGRANTS CREATING AN UNSAFE BUILDING AND SAFETY HAZARD ORD 98-76, AS AMENDED, SEC 101.4.10; ORD 2002-05, THE MININUM HOUSING CODE, SEC 22-263 & ORD 89-06, AS AMENDED, SEC 5, P,kR 12K, HouSrNG UNSECURED VACANT STRUCTURE NOT BEING PROPERLY MAINTAINED, DOOR KNOBS AND LOCKING MECHANISMS HAVE BEEN REMOVED AND BEING ACCESSED BY VAGRANTS CREATING A SAFETY HAZARD 2003-041 32330 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, OCOHPEE FLORIDA OWNER: INSPECTOR: WOOTEN FAM PARTNERSHIP LTD ANDREA DUVAL VIOLATIONS: CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: ORD 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.5.12.1 OF THE SIGN CODE BILLBOARD SIGN ERECTED WITHOUT PROPER BUILDING PERMIT. ORD 91-102, AS AMENDED; SEC 2.5.13.1 OF THE SIGN CODE BILLBOARD SIGN ERECTED WITHOUT COMPLETING PROPER BUILDING PERMIT, INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION PROCEDUES. 2003-039 4710 LAKEWOOD BLVD, NAPLES, FLORIDA VAN ELWAY ENTERPRISES, INC., D/B/A IRONWOOD GOLF CLUB JOHN OLNEY ORD 99-51, SEC 11, WEED, LITTER AND EXOTICS ORDINANCE EXCESSIVE WEED AND VEGETATION OVERGROWTH IN EXCESS OF 18' ON PRIVATE GOLF COURSE CREATING A NUSIANCE FOR ITS ADJACENT NEIGHBORS 2003-042 4903 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY, NAPLES FLORIDA PONCE REALTY COMPANY SUMMER BROWN VIOLATIONS: ORE) 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.4.3.7, LANDSCAPE AND BUFFERING LANDSCAPE TREES NOT BEING MAINTAINED, SEVERAL LIVE OAK TREES DEAD OR DYING NEW BUSINESS: A. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC vs. Robert Chipman 2. BCC vs. Robert Chipman 3. BCC vs. Avisai Gonzalez 4. BCC vs. Dixie Higginbotham B. Request for Reduction/Abatement of Fines 1. BCC vs. Carl and Linda Weber C. Request to Forward to County Attorney's Office No request submitted at the time of this agenda D. Motion/Request for Extension of Time 1. BCC vs. Cora Sneibrun 2. BCC vs. Robert Chipman OLD BUSINESS: A. Affidavits of Compliance 1. BCC vs. Robert Chipman 2. BCC vs. Robert Chipman 3. BCC vs. Avisai Gonzalez B. Affidavits of Non-Compliance 1. BCC vs. Dixie Higginbotham REPORTS COMMENTS/DISSCUSSION 1. Re-discuss the imposing of higher imposition of fines per the State Statute N~EXT MEETING DATE November 13, 2003 in the Board Room CEB NO. 2003-007 CEB NO. 2003-025 CEB NO. 2003-038 CEB NO. 2003-022 CEB NO. 2003-029 CEB NO. 2003-031 CEB NO. 2003-020 CEB NO. 2003-007 CEB NO. 2003-025 CEB NO. 2003-038 CEB NO. 2003-022 10. ADJOURN Roberta Dusek 10/17/2003 October 23, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, if we're all organized. Sorry for the delay. I'll call the Code Enforcement Board to order. Please note, any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. If you are a person accommodation in order to with a disability who needs any participate in this proceeding, you're entitled at no cost to you to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact Collier County Facilities Management Department at 3301 East Tamiami Trail. Phone number is 774-8380. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the County Commissioners' office. May we have our roll call, please. MS. HILTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. For the record, Shanelle Hilton, CEB coordinator. Clifford Flegal? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Present. MS. HILTON: Roberta Dusek? MS. DUSEK: Here. MS. HILTON: George Ponte has an excused absence. Rhona Saunders? MS. SAUNDERS: Here. MS. HILTON: Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. HILTON: Sheri Barnett has an excused absence. Albert Doria? Page 2 October 23, 2003 MR. DORIA: Here. MS. HILTON: Christopher Ramsey? MR. RAMSEY: Here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since we have two regular members absent, our two alternates will participate fully today, including voting. Approval of our agenda. Are there any changes to the agenda as presented? MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold. No changes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would entertain a motion to accept the agenda as submitted. MS. SAUNDERS: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have a motion to approve the agenda and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any disapproval? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Approval of our minutes from September 25th. Any changes, additions, corrections? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If none, I would entertain a motion to accept the minutes as presented. MS. DUSEK: So moved. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the minutes from September 25th, as presented. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? Page 3 October 23, 2003 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. We'll now open our public hearings. First under public hearing is a motion for clarification. Board of County Commissioners versus Southern Development. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director. There is a memo in your packet, trying to explain to you all where we are right now. The case was heard -- two cases, actually, was heard by the code board in January. And violations were found. The board's order indicated that -- and you were provided a copy of the order this morning. The board's order indicated to come into compliance by a certain date. And Mr. Curiale came to see me and questioned whether or not he was in compliance. The county staff's position is that we don't believe he's completely in compliance. What he would need to do -- he had two options: He needed to obtain permits for the vegetation removal, but he did not. That was a violation. He could mitigate by replacing vegetation. He explored that and found that it would be cost preventive for him to do, so he was going through the site development plan process. We checked with the planning department and they -- he has submitted for a site development plan, but it only includes a portion, it doesn't include the entire two parcels that we brought before you. So he wouldn't technically be in compliance. He does have his engineer here to speak, because he was out of town. So if you want to hear from his engineer, Mr. Wilkin -- Davidson is here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Having the order in front of me, yes, I want to hear what he has to say, because I don't understand the question yet. MR. DAVIDSON: My name is Jeff Davidson. Page 4 October 23, 2003 (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. DAVIDSON: My name is Jeff Davidson. I'm with Davidson Engineering. I'm a local engineer here in Naples, and I'm working for Mr. Curiale. Mr. Curiale could not be here today. He had an out-of-town trip that involved airplane tickets, so he couldn't be here. But he wanted to be here. But I can give you a brief history of where we are and where we need to go to resolve the situation we have. Mr. -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: May I ask a question first? MR. DAVIDSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand you're looking for a -- some type of a clarification of the order that was issued. What don't you understand about the order that was issued? MR. DAVIDSON: Our idea was that we -- if we moved diligently forward to get a clearing permit, that that would satisfy the board, and I believe we have done that. iMr. Curiale hired me to do a site development plan that shows development in the area where the clearing took place. But like Ms. Arnold says, there is one area that we cannot get a site development plan approved for now, and I can point that out to you. When she said there were two parcels that were cleared, one parcel is in our development area. The other smaller parcel is outside of our development here. And that is in a wetland, or at least I think it's a wetland. But it's in an area where our site plan doesntt cover, so we cannot get a clearing permit for that in a short period of time. But the other larger cleared area, which I can point out to you for clarification on the aerial, if you would like to see where those areas are, if that would help. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, having -- not having all the, I guess, drawings and everything that were submitted the first time around when the board made its determination originally back in -- I guess it was January, my only thought is, and I'll double check with Page 5 October 23, 2003 our attorney, but the order is straightforward. It says by abating all violations -- and you had asked for extension, Mr. Curiale had -- MR. DAVIDSON: Right. That's right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- and coming into compliance by November 1 st. Have you abated all violations? In other words, are all violations solved? MR. DAVIDSON: No, they're not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Then you're not in compliance. There's no partial. It says all. All means all. No part words. All is all. I don't know how else to approach that. Little three-letter word. Sorry. What clarification do you need on the word all? MR. DAVIDSON: I don't need any clarification. I just -- I didn't understand it -- it's a situation where we can remedy the situation without -- it makes no sense, and we discussed this at the last meeting, for him to spend 20 some thousand dollars to plant trees in an area that we're trying to -- you know, we're working as fast as we can to get a clearing permit. And there's no reason why we won't get the clearing permit except for the fact that the process takes so long to get that. And we've done everything we can to get that clearing permit. And I can see that we'll have that shortly, means, you know, a few months, but we don't have it now. We're not in compliance now. His alternative is to plant the trees in that area, which will be torn out as soon as we get the clearing permit, or to pay the county mitigation costs of 20 some thousand dollars. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Maybe what you need to do -- I mean, this -- the order and the extension isn't until November 1st, okay. Hearing what you're saying about getting the paperwork through, maybe what you need is an additional extension of time to solve your problem. I'm not sure. Maybe you need to converse with the county and see if you got an extra 30 days or something, the problem would be solved, you'd have your permit and then you could Page 6 October 23, 2003 abate all. Maybe that's the easiest way. I honestly don't know. I think you should talk that over with the county. MR. DAVIDSON: The procedure would be to talk that over with Ms. Arnold and come back to the board and request an additional time? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Because if you come back to the board for an extension, we're going to ask the county if they agree with an extension. That's what I'm saying. Maybe you two should talk it out, go over the problems that exist in you abating by November 1st-- MR. DAVIDSON: That makes perfect sense to me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That it's a hold-up on some form of a government permit or something. MR. DAVIDSON: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sounds logical. We might be receptive, but we're going to ask the county, do they agree that we should give you this extension. So maybe you two should work that out first and then come back and -- that's easier. MR. DAVIDSON: I think we can do that, because there's some logic here that I think that everybody can agree to. If we can discuss that before we come back next time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody else have anything on the board? MS. DUSEK: No. I think it sounds like you can accomplish the abatement. You just need more time. MR. DAVIDSON: Exactly. MS. SAUNDERS: I have one point. I wonder if perhaps at a break or something, Michelle, you could talk with Michelle right now so you don't have to keep coming back and forth. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I can't grant an extension. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We can't the extension. MS. SAUNDERS: Without it being applied for now -- I mean Page 7 October 23, 2003 next month? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, it's -- an extension hasn't been asked for. This is just a clarification. And he's not the owner of the property and he's really not the agent, he's just an engineer. MS. ARNOLD: Right. The purpose of us bringing it is because I wasn't sure if the board's position was abate, meaning submit. Because once they submit, they go through a particular process and, you know, if they didn't complete the process, we would probably come back-- be back before the board. Or if you meant abate by completing the entire process and developing the project, which is a lot more time-consuming than just submittal. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, in order to abate the violations, would he not have to complete the SDP, rather than just submit an SDP? MS. ARNOLD: That's the question that is being brought before you. Was it your intent to say complete entirely this process in a 90-day period or whatever the time period was specified, or was it that your intention that they at least begin and try to work through the process? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: History tells me, if I remember correctly, and my fellow board members can correct me, when we want somebody to just submit something, we normally say that. If you submit an SDP or some other by a certain date. This says abate all. To me that means you got to be done by this date. Period. Pretty straightforward, I believe. MS. DUSEK: I would agree with that also. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So I think your best alternative is for you and Mr. Curiale, as soon as you can get him, you could probably start the process, talk to the county, try to work it out, come up with a date that that would feel comfortable with and come back to us, hopefully next month, and ask for an extension. Your time limit will have already run out, but we can do that at the same time by granting Page 8 October 23, 2003 you an extension. MR. DAVIDSON: We appreciate that. I think that would solve our problem, at least part of it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. MR. DAVIDSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. We'll now do public hearings. First case, 2003-047. MS. HILTON: Good morning. The first case of the day is Board of County Commissioners versus Dreamscape Homes, Inc., CEB No. 2003-047. At this time, I'd like to ask if the respondent is present in the courtroom. (No response.) MS. HILTON: So noted, the respondent is not present. The -- 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. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A. All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of Section 104.5.1.4 of Ordinance No. 2002-01 of the Florida Building Code, abandoned construction. The description of the violation: Observed a primary structure that was permitted under Collier County Permit No. 97-0001948 and has been deemed abandoned. There have not been any inspections Page 9 October 23, 2003 since 1997, and the structure never received a certificate of occupancy. The permit expired on March 29th, 1998. Location where violation exists: 670 20th Street Northeast, Naples, Florida, Golden Gate Estates, more particularly described as Folio No. 39329240004. Name and address of owner in charge of location where violation exists: Dreamscape Homes, Inc., 3898 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 204, Naples, Florida. Date violation first observed: August 27th, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: August 29th, 2003, by certified mail, return receipt requested, which was returned refused, and regular U.S. Mail and posting of property in the courthouse. Date on which violation to be corrected: September 1 lth, 2003. Date ofreinspection: October 22nd, 2003. Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And the CEB notice of hearing was mailed regular U.S. Mail and certified mail, and the property was posted, as well as the courthouse. And at this time, I would like to turn the case over to the investigator, Jeff Letourneau, to present the case to the board. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, I'd like to state my name, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. On August 27th, 2003, I was doing patrol cases out in the Estates, and I noticed this structure and overgrown property. Upon returning to the office, I researched the case and discovered that the permit was issued for the structure, but no C.O. or any inspections had been completed since 9/30/1997. I researched a few of the older code cases on this property and found the number. I called it. And Mr. Tony Dissaro stated that the owner of the property had -- was in federal jail for 15 years, and he's already served four years of it. Page 10 October 23, 2003 So I proceeded to go through all the proper channels, posted the property, posted the courthouse and sent certified mail. No receipt of any of the mail was returned signed, so I brought the case before the code board. My order to correct states in here that we want the owner to either get the permit application reinstated or remove the structure. I also would like to add that I think that this might be a safety issue, and we'd like the owner to board it up while all this is going on, or within the 90 days if he doesn't do this that the county do it and charge the owner the expense. As of yesterday, I went to the Collier County Building Administration and had them officially deem that this permit is abandoned in accordance with the section that I've -- the Ordinance 2002-01, Section 104.5.1.4. MS. SAUNDERS: Is there any way to notify the gentleman that is in jail of what's going on? Assuming we know where he is. MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm not really sure. I don't know how to go about notifying anybody in a federal penitentiary. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jeff, the Dreamscape Homes, Inc. is this gentleman, Paul La Costa, I guess, is he the only person that's in this corporation? There's no other, like president, vice president, treasurer? He's it? MR. LETOURNEAU: He's it. He was the registered agent and the president, according to the Florida Corporations page. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: He also owns the property. Well, yeah, obviously. So he was doing the building and he owns the property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson, I have a -- MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- technical question, I guess. Since it's known that this gentleman is in jail, in doing our -- in the county doing the notification process that the board has to go Page 11 October 23, 2003 through, is it sufficient to send these things to the address for Dreamscape and post them, or do we have to try to notify him, since we know where he is? MS. RAWSON: Well, I'm not sure if you know which federal prison he might be in, and whether or not -- if it was a state prison, we could probably get him. You'd have to know which federal prison. I mean, there is a way to find all that out. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Are we required to do that, is what I'm MS. RAWSON: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- looking for. MS. RAWSON: No, you're not. As long as you've certified mail, posting, no. According to the statute and the ordinance, that's sufficient. MS. DUSEK: Jeff, I have a question. Have the taxes been paid on this property all these years; do you know? MR. LETOURNEAU: That's not something I know, no, I didn't check into that. MS. DUSEK: It would be interesting to know if they have been. And if they have, who's been paying them. MR. LETOURNEAU: I don't know. MS. SAUNDERS: I have -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I guess who's been paying them really isn't important. Because if he's the only person that owns the corporation, his next door neighbor could be paying them and there's nothing we can do to the next door neighbor. A corporation is a corporation. MS. DUSEK: But that neighbor, or whoever, may know where he is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I think Jean is right, if he's in federal prison, he can be found. That's not a secret. There's a way to do that. You just have to go through law enforcement. It can be Page 12 October 23, 2003 done. But since we don't have to do that -- MS. DUSEK: Also, another question along the taxes. Isn't there -- assuming that they have been paid, isn't there a certain amount of time -- and Jean, I'll direct this to you -- if somebody's paying taxes on a property, even if they don't own it, that they can come? MS. RAWSON: Well, that's up to the tax assessor, if they decide to put it up for tax sale, if the taxes haven't been paid. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I was going to say, the taxes have to be not paid and then they put them up for tax sale, and then it still takes I think six or seven years before you can go in and say I want the property. MS. SAUNDERS: Do you feel there's a safety hazard here now? I mean, at the stage it's at right now. MR. LETOURNEAU: I think it needs to be boarded up. There's a certain amount of graffiti on the inside, so obviously there's probably been some kids hanging out in there. And, you know, I mean, I don't know how safe the structure is after six years. MS. SAUNDERS: I'm very uncomfortable -- I have no problem with declaring it a violation, but I'm very uncomfortable with proceeding, in two ways: Without first trying -- getting to tell the person this. I mean, I think -- I don't know what he's done and why he's in jail, but I'd hate to take his property without at least giving him a reasonable notification. The only way he could have found our notification was if he broke out ofjail and looked on the courthouse. And the second thing is, if there's a reasonable safety violation, why are we giving him 90 days? He's not coming out. I mean, let's make something happen if there is a problem, and if-- but first I do think the guy -- man deserves at least the courtesy of a notice. He may decide to sign it over to the county, I don't know. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I'm more interested in legally what we have to do. And Ms. Rawson said we've met the law, and Page 13 October 23, 2003 that's -- I'm done there. