Loading...
CEB Minutes 11/13/2003 RNovember 13, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, November 13, 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 Sheri Barnett Raymond Bowie Albert Doria, Jr. Roberta Dusek Gerald Lefebvre George Ponte G. Christopher Ramsey ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board William Mountford, Assistant County Attorney Shanelle Hilton, Code Enforcement Coordinator Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA AGENDA Date: November 13, 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- October 23, 2003 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS MOTIONS: Motion to Continue 1. BCC vs. Aljo Inc 2. BCC vs. Aljo Inc 3. BCC vs. Aljo Inc CEB NO. 2003-049 CEB NO. 2003-050 CEB NO. 2003-051 HEARINGS: 1. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2003-048 795 25TM ST SW, NAPLES, FLORIDA MONIKA VAN STONE JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.7.6.1 & SEC 2.7.6.5 TWO WOODEN HORSE STABLES, WOODEN SHED AND GUESTHOUSE WITH ELECTRICAL AND SEPTIC IMPROVEMENTS ERECTED/PLACED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING AUTHORIZATION OF BUILDING PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND RECEIVING CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETIONS. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2003-049 309 CEREUS DR, NAPLES, FLORIDA AL JO INC CAROL SYKORA VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 98-76, AS AMENDED, THE MINIMUM HOUSING CODE, SECTION 5: SUBSECTION 1, SANITARY FACILITIES ARE NOT BEING PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND CREATING AN IMMEDIATE HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARD SUBSECTION 121, WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS NOT BEING PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND CREATING A HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARD SUBSECTION 120, INTERIOR DOORS NOT BEING PROPERLY MAINTAINED SUBSECTION 12P, INTERIOR FLOORS, WALLS AND CEILINGS NOT BEING PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND CREATING A HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZZARD 11/12/2003 CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: SUBSECTION 16C, DWELLING NOT HAVING PROPER PEST CONTROL CREATING AN SEVERE INFESTATION OF ROACHES AND ANTS. ORD NO 98-76, AS AMENDED, BY ORD NO 2002-05, THE MININUM HOUSING CODE, SEC 17, DWELLING REQUIRED TO HAVE SMOKE DECECTORS AND DWELLiNG IS MISSING THE SAME CREATiNG AN IMMEDIATE HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARD. 2003-050 602 FiNCH DR, NAPLES FLORIDA ALSO INC CAROL SYKORA ORD NO 98-76, AS AMENDED, THE MINIMUM HOUSiNG CODE, SECTION 5: SUBSECTION 1, SANITARY FACILITIES ARE NOT BEING PROPERLY MAINTAiNED AND CREATING AN IMMEDIATE HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARD SUBSECTION 4, AIR CONDITIONiNG SYSTEM NOT BEING PROPERLY MAINTAiNED AND CREATING A HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARD SUBSECTION 8, BATHROOM FACILITY NOT BEiNG PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND MISSING PROPER VENTALLATION AND LIGHTING SUBSECTION 9, ELECTRICAL LIGHTS AND OUTLETS MISSiNG COVERS AND WIRES EXPOSED CREATING AN IMMEDIATE HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARD SUBSECTION 12C, ROOF NOT BEiNG PROPERLY MAINTAiNED AND CREATING A HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARD SUBSECTION 12I, WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS NOT BEING PROPERLY MAINTAiNED AND CREATiNG A HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARD SUBSECTION 12K, LOCKING MECHANISM ON DOORS NOT WORKiNG CREATiNG SAFETY HAZARD SUBSECTION 12P, INTERIOR FLOORS, WALLS AND CEILINGS NOT BEING PROPERLY MAiNTAiNED AND CREATING A HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZZARD SUBSECTION 16C, DWELLING NOT HAVING PROPER PEST CONTROL CREATING AN SEVERE INFESTATION OF ROACHES AND ANTS. ORD NO 98-76, AS AMENDED, BY ORD NO 2002~05, THE MiNINUM HOUSING CODE, SEC 17, DWELLING REQUIRED TO HAVE SMOKE DECECTORS AND DWELLiNG IS MISSING THE SAME CREATiNG AN IMMEDIATE HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARD. 4. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 2003-051 608 FiNCH DR, NAPLES, FLORIDA AL JO iNC CAROL SYKORA ORD NO 98-76, AS AMENDED, THE MiNIMUM HOUSING CODE, SECTION 5: SUBSECTION 1, SANITARY FACILITIES ARE NOT BEING PROPERLY MAINTAiNED AND CREATING AN IMMEDIATE HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARD SUBSECTION 10, HALLWAYS NOT HAViNG REQUIRED LIGHTING CREATING A SAFETY HAZARD SUBSECTION 11, ELECTRICAL OUTLETS MISSiNG COVERS AND WIRES EXPOSED CREATING AN IMMEDIATE HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARD 11/12/2003 o e o 10. SUBSECTION 12F, STAIRWAY AND PORCH NOT BEING PROPERLY MAINTAINED ARE ROTTEN AND FALLING APART CREATING AN IMMEDIATE SAFETY HAZARD SUBSECTION 12I, WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS NOT BEING PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND CREATING A HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARD SUBSECTION 120, INTERIOR DOORS NOT BEING PROPERLY MAINTAINED SUBSECTION 12P, INTERIOR FLOORS, WALLS AND CEILINGS NOT BEING PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND CREATING A HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZZARD SUBSECTION 16C, DWELLING NOT HAVING PROPER PEST CONTROL CREATING A SEVERE INFESTATION OF ROACHES AND ANTS. ORD NO 98-76, AS AMENDED, BY ORD NO 2002-05, THE MININUM HOUSING CODE, SEC 17, DWELLING REQUIRED TO HAVE SMOKE DECECTORS AND DWELLING IS MISSING THE SAME CREATING AN IMMEDIATE HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARD. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2003-045 641 FOREST AVE BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA ROBERT BIDLAK AND ROSEMARY YOUNG STEPHEN SUTHERLIN VIOLATIONS: ORD 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.3.5.3 TWO FAMILY DWELLING UNITS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE DRIVEWAY/STABLIZED SURFACE FOR PARKING ORD 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.3.5.7 VEHICLES ARE TO BE PARKED IN DRIVEWAY/STABLIZED SURFACE AND NOT ALLOWED TO PARK IN RIGHT OF WAY OR BE STORED IN THE RIGHT OF WAY ORD 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.3.5.8 PROPERTY REQUIRED TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH NEW CODE WITHIN 90 DAYS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE NEW BUSINESS: A. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC vs. Dixie Higginbotham B. Request for Reduction/Abatement of Fines No request submitted at the time of this agenda 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. Carter Fence CEB NO. 2003-022 CEB NO. 2003-021 OLD BUSINESS: A. Affidavits of Compliance No request submitted at the time of this agenda B. Affidavits of Non-Compliance No request submitted at the time of this agenda REPORTS 1. JeffKlatzkow is the new assistant County Attorney who will be handling the post CEB lien enforcement matters. COMMENTS/DISSCUSSION NEXT MEETING DATE December 12, 2003 in the Board Room ADJOURN 11/12/2003 November 13, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I apologize for the delay. We'll call the Code Enforcement Board to order, please. Please make 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 Collier County Facilities Management, located here in the courthouse complex. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are also available in the County Commissioners' office. May we have the roll call, please. MS. HILTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. For the record, Shanelle Hilton, CEB Coordinator. Clifford Flegal? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Present. MS. MS. MS. MR. MS. MR. MS. MS. MS. MR. MS. HILTON: DUSEK: HILTON: PONTE: HILTON: Bobbie Dusek? Here. George Ponte? Here. Gerald Lefebvre? LEFEBVRE: Here. HILTON: Sheri Barnett? BARNETT: Here. HILTON: Chris Ramsey? RAMSEY: Here. HILTON: Albert Doria? Page 2 November 13, 2003 MR. DORIA: Here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And Raymond Bowie. MR. BOWIE: Here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We need to make note that Mr. Ramsey and Mr. Lefebvre are now permanent members of the Board, will participate fully. Excuse me, I have a frog from somewhere and I can't seem to get rid of it. Mr. Bowie has been recently appointed an alternate, and we welcome him. He's -- can participate in questions but not in voting. Approval of our agenda. MS. HILTON: We've had a request from-- to move Item 5(D) to follow after the motions to continue. And we have had a request to move 5(A) as well up to after the extension of time. MS. DUSEK: That was 5(A) and 5(D)? MS. HILTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any comment from any Board members? MR. RAMSEY: 5(A)? MS. HILTON: Yes, 5(A) and 5(D). CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none, I'd entertain a motion to approve the agenda as changed. MR. PONTE: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as changed. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Approval of minutes. Now, I didn't receive any minutes. Are we going to -- MS. HILTON: They hadn't -- they were not available at the Page 3 November 13, 2003 time that I prepared the agenda. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So we'll skip that item. We'll now open our public hearings. The first item would be motions to continue. BCC versus -- is it Alejo? MS. HILTON: It's Aljo, Inc. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aljo, Inc., okay. MR. CRONIN: Good morning. For the record, my name is Dennis Cronin. I'm an attorney with Bond, Schoeneck & King. Mr. A1 Bottino contacted me earlier this week and requested I appear on his behalf and request a continuance on this matter. He had Federal Expressed down to me the notification package which he received, and there's some address issues. The package was forwarded to him and it was not actually received until the 7th of November. So respectfully, we would request a continuance on that basis alone. But secondly, I have the -- Mr. Bottino's handyman, Richard Burchell, is here as well. There was some issue with respect to a tenant which was in this property and has only recently left, had indicated at the end of October there, or early October that she was going to provide access so that the repairs could be made and then subsequently did not provide access. Has only recently moved out. So respectfully, if we could get a 30-day continuance on this matter, I believe that we'll be able to satisfy, from what Mr. Bottino represents to me, the issues that are there. The property is now vacant and fully accessible in order that the repairs can be made. There was a companion case for 602 Finch Drive as well, which is 2003-050, which I believe that there's -- all the repairs that were cited have been made except one on that property. And the maintenance person, Mr. Burchell, has indicated to me that that will take approximately another day, day and a half in order to fully rectify that situation. So I think that we've tried to demonstrate good faith, and as Page 4 November 13, 2003 soon as the notification was formally received, he did get on the phone with me and Federal Express down the package. If we could respectfully request the 30-day continuance, I think we'll go a long way towards trying to get these repairs fully taken care of at that point in time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions from any Board members? (No respo.nse.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any recommendations? MR. PONTE: I thought there were three properties involved. Were there? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. HILTON: Yes. MR. PONTE: And of the three properties, one has been repaired, one is now vacant and the other is -- MR. CRONIN: The only ones that I have record of are 602 and 608 for the ones that were sent down. And 602, as my understanding, has been fully repaired, except for another day or so of repairs. Is that correct, Richard? There was also one. The address is 309 Cereus MS. HILTON: Drive. MR. CRONIN: MS. HILTON: I don't have any record of that, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, that was forwarded to Mr. Bottino as well. They were all sent at the same time. MR. CRONIN: Well, I have the envelope so I can show the forwarding and the date of the forwarding. MS. HILTON: I understand that, but-- MR. CRONIN: Okay. I just don't have that, I'm sorry. MS. HILTON: MR. PONTE: properties. MR. CRONIN: Right. My question is, I think that there were three Do you know anything about the third property, Page 5 November 13, 2003 Richard? MR. BURCHELL: Yes, sir. Everything was taken care of in 309 -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we can't have any -- unless we swear you in, we don't want to hear from you, sir. MR. CRONIN: Swear him in. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we're not here to hear the case. What we want to know is about the motion to continue. We don't want to take testimony on the case. If you want us to hear the case, we'll do that. You just asked us for a continuance. All we're trying to find out is there were three properties, you mentioned two. We're trying to find out, basically do you want to continue with the third case or continue it till later? MR. CRONIN: My understanding is that the 309 property is complete. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, but it's still a case. We're either going to hear it or continue it till the other two cases. MR. CRONIN: Well, I respectfully request that you continue it with the other three so that we can try to get them -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what we wanted to hear. MR. CRONIN: Okay, thank you. MS. SYKORA: May I make a request, please? I'm Carol Sykora from Code Enforcement Board. I would wish that this not be continued, due to the fact the company, one of the owners, Mr. A1 Bottino, knew about these violations. The maintenance man at the time, his name was Dennis Thomas, I gave him a copy of all the inspection reports back in August and September when these first occurred. He was talking to Mr. Bottino on his cell phone and I spoke to him reference these cases. He was well aware that there were violations. I have severe problems in this area. This is just a tip of the iceberg in this area, getting to -- them to comply to violations out Page 6 November 13, 2003 there. And I respectfully request that this continuance be denied. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. How about any members of the Board, any comments? MS. DUSEK: I have one question for Carol. Why do you want this case to be heard today? I mean, what is the compelling reason that you would want this case to be heard today? MS. SYKORA: Due to the fact that these tenants are living in conditions like this. They have to pay high rent. It's up to $750 a month. They've tried and tried to get the owners of these units to comply with repairing, and they give up and call me. There are very many more out there, but people are very afraid to call and complain, due to eviction problems. And I know what goes on out there. And I've had a hard time getting compliance. And I believe that the rush to get these fixed is only because of the threat of the Code Enforcement Board. That's my opinion. MS. DUSEK: Is there immediate danger of any sort? Any health or safety? MS. SYKORA: Well, the one that someone is living in -- the other two are vacated now. But one where she's living, they have did (sic) a rush on doing the repairs. There are some repairs yet to be done on it. The other one, I spoke to the lady yesterday, she had to leave due to the conditions. She had a premature baby. Roaches and so forth in there. But the one, the initial one they rerented without me inspecting it. And I did an inspection yesterday. Yes, most of it was fixed, but they did not call me as requested for inspection before rental. I'm afraid that the other ones will be rented in these conditions without an inspection first, as -- with a promise that it will be done and then it never gets done. Page 7 November 13, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I think that's sufficient information. We're getting a lot more information than really is -- I think is leading toward the testimony side. That the county doesn't want to continue is sufficient. The respondent is asking for it to be continued. The Board needs to -- I'm sorry, but based on the limited knowledge, unless we're going to hear the case, we're going to have to make a judgment call, so -- MR. CRONIN: May I just put on one other thing, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. CRONIN: Excuse me. I just wanted to point out that, with respect to 602, which is the property that has been, you know, 98 percent repaired, Mr. Bottino only received notification of this action on November 7th. So clearly, you know, once -- he's gone forward in good faith to try to make those repairs. As you pointed out, the other two units are in fact vacant. And I think a 30-day period of time will be sufficient for us to try to get those repaired and to go forward. And, you know, I'm comfortable making the representation that no rental will be undertaken during that period of time until the county has had a chance to go back in. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, sir. MS. DUSEK: I have a question for Jean. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. DUSEK: I think it's just our own rules or bylaws that say that they need a 1 O-day notice. But it's not a law, I mean, it's not an ordinance. Do they need to have the 1 O-day notice? MS. RAWSON: Well, it's in our rules, and I think that they get copies of our rules with the petition. That's true. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But the statute says that as long as any information is sent to the legal address that's provided to, like the tax assessor's office or on record, and it's posted in the courthouse, that's Page 8 November 13, 2003 sufficient. MS. RAWSON: That's also correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. CRONIN: Is the corporation -- there was two problems, if I could just point this out. One was that there's a New York address for the property and there was a forwarding order that was on place for that. And the second one is the registered agent of the corporation had moved to Texas. So that was forwarded and that information was never forwarded to the respondent either. So it's only since November 7th that he actually physically received the materials. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MR. CRONIN: Okay? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But the addresses that were located, I'm sure, in the State of Florida with the Secretary of State. MR. CRONIN: Those had not been -- those had not been -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They hadn't been changed, so that's not the county's fault. MR. CRONIN: No, not at all. I just -- the only, the only -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Just so we understand. MR. CRONIN: Right. My only point is that, you know, he had undertaken the repairs even before he had received actual notice, physically received the materials. All right? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. Any other comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear a motion from the Board to grant or not to grant? MS. DUSEK: I'm inclined to deny the motion, because I am concerned about the limited amount of information we received from the county, that it sounds like a health issue. MS. BARNETT: I'm in agreement with you. Page 9 November 13, 2003 MS. DUSEK: MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. to deny the request for continuance. (No response.) aye. I make a motion that we deny the continuance. We have a motion and a second Any further discussion? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Motion is denied. Cases will be heard. MS. SYKORA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Motion to request time extension, BCC versus Carter Fence. MR. BLUNT: Good morning. For the record, Steve Blunt. I'm an attorney with Woodward, Pires, Lombardo. And I'm-- Mr. Pires, Tony Pires, apologizes for his inability to be here today but unfortunately he had a trial over in the courthouse, so he asked me to fill in for him today. We're asking on behalf of Kenneth Carter for an extension of time to come into compliance with the prior order of this Board. My client has made every effort to come into compliance within the time frame. He is building a new facility out in White Lake Corporate Park and has attempted to obtain permits and everything, and that process has been slowed by changes, design changes necessary to the building. He's making every effort to comply. He has obtained and provided the staff with copies of his loan commitments, and approximately $780,000 has spent, over $100,000 trying to comply already up to now. He is making every effort to comply. He is also making efforts to minimize the impact that the violation would have on the surrounding area by moving materials Page 10 November 13, 2003 that were stored in violation to an area that is not visible from the streets, and has made sure that there's no heavy equipment on the property and has altered the schedule that his workers follow so as not to be a' disruption. It's my understanding that the staff supports our request for an extension, and we would respectfully request for an additional six months for him to complete this facility so that he can have everything moved out and come into compliance with this Board's order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Comments from the county? MS. HILTON: Michelle said as long.as he moved the heavy equipment, as Mr. Blunt indicated, she had no objections. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BLUNT: And just so the record is clear, the only heavy equipment or anything even close to heavy equipment that I'm aware of is a small John Deer tractor that's still on the property. Other than that, there's no heavy equipment there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Comments from the Board? MR. PONTE: I'd just like a little explanation of why -- I don't quite understand why there should be an additional six months. That's a long time. MR. BLUNT: Well, we're in the permitting process, and as indicated to the staff earlier, they anticipate that once the permit is issued for the new facility, that the construction can be complete within five months thereafter. We anticipate the permit to be issued any time now. So we are going to attempt to come into compliance as soon as possible, obviously. But we do anticipate approximately a five-month window of time to complete the construction once the permit is actually issued. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MS. BARNETT: Am I wrong or did I remember Michelle saying that she wanted all the stored items off of the residential Page 11 November 13, 2003 property into an area not just secluded in the residential property? MS. HILTON: Initially, yes. But then after speaking to Mr. Pires, they came to an arrangement. MS. BARNETT: Okay, because that wasn't included. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Motion to grant or deny the request for time extension? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we grant the extension for the time. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to grant a six-month extension to our order. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Got your six months, sir. MR. BLUNT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The request for imposition of fines on Higginbotham. MS. HILTON: Yes -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I hope I said that right. MS. HILTON: -- I believe they're actually going to be asking for an extension of time. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. LUFT-BARTHOFF: My name is Carrie Luft-Barthoff, and I just wanted to give you an update. Dixie Higginbotham and myself went to -- in front of Judge Brousseau, and we stopped the foreclosure, which was a nice thing for him to do. Page 12 November 13, 2003 In the meantime, I found out that we really did need to consult an attorney, which we did, Doug Rankin. We spent two hours with him last week and he has put together all the documents. I called Bank One, who now is cooperating, and they are deciding how they're going to go forward, if they're going to join into a lawsuit with Dixie Higginbotham, you know, in -- pertaining to all of this, because they really don't want to go ahead and start the foreclosure proceeding and everything all over again. So unfortunately, you knoTM, waiting for their attorney and Doug Rankin to get the information together and then, you know, Bank One/Saxton Mortgage, there's a little bit of a time problem here, because everybody hasn't decided how they're going to move ahead. So my -- I just wanted to request that we have a couple of more weeks or a month until everybody decides how they're going to proceed on this, whether or not they are going to let the property go and it go into foreclosure, because there's just so many obstacles. There's title problems, there's permit CO problems, there's fines. You know, there's all kinds of things. And if we just go ahead and impose all of that, then I'm just afraid that Bank One is just going to pull out completely and then they're going to be left without a home. So I'm asking for an extension. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Comments from the county? Do you have problems with extending the imposition.9 MS. HILTON: No. Michelle said she wouldn't have a problem. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: You-- are you-- you're asking for a 30-day extension? MS. LUFT-BARTHOFF: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next meeting. MS. HILTON: Now, our next meeting is December 12th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So it's about, close to 30 days. MS. DUSEK: Well, at our next meeting. Page 13 November 13, 2003 And at that -- what I'm concerned about, there are the violations, that's why you're here, and all the other parts of this, foreclosure and the bank situations is not really part of what we do or are concerned with. What we want to see is that these violations are addressed. So my question is, along with straightening out all the other parts of the problem, will she be able to complete the violations, the correction of the violations within this 30-day period? Because otherwise, you'd be coming before us again. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, one thing. This request is only the imposition of fines. It's not a request to extend our order. This is just imposing the fines. So the order, whatever the time limit was there, is still running. This is just imposing the fines, which is in a separate and aside from the order. So you're only asking for the fines not to be imposed yet, which is what we were going to do last month. MS. LUFT-BARTHOFF: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: Thank you for that clarification. MS. LUFT-BARTHOFF: Yeah, thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So as far as just imposing the fines, nothing to do with the order-- MS. DUSEK: Yes, yes, you're right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- any other comments from the Board? MS. BARNETT: If that's the case, I feel that we should go ahead and grant the extension of 30 days and bring it back at the next CEB hearing. I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MS. DUSEK: I second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to 'grant a extension to our next meeting on imposing the fines only. Any other questions? Page 14 November 13, 2003 aye. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. LUFT-BARTHOFF: CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? You got your extension, ma'am. Thank you very much. Okay, motions over. We now get to the actual public hearings on cases. First case, 2003-048. MS. HILTON: Yes. Our first case is Board of County Commissioners versus Monika-- and that's, M-O-N-I-K-A-- van Stone, CEB No. 2003-048. 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. We had previously provided the Board and the respondent with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'd entertain a motion to accept the County's Exhibit A. MR. PONTE: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 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). MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of Sections 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Page 15 November 13, 2003 Land Development Code. The description of the violation: Observed two wooden horse stables, a wooden shed with electric and an apartment/guest house with electric, plumbing, air conditioning and septic improvements. All improvements made without first obtaining authorization of a Collier County building permit and having all of the required inspections and Certificate of Completion and Occupancy. Location where violations exists: 795 25th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, Golden Gate Estates, Folio No. 36816880006. Name and address of owner in charge of location where violations exists: Monika van Stone, 5231 Mahogany Ridge Street, Naples, Florida. Date violation first observed: July 17th, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: July 20th, 2003, by certified mail, return receipt requested, of which mailing was never returned by the post office. And posting of the property and the courthouse. Date on which violation to be corrected: August 2nd, 2003. Date of reinspection: Was this week. And result of the reinspection: Is the violation remains. And the evidentiary packet was sent regular and certified mail, and posting of property in courthouse. And at this time, I'd 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, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Good morning. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good morning, Jeff. MR. LETOURNEAU: On July 17th, I responded to a complaint by a Denise Church, who stated that she was renting an apartment in the back of the property. Upon arriving, ! got her to sign an entry consent form and observed -- as you see, that big structure right Page 16 November 13, 2003 there, we have an -- there was an apartment where I marked in yellow on the east side. The one quarter of it was turned into an apartment. It has electric, plumbing and AC improvements. I also observed two horse stables, a small one behind the garage and a larger double one over here to the south. And I also observed a small shed that held a washer and dryer, which I marked -- you can't see it in the picture above, but it's underneath these trees right over here. That's the garage right there, and that's the entrance that was turned into an apartment. As you can see, it has a full kitchen, also a bathroom. And there's a small shed that I observed. As you can see, the shed has a washer and a dryer and an electric box inside. None of it's been permitted. After I went to the residence, I pulled the property card and found out that only three things had ever been permitted on this property: The primary structure, the garage, and a re-roof of the house. So the apartment, the small shed and the horse stables never had permits for them. I met with the owner, Monika van Stone, her attorney and a friend of hers on-site on, let me see, 8-19-2003, and they told me that they were going to fix everything up. So I said that's fine. Previous rechecks, I called Ms. King, who wanted to be the one that was contacted for Ms. van Stone, that was her friend. And she said that she was waiting, she had had an eye infection, this and that, and one excuse after another. And I finally said I'm going to have to take this case before the CEB if nothing is done. And she got very belligerent with me and hung up, and I haven't -- I've tried numerous calls afterwards and no response from her or the owner. As of yesterday I went by the property. The property is totally enclosed by Australian pines, so I can't really see if the violations have been abated, except for the horse stables, I can see, still remain. So I don't know if the apartment has been removed or the shed has Page 17 November 13, 2003 been removed. Nobody's given me a call to let me come inspect the property, which is one of the orders to correct I want. If we do find a violation, and they do remove it, I want to be able to come on the property and be able to see it, because I can't -- can't get it -- see anything due to the vegetation around the property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jeff, do they have utilities to these stables, too? MR. LETOURNEAU: It looks like they've got some kind of makeshift electric running to the stables also, yes. I'm sorry I didn't get photos of the stables. MR. PONTE: Jeff, are there any explanations from her attorney as to why there's been no response, or -- other than that eye operation that you mentioned? MR. LETOURNEAU: None. I never called the attorney back. I just -- they told me that they wanted me to deal with Kimberly King. And after the time that she kind of got mad at me, she never called me back or never returned my calls. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Jeff?. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Determination by the Board. Finding of fact is required. MS. DUSEK: I'd like to make a motion, using my partner's glasses, since I forgot mine. In the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Monika van Stone, in CEB Case No. 2003-048, that there is a violation. The violation is of Sections 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: Observed two wooden horse stables, a wooden shed with electric, and an apartment/guest house Page 18 November 13, 2003 with electric, plumbing, air conditioning and septic improvements. All improvements made without first obtaining authorization of a Collier County building permit and having all of the required inspections and Certificate of Completion and Occupancy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that in fact a violation does exist. Do I hear a second? MR. DORIA: Second. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that a violation does exist. Any further questions? 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. MR. PONTE: I have a question how we might address this. There are several violations here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Two. MR. PONTE: There are -- seems to me that there -- the staff has recommended a $50 fine. Is it $50 per? Are we talking about $100 here or are we talking about -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you say so, sir. The staff's recommendation is just $50 a day. I'll be quite honest with you, whoever makes a motion, my recommendation is it be per violation. There are two written violations, 2.7.6.1, 2.7.6.5. MR. PONTE: I agree with you, I think that's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the Board. Anyone like to make a motion? MR. PONTE: Well, let's just take it and try. A recommendation would be that the respondent pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by submitting a complete and sufficient building permit applications Page 19 November 13, 2003 for all of the described structure improvements, or remove all the structures within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violations continue. A must cause required inspections is to be performed and respondent is to obtain a Certificate of Completion for each structure within 45 days after obtaining the required building permits, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violations continue. Respondent must also notify the code enforcement that the violations have been abated and must also request that an investigator come out and perform a site inspection. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: For clarity, the operational cost is a separate item. Is that your motion, sir? MR. PONTE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We don't want to tie those together with anything. And the $100 a day is -- which we're still in the safe zone, is because there are two separate violations; rather than do $50 per violation, you just rounded it off to $100 a day? MR. PONTE: Yes, sir. Thank you. MS. DUSEK: Wait, a minute, I don't understand that. He did $50 per vi -- I mean $100 per violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, he did $100 per day. MS. DUSEK: Per day? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what he said, per day. That's why I asked him that question, just to make sure. He said $100 per day, rather than $50 per day. MS. DUSEK: Per violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He could do $50 per violation, which would still be $100 a day. So he just said $100 a day, which I could live with that. MR. PONTE: If it's not clear, I'll be happy to amend it to say $50 per violation. Page 20 November 13, 2003 MS. DUSEK: MR. PONTE: MS. DUSEK: MR. PONTE: Per day. Per day. That makes it clearer for me. So amended. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Got that, Jean? MS. RAWSON: Got it. MS. BARNETT: I will second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And that's in both items. MS. BARNETT: I will second the amended motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Motion carries. Next item, Case No. 2003-49. MS. HILTON: Yes. This is Board of County Commissioners versus Aljo, Inc., CEB Case No. 2003-049. And the respondent is represented by attorney -- I'm sorry, I -- what was your name? MR. CRONIN: Dennis. MS. HILTON: Dennis. MR. CRONIN: Cronin. C-R-O-N-I-N. MS. HILTON: We have previously provided the Board and the respondent with an evidentiary packet we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. MS. DUSEK: Exhibit A. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I make a motion that we accept the County's We have a motion and a second to Page 21 November 13, 2003 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 ordinance -- MS. RAWSON: Excuse me, Shanelle. MS. HILTON: I'm sorry. MS. RAWSON: Could you get him a packet? He didn't have that particular address, the 309 Cereus Drive. I think he testified earlier in the motion for continuance he had the other two but he didn't have this one. MS. HILTON: We'll get you a copy. MS. RAWSON: 049. Sorry for the interruption. MS. HILTON: Mr. Mountford has an extra copy. MR. MOUNTFORD: Mr. Chairman, for the record, William Mountford, Assistant County Attorney. I believe I have a extra copy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MS. BARNETT: Cliff, should we give him a minute or two to CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: two to read through that? MR. CRONIN: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Cronin, do you need a minute or Okay. MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of Ordinance No. 89-06, as amended. Section five, subsections one, 12(I), 12(O), 12(P) and 16(C). And Ordinance No. 2002-05, Section 17, the Minimum Housing Code. Description of the violation: Did witness a dwelling which is creating an immediate safety and health hazard to adjacent neighbors and neighborhood due to lack of maintenance, obsolences (sic), Page 22 November 13, 2003 which is O-B-S-O-L-E-S-C-E-N-S-E, or abandonment, and which contain defects which increase the hazard of fire, accidents or other calamities. Location where violation exists: 309 Cereus -- C-E-R-E-U-S -- Drive, Naples, Florida. More particularly described as Folio No. 29875100747. Name and address of owner in charge of location where violation exists, as listed with the official public records of the property appraiser, Aljo, Inc., 39 Chuck Boulevard, North Babylon, New York, 11703. Date violation first observed: August 1 lth, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: August 11 th, 2003. Date on which violation was to be corrected: Was immediately. Date of reinspection: Was yesterday. Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And the CEB packet was sent regular and certified mail to the address listed with the property appraiser and the address listed with the Division of Corporations. And the property was also posted, as well as the courthouse. And at this time, I would like to turn the case over to the investigator, Carol Sykora, to present the case to the Board. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. SYKORA: Good morning. For the record, my name is Carol Sykora, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. Back in August 1 lth, I received a complaint from the tenant at 309 Cereus Drive, which is at a community called Diamond Shores, and it's located off the very end of Port Au Prince Road off 951. I obtained a entry consent signed form and inspected the residence on August 1 lth, 2003. And inside, I found several violations. One, the rear bathroom faucet was leaking. The kitchen sink pipes leaked and had backed up. The rear bathtub leaked into the wall. Air conditioner, the Page 23 November 13, 2003 breaker kept shutting off. And the front bedroom door was off, and also the rear bathroom door was off. The rear bathroom wall was rotted, due to moisture. And there was a severe roach problem. They were actually crawling around on the counter while I was in there. They were laying all over the counter, dead and walking around alive, it was so bad. And also, no smoke detectors. On August 29th, there was no one home, but I did speak to the maintenance man who was -- Dennis Thomas was his name at the time. And he advised that he did some work in there. But however, I could not enter in to check it. Then on 9/15, on September 15th, I spoke to the complainant who said she moved because she was -- she really couldn't stand living there anymore, and that nothing was actually done to inside the unit. So she had left the unit at the time. I had extended it due to the fact no one was living in there. But eventually, as I found out yesterday upon my reinspection, that they rerented this without an inspection. The new maintenance man, Richard, let me in to check. I had obtained a signed entry consent form. Upon inspection, I found that the repairs were done, except for the smoke detectors. However, they should have had me inspect this before they rerented it. Any questions? MS. DUSEK: Carol, how -- when you came into this apartment again, this dwelling, and one of the items that you showed us were the infestation of roaches, what was your observation yesterday, and was there any documentation to show that a pest company had come out and taken care of this problem? MS. SYKORA: They did not show me any documentation. They say they have a company that regularly comes out and sprays. I did not visibly see any roaches in there. However, I know it is a Page 24 November 13, 2003 problem to eliminate them. But it looked a lot cleaner in there. I didn't see them-- any dead ones laying around like I did initially, it was terrible. MS. BARNETT: I have a question. The wall that was damaged due to water, has that been fixed? MS. SYKORA: Yes, they fixed the wall and all the other violations. They do not have any smoke detectors in there, that's the one thing that has to be done in this particular -- MS. BARNETT: And someone is living there currently? MS. SYKORA: Yes. I was told that he's like an assistant maintenance man to Richard, the present one. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Carol? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir, Mr. Cronin. Thank you. MS. SYKORA: Thank you, Board. MR. CRONIN: Do you want to swear us? I'd like to have Mr. Burchell also testify as well. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay.. That's fine. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. CRONIN: I'd like to just have Mr. Burchell explain what the circumstances were, that the repairs have been made and the smoke detectors were actually installed last evening. MR. BURCHELL: Yes, sir. MR. CRONIN: Identify yourself. MR. BURCHELL: My name is Richard Burchell. I'm a maintenance man. B-U-R-C-H-E-L-L. I've only taken the job in the last three, three-and-a-half weeks. I did not know that this address was under code violation. I went in as a -- it was an empty unit. I cleaned it out, I fixed everything that needed to be fixed. I rented it. I had no clue it was under code violation until yesterday. The only thing I failed to do was put smoke alarms in. I gave them to the man last night. He did install Page 25 November 13, 2003 them. I was there this morning to check, make sure they were up on the wall. I've got a lot of violations out here. If you give me time and patience, I'm willing to do the work. The last maintenance man was taking the money and blowing it on other things than the work, and he also stole a lot of money from the owners of this. If you have patience with me, I will get these things fixed and up to date as soon as possible. I just need some time. And as far as 309, it's complete. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The bug infestation, did you ask a pest control company to come out? How did you resolve that issue? MR. BURCHELL: I bombed the place twice myself with foggers, they're called. You get them at Home Depot. And then we called -- ABC pest control comes out once every two months. We do make special calls to them when the units are empty so they can come in and get a good spraying to them. They did hit that unit and a couple other units I did have empty. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for-- MR. CRONIN: It certainly appears that we've complied with the Board. If you want to make a finding of violation, I certainly think that that's within your authority to do, but certainly, obviously the measures have been taken to correct the violations. So we would respectfully request that you not institute any type of penalty with respect to this. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, gentlemen. Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Even though violations appear to have been corrected, we can still not only find a finding of fact that the violations existed, but we could impose, definitely, the operational Page 26 November 13, 2003 costs to bring them forward? MS. RAWSON: That is correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have another question for Jean. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: If we find a finding of fact and they have to come in front of us again, now, would the fines be potentially doubled at that point? MS. RAWSON: No. Because -- well, it depends on how much time you give them to come into full compliance and when the fines would start to run. They wouldn't automatically double. In other words, if you give them 30 days and 30 days passes and they haven't done the work, then you can do a hearing on imposition of fines. MR. LEFEBVRE: No, what I mean is, if they were to come back again. MS. RAWSON: Oh, you're talking about a repeat violation? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. MS. RAWSON: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Carol, you can sit down, if you'd like. MS. SYKORA: Oh, okay. I figured I've got two more, I might as well -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, we're going to do them separately. MS. SYKORA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, questions or finding of fact? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Aljo, Inc., Case -- CEB Case No. 2003-049, that there is a violation. The violation is of Ordinance No. 89-06, as amended, Section five, sub-sections 1, 12(J), 12(O), 12(P), and 16(C), and Ordinance No. 2002-05, Section 17, the Minimum Housing Code. Description of the violation: Did witness a dwelling which is creating an immediate safety and health hazard to adjacent neighbors Page 27 November 13, 2003 and neighborhood due to lack of maintenance obsolescence' of abandonment -- or abandonment and which contain defects which increase the hazards of fire, accident or other calamities. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to make one amendment to that. MS. DUSEK: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's just a technical issue. It's 12(I), under -- MS. DUSEK: Okay. Well, that might have been the glasses that I was wearing. MR. LEFEBVRE: In your defense. MS. DUSEK: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: A little comma there, so it looks like J. MS. DUSEK: Yes, okay. MR. PONTE: I'd like to suggest that it be worded, reworded into the past tense. It says there is a violation. There was a violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We haven't had an inspection, so considering right now there still exists a violation until some type of inspection would be done. He's saying he corrected that, but there's been no verification, so technically it still remains. MR. PONTE: Well, the only violation then that remains, according to Carol, is the lack of smoke detectors. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, he has testified that they were installed. But again, the county has not been let out onto the property to inspect anything. So if you want to take the testimony as gospel that all repairs have been made, I would agree with you. And that's what we've heard, so -- MS. BARNETT: She said that all of them have been made except for the smoke detectors and she saw it yesterday. MS. DUSEK: Now, Jean, I have a question, because we have had this sort of situation before. And it was my understanding that we can still say is, because the violations occurred at the time that the notice was given that they came before the Board. MS. RAWSON: Correct. Page 28 November 13, 2003 MS. DUSEK: So is it incorrect to say that there is a violation, or must we say there was a violation for certain things and then there's not for-- MS. RAWSON: Well, you've done it both ways. If you think' there is -- based on the testimony of the County Code Enforcement Board inspector, if you think that there's only one remaining violation, you can find that one remaining violation and give them so many days to correct. You can always say that all of these others were violations at the time that this case was brought. And you certainly can order operational costs for that. But it happens a lot of times that things get fixed right before we have our meeting. So technically there was a violation, now the violation has been abated, so if the violation is abated and it's abated forthwith and there's nothing left to be fixed, you know, there may not be any fines ever that really get imposed. But you can say "is". MS. DUSEK: All right. So it was -- MS. RAWSON: It depends on the definition of "is". MS. DUSEK: So the way I read the read the order was correct to say "is"? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. DUSEK: And I'm only amending the (I), from the (J) to the (I). MS. BARNETT: I will second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other comments? If none, do I hear a second? MS. BARNETT: I said second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sheri seconded. We have a motion and a second that in fact a violation did or does exist. That's about as safe as I can get. Any further questions? (No response.) Page 29 November 13, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MR. RAMSEY: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MR. PONTE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the Board. Aye. Any opposed? One. 6-1. Just for my fellow Board members, I think the order of the Board should include operational costs, since we have had testimony that the conditions have been abated. I think the order should be some type of inspection within "X" days so that the county is assured that they are in fact complied with and completed. MS. BARNETT: I'll attempt this. MS. DUSEK: Good. MS. BARNETT: I'd like to make a motion that Aljo, Inc. be required to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case, and that they must call for an inspection within the next 10 days. If there are violations that do exist, I would give them an additional 10 days or impose a $100 a day fine until those violations are completed. Does that work? MS. DUSEK: I like your motion except for the time frame. Since we have testimony that everything has been done except -- MS. BARNETT: Hasn't really been inspected completely, so I just -- MS. DUSEK: That's right, it's -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We just don't know yet, so -- MS. DUSEK: Just -- but the 1 O-day and then the 1 O-day, I think Page 30 November 13, 2003 maybe it-- MS. BARNETT: I'm just saying if she finds any other-- MS. DUSEK: I think that's good. I think that the motion is good. I would like to see a shorter time frame. MS. BARNETT: What would you like to see? MS. DUSEK: Just because it's -- we have testimony that it has been done and the smoke detectors are the only thing that have not been inspected. So, I mean, if you could at least take it down to a week, a week. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Today is Thursday, so why don't we give them until something like next Friday to request an inspection and have the inspection accomplished by that period of time? MS. BARNETT: That's what, eight days? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That gives what, five, six working days. Surely they can make a phone call or tell the county now that they'd like an inspection and the county can arrange to get out there between now and next Friday. If everything's done, it's a done deal. If it's not done, then the second part of your motion would be giving them, if you want to leave it at 10 or Bobbie would like it -- MS. DUSEK: It's all right. I mean, eight, 10 days, it doesn't really make any difference in that time frame. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But I think trying to get it done by, like, tomorrow, may be difficult, not knowing if the county can drop everything and run out there tomorrow. I honestly don't know. I think we need a little bit of time just to get everybody organized. MS. DUSEK: Well, let's just leave it as is. MS. BARNETT: I'll change it to seven -- I'll give them a working week-- MS. DUSEK: Okay. MS. BARNETT: -- in order to make the call and have the inspections done. And therefore, if you do find any violations, then I'll give them another working week in order to have those violations Page 31 November 13, 2003 corrected or they will be imposed with a $100 a day fine. MS. DUSEK: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further question? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If not, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Next case, 2003-050. MS. HILTON: That's Board of County Commissioners versus Aljo, Inc., CEB Case No. 2003-050. And the respondent has representation. We have previously provided the Board and the respondent with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. I make a motion that we accept the County's MS. DUSEK: Exhibit A. MR. PONTE: So moved. 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.) MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of Ordinance No. 89-06, as amended, Section five, subsections 1, 4, 8, 9, 12(C), 12(I), 12(K), 12(P) and 16(C), and Ordinance No. 2002-05, Section 17, the Minimum Housing Code. The description of the violation: Did witness a dwelling which Page 32 November 13, 2003 is creating an immediate safety and health hazard to adjacent neighbors and neighborhood due to lack of maintenance, obsolences (sic) or abandonment and which contain defects which increase the hazard of fire, accident or other calamities. Location where violation exists: 602 Finch Drive, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 29875103061. Name and address of owner in charge of location where violation exists, as registered with the property appraiser: Aljo, Inc., 39 Chuck Boulevard, North Babylon, New york, 11703. Date violation first observed: August 1 lth, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: August 11 th, 2003. Date on which violation was to be corrected: Was immediately. Date of reinspection: Was yesterday. And result of reinspection: The violation remains. And the CEB packet was sent certified mail, return receipt requested, and regular mail to the addresses listed with the property appraiser and the Division of Corporations, and was posted at the property and the courthouse. And at this time, I'd like to turn the case over to the investigator, Carol Sykora, to present the case to the Board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we did it under another case, and it's a different case number. So let's do everybody all at once, since it's a -- (All speakers duly sworn.) MS. SYKORA: For the record again, I'm Carol Sykora, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. I received a complaint back in September and inspected this mobile home on the 23rd of September, 2003. I obtained a signed entry consent form. Upon inspection, I found that the kitchen pipe was not connected at all. The rear bathtub drained on the outside to the ground. There was mold under the bathroom, in the bathroom under Page 33 November 13, 2003 the sink. There was actually no ductwork. There was a hole to the ground under the register in the living room, as you can see in the picture up on the screen. There was no outlet for the dryer. There are holes and water damage to the ceilings in the front bedroom closet and also in the bathroom off of that bedroom. The front door was not fitted in the frame and it was not weather tight at the bottom. The lanai door did not lock. There were infestation of roaches. And no smoke detectors. This is one of the holes in the ceiling. And the other one's going to be too hard to see, but it's cracked and broken. Those have not been repaired. Upon reinspection yesterday, on November 12th, I found that all of a sudden a lot of the repairs were being done. The tenant stated that they've been coming there every morning because of the Code Enforcement Board hearing. My -- they have completed most of the repairs. The ductwork I did not feel was sufficiently repaired. It looked like just some foil tape was taped around connecting it to the register, which probably would just fall right off again. The water damage to the ceiling, the hole in the bathroom ceiling and the hole in the closet ceiling was not repaired. They stated the roof was repaired, but we'll have to wait for a rain to make sure that it's sufficient. And the roach problem was still evident. I gave the new maintenance man, who's here, Richard, he's fairly new, a copy of the inspection report and told him exactly what needed to be done to comply. Any questions? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All these plumbing problems, Carol, where stuff is just dumping out into the ground, have they reconnected all the plumbing so it actually drains? MS. SYKORA: Yes, they've reconnected-- the kitchen sink Page 34 November 13, 2003 was the first and then the bathtub, which drained right out to the ground. They just recently repaired that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And they fixed all the doors so they work and they're actually on the frames? MS. SYKORA: Yes, they fixed the front entrance door and put new hinges on it. But none of this work has been started until just recently, though. It was just rushed along. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, is there still anyone in there, or is it-- MS. SYKORA: Yes, it is occupied by a tenant and her husband. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other questions from the Board members for Carol? MS. DUSEK: Carol, you're satisfied with your inspection yesterday about the reconnection of the pipes and the doors and -- MS. SYKORA: Yes, but I need to reinspect. They need to finish the violations, repairing the violations. So I do need to reinspect this unit. MS. BARNETT: Carol, what type of roof repair did you notice? I mean, has it totally been redone or just patched or -- MS. SYKORA: Well, like the ductwork, I wasn't satisfied with it, the way it looked. We picked the register up, as we did before, and before I could see to the ground, but this time it looked like there was just some foil tape, taping it up to -- MS. BARNETT: I'm talking about the roof. MS. SYKORA: The roof I, of course, can't get up there to inspect. They stated that they patched it. But the -- in the ceilings they need repair yet. It's holes, and we'll need to see eventually if they repaired the roof sufficiently where it won't leak anymore. MS. BARNETT: My concern is -- I'll ask Richard this, I guess. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions for Carol? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, ma'am. Page 35 November 13, 2003 MS. SYKORA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sir? MR. CRONIN: Mr. Burchell is here to talk about the repairs that have been done so far and the remaining repairs. He's just informed me that he expects that these can be done within the next day, day and a half in order to complete what the county has stated as a continuing violation at this point in time. MR. BURCHELL: Now, the only thing I do have left to do is the two ceilings. I've got to cut them out. I did inform her that she needed to empty her closets and that yesterday so I don't ruin none of her clothes. And the other one's in the bathroom. I've got about a day, day and a half work for it to be done. I can only do it in the mornings there. She's home 'til noon. After noon she goes to work. So I'm in a time frame myself on when I can get in there and get it done. I have patched the roof. Carol said she didn't like the way I did the ductwork. I discussed it with an AC man. You know, he can come out and redo the whole dang trailer, but the one we contract, you know, he's not -- he told me how he would do it. He'd put a patch in it just like I did. If she's not sufficient with it, I'll go down and see about what I can do to pull it a little tighter and up against. Ain't much you can do with it without replacing the whole -- all of the ductwork. The metal parts inside are -- they are a little bit of a pain in the butt to get replaced. In trying to get underneath these trailers and do the work, that's a big problem. I just ask for some more time. I can have them fixed, I just need a little bit more time. MS. DUSEK: Earlier you gave testimony in the other case that ABC Pest Control Company -- MR. BURCHELL: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: -- comes out every two months? MR. BURCHELL: Yes, ma'am. Page 36 November 13, 2003 MS. DUSEK: And will come out as needed. Now, there's been testimony from the inspector that there's still roach infestation. Have -- have -- do you have scheduled the pest control company to come out? MR. BURCHELL: They're scheduled to come this month as their regular -- as their regular come in. They come in like the second week every month. So he's due to get ahold of me. I've yet to deal with this man other than in my empties. I've dealt with him -- before I had took the job he had come in. And if you fail to move your stuff away from the wall, he just sprays the center of the room, and that's where we're having a lot of problems. So I did advise her, you know, when we -- we'll give 'em a two-day notice that we're coming, because I have to let him in to all these units. And I just advised her, you know, if she's got them that bad, pull your stuff away from the walls so he can get the bases of your walls, too, other than the center of the carpet. A lot of it's hard to try to keep control of these because of the people having stuff in their homes and it's all against the walls, and basically that's where they come in at, the edge of the walls. And it -- you know, he does the best he can. And a lot of it has to do with the tenants, you know, how they keep their home. MS. BARNETT: Richard, I'm trying to get a feel for this. Are they mobile homes? MR. BURCHELL: Yes, ma'am. MS. BARNETT: Okay. So there wouldn't be rafters or anything that would have rotted -- MR. BURCHELL: No. MS. ceilings? MR. trusses in MS. BARNETT: -- with you doing the replacement of the BURCHELL: They got -- I think they're two by three them. But it's not a -- BARNETT: Okay. Have you inspected any of those Page 37 November 13, 2003 where those leaks were to see if there's -- MR. BURCHELL: I've yet to cut it down. When I went in -- I went in yesterday evening when her husband come home from work. He let me in. And when I was going to get ready to do it -- I wanted it done before today, but the clothes were all in there and he didn't feel like cleaning out the closet. He said that's his wife's closet. So I told him I'd be over today after court to start on the process. If I've got to replace them, I'll replace them. MS. BARNETT: Yeah, that's my thought is, if you have to replace the rafters, that could take a little bit longer than a half a day or so. MR. BURCHELL: Right. Right. As far as I'm looking at, if-- I was just going to replace a little bit of insulation that I got to tear out and the drywall. I have put a patch on the roof, but like Carol said, I don't know if it's leaking until we get another good rain. I'd like to leave it open so I'd know whether it's leaking or not, but I can't -- unfortunately I can't do that. MR. CRONIN: We'd just respectfully request that maybe a 1 O-day period of time in order to correct these remaining violations similar to the last case may be appropriate. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any additional questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, gentlemen. Finding of fact by the Board that there in fact were some violations and still are some violations. How's that? MR. PONTE: That's good. MS. DUSEK: Do you want to give it a try, Sheri? MS. BARNETT: Sure. In the case of the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, versus Aljo, Inc., CEB No. 2003-050, I find that there were violations. The violations of Ordinance No. 89-06, as amended, Section 5, subsections 1, 4, 8, 9, 12(C), 12(I), 12(K), 12(P), and 16(C), and Ordinance No. 2002-05, Page 38 November 13, 2003 Section 17, of the Minimum Housing Code. The descriptions of the violation: Witness of dwelling which was creating an immediate safety and health hazard to adjacent neighbors and neighborhood due to lack of maintenance, obsolescence or abandonment, and which contained defects which increase the hazard of fire, accident and other calamities. The location where the violation exists: Is 602 Finch Drive, Naples, Florida. MS. DUSEK: Jean, do we have to put "is" and "was" in there, or is "was" sufficient? I thought we cleared that, that we could use MS. BARNETT: "is". MS. RAWSON: You can use "is". MR. PONTE: I think that was worded a little differently. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion that in fact there were/are violations. MS. BARNETT: Were/are/is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear a second? We have a motion and a second that in fact violations were or are present. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Motion carries. Order of the Board. MR. RAMSEY: I'll make a motion that we order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case Page 39 November 13, 2003 and the respondent must complete all repairs and abate all violations within 10 days of the date of this hearing or a fine of $100 a day be imposed for each day the violation continues, and must cause inspections to be performed when repairs are made and allow code enforcement and building official on-site to make official inspections within one day after repairs -- well, we may modify that a bit. And must notify code enforcement the violation has been abated and request the investigator come out and perform the site inspection. MS. BARNETT: I have one concern. I would like to -- in that with the bug infestation, I realize that he is due to have someone come in and spray within this month, but he also has stated that they can call them on an emergency basis, and I would like to see that that have some sort of notification that that has been done. I don't know how to add that into the -- because it is a violation, but I would like to see proof that it has been sprayed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since it is a violation, I would say that MS. BARNETT: How do we include it? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If he calls code enforcement out to check that everything is complete, that we could ask code enforcement for some kind of a copy of the report that the people have been to the property. Normally when they go out and do some kind of spray, you have to sign, because there's a charge, normally. And I think since there is a violation, if we ask code enforcement to get a copy so that they can assure us that, yes, that did happen, we at least know it was sprayed, rather than try to put a line item in the order. MS. BARNETT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since it is a violation I think that's a better -- MS. BARNETT: I just thought it needed to be addressed, because it seems to be a situation that's occurring in a lot of these. Page 40 November 13, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. I think since it is a specific violation found by code enforcement, let's put the onus on them to get a copy of something to show that it actually took place, which is norro, ally a receipt from a pest control company. MS. DUSEK: That it took place within this time frame -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. DUSEK: -- not a month ago. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. And then they can report to us and say, yes, in abating the violations we saw that spraying actually took place as requested. I think that might help. MS. BARNETT: Okay. I just wanted to get that out. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion for an order of the Board. Any further discussion? MS. BARNETT: I will make a second to his motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next case, 2003-051. MS. HILTON: The respondent is represented by an attorney, and we have previously provided the Board and the respondent with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: May I take one moment, please. I forgot to do this before I opened my mouth. Cherie', do you need a break? THE COURT REPORTER: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Continue, please. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. Page 41 November 13, 2003 MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: This is Board of County Commissioners versus Aljo, Inc., CEB Case No. 2003-051. The alleged violation is of Ordinance No. 89-06, as amended, Section 5, subsections 1, 10, 11, 12(F), 12(I), 12(K), 12(O), 12(P) and 16(C), and Ordinance No. 2002-05, Section 17, the Minimum Housing Code. The description of the violation: Did witness a dwelling which is creating an immediate safety and health hazard to adjacent neighbors and neighborhood, due to lack of maintenance, obsolences (sic) or abandonment, and which contain defects which increase the hazard of fire, accident or other calamities. Location where violation exists: 608 Finch Drive, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 29875103126. Name and address of owner in charge of location where violation exists, as listed with the official records of the property appraiser: Aljo, Inc., 39 Chuck Boulevard, North Babylon, New York, 11703. Date violation first observed: August 11 th, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: August 11 th, 2003. Date on which violation was to be corrected: Was immediately. Date of reinspection: Was yesterday. Result of reinspection: Is violation remains. And the evidentiary packet was sent regular and certified mail to the addresses listed by the property appraiser and the Division of Corporations, and the property was posted, as well as the courthouse. Page 42 November 13, 2003 And at this time, I would like to turn the case over to Investigator Carol Sykora to present the case to the Board. (All speakers duly sworn.) MS. SYKORA: For the record again, I'm Carol Sykora, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. I have received a complaint from the tenant of minimum housing that the management did not want to correct any of the violations after repeatedly asking them. I obtained a signed entry consent form and inspected the mobile home. Inside I found that the tub and shower-- tub or shower leaked into the wall. The tub faucet was loose, pulling away from the wall. The rear bathroom door did not close. The frame was rotted and broken, due to this moisture from the leaks. There was no lights in the hallway. And exposed wires in the kitchen ceiling. And no covers to the receptacles. The porch stairs were -- the wooden stairs were rotted and loose. The lanai door did not fit into the frame and. Therefore, it would not lock. The floor was weak by the front door. The kitchen rear hall and bath, the floor was rotten and weak, with the tiles pulling off. The rear bedroom wall, there was a hole by the closet. There was roach and ant problems. And no smoke detectors. Yesterday, November 12th, I visited the location, and there were no repairs done to this unit. I called and spoke to the tenant and she stated she just recently left. She moved due to the fact she could not stand to live in here anymore. So now it is empty, but all these repairs, my fear is that it may be rented before all the inspection-- of the inspection is complete and all the repairs are done. Any questions? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Questions for Carol? MS. DUSEK: Can I ask that you put the picture back where Page 43 November 13, 2003 you showed the tub? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There we go. Okay. MS. DUSEK: Can you tell me what the dark -- MS. SYKORA: The faucet itself, the tenant was showing me how it was loose around the wall, the pipes were loose. MS. DUSEK: And what's the dark? MS. SYKORA: That's all like mold and rot -- MS. DUSEK: No, to the left, excuse me. MR. PONTE: Like a blob. MS. SYKORA: Oh, I think that's just something -- MS. DUSEK: I just wanted to be sure. MS. SYKORA: This is the tub area also. It shows how the door is just rotted off, the wall is all rotten. It's all wet from water damage. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions for Carol? MS. BARNETT: Carol, on the floor. I have concerns on this particular unit, because I don't know -- I'm not a repairman, but I have dealt with trailers before, and when a floor goes, it's pretty hard to repair, because it's a lot of your foundation. And it can get quite expensive. And I just -- I'm looking at this floor and I'm looking at all this water damage, and I'm really kind of concerned about it. Is it really soft and weak or-- MS. SYKORA: It's weak. And she taped it like that herself, because the tiles are pulling up and off and the children were tripping. And I even tripped myself in there. It's -- MS. BARNETT: I was kind of appalled that there was a child in here with exposed wires and stuff, too. MS. SYKORA: I know. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But they -- she has since left? MS. SYKORA: She has left. She just recently left. I spoke to her on the phone and she said, I just couldn't stay there anymore. No Page 44 November 13, 2003 repairs were even attempted to be done. They claimed that -- I believe Mr. Bottino's attorneys stated that Mr. Bottino said that she would not allow them in to do the repairs. But that would be kind of foolish to call a complaint in and not have someone come in and do the repairs, so -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions? MR. PONTE: Yeah, in your opinion is this repairable, or is the damage, because it is a trailer, so extensive that it really makes more sense to demolish it or move it away? MS. SYKORA: I believe it could probably be repaired. But I would -- again must inspect it before -- this one in particular. It's so damaged from water that it would need to be reinspected, of course, before anyone rented it again. And that's what I want to be assured of, that no one will be -- that living in this with a contention that this will be repaired while they're living in there, which happens a lot, and then it never gets done. I'm in hopes that with the new maintenance man, that I'm going to try to work with him and see if we can prevent more cases from coming to the Board. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any additional questions for Carol? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, ma'am. MS. SYKORA: Thank you. MR. CRONIN: Mr. Chairman, obviously this property is the most distressed of the three that are here, and this was the subject of the request for the continuance at the commencement of the meeting. We recognize the seriousness of the violations that are here, but as we've done with the other ones, we tried to make the repairs. Mr. Burchell can testify that the tenant did not provide access. I mean, he has made the repairs on the other two properties. I mean, that was the situation. But nevertheless, you know, we're stuck with this situation as it Page 45 November 13, 2003 exists now. We believe that it can be repaired, but we are going to want to have a much longer period of time in order to -- because of the seriousness and the lack of access that's been had. According to Mr. Bottino and my conversations with him earlier this week, the tenant only moved out on the 6th of November. So that's the latest time. So 30 to 45 days would be much more -- probably on the outside, 45 to 60 might even be better. And we would stipulate to no rental during that period of time in order to get a substantial opportunity to try to make these repairs. If you'd like to hear from Mr. Burchell, I mean, he's certainly available for any questions that the Board may have. But that would be our position. We certainly acknowledge the existence of the facts as presented by the county, and we'd just like an opportunity to show the good faith that we've done on the other two cases in order to try to get in there and do the repairs. Any questions? MR. PONTE: Yes, I have. Mr. Burchell, is it -- in your opinion, is this fixable? MR. BURCHELL: It's fixable. Not in 10 days. I'm going to need at least 30, 40 days to get it done, even with two of us being in there trying to whip it out. I do have other things I get called out on. You know, I might lose a half a day going to somewhere else. But it is fixable. Most of it is cosmetic. I do have all intentions of replacing the floor in that bathroom. It is weak. The best I could do is rip it up, retruss it and refloor it. That's about basically all I could do. MR. PONTE: Okay. Thank you. MS. BARNETT: Wasn't just the bathroom, was it? Wasn't it also in front of the front door? MS. SYKORA: And in the kitchen also. Page 46 November 13, 2003 MS. BARNETT: And in the kitchen. So it almost sounds like -- from the looks of the picture it almost looks like the washing machine and the bathtub both overflowed at some point in time. MR. BURCHELL: At one point in time there was a hole in the pipe in the wall. And eviden -- I don't know whether she reported it or what, but it did a lot of damage. And I'm going to have to take out several walls and redo them all. The floor ain't too bad in the kitchen. As far as the front door, I think it is a little weak. I just -- MS. BARNETT: Might not need the re -- complete retrussing, but it might need a new floor base, maybe. MR. BURCHELL: Right. Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: I've a question for the county. Is any of this work going to require permits? MS. PETRULLI: Any electrical or plumbing work will need to -- will need to obtain the proper permits. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. And how long would that take? Again, which could possibly slow up the process. MS. PETRULLI: Yeah. Depending on how quickly they get their paperwork in to the county and the adequate paperwork. We're looking, I'd say, Carol, 30 days? MS. SYKORA: To my knowledge, I don't believe any of the work that he's probably going to do requires any permit. I don't think they're going to replace any plumbing or do any major roofing or -- just patching. And I don't believe any permits would be required. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The wires coming out of the ceiling look like somebody took down a light fixture. MS. SYKORA: Right. I think-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So if he installs a light fixture, he doesn't need a permit. MS. SYKORA: -- it just needs to be covered. Even if they don't put a light there, at least a cover to cover the exposed wires. Page 47 November 13, 2003 MS. PETRULLI: And in all fairness, we, the investigator, we really don't have the expertise to say whether the -- it needs to be rewired or the plumbing is correct or not. That would be something that we would have to check into. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, when we ask for an inspection after he's all done, you'll take a building inspector with you, right -- MS. PETRULLI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- that has the expertise to say yes, he did it correctly. MR. LEFEBVRE: There was mention that there was a leak in a pipe in a wall, and if that has to be replaced, if there's going to need to be a permit pulled, we'd like to have that corrected -- done correctly, and before it's sheetrocked again and tiled or whatever, we want to make sure that pipe's not leaking, so we have an inspector going out there. MR. CRONIN: Fine. MS. BARNETT: I had a question, because you said you had to replace some walls. Are any of those walls going to be inclusive of electrical? Because that was another point. MR. BURCHELL: The only thing I'm really replacing, I'm going to tear the drywall off, I'm going to leave the stud work and all the wiring, and I'm just going to re-drywall it. It's just soft, the drywall is soft and has soaked up water and it needs to come down out. MS. BARNETT: Do you think possibly the framework behind it might be also damaged? MR. BURCHELL: A few pieces in that bathroom area. Other than that, I don't think. It wasn't spraying that long of a period to rot it. MS. BARNETT: I just -- I always know when you get in behind a wall or something, you never know what you're going to Page 48 November 13, 2003 get. And I was concerned. MS. SYKORA: The one thing, though, I did speak to Mr. Bottino on the phone because the prior maintenance man was speaking to him on the cell phone. And this was back in September, late -- you know, early October. I spoke to him and he at the time said that he was going to give back this lady her deposit so she could move and this unit could be repaired, and then that fell through and absolutely nothing was done since then. So they did have knowledge of this unit. This lady lived in there until just a few days ago. Finally gave up and left. MR. CRONIN: Well, I mean, I'd like to just have Mr. Burchell say that he did have -- the attempts he did make to try to get in there. MR. BURCHELL: Yeah, I did go over a few times. I put a -- I fixed her front door so it would shut and stay shut. But other -- I went over a few times to try to put electrical, she needed plug covers and she needed that light fixture. She said she didn't have time for me to come in there right at the moment, she was leaving and I'd have to come back at another time. Every time I went back, there was hardly anybody there. And then when I went back to find what she was going to do, whether she was moving into another unit or moving out, she was already gone. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any further questions? MR. CRONIN: The only point is, you know, clearly we demonstrated good faith on the other two units, and we did try to make an attempt here. Obviously that the -- the condition of the unit is substantially deteriorated compared to the other units, but if you give us 45 to 60 days, we think we can get a good head start on it at that point in time and go from there. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions from the Board? Thank you. Page 49 November 13, 2003 Finding of fact that violations do exist. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Aljo, Inc., CEB Case No. 2003-051, that a violation does exist. The violation is of Ordinance No. 89-06, as amended, Section 5, subsections 1, 10, 11, 12(F), 12(I), 12(K), 12(O), 12(P) and 16(C), and Ordinance No. 2002-05, Section 17, the Minimum Housing Code. Description of the violation: The inspector witnessed a dwelling which is creating an immediate safety and health hazard to adjacent neighbors and neighborhood, due to lack of maintenance, obsolescence or abandonment, and which contain defects which increases the hazard of fire, accident or other calamities. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that in fact violations do exist. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the Board. MR. PONTE: As we address crafting this order, I'd like to strongly suggest that some sort of phraseology be included there that would say that Aljo be prohibited from renting the property until all violations are -- have been inspected. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I think that should be a separate line item. Something like pay operational costs be item one. Item two, that Aljo be prohibited from renting until final inspections of and abatement of all violations. And then item three, or however many items we're going to have after that. Anybody interested in taking a stab? Page 50 November 13, 2003 MS. BARNETT: Oh, sure, why not. Okay. In this case, I would like to see that the defendant pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case, that they be prohibited from renting this particular residence until all violations have been abated and inspected, that all repairs and violations should be started within 10 days from this hearing, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day -- I don't like that one. I'll say that the violations need to be started within 10 days and completed within 60 days from the date of this hearing or a fine of $100 a day will be imposed from the day the violation continues. Must have all inspections be performed within, repairs made and allow the code enforcement and building officer on-site to make an official inspection within seven days after the repairs are made or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Respondent must notify the code enforcement the violation has been abated and to request the investigator to come out and perform the site inspections. MS. DUSEK: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, Cherie', do you need time? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, let's take us five minutes, please. It's 20 of, reconvene at quarter of. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next case, 2003-045. MS. HILTON: This -- the respondent on this particular one is Page 51 November 13, 2003 going to be appearing by the telephone. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: we're trying to do this by -- We're working on that. Oh, here it is. Okay. Give me some hints. Since she says MS. RAWSON: Well, there are two respondents. One present, one present telephonically in a moment. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does the telephonic give us a set of problems or-- MS. RAWSON: No, I don't believe it will, as long as -- I don't know whether they're going to have a notary present to swear them in. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, that's what I'm feeling, is how do we know they're actually -- MS. RAWSON: Who they say they are? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. RAWSON: Perhaps CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. RAWSON: Perhaps Who they are-- -- and are they being sworn in? after this respondent is sworn in she can tell the Board whether she recognizes his voice. MS. HILTON: Yes, and Stephen has had conversations with him as well, so he might be able to recognize his voice, too. MS. RAWSON: Then if you recognize -- if you have a couple of people testify that they recognize his voice as being who he says he is, then actually we can have Cherie' swear him in on the phone. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. HILTON: While we're waiting on that, there was a notice of a date change handed out to everybody. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, really? MS. HILTON: Yes. For the workshop for the committee and the boards regarding the Sunshine Law. And it is the same day as Page 52 November 13, 2003 our next Code Board hearing, which is Friday, December 12th. So following the Code Board hearing, this is going to take place from 2:00 to 3:30. MS. RAWSON: Just spend the day here, like your Christmas party. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, really? MS. RAWSON: We could maybe even have lunch, but certainly not discuss anything that's not in the sunshine. MS. HILTON: He's on? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I see they're going to do it December 12th, as well as January 14th. So do we have a choice or do we only get to come to the 12th? MS. HILTON: You know, when Michelle gets back, I will find out and send you all an e-mail. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. What I'm thinking is just in case it may be hard for some people to stay that day, they at least have an option to come back. MS. HILTON: Yes. MS. BARNETT: Hopefully the Code Enforcement Board will be finished by 2:00. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Depends on how many cases they put on for us. MS. HILTON: Mr. Bidlack, can you hear me? MR. BIDLACK: Yes, I can. MS. HILTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What's his name, Bidlick? MS. HILTON: Robert Bidlack. MR. BIDLACK: Bidlack, B-I-D-L-A-C-K. They misspelled it on their-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: L-I-C-K? MR. BIDLACK: L-A-C-K. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Does our investigator Page 53 November 13, 2003 recognize his voice? MR. SUTHERLIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And you do, too? Very good. So is that sufficient, Jean? They both recognize his voice? MS. RAWSON: Yes. And let's have the court reporter swear him in. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Can we do it everybody at once, including him, or do you want to do him separately? MS. RAWSON: Probably ought to do him separately, because it might be too confusing otherwise. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Bidlack, we're going to ask our court reporter to swear you in, sir. MR. BIDLACK: Very well. (Speaker duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And if you'll do both of these. (Speakers duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Bidlack, my name is CliffFlegal, I'm Chairman. We're going to have the county present their side first and then we'll ask you and your co-respondent to present your side. Do you understand? MR. BIDLACK: Yes, I do. But may I say that I just received this about five days ago, and I really didn't have a lot of time to prepare for this. But I'm willing to wing it or do whatever I have to do. I feel that I'm in, you know, no -- I have done nothing wrong, so I really have nothing to hide. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, sir. MS. HILTON: Okay, the -- both respondents are present in the courtroom. We have previously provided the Board and the respondents 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. Page 54 November 13, 2003 MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: This is Board of County Commissioners versus Robert Bidlack and Rosemary Young, CEB Case No. 2003-045. The alleged violation is of Sections 2.3.5.3, 2.3. -- excuse me, 2.35.7 -- I'm sorry, 2.3.5.3, 2.3.5.7, and 2.3.5.8 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: Observed a dual family structure, a duplex, without required driveway/parking surface, causing residents to park on unimproved surfaces and right-of-way. Location where violation exists: 641 Forest Avenue, Bonita Springs, Florida, Folio No. 24532680000. Name and address of owner in charge of location where violations exists, as listed with the property appraiser: Is Robert Bidlack, Rosemary Young, 64 lA Forest Avenue, Bonita Springs, Florida, 34134. Date violation first observed: June 25, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: June 25, 2003, which was personally served. Date on which violation was to be corrected: Was July 25th, 2003. Date ofreinspection: Was this week, November 12th. Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And the CEB packet was sent regular and certified mail to the address listed with the property appraiser and to the address disclosed to us in Las Vegas, and the property was also posted, as well as the courthouse. Page 55 November 13, 2003 And at this time I would like to turn the case over to the investigator, Stephen Sutherlin, to present the case to the Board. MR. SUTHERLIN: For the record, I'm Stephen Sutherlin -- it's S-U-T-H-E-R-L-I-N-- Code Enforcement Investigator. On 6/25/03 I observed no driveway at the noted location, along with vehicles parked in the county right-of-way. I spoke with Mr. Bidlack, explained his options and issued a notice of violation, giving reasonable time to correct. I rechecked the location on 7/16 and 7/30, observing the violation remaining and no permits had been obtained. I sent a CEB warning letter on 8/21/03. I rechecked the site again on 8/28, 9/15 and 10/15. The violation remained and no permits had been obtained. At this time I forwarded the case for CEB hearing. As of this date the violation still remains and no permits have been retained. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have questions for Mr. Sutherlin? MR. PONTE: Yes, one. Was there any explanation coming from anywhere as to why Mr. Bidlack did not go ahead and do what he had promised to do? MR. SUTHERLIN: Well, promise is a strong word. When I met with Mr. Bidlack to issue the notice of violation, we were discussing his options. He didn't want to put a driveway in because the duplex is set sideways on the property, and he didn't want the people parking in front of the front windows and the doors. In that conversation, he said he would be willing to put in a parking structure, like a garage or something, in the back of the property. And I said that would be fine, just obtain the permits. And, like I said, that was 6/25. And I have had no communication with him, there's been no permits pulled, no work had been done. So there is really no reason why he hasn't told me why he hasn't started the work. MR. PONTE: So he's willing but hasn't. Page 56 November 13, 2003 MR. SUTHERLIN: That's what he told me, yes. MS. BARNETT: Mr. Sutherlin, was that a phone conversation or was that a personal meeting? MR. SUTHERLIN: On 6/