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We don't do that for anybody else. This is no different. He come (sic) up with a problem, he's in jail. I'm sorry. We did what was required by law in notifying, posting. We're done. If it's a safety hazard, I think the board will come to a good decision. Whether he has somebody he can contact, don't know. And I think our job is merely to do what is required of us. Fine, if there is a violation, make a determination, file it in the records, proceed, and if time goes by, ask the county attorney to foreclose and then that's the way it is. Do you have anything else for us, Jeff?. MR. LETOURNEAU: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody have any more questions for Jeff?. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Jeff. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Dreamscape Homes, Incorporated, in the case CEB No. 2003-047, that there is a violation. The violation is of Section 104.5.1.4 of Ordinance No. 2002-01 of the Florida Building Code, abandoned construction. Description of the violation: Observed a primary structure that was permitted under Collier County Permit No. 97-0001948 and has been deemed abandoned. There have not been any inspections since 1997 and the structure never received a certificate of occupancy. The permit expired on March 29th, 1998. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that there in fact does exist a violation. Do I hear a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that a Page 14 October 23, 2003 violation in fact does exist. Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If not, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. Before we make an order, I agree with Rhona that since this gentleman is unavailable, that safety is first, that we should direct the county to board up the structure to solve that problem immediately and the cost be placed against the property. Also, she's correct, if the gentleman is incarcerated, giving him time to solve his problem really isn't going to work. Jean, knowing that -- I don't want to say fact -- but obviously somebody has said he's incarcerated and he hasn't come forward. MS. RAWSON: It seems to me he had a resident agent. We notified the resident agent, did we not? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Isn't he the registered-- MS. ARNOLD: He's the registered agent. MS. RAWSON: He's the registered agent for his own corporation? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. He's kind of kept everything to himself for some reason. Maybe that's why he's in trouble, I don't know. Since that is not a quote, unquote, fact that's been presented by, I guess, law enforcement or somebody, it's pretty much hearsay that somebody told the county, would we not be better off to give some period of time to at least let him come forward and say that's not enough time, or whoever he may designate, whether it's an attorney or something, and say okay, the man is incarcerated but I need more time to solve his problem. Rather than just say -- Page 15 October 23, 2003 MS. RAWSON: I would give him -- no, I would give him some time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I would probably hope my colleagues would not use the 90 days, but let's use -- if we get it boarded up, let's pick something like 30 days. That would give him time to -- he must have an attorney somewhere -- come to us and say he needs more time, I'll take care of it. Think about that, if you're going to come up with an order, please. MS. DUSEK: Well, if you shorten the time -- I mean, if it's boarded up, the safety issue is taken care of. And I'm a little concerned about giving him less time, because we're not sure just where he is. And maybe somehow the information will get to him and he may be able to do something. But I think it would not be fair to make it a shorter period of time, once the safety issue is taken care of by the county. MS. SAUNDERS: I believe we really, in the interest ofjustice, have to ask the county to pursue due diligence in notifying this person. I realize it's beyond what we are legally required, but I think there's such a thing as fairness and justice also, and we can find him. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Jean, help me here. I don't think we can order the county to look for somebody. I don't think that's within our scope of authority. MS. RAWSON: That's true. You can suggest, but you can't order the county to do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, the process is we issue an order and it gets filed in the system under a certain set of guidelines and that ends it. Like you say, we can suggest that the county use its due diligence to try to notify the gentleman, but other than publishing in the county records, that's really all they're required to do. MS. RAWSON: The federal court records are on-line, and if you type in his name, you'll probably find out where he is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. But we don't have the power to Page 16 October 23, 2003 MS. RAWSON: No, you don't. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- order the -- any of the county to do anything other than board the structure up for a safety reason and charge the money back to the property owner, or the property. MR. RAMSEY: Well, the other issue I think that we may have overlooked, in thinking about this gentleman, I mean, this case is against a corporation, apparently duly incorporated in the State of Florida, and it appears, based upon conjecture, that the registered agent and purportedly the sole shareholder is in prison. There are a lot of leaps to make to get to well, we need to give him more notice. It's against a corporation, you have a registered agent, we've done everything we need to do. I don't have a problem with it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, and it is -- we have the Florida corporation registration, I believe, in our packet. I thought I saw it in here. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, it's on Page 21. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And he is the person. And so I agree with Chris, I really don't have a problem doing this. Yeah, there it is on Page 21. It is Dreamscape Homes. He is the registered agent. He is the officer and director in detail. Give the corporation "X" and let's move on with it. Even the warranty deed for the property, the property is owned by Dreamscape Homes, Inc. So that their registered agent and/or director is in prison is unfortunate. So, order of the board, please. MS. DUSEK: Before we do an order, I have another question, and I don't know whether it will go to Michelle or to Jean. The county -- most likely we're going to ask to you board up the structure. We're also going to give some time for him to complete the permits. Now, it seems obvious that he's not going to be able to do this. So do you leave that building there boarded up forever or do you go ahead and demolish it? Page 17 October 23, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You can't demolish it without our order. MS. ARNOLD: The process would be we would comply with your order, whatever that turns out to be. If you've directed us to board it up, we would board it up. If the fines start kicking in after the time period that you all established for him to correct the violation, we would impose fines. And after a three-month period if no fines are paid and the violation still continues, we would bring this item to you to ask for us to forward it to the County Attorney's office. Just like our other process. MS. DUSEK: So you would just take it to foreclosure, is more or less what you would do? MS. ARNOLD: Right. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, order of the board, please. MR. DORIA: I guess I'll take a stab at it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good. MR. DORIA: I'm going to make a motion that we follow the recommendation of county staff, we have the home boarded up as soon as possible, order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case, and abate all violations by submitting a complete and sufficient building permit application for described structure, or remove the structure within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. He must -- the respondent must request required inspections to be performed and obtain a certificate of occupancy within 60 days of obtaining the required building permit, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and to request the investigator to come out and perform all site inspections. Page 18 October 23, 2003 MS. DUSEK: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Jean, did you get the specific items? Which there should be one, two, three, four different items, I believe? MS. RAWSON: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Five, counting notifying code enforcement to come out. MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, aye. signify by saying (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MS. SAUNDERS: May I make a special request to the county? That you attempt at least to notify the man. This may be his only chance for salvation after this is done. If it's as simple as looking it up on-line, let's try. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, we'll try. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next case, 2003-053, Board of County Commissioners versus Gladys Rodriguez. MS. HILTON: Our second case is Board of County Commissioners versus Gladys Rodriguez and Wachovia Bank, NA. Case No. 2003-053. And at this time, I would like to ask if the respondent is present in the courtroom. (No response.) MS. HILTON: The respondent is not present in the courtroom. Page 19 October 23, 2003 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'll make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. MR. DORIA: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of Section 103.5.1, 101.4.10 and 103.1.11 of Ordinance 98-76, as amended by Ordinance 2002-01, the Florida Building Code, and Section 22.263 of Ordinance 2002-05 and Section 5, Paragraph 12(K) of Ordinance No. 89-06, as amended, the minimum housing code. The description of the violation: An unsecure vacant structure with signs of unlawful entry and use by vagrants, creating a health and safety hazard to neighboring properties and neighborhood. Location where violation exists: 5233 Martin Street, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 62091440109. Name and address of owner in charge of location where violation exists: Gladys Rodriguez, 3399 Gulfshore Boulevard North, Number 605, Naples, Florida. Date violation first observed: October 14th, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: October 16th, 2003, by personal service and posting of property and courthouse. Date on which violation to be corrected: Immediately, as the vacant unsecure structure is creating a health and safety hazard. Date of reinspection: October 22nd, 2003. Page 20 October 23, 2003 Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And the CEB notice of hearing was sent regular certified mail, personally served on Wachovia Bank branch manager, and the property was posted, as well as the courthouse. And at this time, I would like to turn the case over to the investigator, Jason Toreky, to present the case to the board. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. TOREKY: Good morning. I'll state my name, Jason Toreky, investigator with Collier County Code Enforcement. On October 14th, 2003, I received an anonymous complaint located at 5233 Martin Street, within the Naples Manor subdivision, in regards to an unsecure property. Upon arrival at the site, I observed numerous doors open without any hardware. There was no doorknobs or anything on the doors. Also, some windows were broken out on the property as well. On October 17th, I went back to the property to -- earlier in the day to try to see if anybody was living in there, any vagrants or anything like that. I observed things had been moved around since I was there the previous time, indicating possibly that vagrants and things like that, people were residing there. More photos were taken, and I prepared the case for Code Enforcement Board as a health and safety issue. The structure presents a health and safety hazard for surrounding properties in the community. This property is in foreclosure with Collier County, due to a past Code Enforcement Board hearing that we had. And it's also been foreclosed upon by Wachovia Bank. And it's unlikely that the respondent is going to take steps to board -- or secure this structure. And that's why we're here today. And I recommend that the CEB take immediate action and secure the structure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jason, one question. We cite Section Page 21 October 23, 2003 103.1.11, which I didn't find. Is that a typographical? Is it supposed to be 103.1 1.1 and we just got it reversed? MR. TOREKY: 103.11.1 is what it should read on this. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It was -- the numbers got reversed in the letter that went out. Ms. Rawson, does that give us a problem, since they referenced the wrong section? MS. RAWSON: I think it's -- let's look and see if it also went out on the affidavit. MS. ARNOLD: The NOV -- the NOV cited the right section, and -- MR. TOREKY: The Wachovia Bank One is proper, yeah. The one that was actually sent to Gladys Rodriguez is improper. But we have the other sections before that, which basically state a maintenance and safety issue. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. I'm asking about this one for a particular reason. Since the affidavit has the wrong number in the statement of hearing, the violation for the hearing is -- do we need to just -- even though the NOV was correct, can we still do that, or do we need to drop that from-- MS. RAWSON: Well, technically I guess she doesn't have notice of the correct statute. MS. ARNOLD: We can just drop that, if that is causing a problem, because the other sections refer to the same violation. MR. TOREKY: They apply, the other sections. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I really want all the paperwork to be correct in this case, since we're dealing not only with a person but with a bank. MR. TOREKY: The bank does not -- currently Gladys Rodriguez owns the property. The bank should take the property over probably -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If they foreclose -- Page 22 October 23, 2003 MR. TOREKY: -- in the next three weeks or so. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- they would have to accept this. MS. DUSEK: In the request -- the statement of Violation and Request for Hearing, the bank is being cited also; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. TOREKY: Yes. That was recommended by the County Attorney. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If they foreclose during our order, they automatically have to comply with the order, because the order is against the property, not against the person. So they'll be required to do -- that's why I want it to be correct. I don't want them to come back and say we don't have to do that because you made a mistake. MS. RAWSON: Well, if the county doesn't mind, we can just delete the 103.11.1. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think there's plenty of protection in your other ones if we drop that one. I would feel more comfortable, personally, doing that. Is there any services to this building, like electric, or water or anything? Do you know if that's on or-- MR. TOREKY: This building -- when we had the previous case -- it's kind of irrelevant right now, but this case was a single-family house that was converted into four units is what it was about. There's three electrical meters to this property, and one of the meters is on. So one unit does have power. I don't know if that's legal power or not, but one unit does have power. And I'm not sure about the water. They have one water meter for this whole structure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But you don't know if it's actually working? MR. TOREKY: I don't know if it's on or not. Probably-- well, I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So there definitely is a safety hazard, since there's some kind of power to the building and it's open. Page 23 October 23, 2003 MR. TOREKY: Yes, there's definitely power. There was a light on when I went there early in the morning. But I'm not sure about the water. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Jason? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MS. DUSEK: I'd like to make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Gladys Rodriguez and Wachovia Bank, in the CEB Case No. 2003-053 that there is a violation. The violation is of Section 103.5.1, 101.4.10 of Ordinance 98-76, as amended by Ordinance 2002-01, the Florida Building Code; and Section 22.263 of Ordinance 2002-05, and Section 5, Paragraph 12(K) of Ordinance No. 89-06, as amended, the minimum housing code. The description of the violation: An unsecure vacant structure with signs of unlawful entry and use by vagrants, creating a health and safety hazard to neighboring properties and neighborhood. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that a violation in fact does exist. Do I hear a second? MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that a violation does exist. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The order of the board. I would like to recommend to my colleagues that first order of business should be to secure the property, since it's obvious it is a big safety hazard, with open windows, open doors, electric to the structure. Very dangerous. We need to address that immediately. Beyond that, I think this is -- we should use due diligence in understanding that there are three separate violations, and that we Page 24 October 23, 2003 should address each violation, not just secure the property, but order the respondent to correct each violation or demolish the property or what have you. Try to keep that in mind, please. MS. DUSEK: I think I'm a little bit confused about what you just said, Cliff, because the county is giving one recommendation, in a way, which is covering all the violations. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, all the county wants is to secure the property. That solves nothing. The property's still there. All the violations still exist, that it doesn't have -- it doesn't meet code, it doesn't meet this. You're just going to leave it there for the next 200 years and let the bank take it over and do something? The violations MS. DUSEK: Well, we have testimony that it is in foreclosure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I don't see anything submitted that says that other than -- any piece of paper that's saying they're foreclosing, other than Jason's telling us that the bank is doing that. So I didn't see a formal piece of paper that they filed in the courthouse, so that kind of tells me I don't know if they're thinking about doing it, have they done it. But my point is, if you board the structure up, according to what it was cited for, each paragraph of the ordinance that it was cited for says all buildings shall do certain things, and the owner is responsible for the maintenance. There is no maintenance here. So we just board it up and forget the maintenance? We're citing him for the maintenance, but we haven't abated the problem yet. And then you cite them for unsafe buildings and they should, again, clean this up. Just boarding it up doesn't solve the problem. The building's still there unsafe. That's why I'm saying we should think about this and order them to resolve these problems. In addition -- first we're going to make it safe. Then the owner should be required to go in and correct all these problems, whether they tear the building down or actually put locks on the doors, put Page 25 October 23, 2003 glass in the windows, put locks on them, whatever else they're required to do, do all those things. I think that's important. Not just board a structure up and let it sit there forever. MS. ARNOLD: Just for information for the board that this -- Jason did mention that we had a prior case on this property, and this particular case has already been forwarded to the County Attorney's Office, so they're also seeking foreclosure action on it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, it's currently under foreclosure by the county? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Both, by the bank and the county. MS. DUSEK: So in my opinion, just as -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I need to ask Jean a question, then. MS. RAWSON: Well, I think what you're saying is, and correct me if I'm mistaken, that we've already had this case and that we've already issued an order finding all the violations and ordering that they be complied with, that they weren't complied with, that we turned it over to the county for foreclosure. Are they the same violations? MS. ARNOLD: No, it's not the same violations. They're two different violations. The prior case was a different -- the violation was more of a permitting violation. This particular case is the maintenance, as the Chairman is saying. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So these violations are different violations? MS. RAWSON: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But they're still violations. MS. RAWSON: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So I guess what I'm saying is just boarding it up doesn't make the violations go away. And that's what my interest is. If we just board it up, even though I know the county may be working on it now, I think we should do our due diligence and say yes, order the county to board it up, and you leave the owner Page 26 October 23, 2003 of the property, whoever that may be, ultimately, out. Because you must remember, even if the county forecloses on the property, the violations are going to have to be solved by somebody. The county's going to have to tear the structure down if they take ownership or fix it. I think we should order the property owner to fix it, whether it's Ms. Rodriguez, Wachovia Bank or whoever down the road, rather than just leave it there. If these are different violations, which it's' now been stated they are. MR. RAMSEY: I think we have to do something along these lines and there's some comfort in knowing that the county is in the process of foreclosing. But, I mean, Wachovia Bank was served, they're not here. So we're taking it on faith, ultimately, if they become the owner that they will do something. But there's no, you know, feet to the fire and there's no order it in a certain period of time or take any action. We all know that once a bank forecloses, that could sit as-is for a long period of time. And if they need more time, if they become the ultimate owner, then they can come and ask for more time at some point in the future, if they in fact become the owner. If the county becomes the owner then maybe it's a moot point, but at least we've put something in there to protect against, you know, the property just sitting as-is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I think we need to have the violations abated in our order. We need to order somebody to do it. Who that somebody is is really irrelevant. Right now it's Ms. Rodriguez. We should order her to do something to her property besides the county boarding it up for her. I just think that's important. Otherwise, as Chris just said, if we just say board it up, the bank takes it over and through the county process, which we don't know how long that will take to foreclose, the bank could just leave the building sitting there boarded up, and it's on their records, and at Page 27 October 23, 2003 some point in time whenever they decide to write it off, which could be a year or two years or who knows, it just sits there with nothing done except it deteriorating. I think we need to be diligent and say do these things: Either tear it down or fix it. Period. And make it a habitable structure or a blank piece of property. MS. DUSEK: Just a point. This was a question that I asked on the previous case about how long do you leave a building boarded up and hopefully have corrected the safety issue. And the answer, if I remember correctly, is that it will eventually go into foreclosure, and that was kind of the end of it. Now here we have a property already in foreclosure and we've had testimony from two people from the county saying that the county has it in foreclosure. So I don't see how you can ask someone to correct the maintenance when you're going to be boarding it up to correct the safety issues. What are they supposed to do, go and pull the boards off and correct it? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. DUSEK: I mean, I'm just a little confused about this, especially when it's already in the process of foreclosure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But that process of foreclosure can probably take a long time. I don't think that's something that occurs in a month. If the County Attorney had an estimate, it's probably an extremely long process. MS. HILTON: Actually, just some information, the bank has a final judgment and the property is set for auction November 12th. And at that point, of course the bank will be there to bid. And unless Ms. Rodriguez pulls the funds out to pay off the mortgage, the bank will get the bid, and there's a 10-day period where the certificate of title is issued. So it -- the sale's next month for the bank. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. That just gives the bank ownership, but the problem still exists with the property. Again, I Page 28 October 23, 2003 don't care who owns it, the problems are there. We're not resolving the problem, which seems to me is what we're here to do, resolve problems. For some reason we seem reluctant on this case, and I don't know why, but I'm getting that feeling. The problems are there. Let's order somebody to resolve them. Very simple, straightforward. If they don't, hypothetically we could in three months again tell the County Attorney foreclose on this, even though they're still doing it. But we have on file ordered somebody to correct violations. We just can't, I don't believe, sit here and say oh, we know violations exist, but we don't care. MS. DUSEK: I don't think we're saying that at all, Cliff. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They're here, let's order somebody to do something. MS. DUSEK: I think it's just a matter of us understanding whether this boarding up takes care of all the problems. Some of us feel it does and some of us feel it doesn't. So I think extending -- going ahead and making it more elaborate is fine. And citing -- I mean, and correcting each one of these violations, I have no problem with that. I just felt that boarding it up did take care of it. MR. DORIA: I have to agree with Cliff on this one, because if you look at the photos, boarding it up is not going to take away all the junk that's scattered around the outside of the house that I think needs to be picked up. MS. ARNOLD: We didn't actually cite them for the litter portion of it. The intent of bringing this to the board at this time, because it was -- in an expedited process, it was to address the safety issue so that there was no one entering the building and using it. So we simply brought the maintenance side of it, the unsafe structure to the board so we can take care of that more expediently. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess my problem comes in, we've cited a person for various paragraphs which state, you know, all Page 29 October 23, 2003 building structures, blah, blah, shall be maintained in a safe, sanitary condition. All devices safeguarded which are required by code when constructed -- shall be maintained in good working order. Now we're saying oh, that's okay, we'll just board it up and you can forget good working order. I've got a problem with that. MR. TOREKY: The intent with that also, as far as maintenance goes -- the reason that section was included was for windows and doors as part of that maintenance. That's the reason. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. ! don't have a problem with what you want to do in boarding it up. My problem is I think we also need to order somebody to put these things back in good working order. That's what the code says they're supposed to be. MR. TOREKY: That's not what the -- in the notice I prepared for them was intended for it to be boarded up. Then the litter that you saw scattered about, that's a separate case. And then-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm not addressing that. The litter doesn't interest me, since it hasn't been presented. I'm more interested in maintaining the property other than by boarding it up. MS. SAUNDERS: I don't think it serves a whole lot of purpose to put a fine on the time frame, either for the county or Wachovia Bank at this point. I really think that the request at this point and that makes sense is let's get the safety issue taken care of. We're in the middle of-- we are doing what the remedies are. Instead of adding more layers to this, let's get it sold. There's another case pending as well. It's not going to just sit there. I just don't see why we can't make it simple. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board, please. MS. SAUNDERS: I move that the Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to pay off all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and take appropriate actions to board up the structure and secure the building, removing the health and safety hazard. The cost of such action shall be imposed against the Page 30 October 23, 2003 property. MS. DUSEK: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those opposed? MR. RAMSEY: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. MR. LEFEBVRE: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Three and three. Okay, let's try the order of the board again. MS. SAUNDERS: All right. You go ahead and put what you'd like in there then and we'll see. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'd rather not make orders, if possible, being the Chairman. I just like to make hints and let you folks work it out and just be a vote. But if you'd like me to, I will. My order would be: Item one, that respondent pay all operational costs incurred in prosecuting this case. Item two, that we direct the county to immediately board up the structure to make it safe. Ms. Rawson, a question. MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since there is power to that building, can we have the county have the power cut to maintain safety? We don't know what the electrical condition is inside the building. Once we board it up, nobody will have access. There could be a short, there could be a fire hazard. I think we need to have the power cut. MS. ARNOLD: We can check with -- we can call FP&L and get that done without the board's order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, I think we're safe -- once we Page 31 October 23, 2003 board it up, I mean, if a wire shorts out, since nobody's going to be able to go in and out, the place could catch on fire and be a bigger hazard. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MS. RAWSON: What she's saying is, when you order them to board it up, they'll probably do that anyway and they don't need us to order them to do it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I just think that needs to be done to make it safe, since it's going to be boarded up. Third, that there is a violation of code Section 103.5.1; that the respondent be ordered to correct that violation within a -- I don't know how long it would take to fix the windows and doors, don't know what else is inside. I give them 45 days to correct the violation. If he fails to correct the violation, a $100 fine per day. Item four would be a violation of 104.4.10 (sic). Order the respondent to correct that violation within 45 days. If they fail to do that, a fine of $100 a day. MS. DUSEK: And what is that violation? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 101.4.10. MS. DUSEK: But what is it? I know the one that was maintenance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 104 -- let's see, 101.4.10. MS. DUSEK: I think that's a maintenance. 101 -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, there's different words in each maintenance. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 101.4.10 is cited as maintenance. And what was the first one, 103.5.1 ? MR. LEFEBVRE: Page 21. MS. DUSEK: I've got it. Safety. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, it's like a safety item. Okay. Page 32 October 23, 2003 Did I finish that one, Jean? Which was what -- MS. RAWSON: You did. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- fourth item. Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Did you say the days; how many days was that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I gave him 45 days on that one too. Okay, the respondent, I'm sorry, Ms. Rodriguez. MS. ARNOLD: And that was $100 as well? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. Item five, there's a violation of Section 22.2.6.3, Section 5, Paragraph 12(K) of Ordinance 89-06. Order the respondent to abate that violation within 45 days. If they fail to do that in 45 days, $100 a day for that violation. And item six, that once all violations are abated, that they notify the Collier County Code Enforcement to come out and inspect to see that the violations are abated. That would be my motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Better show hands, so we may see if we -- how many votes we got. Three -- four. All those opposed? MS. SAUNDERS: Nay. MS. DUSEK: Nay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 4-2, motion carries. Next case, 2003-041. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, can we, before we start, give Page 33 October 23, 2003 the court reporter a break? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. Sorry. Let's take 10 minutes. (Brief recess.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, we'll call the board back to order, please. Next case is 2003-041, Board of County Commissioners versus Wooten Family Partnership, Limited. MS. HILTON: Our next case is Board of County Commissioners versus Wooten Family Partnership, Limited, CEB No. 2003-041. And at this time, I'd like to verify, I believe the respondents are present, but I'd like to verify. MR. BASS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Ray Bass, I'm a lawyer in Naples, and I represent the respondent here, and Mr. Wooten is present also. MS. HILTON: So noted, the respondents are present in the courtroom. The alleged violation is of sign code, as described in Section 2.5.12.1 and 2.5.13.1 of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: A sign installed on existing poles without first obtaining the authorization of a Collier County sign permit and obtaining the required inspections and certificate of completion. Location where violation exists: 32330 Tamiami Trail East, Okechopee (sic), Florida -- Ochopee. Name and address of owner in charge of location where violation exists: Wooten Family Partnership, Limited, Star Route 121, O-C-H-O-P-E-E. Date where violation first observed: Is January 23, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: Was February 26th, 2003, by certified mail, return receipt requested to registered agent and Page 34 October 23, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: accept the County's Exhibit A. aye. owner, of which both green cards were returned claimed and signed for by registered agent on March 4th and the owner on March 1 st. Date on which violation was to be corrected: Was March 14th, 2003. Date of reinspection: Was October 22nd, 2003. Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And the CEB notice of hearing was sent regular and certified mail to the registered agent and to Mr. Wooten, and a copy was personally served on Ray Bass. And the courthouse was also posted, as well as the property. And we had previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information that we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear a motion to accept the County's Exhibit A? MS. DUSEK: So moved. MS. SAUNDERS: So moved-- second. We have a motion and a second to All those in favor, signify by saying (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: I would now like to turn the case over to the code investigator, Andrea Duval, to present the case to the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Cherie', excuse me. Do Ms. Duval and Mr. Wooten, if he's going to give testimony at the same time. That way it will be easier. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MS. DUVAL: Hi, I'm Andrea Duval. On January 23rd I responded to an anonymous complaint at 32330 East Tamiami Trail at Wooten's Airboats, a complaint that the Page 35 October 23, 2003 sign had been changed from its original state. I arrived on-site and took a photo of the sign and compared it to that that was previously taken in September of 2000. I did find that the sign face been changed. Research revealed that no sign permit had been pulled for the new changes made to the sign. And I do have photos of the before and after. This first one is the sign as it used to look before the changes were made, which is -- that sign's been there for quite a while, a long time, and it was never permitted. This is what the sign was changed to. It was done in January. On the first -- I guess whenever I initially got to the site and realized that it had been changed, what gave it basically the inclination that it did get changed was the dates that are clearly written on this front of the sign. It's just a celebration of the years of service. Again, I went back, researched, and there is no permit for the sign. At this time, research has been done again that they do have all of the requirements to have a pole sign, they just need to get it permitted. They do have the frontage and the sign can be permitted as long as it's brought down to 15 feet and the sign face of it is brought into an 80 square foot margin and has a pole cover. And that's where we're at. And if they would not like to do that, we are recommending that they maybe remove the sign. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Duval, do you know, what size is the sign now? Do you know? MS. DUVAL: I don't have the measurements, because the sign exceeds any measurements that we can measure with. It's too tall for anything. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: So basically what they have to do is reduce the size all around, reduce the height and the width? Page 36 October 23, 2003 MS. DUVAL: Uh-huh. They can reduce the height and they can reduce the square face of it, you know, to make it 80 square feet. Because what it is right now is about five or six 4x8 sheets of plywood up there, roughly. And that definitely exceeds the 80 square feet. So if they brought it into the size requirements and get a permit, it's fine. MS. DUSEK: And the graphics are fine? MS. DUVAL: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Ms. Duval? MS. DUVAL: Okay, that's all I have. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, ma'am. MR. RAMSEY: I have one question, I'm sorry. Ms. Duval, looking at these pictures, are they the same poles in both pictures? Can you tell? MS. DUVAL: Uh-huh. Yeah, they just changed the sign face. And the section of the code that says if the sign is altered is 2.5.12.1, and this requires a permit to change the face of the sign, regardless if the structure still remains. MR. RAMSEY: Because in the second picture, the sign goes all the way to the top of the poles and in the first you see the top of the poles extending. So did the sign increase in square footage? MS. DUVAL: Yes, the face did. The sign increased. The invoices here where they were built by a sign company in Everglades City, it said a 12x24 billboard flex cover, which means they basically put it up over that, extended the top, and rolled it around the edges just to make a sign. MR. RAMSEY: Thank you. Now, I noticed the light on the side is obviously done something with the CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: also removed. So they've electrical too. MS. DUVAL: I didn't address the electrical, but there is a question, when they do the inspection, on where the electrical has Page 37 October 23, 2003 gone to and what they did with the wiring. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, thank you, ma'am. MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask Ms. Duval a question? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, sure. MS. ARNOLD: Could you explain to the board whether or not this sign is conforming, and would we be requiring the removal, if it was left alone? MS. DUVAL: In 1999, the County Commissioners revised the sign code so that existing signs, whatever kind they are, that are unpermitted have to be brought into compliance by February 1st, 2003. If they were permitted before 1991, again, they still have to be brought into compliance, meaning they need to get permitted, checked for the structural sounding, how far they're into the ground. And this one would definitely meet those requirements. Even though it's been there a long time, it's in the unincorporated area of Collier County, and that's the code that the County Commissioners are requiring. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. One question comes to mind. You said 80 square feet max is the -- and you said the sign is 12x247 MS. DUVAL: Uh-huh. That's just the material that Absolute Signs says they used was a 12x24 billboard flex material. Again, I don't have the means to get up that high and measure exactly the square footage of it, but it does exceed the 80 square feet, because 10x8 is the max, or an equivalent thereof. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Any other questions? (No response.) Mr. Bass? MR. BASS: Thank you. The Wooten family has been in Collier County for 50 years, or a little bit more, actually. They're good -- you know, they're good people and have been in business a long time. They don't want to have a big fight with the county about this, but the reason why we're Page 38 October 23, 2003 here today is I think we need some -- you need to know a couple of things. I think Ms. Duval will confirm for you that a sign contractor was hired to do the sign. And, you know, when you hire a contractor to do something, you kind of put it in their hands to take care of it. I guess a couple of questions I have for you here is: Number one, I mean, I'm hearing now the discussion about whether it's a conforming sign or so forth and so on. That's not an issue before the board. Whether it conforms or not is not an issue. The sign's been there since 1964. Mr. Wooten will verify that. The -- I suppose that, you know, we could put the other sign back. Non-compliance with the existing code is not an issue here today, though. I'm not sure why it's being brought up. I suppose we could put the other sign back. One question I had, and I think it may take some definition here, and that is the allegation here in the statement of violation was that a sign was installed on existing poles without obtaining authorization for a sign permit. The sign's been there since 1964, so the question then is, is how do you define that? If the sign -- you know, how do you define that? The allegation is that a sign was installed. Well, there was already a sign there. Of course, you go to look at the -- you go and look at the code, as far as permit applications are concerned, and it says any person wishing to erect, place, rebuild, reconstruct, relocate, alter or change the sign copy. Is this a change of the sign copy? I mean, that takes some definition. You know, perhaps, I mean, that's something that the board may want to discuss. It's not like it went from Wooten's Airboat Rides to AT&T Wireless or something else -- advertising something else. It's advertising the same thing as it always has. So from a definition standpoint, are we talking about a change Page 39 October 23, 2003 of the sign copy, or does the sign copy mean change the lettering? And if so, how much? You know, unfortunately this is the way lawyers think. Some people think that's unfortunate. But this is -- this is, you know, a matter of-- that the board I think needs to address, what is changing a sign copy? There's a claim here, I think that Ms. Duval is saying, that the sign was made larger. Is that what's being said? You know, if that's the case, I mean, there's no evidence that the sign has been made larger. And does that constitute an alteration? And what is an alteration? I mean, at what point does an alteration become material that is going to the heart of the meaning of the word alteration in this context? When does that become a material alteration? So the questions I have for the board are a couple: One, if you change the sign copy, what does that mean? Does that mean different advertisement? Or if it's advertising the same thing, changing the paint? Because this is what this is, and Mr. Wooten I think will come up here momentarily and verify all of this. What this is is a canvas. I guess they don't paint signs anymore. What they do is they paint canvases and then put them on the existing structure. That's, as I understand it, is how it's done. As I said before, as Ms. Duval said, a sign contractor was employed to handle this. So those are the questions I have for the board. You know, what's an alteration? I don't want to sound silly about it, but I think it's a serious issue. What's an alteration, and what's -- you know, what's changing the sign copy? And if the board finds that there has been, one, a change of sign copy, which would be outside of the -- which would require an application for a permit; and number two, if you find that there's been an alteration, I guess one of the options my client would have is put the old sign back. Because non-compliance is not an issue here. However, just so you'll know, I mean, since it's been brought up, Page 40 October 23, 2003 he had several conversations with Ms. Duval, he goes down and talks to the -- you know, trying to get along, goes down to talk to the -- to get a sign application. And then there's the gotcha. And the gotcha is, well, you know, you got to change your sign. You've got to change, reduce it in size and so forth. And that's a whole different legal issue as to whether or not that constitutes some sort of a taking, you know, by the government for something that's already existing. That's a whole separate issue and really is not before the board. So the questions I pose before the board, or the ones that we'd like to see addressed. And I would like to have Mr. Wooten come up now and just ask him a -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're not done with you yet. MR. BASS: Okay. I'm ready for grilling. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You made a couple of statements that MR. BASS: Sure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- sorry, I have a problem with. MR. BASS: I understand that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You said the sign's been there 19647 MR. BASS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Funny, it says 2003. How can that sign be there since 19647 MR. BASS: That's the business. since from 1953 to the year CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, so the sign changed. Gee, okay. Gotcha, see? You said the sign had been there and hadn't changed, been altered or nothing. It has been. MR. BASS: Well, that's my question, what's a sign? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, the sign goes all the way to the top of the poles where it didn't use to. So the sign has been altered. Obvious, there's two pictures. You've altered the sign. Sorry. Now you're telling me you didn't alter the sign. You are in violation. Page 41 October 23, 2003 MR. BASS: Mr. Wooten can address those issues. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's an alteration. Now, the word Wooten on the copy is printed different. So you changed the copy. The way the W and the swirls are are different. So you changed the copy. You also took out the -- I guess that's an airboat in the original that's not in the other one. Again, you changed the copy. You added the little banner at the bottom, so you changed the copy. Now let's hear what Mr. Wooten is going to have to say to try and convince me that he didn't change this sign. MR. BASS: Well, the assumption I think that you're making here is that this is somehow different in dimension from this. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I didn't say one thing about dimension other than you altered it. You moved the sign, so you altered it. You moved it from one location to the other. Even if you just slid it up the pole. You altered it, you changed it, you moved it. MR. BASS: Well, that's -- see, that's a decision the board has to make, what constitutes an alteration. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think we can do that, so let's get Mr. Wooten to convince us that he didn't do any of these things. MR. BASS: Well, in the first place, the only thing Mr. Wooten can tell you about the size is he hired a sign contractor to do it and it was done through the contractor. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But the property owner is responsible for his property. MR. BASS: Well, we understand that. Believe me, we understand that completely. Come on up. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Morning, sir. MR. BASS: Can you address his question about, you know, as Mr. Flegal said, the sign alteration question? MR. WOOTEN: Okay. The only thing I can tell you, sir, is Page 42 October 23, 2003 that I did hire, you know, a sign contractor to do this for me. And to be honest with you, I never paid any attention to what he done. And they did, from what I can see and what I understand -- because I wasn't there even when they installed it. And that they did add a little to it, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They added a little to it? MR. WOOTEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And they changed the picture on the sign. MR. WOOTEN: Well, I mean, any time you have a sign repainted, I mean, it still basically says, welcome to Wooten's world, you know, Wooten's. And when you have it repainted, you know. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But what you're cited for is altering -- I mean, there's a bunch of words, altering and changing the copy. Really simple to look at those. You changed those -- the copy printed on those two signs. They're different. You changed them. Is that -- am I not seeing something here or am I missing it? The airboat's gone, so obviously that's a change. Now you have the banner of 1953 to 2003, 50 years. Obviously that's a change in copy. So I'm trying to understand, but I'm having a real hard time doing it. MR. WOOTEN: Well-- MR. BASS: Well, it's like changing -- it would be like changing the font on a document. Is that changing the copy? I mean, that's kind of a rhetorical question, I guess. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, now, that's different. Here you actually took something off the copy and you added something to the copy. MS. SAUNDERS: If I may clarify from an advertising standpoint, it's he changed the graphics, he did not change the copy, other than adding four words. When you change the typeface or remove something, that is a graphic design. So we do need to just clarify the word. I don't know if it makes a difference legally or not, Page 43 October 23, 2003 but that -- but it was the graphics that were changed, not the copy. MR. BASS: As I said, what is sign copy? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Did you alter -- I also noticed, as I said before, the electrical is gone. I don't know if it was attached to that sign or if that's a separate item they're going to bring about. But anyway -- MR. BASS: Well, that's not an alleged violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since the sign's bigger, it's an alteration. Or it looks bigger. We'll get somebody to measure it and make exactly dimensions. MR. BASS: Let me ask him a question, ifI could. Mr. Wooten, do you know whether -- I was just going to ask Mr. Wooten if, do you know what -- can you tell the board whether or not these -- whether or not the tops of those have been cut off or not? Do you know? MR. WOOTEN: That, I don't know. MR. BASS: Do any of you-- you have some witnesses here. Do any of them know whether or not the tops were cut off?. MR. WOOTEN: I wasn't there, so I don't know. MR. BASS: Well, I -- I'm just trying to help with the -- MR. DORIA: When he spoke a little bit ago, he said that they added to the top of the sign. MR. WOOTEN: Well, it looks like they added to the top of the sign. If they cut those poles off, I don't know. I was not here, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But if they cut the poles off, then they altered the sign. Because the posts are part of the sign. The sign couldn't be there without the posts. MR. BASS: Yeah, that's a definitional question. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's a sign post, that's part of the ordinance, as I remember. MR. WOOTEN: One thing I'd like to clear up for you, you had a question a while ago about the year the sign was put up. Page 44 October 23, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, he said it was put up in '64, and I'm just saying, reading it, it says '53 to 2003. MR. WOOTEN: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You didn't put that up in 1964. MR. WOOTEN: That's how -- yes, I did. Well, not that sign, but the structure was there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I didn't say anything about the structure, I said the sign. MR. WOOTEN: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That sign wasn't there in 1964, was it, that says 1953 to 2003, 50 years? MR. WOOTEN: Oh, not that, not in '64, no. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I didn't think so. Okay. MR. BASS: See, what it gets down to is how do you define what the sign is. Is the sign, you know, what's depicted; is the sign the structure? That's some definition we need to have here. I can see how you're defining it, Mr. Flegal, and that certainly may be the majority opinion on the board, I don't know. But it really depends on how you define that word. What's the sign; is it what's depicted or the structure itself?. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think your words right there are clarification. A structure is one thing, a sign is something else. MR. BASS: I don't know, because one of the questions with the ordinance about compliance is dimension. So, I mean, I'm simply asking the board to give some definition to these questions, and if the board finds that there has been an alteration and a change of copy or whatever you find there, without the permit, just first of all understand that he hired a contractor to do the job. Mr. Wooten, did you expect the contractor would do it in accordance with the law? MR. WOOTEN: Right. MR. BASS: Okay. I mean -- so that's one thing. Page 45 October 23, 2003 And the other thing is I would think that we could put the other sign back up, then, because non-compliance is not an issue. That's something we can take up with-- at another day, I guess. If it was going to be an issue, I'm sure that the investigator would have made it an issue. It's not an issue here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The other sign going back up I think would also be a problem, because it has to -- I think the deadline is past for it to meet code, which is a certain size. And I don't know that it meets that size because -- MR. BASS: That's a whole different legal issue.' MS. ARNOLD: But you would also have to obtain a permit. MR. BASS: Well, again, that's a whole different legal issue. MS. ARNOLD: Exactly. But you're bringing up the legal issues. MR. BASS: and/or a taking Because that may constitute inverse condemnation, by the government, which has other legal implications involved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Was there a permit to put this sign up? I mean, change this sign, alter this sign, whatever that word you'd like to apply. I know you hired a contractor, which to me is fortunate or unfortunate, whichever way you look at it. You are ultimately responsible. You're the owner of the property. MR. BASS: He acknowledges that. MR. WOOTEN: I acknowledge that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Was there a permit for this sign? The county tells us there was none in the records, so -- MR. WOOTEN: Well, when Ms. Duval first come to me, I found out, she told me that she even investigated on the sign contractor and he didn't even have a license, which I did not know of. MR. BASS: So we agree with the county, there was no permit. MR. WOOTEN: And I -- so there -- I mean, there was no permit. I found out there were no permits. But I, of course, left that Page 46 October 23, 2003 MS. DUVAL: MS. DUSEK: MS. DUVAL: MS. DUSEK: a permit? MS. DUVAL: up to him. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're admitting that there is no permit. MR. WOOTEN: Right, there was no permit. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, I have a question for either you or Ms. Duval. The original sign that was there had a time frame in order to get permitted; is that correct? The original sign before he made this change, that needed to be permitted by February or whenever; is that correct? Yes. Okay. And that was not done? Correct. So if they put that sign back, they still have to get It will still be non-complying. MR. BASS: Well, that's what they claim, of course. We don't necessarily agree. MS. DUSEK: If they leave the new sign there, they still have to get a permit. So in either condition they have to -- MS. DUVAL: Either instance, it will have to be permitted. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. And he's admitted there is no permit, so -- code's pretty straightforward. MR. BASS: I would like this board to be clear, maybe we need to have a ruling from the board. Non-compliance is not an issue here. That's not something that my client has been cited for, non-compliance. And that's a whole separate matter. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, he's been cited for having a sign without a permit. MR. BASS: He's been cited specifically for erecting a sign-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, not just erect. There's other words in that sentence. MR. BASS: For installing a sign is what was alleged. Page 47 October 23, 2003 But I think we've fleshed it out sufficiently, though. Again, the question is, is it a matter of depiction, dimension or something else as to what was installed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. To be -- let's -- if we're going to be correct, let's use all the words. It says erect, place, rebuild, reconstruct, relocate, alter or change the sign copy. Let's put all the words in. MR. BASS: Yes, I did that before, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And then the other one was -- it's quite lengthy, but it says erect, place, alter or move. So again, alter being one of the applicable words. And all those are -- unless you have a permit, and he's admitted he doesn't have a permit. So something is different. There's two pictures of two different signs, so something has been altered and there's no permit. MR. BASS: Again, how broadly you define altered, I don't know, that's up to the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Altered is altered. MR. BASS: Well, I mean, I think two reasonable people could disagree about it-- MS. SAUNDERS: I'm sorry, I don't agree. If you paint a sign, it's part of maintenance. I'm not trying to be difficult, but let's not badger these people either. If you paint and review a sign, that is not altered. Let's -- I think what they're asking is a reasonable definition. Now, we may agree that the definition means adding words or changing logos, but let's not get into, yo'u've touched up the paint. I call that maintenance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We didn't ask him did he touch up the paint. MS. SAUNDERS: You're saying he altered -- okay, I'm not going to argue his side. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Show me the two signs again. MS. DUVAL: On the -- LDC gives a definition of alterations, if Page 48 October 23, 2003 MS. Was bottom -- MR. it. you'd like for me to read that. MS. SAUNDERS: Yes, I would. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I don't know. I'm trying to understand where we're coming from. These two signs don't look the same to me. MS. DUSEK: Let's hear the definition. MS. SAUNDERS: I would appreciate that. MS. DUVAL: An alteration is any change in size, shape, occupancy, character or use of a building or structure. It's clearly been changed in the characters on the billboard. The airboat has been removed. They've added a banner to the bottom. They didn't get a permit. It's pretty much plain and simple. MR. BASS: Well, could I just point out that the character of the sign is -- I mean, that's, you know -- unfortunately, sometimes when you start defining things, it takes on geometric dimensions. But, you know, what's the character of the sign? Is character what's being stated, and that is Wooten's Airboat Rides; is that the character of the sign? Or -- obviously it would be different, like I said, if it was advertising AT&T Wireless from Wooten's to something else. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I agree. MR. BASS: But is the character of the sign what it advertises? ARNOLD: Can I ask a question of Mr. Wooten? the plywood on the original sign the same as what is on the the sign that exists today? WOOTEN: I don't know. I was not there when they done MR. LEFEBVRE: The invoice says something about -- MS. ARNOLD: Your invoice -- does your invoice indicate that they would be delivering something else? MR. WOOTEN: I never seen an invoice on any plywood or whatever. MS. DUVAL: This invoice here is where you paid for it and it Page 49 October 23, 2003 states that Absolute Signs did not install it, that you installed it. MR. BASS: He has an explanation to make about that. MR. WOOTEN: Okay, first of all, the boy that I hired to do this, it was called Creative Signs, if I remember correctly, and I guess he got this company to make the canvas. Okay, they delivered the canvas. That company there, Absolute Signs, did not install it, no. But I guess he had them to make it and they delivered it. But he installed it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now, this new sign, and I'll say new, because it's different, is a piece of canvas; is that correct? MR. WOOTEN: That's right. They don't paint them anymore. That one there was painted. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The old sign is what, paint on wood? MR. WOOTEN: Paint on wood, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is that not changing the sign and altering it? You went from plywood to a piece of canvas? MR. WOOTEN: That's stretched over the plywood. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Again, you painted plywood. MR. WOOTEN: But it's like painting, they don't paint signs no more. MR. RAMSEY: Well, I think when we look at the definition of alteration -- and I agree with Mr. Bass in that, you know, when you start splitting hairs and you argue a semantic definition, we could probably do it ad infinitum. But I think the other important thing to consider is when we look at the language as a whole, not just the word alteration. You know, the sentence reads, and we've done it a number of times, erect, place, rebuild, reconstruct, relocate, alter or change the sign copy. You know, if we were trying to reach into the minds of the legislators when they wrote this and say, well, what was their intent, I would submit that their intent was to be inclusive, not to exclude. I mean, obviously the inclusion of all of those words means let's Page 50 October 23, 2003 include any changes, anything at all that is material in any respect. You know, it didn't just say rebuild, tear down and rebuild. It didn't say reconstruct. There are a number of words in a litany meaning to be inclusive. At least that's the way I interpret the paragraph as a whole, not just the word alteration, you know, in the abstract. MS. SAUNDERS: I think the key fact here is that under the existing sign ordinance, which I do agree is up in legal review with the county, this sign, either of these two visuals that we have here would not be in compliance. The issue is on -- that there is no permit. If there's no permit, you can't get a permit for either the top one or the revised or changed one. So that is the only thing I think we're talking about; am I correct? MR. BASS: I think it's the former, not the latter. I mean, has the sign been altered or the copy changed is the question before the board. Whether the previous sign complies or not is not a question before the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MR. BASS: I mean, if-- look, let's just get down to brass tacks here, so to speak. You know, if you rule, and you may rule one way or the other, but if you rule that there's a violation, I'm hopeful that you would give him some time to go ahead and go through the application process. Then we have to do battle with the county on that front and try and deal with that, because they've already expressed the gotcha kind of-- and I don't mean it in a pejorative sense either. It's the old sign needs to be -- they've already expressed that, well, no matter what, it doesn't comply because of the compliance requirements. Again, it's not an issue before the board. But if you find that it should have had an application and that's the violation, there was no application obtained to erect this sign -- that's what's alleged; to install it is what was alleged -- then, you know, I would suggest give him some time to go through the Page 51 October 23, 2003 application process, as it, you know, perhaps should have been done earlier with the contractor. And then we'll just have to do battle on that front. But I raise those other questions because I think they're important questions. From our viewpoint it's important. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Bass, in my opinion, we could be very philosophical on the definitions of all these words, but I think it's very simply stated in the ordinance, and it's obvious that there is an alteration to the sign. Now, in the graphics of it, as far as what Rhona pointed out, you still have some of the same wording as you did in the original sign, but you have taken out and you have added to the second sign, so there is a change, there is an alteration. I don't think we need to go in to say what does is mean. MR. BASS: And I'm the first one -- second one behind you to say that parsing of words like that, what does, as has now become a very famous saying, what does the word is means. That's not an appropriate thing to do, and that's not what we're asking for to you do, though. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anything else to tell us, Mr. Wooten? MR. WOOTEN: Not that I know of. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. Thank you. MS. DUSEK: If we're ready for a motion? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The board needs to decide whether there is or is not a violation of these two ordinances. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of Board of County Commissioners versus Wooten Fam. Partnership, Limited, in the case CEB No. 2003-041, that there is a violation. The violation as -- a sign code, as described in Section 2.5.12.1, and 2.5.13.1 of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. Description of the violation: A sign installed on existing poles without first obtaining the authorization of a Collier County sign Page 52 October 23, 2003 permit and obtaining the required completion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that in fact a violation exists. Is there a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that a violation does in fact exist. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MR. LEFEBVRE: If I Any opposed? inspections and certificate of I Order of the board. could make one recommendation. think the fine of $100 per day is excessive, based on the information we have heard. So I'd like to see that reduced possibly to 25 or 50. MS. SAUNDERS: Twenty-five is exactly what ! had written down as well. And I'd also like to see them given 120 -- I basically would like to see them given 120 days to come into compliance, period. Not tell them exactly what they have to do or anything else, because they're going to be talking to the county and other people. So I'll make a motion. MR. BASS: Could I ask a -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, sir, not during deliberations. You don't get a chance to suggest what we do. MR. BASS: I was only going to ask a question about the -- a question about the recommended penalty and so forth. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: During this part, sir, you don't get to be heard. Not during the deliberations. During the public hearing portion. But once we've done that and get in to making our motions, there is no comments. MR. BASS: Okay. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay, I recommend that the CEB order the Page 53 October 23, 2003 respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations within 120 days, or a fine of $25 per day will incur thereafter. MS. DUSEK: And that the respondent notify -- MS. SAUNDERS: Well, abate all violations would mean you have to get a -- an occupancy permit or whatever. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We want a line item, I think, that he has to notify Code Enforcement that he has abated them and ask them to come out and inspect. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay, I will add that line. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And did you ask them to pay the operational? I'm sorry. MS. SAUNDERS: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. Thank you. Okay. We have a motion, which is the operational cost, 120 days, $25, and request inspection, after he -- all this is completed. Is that -- MS. SAUNDERS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- condensed? MS. SAUNDERS: Yes, that's fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion on the floor. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. Page 54 October 23, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? No. Okay, next case. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, there has been a request to move Item 5-A(4) next. It's a request for imposition of fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What's the problem? MS. HILTON: She has a small baby. She's here with a small baby. MS. SAUNDERS: I think that's very reasonable. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We'll close the public hearings for the moment and go to the Case No. 2003-022. MS. ARNOLD: The item that is before you is staff's request for imposition of fines, but I believe a representative for Mrs. Higginbotham is here, her realtor. And she would probably want to request -- she wants to request an extension of time. But let me just go through the findings and the information on the case. This particular case was heard by the board on May 22nd, 2003. At that particular time, the board found a violation did exist, which was the existence of a primary structure without building permits. At that particular time, the board ordered that all the violation be abated by August 20th, by obtaining -- I,m sorry, by obtaining all -- abating all violations by obtaining a building permit for the primary structure and a new guest house within 90 days, by August 20th, and obtaining all inspections for the main structure within 60 days of-- within 60 days. The board also ordered that if the respondent did not comply with the abatement of the violations as noted, that they would be assessed $40 per day, $25 per day, and another $25 per day based on the findings of the board. And the board also ordered to pay operational costs. At this particular time, there is no C.O. on the property as well. And we are in -- because there is no compliance, staff is requesting Page 55 October 23, 2003 that the board impose the fines of $2,520 for a period of August 21st through October 23rd at a rate of $40 per day, plus $825 from a period of September 20th through October 23rd. And the operational cost is in the amount of $920.75, for a total of $4,265.75. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me ask one question. What about the C.O. which had to be accomplished by July 21st? Did that occur? For the main house, we gave them until July 21 st of '03 to get a C.O. for the main house or $25 a day. Did that happen? MS. ARNOLD: No, it has not happened. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So there's -- is there a fine accruing for that that you haven't presented to us? MS. ARNOLD: One second. I think we have to work on the fines. But there should be an additional cost in there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, if that C.O. hasn't been, then there's an additional X that you need to ask us to impose, because there's three items and you've only presented two, plus the operational costs. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. I think that we probably -- well, let me look at it before I speak out of mm. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You had a $40 a day and then two $25 a day. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Plus the operational. MS. ARNOLD: Let's work it out while she -- the representative CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Yes, ma'am. MS. LUFT-BARTHOLF: My name-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's swear her in since she's going to do something. (Speaker duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And your name, ma'am? Page 56 October 23, 2003 MS. LUFT-BARTHOLF: Kerri (phonetic). I want to really try to go to the short version of this, because there's so many things that have been going on. The main thing is, the Higginbothams purchased this home. It did not have a final C.O. I have been -- I have become friends with these people. They have done work for me, as well as being involved in it from the real estate standpoint and the market standpoint. They do not have a lot of money. This is the first home that they purchased. So all the fines and everything that are existing, of course, are not helping with the situation. But I do understand that there is a violation occurring here. I personally have gotten involved in this and have gone up to the Code Enforcement office and talked to everybody there about what we can do, you know, to rectify the situation. Upon talking to them, they were so good about it that they were even like willing to go back to when the original permits were, as far as fees. Well, then when Dixie Higginbotham went up there to get the permits, she was all of a sudden, you know -- we were expecting, and I was hold told that, you know, it would be probably between 5 to $800. She was told that she had to get -- you know, it was $4,000. But at that point, you know, in total breakdown, not knowing what to do, there's so many people involved and it's just never been really crisp as to what she had to do. You know, unfortunately I haven't been able to take this on 100 percent to be able to walk it through from start to finish, but at this point, finding out the additional information about what's going on, I mean, she's just to the point where she's going to have to consult an attorney. The house had gone into foreclosure. She applied for SHIP funds to get -- started that process to have it brought up to code and everything. But then because it was in foreclosure, she couldn't proceed with that. So there's been just a whole lot of circumstances, you know, surrounding the whole thing. Page 57 October 23, 2003 Right down to -- the foreclosure sale was September 30th, and she was never notified. I asked her to go to Judge Brousseau's office and file something, and she found out yesterday that there is going to be a court date set of November 3rd where he is going to hear about this. In the meantime, I have two people that are interested in purchasing the home. I have contacted the attorney, I have contacted the bank. And I'm trying to make this a win-win, because I do know that if it goes back to the county, they're going to lose their home, it's going to have to be totally torn down, so it's going to become a county problem. You know, so that's why I'm just trying to help in all avenues. But it's a little bit over my head because I'm not an attorney. So at this point I'm going to have to find an attorney, and was wondering for this whole thing, if you would just give it a couple of weeks to get in front of Judge Brousseau on November 3rd, so at least, hopefully, the rescinding of the foreclosure will happen. And as I told, you know, Michelle Arnold and Ms. Hilton, that within two weeks, you know, if we can do that, you know, I'll be more than happy to walk Mrs. Higginbotham through the process, since I do know how to do permits and things like that. So really, all I'm asking for is an extension of time. My long stow short. MS. DUSEK: It sounds like you're going to need more than two weeks. I know it would be two weeks for the hearing, but -- MS. LUFT-BARTHOLF: Basically, after November 3rd, I mean, if Judge Brousseau denies them the home, it's over. Really, I mean, what are they going to do? You know, all the fees and fines and everything can be put against the house that is really owned by the bank. So it's kind of like, you know, what do you do? What comes first here? Are they going to be able to afford to pay them? Absolutely Page 58 October 23, 2003 not. I mean, I know that for sure. Because I'm probably going to be paying for the permits myself. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, I have a couple of questions. MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have somebody, for lack of a better word, an outside person asking for an extension of time. I don't know if that's applicable or not. Rather than the respondent. MS. RAWSON: Well, it's okay, if she says she is her duly authorized representative. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Second question would be, the only way to -- well, maybe there's two ways. What we're here to do is impose a fine. And she's saying she'd like an extension of time. Is that an extension of time of imposing the fine or extending the time in the order so no fine exists at all? The third item being that if we didn't impose the fine and it goes before the judge and he says no, it should go to foreclosure without us imposing a fine, then whoever gets the house, no fine will be imposed and the county's basically going to have no rights because we didn't impose the fine. MS. RAWSON: You gave Mrs. Higginbotham until August 20th for one permit, July 21st for another, September 19th for another. Or a demolition permit and demolish it by August the 20th. This is October. So her time has passed. So I'm going to guess on her behalf that she must be asking for an extension of time that goes back to the original order, because what you're doing today is pre -- per forum. You know, the time has passed in the order, so all you have to do is calculate what the fine is as of today's date. So, you know, I think what she's asking for is a longer period of time that goes back to the original order to either obtain the permits or come back and tell you why she can't. I think that's what she's saying. Page 59 October 23, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And in which case, if we extend the time -- I guess my point is, if we give them another 30 days and during this two weeks or so, whenever the judge may rule one way or the other, and he rules against her and takes it to foreclosure, there's now an order and no fines, and whoever gets it is going to have whatever is left, a week or so, to accomplish this, and they're going to come before us and ask for an -- I mean, I'm -- this is kind of getting way out of hand, I think. I understand her strife, and I'm not against that, it's just I'm looking to, I guess, protect the county. And I think imposing the fines is probably going to be the wisest thing to do. And whatever the judge says, that's fine. We don't know what he's liable to do, don't know the circumstances. I hate that, to try to think for judges. Bad thing to do. Don't know the circumstances. MS. DUSEK: Jean, excuse me, let me just ask almost the same question Cliff just asked you. If we don't impose the fines, we give an extension of time, that extension goes with the property or with the person? MS. RAWSON: With the property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The property. MS. DUSEK: So if we've given this extension of time, and just arbitrarily let's say it's November 30th, and that the judge then says sorry, but it's going into foreclosure, we're taking your property, then can we at a later point, after November 30th, impose fines? Or must we impose fines now to protect the -- MS. RAWSON: Well, if the property's still not in compliance, you can still issue fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, but the fines will be greatly -- MR. LEFEBVRE: From what date? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, from the new date you give them. So the fines are going to be greatly reduced because you're going to go from August -- Page 60 October 23, 2003 MS. RAWSON: It would be the new date. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- up to November, so you may end up with a two-week fine instead of an "X" month fine. MS. SAUNDERS: If I may, it seems to me that imposing the fines is only going to make the property more difficult to sell, or to salvage at this point. The person that we're imposing the fines against, the property owner, doesn't have the money. Is there -- the county certainly doesn't need somebody on -- that they're going to have to help on welfare or support. Why are we trying to destroy this? Why not extend the time frame to, say, December 31st, and either let it be sold, let it be foreclosed and start the fines December 31st. Haven't lost anything. If it's gone into foreclosure it's a moot point anyway, you know, it's going to have to be sold and that person's going to have to get it into shape. And it makes it much more difficult for anybody to do anything if there's fines hanging over it. What does it cost us? The county can handle it, in my mind. I would really push to say -- I'm not saying waive the fines, I'm saying let's extend the time period before we impose fines to December 31st, and let this action take place, see if they can resolve it. That's our job, not to make money for the county. MR. LEFEBVRE: I kind of disagree with the 30-day extension. I feel that we gave significant time, enough time, and down the road, come next month in our meeting, if everything is taken care of and they do retain the property, we can then look at maybe reducing the fines or change at that point, but I do agree with Cliff that just not having the fines isn't a good idea. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If we extend the date now, in essence what we're doing is waiving existing fines. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And I think when we came up with all these specific dates and we -- if I remember the case correctly, we Page 61 October 23, 2003 came up with very small amounts for-- fine amounts, because the lady was in trouble and we were trying to help her and be as reasonable as we could. I don't know-- MS. DUSEK: Well, if I might say, I think I'm agreeing somewhat with Rhona, because it makes it much more complex if we impose the fines now. Our purpose here is to hope that people come into compliance. And if it takes a little bit longer and a little bit less money in the way of fines for them to do it, I don't have a problem with that. I want to see people come into compliance. And I think that this woman is trying, to the best of her ability, to do this. It might not be the expedient ability that we would like to see, but I don't have a problem in extending the time. And then if that doesn't work, it's over. I just don't -- I think it's -- I think it's wrong not to give her a second opportunity. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So rather than an imposition of fines, what we're really going to do is amend our order to extend the time limits. MS. DUSEK: Extend the time limit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm personally not interested in that, but anyway, the item on the agenda was to impose the fines, and we've now changed that. MS. DUSEK: Well, we haven't. We're discussing it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But you say that's what you want to do is-- MS. DUSEK: That's what I would like to see done, because I think that she's going to work hard to accomplish it. She may not be able to. Then we'll at that point address the problem with the new owner, if there's going to be a new owner. But I don't think a 30-day or a 60-day is a long time frame for anyone to come into compliance, so -- and we would still have the operational costs that the -- whoever the owner is would have to pay. Page 62 October 23, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Can we do that, Jean? MS. RAWSON: You can listen to her motion for an extension of time, which is a separate motion from the county's motion to impose fines. So you have two motions to vote on. MS. DUSEK: So the one motion is to impose the fine, the other one is to extend the time? MS. RAWSON: Correct. The respondent made a motion to extend the time, and of course the county made a motion to impose the fines. MR. RAMSEY: Jean, may I ask just a quick question? Is the request for extension of time, you know, here now by the representative at the podium sufficient to constitute a motion for an extension of time? MS. RAWSON: Well, we have forms that they could have filled out. But I believe the county told us when they introduced this case that she's here asking for an extension of time and so she could make it orally. It wouldn't be the first time it's happened. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, in order of preference, is there one we have to do before the other? MS. RAWSON: Michelle, you had something? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, I just wanted to ask Mrs. Higginbotham if she can get on the record and state that this is her representative. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. HIGGINBOTHAM: Kerri Luft is representing me. She knows more about this than I do. And God help me. You know, I was here before and I just couldn't do it, you know, so I asked her to come help me, and that's why she's speaking on my behalf. And I have tried everything as far as lawyers and everything. Couldn't do nothing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: Kerri, I just want to ask you, the time frame that you're asking for, I think you need to be specific. Page 63 October 23, 2003 MS. LUFT-BARTHOLF: Well, I'm not really drilled in this, to be honest with you, to know. I mean, as I explained to Michelle, after November 3rd, I would be more than happy to, you know, even show up at the -- you know, out at her office to tell her what happened, if it's going to remain in foreclosure and Bank One, you know, has it, or if the Higginbothams will have the house back. Because until that moment, nobody knows, you know. And to be honest with you, as a realtor, putting the fines on the house, from my standpoint of being able to sell it for the benefit of them to make any money, that's not going to happen. To the benefit of it going up in a short sale, that is a benefit, but it won't be to the Higginbothams. You know, the bank will lose, you know, somebody will win, an investor. So I understand why you want to impose the fines. That's why I was just hoping there was a way of just taking this and not saying yes or no and just being able to extend it past the November 3rd, and then dealing with everything that needs to be dealt with after that date. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, but you understand as a realtor, whether the fines are here or not, you're going to have to tell the potential buyer that all these problems exist. MS. LUFT-BARTHOLF: Oh, I've already -- it's on my listing already. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That they're required, if they buy your property, they're going to have to fix them. MS. LUFT-BARTHOLF: Well, that is a problem, because I don't even think the house will be able to be C.O.'d if the ownership changes. So believe me -- it can? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MS. LUFT-BARTHOLF: Okay, I didn't know if you were going to do that or not. I was going to propose that at a later time. MS. ARNOLD: I have a suggestion for the board. If there's a -- Page 64 October 23, 2003 you know, because there's a hearing scheduled for November 3rd, what we can do is just continue this to the November 13th hearing and Ms. -- Kerri can come back and report to the board whatever the judge's decision was. The fines can either continue to accrue to that date and we modify the information accordingly, or we can stay it from today's hearing, based on that. So that's an option. We don't necessarily have to put it -- make an action on it today, we can wait till November, and it would be 10 days after the hearing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson? MS. RAWSON: I think that's a good suggestion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: A continuance to our next meeting and do absolutely nothing at all? MS. RAWSON: Right, because if the fines are going to accrue, they'll continue to accrue. I think that's a very good suggestion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I like that. Okay. Ma'am, Kerri, anything else to tell us? MS. LUFT-BARTHOLF: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: If she can waive her-- we'll probably send it, but if she can waive her notice. This will be back on -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ma'am, if we continue this, would you waive notice that we're going to continue to our next meeting, which would be November-- MS. ARNOLD: 13th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- 13th? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: In other words, rather than get all this stuff in the mail, we're telling you now, we're going to bring it up again then. MS. LUFT-BARTHOLF: I've already got it down. I will be here, 9:00, November 13th. Absolutely. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Page 65 October 23, 2003 I would entertain a motion to continue this to our next meeting. MS. DUSEK: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sneaky, sneaky. MS. DUSEK: Or I so move, however you want it to be recorded. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's have Bobbie make the motion and we'll get it seconded, please. MS. DUSEK: All right. MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to continue this to our next meeting in November 13th -- on November 13th. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, back to the public hearings, and Case No. 2003-039. MS. HILTON: Yes, Board of County Commissioners versus Van Elway Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Ironwood Golf Club. And the respondent -- I want to verify, is the respondent present in the courtroom? MR. VANCO: Right here, yes, ma'am. MS. HILTON: I believe that is the owner, Mr. David Vanco? MR. VANCO: That's correct. MS. HILTON: 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. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: accept the County's Exhibit A. aye. We have a motion and a second to All those in favor, signify by saying (Unanimous votes of ayes.) Page 66 October 23, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of Section 11 of Ordinance No. 99-51, the weed, litter and exotics ordinance. The description of the violation: Excessive weed and vegetation overgrowth in excess of 18 inches on a private golf course, creating a nuisance for adjacent residents. Location where violation exists: 4710 Lakewood Boulevard, Naples, Florida, also known as Ironwood Golf Club. More particularly described as Folio No. 5400016006. Name and address of owner in charge of location where violation exists: Van Elway Enterprises, Inc., 205 Charity Court, Naples, Florida. Date violation first observed: June 1 lth, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: June 23, 2003, to Ironwood Golf Club, upon worker Wayne Lippold, that's L-I-P-P-O-L-D, and Dave Vanco, Director of Van Elway Enterprises, Inc., by certified mail, return receipt requested, which was returned unclaimed. And an amended notice of violation on September 24th, 2003 to David K. Vanco, Director of Van Elway Enterprises, Inc. and Ironwood Golf Club, care of the registered agent, C.T. Corp. Systems, by regular U.S. Mail and certified mail, return receipt requested. And the amended notice of violation green card receipt was returned claimed and signed for by the registered agent. Date on which the violation was to be corrected: Was June 27th, 2003 and October 3rd, 2003 for the amended notice of violation. Date ofreinspection: Was October 22nd, 2003. Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And the CEB notice of hearing and evidentiary packet was certified mail, regular U.S. Mail, and posting of the property and the Page 67 October 23, 2003 courthouse, and the green cards did come back for the registered agent. And at this time, I would like to turn the case over to the investigator, John Olney, that's O-L-N-E-Y, to present the case to the board. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Vanco, you could sit down and wait, if it would be easier, to your turn. We'll let the county go first and then we'll ask you, sir. MR. OLNEY: Good morning. I'm John Olney, a code investigator. This case involves the Ironwood Golf Course owned by Mr. Vanco, who I acknowledge. I've spoken to him on the phone, I've never met him personally until this morning. It's a par three executive golf course, located on Lakewood Boulevard, primarily on the Davis Boulevard end. The violation obviously is concerning 99-51, weeds in excess of 18 inches for the entire golf course. It's not a great photograph, but you can get the idea. On that particular one is just general growth of the weeds, long. This one shows the weeds along a waterway, which is the continuing problem. As we speak, the course has been mowed. On June 19th, I received an anonymous complaint that the course was overgrown with weeds. I went to the site and verified that it was overgrown, particularly the waterways like that. I served notice and spoke with personnel on the site who were cooperative and wanted to alleviate the problem, but they only had one operational mower at the time. They needed funds to get an additional mower and get the course mowed. It was receiving little play at that time. At that time I was speaking to Mr. Bob Arrighi, who was the resident pro. And around July 8th, they rented a bush hog for a week Page 68 October 23, 2003 and mowed the course down. But this problem has continued, and they couldn't get to that. I spoke to Mr. Vanco a couple of times during this period of time. He was desirous of getting the problem rectified. He stated he was going through some financing -- refinancing or something of that nature that should allow him to get the course mowed, bring it up to playable status. By late August there was still no money to cut the course. The course -- the club put a sign that the course was closed until October for renovations. During this time at least weekly, or quite often, I was speaking to now the manager, I guess would call it, Mr. Wayne Dahlstrom on-site. He was working with me, wanted to get the problem rectified, stated he was in contact with Mr. Vanco trying to get something done. We were receiving numerous complaints, myself two or three daily, the staff many more, because this golf course rings around through the Lakewood community and it is involved with the Glades Country Club area. These people were quite irate having to look out their windows and instead of seeing a golf course, to see an overgrown field situation. We prepared to bid it out and have the county hire somebody to mow it. In August we spoke to Mr. Vanco again and he stated his financing was about to come through. Since this would have been a very expensive proposition on the county's part to bid it out to be cut, we backed off and waited for Mr. Vanco to take care of the problem. As of October 13, the course has been mowed, with the exception of that is as it looks -- well, as of yesterday afternoon the course is mowed with the exception of the waterways. Mr. Dahlstrom tells me that that's a two-part process. One, you -- at this point you have to bring somebody with a machete to cut the big, tall weeds and then you do a water treatment problem, you spray the waterway along the edges and it prevents the weeds from regrowing. Page 69 October 23, 2003 The reason we are here at this point with the course mowed is to ask the board for a finding that the course was in non-compliance. In the future then we can act more swiftly as code enforcement to get the course cut, should the problem reoccur. Our concern at this point is that the greens are all dead. The course is not playable, so it cannot generate income. The greens have been reseeded, but they have no water, so they can't be watered. They were relying on rainfall to germinate the seeds and make the greens playable where the course can start generating income. We want them to succeed and hope the course is successful, but we are concerned that the residents surrounding this are going to have to endure looking at overgrown weeds again sometime in the future. So that's about where we are. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Question. The -- you cited him for this violation and it is failing to maintain the property, correct? MR. OLNEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not just the playable golf course area but the property. And this still exists, so he's not yet into compliance? MR. OLNEY: Not-- no, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Just the fact that he mowed the golf course helps a little, but he hasn't -- he's still out of compliance, correct? MR. OLNEY: That is correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And has he given you any indication of a time frame? MR. OLNEY: I was told last week by Mr. Dahlstrom that the course would be in complete compliance by today, and obviously they didn't quite make it. Or as of yesterday. I did not look this morning. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other questions by any Page 70 October 23, 2003 member, please? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. Mr. Vanco. MR. VANCO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Your turn, sir. Tell us. MR. VANCO: Thank you. First of all, I agree with the vast majority of everything that Mr. Olney has indicated. He's been a gentleman and very considerate in trying to work with us and so on. I want to give you assurance that everything has been either brought up to compliance or will be within the next week. And I'll give you a little detail and background and so on. We did purchase the course 12 years ago, and at that time the weeds were much higher than they ever were this year. I don't know if anybody goes back that far, but they were above knee deep when I first walked the course. And we have put in, oh, hundreds of thousands of dollars to totally renovate the course over the years, over the last 12-year period, specifically in 1997 and '98. During that time frame, we put in between 600 and $800,000 to totally renovate the course. We brought in a top designer, Bob Cup, and he did redesign work on the greens complex and so on. So we do have an enormous investment in Ironwood Golf Club. We have no desire, we had no desire to let it go and become overgrown and so on. The past two years have been a difficult period with the aftermath of 9/11. You're all aware of the economy and the effect it had here in Collier County. Not quite as many people came down two years ago. And then this past year, there was a problem with the economy. I think there were the normal number of people here, but instead of playing golf three or four times a week, they were playing one or two times a week. Page 71 October 23, 2003 So from a cash flow standpoint, we had a tough time over the last two years. In other words, we operated at quite a loss. Our mortgage was coming due this past summer and we went for refinancing. We went to conventional lenders, banks, et cetera. They do not do refinancing on golf courses. And we called many, many of these lenders around the State of Florida and elsewhere. This caused us to have to go to independent lenders, and we worked with three different brokers in trying to obtain the financing to have the funding to redo the greens and prepare it for this coming season. And that's prior to it becoming overgrown. The promise was from, at least one of the brokers, they would have it refinanced by sometime late June. We felt good about it. We were paying our maintenance staff, just maintaining at a level to keep the course open at that time. And then one of our major rough mowers broke down. We were falling behind in other payables and we just ran out of funds. In June, July, August the funding did not come through. I was in contact with Mr. Olney, either directly or through Wayne Dahlstrom, who has been appointed general manager. He's on-site on a daily basis. We did take the steps in, I believe it was, early August, as Mr. Olney indicated, to bring in the bush hog to cut the course down to have it at a -- at least a level where you could accept it visually. We continued working on obtaining refinancing. And we've spoken to lenders in the State of Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Rhode Island and various places here in Florida. Let me jump ahead a little bit. The financing has come through, and that has caused us to bring the course up to specs. We have redone all of the greens. We resurfaced and reseeded. They're going through a grow-in period right now. As Mr. Olney indicated, we had a problem with water. Water was turned off in mid-September, and we were using the funds to pay other bills and Page 72 October 23, 2003 we were relying on the rain what was there before reseeding. We didn't really have the need to do constant watering at that time, because the new greens were not in. With the financing that came in on October 3rd, we had the water turned back on. It was turned on the end of last week, and some normal irrigation is taking place, and normal grow-in is taking place after the reseeding of all the greens. We do anticipate having the course open for play within about three weeks. It could happen a day or two sooner if we happen to get some additional rain, preferably in the evening or day, it doesn't matter. If it is cloudy in the day, it would help. But we anticipate having the course back open within the next three weeks. By the way, I know there were quite a number of complaints from neighbors. I'm sure before you would hear them, they'd come knocking at the door at the clubhouse and we would explain what's taking place, that is was a matter of funding. They weren't happy about it, but they appeared to be satisfied. Then they would turn around and call. Going back 12 years ago when we first bought the course and renovated, property values increased 20 to 25 percent within the year after we renovated and opened the course. We didn't have complaints from the neighbors there. But we do understand and appreciate why they would complain at this time. We did not want it to be overgrown. We did not want to have to even close the course except for some reseeding that we were going to do. So obviously we had no revenue from late July until now, with the course being closed and renovated. So it has been fully mowed. We're mowing on a regular basis. The greens are starting to germinate at this point, which means the brownness you see from the seed and so on is starting to turn green. And over the next two weeks we will start mowing the greens Page 73 October 23, 2003 and in about three weeks it'll be ready to start play. The one other item which was in the photographs, the overgrowth on the lake and canals and so on. Mr. Dahlstrom has been in contact with Advanced Aquatics, and they indicated they would schedule a time to come in and clean up the lakes, cut them down in two phases: Machete type cutting and then the spraying and so on to clean up the lakes fully. A couple of the lakes are clear, but a number of the lakes do need attention, as you saw in the photographs. We don't deny any of the items that Mr. Olney cited. I talked to Mr. Jack Anderson of Advanced Aquatics yesterday morning, and he is agreeing to put on his schedule to come out at the earliest date, and he anticipates by midweek of next week to be out and start clearing the lakes. And it's a $3,000 initial down payment and then it comes to 6 to $700 per month on an ongoing basis, and we will have him come out ongoing for the foreseeable future, just to maintain the lake area. Again, we had no desire to see the course go into this condition. It doesn't do us any good from a revenue standpoint, reputation standpoint. It was just something that we couldn't handle. We do have a second mortgage on our home up north, and we didn't have a source for any additional funds. I just ask your consideration and appreciate your continuing to work with us. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Couple of questions. The water is turned on now? MR. VANCO: Yes, sir, absolutely. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And you have made some type of contractual commitment with somebody to resolve the vegetation problem along the waterways, which has not been resolved yet? MR. VANCO: Yes, sir. Advanced Aquatics. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And that's, if I understood what you said, is going to take place starting next week? MR. VANCO: That is correct. Page 74 October 23, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And is all your equipment in working order, that since you're starting to grow the greens in, but you're still going to get weeds in fairways and roughs and all that. Do you have equipment to handle all this, or does your equipment have to be repaired, or what's the status of that? MR. VANCO: Okay, most of the mowing can be done with the equipment we have. We have one piece of equipment that we're in need of. We are -- we have a guy in search of it now. It's a 60-inch front end rotary mower, which does side hills and so on. And in the meantime, we have a fellow from another course who actually rents it from the other course and bring brings it in, and that serves the purpose for this time. But we will have a replacement on our own within hopefully the next two weeks or so. But we have made arrangements to have the proper equipment available to do the job. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anyone have any questions for Mr. Vanco? MS. DUSEK: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. VANCO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we'll close the public hearings and do the order of the board. Is there in fact a violation? Understanding that even though he may have resolved the issue, which he hasn't, based on the photos, you can still find that there was a violation, so -- MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Van Elway Enterprises, Incorporated, Ironwood Golf Club, CEB Case No. 2003-039, that there is and was a violation of Section 11 of Ordinance No. 99-51, weed, litter and exotics ordinance. Description of violation: Excessive weed and vegetation overgrowth in excess of 18 inches on a private golf course, creating a Page 75 October 23, 2003 nuisance for its adjacent residents. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have violation did and does still exist. MS. SA UNDERS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: aye. a motion that in fact a We have a second on the motion. Any All those in favor, signify by saying (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. MR. LEFEBVRE: Couple things, couple comments. I think the 10 days might be a little bit short, considering that he does have a contractual agreement right now that's going to start next week. I would think -- I'd feel more comfortable giving 30 days to correct the problem. And I also think the $100 fine per day might be a little bit much. I would be more inclined to go down to 50. MS. DUSEK: Make a motion. That sounds good. MR. LEFEBVRE: All right. All right, I make a motion that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by mowing the property so that the weeds and vegetation are under 18 inches within 30 days of this hearing in accordance with Ordinance 99-51, or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement that the violation has been abated and to request an investigator to come out and perform the site inspections. MS. DUSEK: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second for the order of the board. Any further discussion? Page 76 October 23, 2003 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: None? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you understand, Mr. Varco -- Vanco, I'm sorry. We're giving you 30 days to correct the problem. Anything that's still existing must be resolved within 30 days. If you don't do that, you're going to -- a fine's going to start at 50 bucks a day until you get it resolved. Understand? MR. VANCO: I understand, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And you must pay the operational costs. In other words, to bring this case here costs the county something. They can tell you what that is and you're going to have to pay that cost. MR. VANCO: I see. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And when you do get it all abated, you're going to have to call the county and get Mr. Olney out to inspect so that he can say yes, in fact he did what he said he was going to do. MR. VANCO: Certainly. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay? All right, sir. Thank you. MR. VANCO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next case, 2003-042, Board of County Commissioners versus Ponce Realty. P-O-N-C-E. MS. HILTON: Yes, this is Board of County Commissioners versus Ponce Realty Company, which is managed by Southern Management and Development, LP. CEB Case No. 2003-042. And at this time I would like to ask if the respondent is present in the courtroom. (No response.) Page 77 October 23, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: accept the County's Exhibit A. aye. MS. HILTON: 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. MS. SAUNDERS: Second. We have a motion and a second to All those in favor, signify by saying (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of Section 2.4.3.7, maintenance requirement for landscaping and buffering of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: Required landscape trees not being maintained. Several live oak trees dead or dying. Location where violation exists: 4903 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, more 36316320008. Name and address violation exists: Ponce Realty Management and Development, LP. Tennessee. particularly described as Folio No. of owner in charge of location where Company, care of Southern P.O. Box 11229, Knoxville, Date violation first observed: May 13th, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: June 26th, 2003 by certified mail, return receipt requested upon registered agent, which was signed for on July 7th, 2003. Date in which violations were to be corrected: July 28th, 2003. Date of reinspection: October 22nd, 2003. Page 78 October 23, 2003 Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And the CEB notice of hearing and evidentiary packet was sent certified mail, regular U.S. Mail, posting of property and the courthouse, and the green card for the registered agent was returned yesterday. And at this time I would like to turn the case over to the investigator, Summer Brown, to present the case to the board. MS. BROWN: Hi. My name is Summer Brown, I'm an environmental specialist, investigator. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. BROWN: Basically these dead trees you see here are part of their required landscaping along Golden Gate Parkway and Coronado Parkway. On May 13th of this year, I observed the live oak trees planted for a previous violation that I had on the case were declining and dying. Therefore, I advised the property manager, Lisa Greenberg, which I dealt with on many occasions in the past year, to irrigate the trees to avoid death. On June 24th, I went back to the property and observed that the live oaks did die, and sent a notice of violation to the registered agent, Steven Levin, of Ponce Realty Company, the owner. I provided them one month to replace the trees. That was not done. I reminded the property manager, Lisa, that she needed to replace the trees after they reached their compliance date. On August 8th, I left a message for the property manager, advising that they needed to replace the trees again. On August 22nd, I observed no progress had been made, so I sent a CEB warning letter, and I have not received any contact from the property manager, registered agent, anybody from the company. The notice of violation, like she said, CEB warning letter, notice of hearing and so forth have all had return receipts. So they have received all of those. Page 79 October 23, 2003 This is in violation of Code 2.4.3.7 which says that any required landscaping that dies needs to be replaced within 30 days, and obviously they're past 30 days. The reason that we're here today is because I've dealt with this person on several occasions. In the previous case it took me six months for them to get trees replaced, and that case went on for almost a year before we finished up all the violations there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That was going to be one of my questions. This same location, was it the same section that they were in violation of previously? MS. BROWN: They were in violation of 2.4.3.6, which is the pruning code, originally. And 3.7, which is the maintenance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So this is a repeat violation? MS. BROWN: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. When was the last time you spoke to a person regarding this? MS. BROWN: I have left messages and I've had her e-mail from the previous case and I haven't heard anything -- like we've said, we sent a warning letter, haven't heard anything back. Sent a hearing (sic). I left a message this week. Haven't received any phone calls back. So I'm not surprised, due to the previous case, which went on for a year, so -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anyone have any questions for Ms. Brown? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, ma'am. Finding of fact, that in fact a violation does exist? MS. DUSEK: Would someone else like to do that? I make a motion in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Ponce Realty Company, care of Southern Management and Development, LP, CEB Case No. 2003-042, that a violation does exist. The violation is of Section 2.4.3.7, maintenance Page 80 October 23, 2003 requirement for landscaping and buffering of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. Description of violation: Required landscaped trees not being maintained. Silver live oak trees are dead or dying. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion in fact a violation does exist. Do I hear a second? MS. SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And a second on such. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: While we're trying to maybe think of what an order would be, I would like us to also keep in mind that based on Ms. Brown's testimony, this is a repeat case. They obviously took an extensive amount of time last time around to resolve the problem. Possibly because they're out of state, I don't know. Maybe because they don't take it seriously. I would recommend we think of a very stiff fine for this to get their attention that Collier County is serious and they must correct them. There are plenty of people that can dig out trees and put them in. This is not rocket science, I'm sorry. My opinion would be a fine in the area of $500 a day would be sufficient to get their attention to do what we want done now. It's a big shopping center right on a main thoroughfare. Obviously that didn't get their attention last time. I think we should be very seriously concerned. MS. DUSEK: Well, you know I'm going to oppose you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, I know that. MS. DUSEK: I cannot -- absolutely cannot go along with a $500 a day fine. I realize that they've been dragging their feet and not complying, but the gravity of this violation does not warrant $500 Page 81 October 23, 2003 a day. I do think that we need to go a little higher than we usually do, but $500 a day is just out of line. MS. ARNOLD: Jean, I don't believe that we can do 500 at this point. MS. RAWSON: No, we can't; 250. MS. ARNOLD: We have to do a maximum of 250, because you all have to have found it in violation previously before it can be considered a repeat. MR. LEFEBVRE: The same violation, correct? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I thought she said there was a case before us before. MS. ARNOLD: No, it wasn't before you. There was a prior case that she handled, but it did not -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, it didn't come before this board? MS. ARNOLD: No, it didn't. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, okay. MS. RAWSON: There's not been a previous order. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And there's only one section, so 250 is the max. That's not a repeat violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: I would be agreeable to 250. MS. SAUNDERS: I would be more agreeable on shortening the time frame. I think they don't need 30 days but I do think 250 is -- for a couple of dead trees, as much as we want it done right, is really quite excessive. MS. DUSEK: I think so, too. And I like the idea of shortening the time frame. Because then the fines will start much sooner and in the long run will accumulate to be much more. MS. SAUNDERS: My preference would be to put it at 10 days and 150 a day. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Somebody make a motion. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay, I move that the CEB order the Page 82 October 23, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: further discussion? respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations to replace new plantings and removal of damaged vegetation within 10 days, or a fine of 150 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. MS. DUSEK: I second the motion. We have a motion and a second. Any aye. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying MS. DUSEK: Aye. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? MR. DORIA: No. MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. How many opposed? One, two, three. How many for? Three. Okay. Let's try the motion again. MR. LEFEBVRE: The hangup I have with 10 days is that they're out of state, and to try to contract (sic) the company in that short a period I think might be difficult. I would go along with maybe a few more days. MR. DORIA: How's 20 days? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, they're not even, you know, I guess acknowledging there's a problem, it seems like. MS. DUSEK: Albert, you mentioned 20 days? MR. LEFEBVRE: I would be agreeable to that. MS. DUSEK: Is that -- okay. Well, I'll make the motion then, that the CEB -- I make a motion that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and Page 83 October 23, 2003 abate all violations through replacement plantings and removal of damaged vegetation within 20 days, or a fine of $150 a day be imposed for each day the violation continues. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And would you add that they -- MS. DUSEK: And they must contact the county when all has been completed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And request an inspection. MS. DUSEK: And request an inspection. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a new motion for 20 days at $150 a day. MR. DORIA: I second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And we have a second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? MR. RAMSEY: Opposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 5-1. Okay, that's passed. , That's the last case, so we close the public hearings and go to new business, which is the imposition of fines. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, we have two imposition of fines, or requests for imposition of fines. Board of County Commissioners versus Robert Chipman. And those cases are 2003-007 and 2003-025. Both cases I believe were heard on the same date, July 24th, at which the board heard violations to the existing of a houseboat placed or affixed on land without obtaining a permit. That was the first case. And the second was mobile homes placed without first obtaining permits and inspections. Page 84 October 23, 2003 The board on the first case ordered the respondent to pay operational costs and abate all violations by obtaining complete and sufficient -- submitting complete and sufficient building permits by September 7th. They further ordered that certificates of occupancies and all inspections should be completed within 45 days of obtaining those permits, and if they failed to obtain a building permit, they should pursue obtaining a demolition permit within 45 days of determination that building permits were not allowable. The respondent was informed that if they did not comply with the board's order, or paragraph one of the board's order, that fines of $100 per day would be imposed. They were further ordered that if they didn't comply with paragraph two of the board order, an additional $100 per day would be imposed and also another $100 per day would be imposed if failure to comply with paragraph three. Staff is at this time requesting that the board impose $480 for operational costs, as the violations have been abated for Case No. 1. And the fine amounts were a little bit different in the second case, but the dates were consistent. $75 were imposed per day -- or were to be imposed per day, had the violation not been abated, and the violation has been abated, so staff is now requesting that operational costs of $355.50 be imposed for the second case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Our motion to impose the fines has to be separate for each one. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Mr. Chipman is here in the board room, so -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: To ask us to do what? MS. ARNOLD: I'm just informing the board that he's here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Come up front, sir. Yes, swear him in, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) Page 85 October 23, 2003 MS. RAWSON: He has on the agenda a motion request for extension of time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, he's completed the -- he's abated the violation, I don't understand. MR. CHIPMAN: Can I speak, I'll explain it? MS. ARNOLD: That's for a separate case. MR. CHIPMAN: I understand it. My name's down there three times. I didn't understand. MS. ARNOLD: We're doing imposition of fines right now and your name is down there two times for the cases that you've abated. MR. CHIPMAN: Yes. All right. Okay. I'm confused on the fines because I had to come before the board. I was not at this meeting, I was out of town and I came before you like two months ago and you granted me an extension. And I've cleared the problem so I don't know why we're talking about fines. MS. ARNOLD: Because it's for operational costs, and the board, at the time of the hearing on the 24th, indicated that they would impose operational costs. So the costs for prosecution of the case would be imposed regardless of whether or not you complied with the board's order. MR. CHIPMAN: I understand that, I just don't understand why we're talking about fines. I mean -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's basically the same thing. The operational cost is a fine. You have to -- MR. CHIPMAN: Oh, okay. But I meant I was confused thinking you were going to be charging me so much a day for something. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, you've met it so far-- MR. CHIPMAN: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- so that part's over. But we're going to charge you for being here. Having to bring you here is going to cost you, okay? Just like going to court, it's going to cost you. Page 86 October 23, 2003 MS. ARNOLD: Yes, because you haven't actually paid the operational costs, we're imposing the costs as a lien on your property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay? I'd entertain a motion to impose the operational costs on Case 2003-007. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we request the county to impose the fines on Case 2003-007 in the amount of $480.50 for the operational costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is there a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and second to impose the fines as requested by the county for the operational costs. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: On Case 2003-025, I would entertain a motion to impose the operational costs as requested by the county. MR. DORIA: I make a motion that we direct the county to impose a fine for the operational costs of $355.50 for the prosecution of this case. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second for the board to impose the fines, as requested by the county, for the operational costs. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The next one is 2003-038. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, that's Board of County Commissioners versus Avisai Gonzalez. And that's Case No. 2003-038. That case was heard by the board on September 25th, and a Page 87 October 23, 2003 violation was found and the respondent was ordered to abate all violation within 10 days, and we were -- the county was ordered to check the property for compliance within 10 days, and the respondent was ordered to pay operational costs. Staff is at this time requesting the board impose operational costs in the amount of 947, as the violation was abated in accordance with your order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear a motion to impose the operational costs as requested by the county? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we request an imposition of fines to be imposed for the amount of $947 for the operational costs. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that the board order the imposition of fines as requested by the county for 947. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We handled Ms. Higginbotham. Next item under new business is request for a reduction of fine. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. And this is Board of County Commissioners versus Carl and Linda Weaver (sic), Case No. 2003-029. And the Weavers -- Webers, I'm sorry -- are present and they are the ones that made the request. So if you want to come up to the mic? (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. WEBER: Good morning. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Morning, sir. MR. WEBER: Yes. The purpose, obviously, that we are asked to come here today was to -- just to go through what we had previously done. And when we originally came here, only about two to three years ago, why, we know -- we were not aware of any of Page 88 October 23, 2003 these things. I went to the county permitting and asked them, told them that I was proposing to build a trellis. They specifically told me that there was no need to get a permit. After I built the trellis, then they -- and time went on, you've got to do this, you've got to do that. We did all those things, and then I talked with Susan Murray and she said that she would -- had some business to do in our area, she would come by and look at it. If there was any need to do anything further, she would contact us. Well, we never heard anything until we got this order to go appear before the board, which we did. And I think that most of the people on the board sort of agreed that with the pictures that we had shown and everything, there was nothing there but just a trellis to beautify our yard and our neighborhood. So we left and they -- one of the women said that, you know, we would check the next time that it came up as to whether there would be any fine, if we didn't perform the work. Well, we had the -- we cut the -- down considerably that there's now what they consider a trellis left. Which is fine. We're fine with that. We have no problem. But the reason, of course, that we're here is the fact that we had no idea that there were any type of fees involved to appear before you people or the other board, which we appeared before. And so we would, of course, because we are retired people and living on a budget, as so many do, we're requesting that these fees be abated. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have copies of the case and I remember the case. And Item 8 in -- when we issued our order was that you would pay the operational costs incurred, and that was imposed back in -- beginning of October. So I guess it was done at our September meeting. Understand your request. I've talked to our attorney, Ms. Rawson, and the Attorney General's Office has issued an opinion, No. 2002-62, that once fines and liens are imposed by this board, the Page 89 October 23, 2003 board has no right to abate or reduce such fines for liens. So based on what the Attorney General has said, we do not have the power to abate or reduce any fine or lien. MS. SAUNDERS: I'm sorry, I don't understand that. MS. DUSEK: I don't understand that either. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson, would you like to explain? MS. RAWSON: There's an Attorney General's opinion that says that once your order has been recorded, you lose jurisdiction. That's what the Attorney General's opinion says. MS. DUSEK: Well, then, I'm very confused, because when we tell people that they can appeal this or come back and ask for a reduction of fines, and we have in many instances done that, why -- is this something new, or are we just talking about operational costs? I'm very confused about this. MS. RAWSON: The Attorney General's opinion is relatively new. We talked about it at the workshop. But basically that's what it says. It says that once our order is recorded, the Code Enforcement Board loses jurisdiction. Now, that's only an Attorney General's opinion. It's not a statute, ordinance or Supreme Court case ruling. MS. DUSEK: So it's strictly an opinion, and we can still, if we choose to, reduce fines? MS. RAWSON: Well, I'd probably ask the county attorney what she thinks. MS. BELPEDIO: Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney. I am aware of the opinion, and we did present that at the last Code Enforcement Board workshop. I do agree with that opinion, but as Ms. Rawson has said, it is not mandatory, it is not required until the courts come out with that as the opinion. Certainly you can, you know, if you so desire to reduce the fines, you can do so. An alternative would be for the respondent to go before .the Board of Page 90 October 23, 2003 County Commissioners. That's always an option. MS. ARNOLD: Another alternative would be to -- we could set up a payment schedule with the Webers, if the concern is they're on a fixed income. MS. DUSEK: Well, this is not only concerning the Webers, but it certainly makes a difference on every case that we address. MS. SAUNDERS: Yes. Until we have a full policy, I think we ought to stay with the policy that we have been operating under completely, which is that we have the ability to waive fines. If we choose to have either a workshop with the County Commission or a discussion open to the public to discuss a change in that policy, that's fine. But right now our policy is that is we waive fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Excuse me, this board doesn't have meetings open to the public to discuss policy. That's not what we're here to do and that's not one of our mandated items. So that's out. MS. SA UNDERS: Yes, sir. I still believe very firmly that this is a policy of the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Of the County Commissioners, maybe but-- MS. SAUNDERS: Of the Code Enforcement Board at this time. And we have the right to continue the policy until either the county -- Board of County Commissioners or something in our structure says that that does not exist. I'm sorry if you don't agree, Cliff, but you don't have to throw it through and -- never mind. MS. ARNOLD: This -- what is being requested is the operational costs. This board has never in -- since you've been imposing it-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Waived them. MS. ARNOLD: -- waived those fines. What you have done in the past, however, is if you thought the operational costs were not just, you did not include that in your order. In this particular case, you did. And staff's suggestion is that we would set up a payment Page 91 October 23, 2003 schedule with the Webers. MS. SAUNDERS: How much are the costs, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: The costs are $673.75. MS. SAUNDERS: Well, I'm going to get ruled down, but I do firmly believe that in this case we ought to waive the operational costs. I don't believe there's anything in our history that says we cannot do that. MS. ARNOLD: No, I'm not saying that. MS. SAUNDERS: No, I know you're not. I do believe these people have tried very diligently to comply. They got wrong information all the way through. So I'm going to move that we waive the operational costs in this case. MR. DORIA: I think Mrs. Weber wants to say something. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. WEBER: I just wanted to interject something. I don't know if it will help at all. But if I think back, and I don't have all the things in front of me, but I don't even remember getting that cost of this until after we were to appear before the board. And we had no knowledge from anyone, talking to the county or anybody, that there was going to be a cost incurring to come before the County Commissioners. So we were in the dark. And I know you can say that that's no excuse, but I still think we were not aware of this. We thought because we pay our taxes and we're law-abiding citizens, we came to present our case before you, that this was just part of life and going on before the board. And then we got this thing that we owed this large amount of money. And we complied with everything that they said we should do. And then when we were here the last time, and I think it was Mrs. Saunders, said that she felt that -- and it should be in the minutes, that the court costs or whatever this was should be abated because of that fact. Page 92 October 23, 2003 And then someone else motioned, and I believe it was Mr. Flegal, said well, they would want to wait until we complied when we came back this time. And then talking to Shanelle, she said to fill out these forms and go through this so that we could do this abatement thing. And now we've done all this. And to me it was all in vain to even go through this. So I guess we're at a loss as to what's really happening. MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to note for the record that on the notice of hearing it does indicate that operational costs will be assessed. And I do recall the board noting that at the hearing, the subject hearing. And, you know, I know that my staff had indicated to me that they, before the hearing, indicated to the Webers that costs would be assessed. And that's something that we do normally so that people are aware, if they go to the hearing, there's a possibility of costs. MS. WEBER: I think possibly, too, Michelle, that we thought that this was the fining and not that there was another cost in the hearing. Maybe it was our misunderstanding, too. But in any case, we both were not aware that this was going to happen, so that's all. That's all I can say. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And at the time I made my comment, I wasn't aware of the Attorney General opinion either. I'm reluctant to go against the Attorney General's opinion. But that's personal. MS. DUSEK: Just my comment. Operational costs, I don't have a problem with. I will have a problem in the future with fines, even though the Attorney General has given his opinion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you, sir. We have a motion on the floor to waive; is that -- MS. SAUNDERS: I believe the motion was to waive the fines, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is there a second? Page 93 October 23, 2003 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No second. Do we have a motion to deny the request? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we have to do one or the other, folks. MR. RAMSEY: I make a motion that we deny the request. I certainly can empathize with Mr. and Mrs. Weber, but I think the Attorney General has given us some guidance and I think we need to follow that guidance. And accordingly, I would move that we deny the request for the abatement of fines. MR. LEFEBVRE: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to deny the request to reduce/abate the imposition of the operational costs. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If not, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any Opposed? MR. DORIA: (Hand raised.) MS. SAUNDERS: Opposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One, two. 4-2, passes. Still pay the money, sir. If you'd like to .try to work something out with the county, that's between you and the county. MR. WEBER: That's pretty sad. Pretty sad state of affairs. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, the next item on the board's agenda is motions and requests for extension of times. Page 94 October 23, 2003 The first item is Board of County Commissioners versus Cora Sneibrun. And that is Case No. 2003-031. This case was heard by the board-- unfortunately I don't have any of that back-- I believe it was in September, and the -- that was when the attorney was on the Nextel. And you have a letter requesting an extension at this time. The case was a wooden -- it was a fence and also an animal pen, roof structure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: When was the order issued? I mean, we gave him until the 28th. But I mean, did we give them-- was that 30 days, 60 days? I mean, what kind of time did we give them? MS. ARNOLD: Let's see if Shanelle has it. The order was issued on August 28th, and we -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, so we've given them 30 days. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, we gave them completion -- they had to get a fence permit by September 29th and they had to obtain all necessary inspections and complete by October 28th. Then they also had to complete a building permit for the structure by October 28th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So that was like 60 days? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And they want another 30 days? MS. DUSEK: Once again, I state the fact that I like to see people come into compliance. If it takes them a little bit longer than we had first ordered them, I don't have a problem with it. It looks like they have taken the initial steps. So I make a motion that we grant the request for extension of time to November 28th to complete both the wood fence and the animal pen roof structure. MS. SAUNDERS: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, what we need to do is amend the order, correct? MS. RAWSON: I can just enter an order on a request for Page 95 October 23, 2003 extension of time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second to extend the time on both items to November 28th. MS. ARNOLD: Actually, it's only needed for the second one. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The motion is to extend both items to November 28th. And it has been seconded. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? No. Mr. Chipman has a request. (Speaker was reminded that he is still under oath.) MR. CHIPMAN: On my third violation -- I had three original violations with code enforcement, and the third one was an apartment that I had built under my mobile home. And I've asked her to put the pictures up there. When I went in, it was my understanding all along when I was dealing with Code Enforcement that I wouldn't be able to get the apartment approved and I would have to just dismantle the apartment. And so I went in to get the permit, the demolition permit, and at that time I was told that they wanted me to completely wipe out everything under my mobile home. And I was a bit devastated, because the apartment took up about a third -- or half of it, let's say, and the rest was just storage, which I had had forever. And anyway, they told me that I just had to remove everything, the walls down below. Page 96 October 23, 2003 And my home is probably one of the oldest ones on Plantation, and over the years I did put the vinyl siding on there so it makes it -- it looks like a relatively decent and newer home. And I was just very upset that I was going to have to basically tear out all the walls all the way around and have it completely open. But I knew I didn't have time to go through the engineering and whatever that I had to do to save the outside walls, so I just basically threw up my arms and said all right, I'll demolition everything. And I purchased the demolition permit that day, and I have demolitioned everything under the home. The only thing that's left are the outside walls that you see. And so now I am asking for an extension because I want to apply for a storage permit, and that would allow me to save the outside walls. But I will have to go through an engineer to get some structural design, and I've already talked to an engineer, I have one that will come out next week. So I feel like I have really, really met the requirements for my third violation by gutting everything that's under there. I mean, it's just gutted. And the electrical, plumbing, everything is gone. But I do have the exterior walls around the home, which I was told that I can save. And so I'm asking for an extension of time to get the storage permit which allows the outside walls, and -- just so I can save those. Because I do need the storage under there. You know, that would be like telling -- if you'd got a three-car garage, all of a sudden you can't use the garage. And I've got years and years of things with no place to put them now. So I do need the storage under the home. And the exterior walls are solid. I mean, they're sound. And I don't think I'll have a bit of a problem getting them approved. But I knew I couldn't do it under the time frame that I had, so I went ahead and got the demolition permitted. And the underside is gutted. Page 97 October 23, 2003 If you don't give me the extension, I'll have the outside walls down. You know, I could rip them out, but I would like to save them, and so I'm asking for time to save them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What's the county's position? MS. ARNOLD: I wasn't aware of this, unfortunately, to check with the building department prior to this. Had I been advised of what his position was, I would have done that. So I don't really have a position. I would need to check with the building department about actually him being able to keep the walls there the way they are and the amount of time that it would take him to do that. MR. CHIPMAN: I spoke with Mr. Jim Turner, if he's the gentleman that I need to talk to. I went in and sat down with him and he told me just what to do. And I went and applied for the permit, thinking I could get the permit right then. And then the lady in permitting went back, because she said no, you have to have the engineering first. And I misunderstood. She went and talked with Mr. Turner and came back to me and said come in with the engineering and then we'll grant you the permit, like there would be no problem. So that's who I spoke to. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a question. Were you given a time frame how long it was going to take, once the engineer gets out to your residence, to draw plans and then to go ahead and submit those plans to pull the storage permit? MR. CHIPMAN: No. In fact, I've talked with several different engineers. It's difficult. They don't like to drive down to Plantation. But I do have one on Marco that said he could come down next week. And I would anticipate 30 to 60 days. Because I really don't have to do much work. It's just a matter of just getting the permit and -- I'll sort of be at the engineer's mercy on that, and, you know. MS. ARNOLD: My recommendation, short of being able to verify some of this, is if you all are inclined to grant another Page 98 October 23, 2003 extension, this be the last extension, because this in fact is the second extension that's being requested. MS. DUSEK: Once again, I'm inclined to grant the extension. He's complied with the other two violations. He's also done part on this one. And I think that he'll accomplish what he said he's going to do. And so I'd like to make a motion that we grant the extension to December 23rd. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to grant a 60-day extension. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? MR. CHIPMAN: Thank you. I'm down there for two more things. Is there any need for me to stay or is that automatic? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's administrative. MR. CHIPMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Affidavits of compliance. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, staff is -- or has filed affidavits of compliance for both Mr. Chipman's cases, 2003-007 and 2003-025, and for Ms. -- for the Gonzalez case, which is 2003-0038 -- 038. We've also filed affidavits of non-compliance for Dixie Higginbotham's case, which is 2003-022. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That finishes old business. There are no reports. I see an item called rediscussion. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, Roberta Dusek called and requested that we put this item back on the agenda, because there were some things that she wanted to state for the record. Page 99 October 23, 2003 MS. DUSEK: If I may, I'm going to read a statement. Last month we, the Code Enforcement Board, voted on a dramatic increase in the amount of maximum fines that we could impose on a respondent. That increase is as follows: For the first violation, it was raised from 250 per day to $1,000 per day for the first violation. It was raised from 500 per day to 5,000 per day for a repeat violation. And it was raised from 5,000 per day to 15,000 per day for an irreparable or irreversible violation. This decision will now be presented to the Board of Commissioners for their approval. In my opinion, we rushed to judgment on the increase of these fines. There were members at last month's meeting who were not able to attend the previous month's workshop meeting, and there were board members who had attended the workshop meeting who were unable to attend last month's meeting. I personally did not have enough time to review such a radical change in our policy. This major change, which affects the power of the Code Enforcement Board, will also have a major impact on the general public, i.e., those who come before this board. If these changes in our ordinance do in fact take place, in the beginning the board will be cautious and judicious in their deliberation of the fines, but as time passes and new board members come aboard, this thought process will weaken and the range of new maximum increases will become more standard. The lower end of the fine structure will become obsolete and a new minimum level will be raised and become the norm. A whole new precedent in the fines will be established. For the cases I have heard over these last several years, it is hard for me to imagine a violation to be so great as to warrant anything close to $1,000 or $5,000 per day. The majority of the cases we hear are not big developers or corporation, but instead they are ordinary Collier County citizens who, for the most part, do the right thing. Most of them have had a difficult time meeting the requests we ask of them, much less have the ability to pay the fines we impose. To Page 100 October 23, 2003 increase the fine structure would make it almost impossible to ultimately follow through with compliance. We have the ability to foreclose on the property if fines are not paid. It is not our mandate to take the respondent's property. Neither the ordinary citizen nor the large developer want to have their property go into foreclosure. I question whether our mandate is to bankrupt the citizens of our community or is it to work with them to come into compliance. This new fine structure, when used, and it will be, could potentially bankrupt the majority of the cases that come before us. In fact, most cases, the amount of the fines could be greater than the market value of the property. We have to be compassionate to the majority of the respondents who do not share in the affluence of Collier County. If we find someone is displaying defiance or being unaffected by the violation and its fines, I would suggest that we shorten the time for compliance while still staying within the bounds of fairness. Our job as a board is to be fair, to protect the county from violations, and to help bring the respondents into compliance. So far, I think we have done a pretty good job in accomplishing our responsibility to the county. Since I first joined this board several years ago, I have seen more active participation by individual board members, a more organized agenda, more consistency and strength in our decisions, and more respondents coming into compliance. This has brought more strength and respect to the CEB. My comments today are made because I have spent a great deal of time thinking about this change and am passionate about my decision to move that we reconsider the enormity of these fines. And since we have -- if it will come before consideration of the board, since we've had such a long meeting today, I would ask that maybe we vote to reconsider and then discuss it at the next meeting. Page 101 October 23, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And the reason to reconsider is basically? MS. DUSEK: Everything that I've just read. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But our recommendation to the County Commissioners -- I think before we can do anything, they would probably have to have a couple of public hearings on this. MS. DUSEK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is that correct? MS. DUSEK: That's right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Where we as citizens can go and speak and tell them we don't like it. MS. DUSEK: That's right. But I think we have a responsibility as the board in our recommendations to the County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I think then we -- I'm sorry, go ahead. MS. DUSEK: Well, I know that they can vote against it, but I think it's irresponsible of us to bring it before them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, when we made the decision last month, it was based on, I think, some information that was given to us by the C<)unty Attorney staff who investigated what other people were doing in other counties. MS. DUSEK: There were 17 counties, and out of those 17, there were seven that had raised their fines. I don't know that it was to the maximum. But we are Collier County and we make our own decisions. And of those 17, the majority did not raise their fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: With what we discussed last meeting, and a vote being taken -- so now we want to rediscuss it and rethink it, and what's -- I'm trying to figure out what's changed. MS. SAUNDERS: Well, for one thing, I wasn't here. Not that that may make any difference at all. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. George isn't here now, Page 102 October 23, 2003 and Sheri isn't here. MS. SAUNDERS: And George, I think -- I don't know where George and Sheri's -- well, I need to say two things, really. I am today submitting my resignation from the Code Enforcement Board. I feel I've ceased to be able to make a difference. However, I 100 percent support Bobbie. I believe that we have gotten into the punishment stage of what we're doing rather than helping the average citizen to comply. And I'm very uncomfortable with that. So I've enjoyed working with all of you and I thank you. I think Michelle does a wonderful job on the staff. I won't be here if you do vote on it next month, but I can say, if it matters, I totally agree with you. MS. DUSEK: Well, I guess where we are at this point is I am making a motion that we reconsider this for next month's meeting. MS. SAUNDERS: I will second that motion, and with an amendment that it not be submitted to the Collier County Commission until the board has had an opportunity to reconsider it. Does that work for you? MS. DUSEK: Uh-huh. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since we last meeting voted and passed it on to the County Attorney's office to proceed, now that we want to rediscuss it, do we have the right to tell the County Attorney stop everything, we're going to fall back and regroup? MS. RAWSON: She -- well, first of all, Ms. Dusek has the right to make a motion to reconsider. And second, I don't know what the County Attorney's done with this so far. MS. BELPEDIO: I don't believe that the item was passed on to Page 103 October 23, 2003 the County Attorney's office. I believe it was passed on to staff. Ultimately they will bring your recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners and then, once that is discussed, our office will provide our legal advice as to whether or not it could be done. And as I've advised you, it could be done. And then our office would work on the amendment, if so, direct it. But as of yet, we haven't done anything, the County Attorney hasn't. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't want to try to stop a ball rolling downhill. Okay, we have a motion and a second to rediscuss it at our next meeting at the November 13th -- is that the date? Which is in three weeks, roughly? MS. ARNOLD' Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL' Any other comments? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MS. SAUNDERS: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? MR. RAMSEY: (Hand raised.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. 2-4. So it will be on the agenda for the next time around. Anything else? Next meeting is November 13th. Please remember the 13th. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. MS. SAUNDERS: I move that we adjourn. MS. DUSEK: Before we vote on that, I just want to say that I'm sorry that Rhona has submitted her resignation. MS. SAUNDERS: Thank you. Page 104 October 23, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. DUSEK: She is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: with. MS. SAUNDERS: doing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Do I hear a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. I think Rhona is a good person. It's fun to have somebody to disagree I don't want us to lose track of what we're We have a motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. All There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:45 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, CHAIRMAN Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 105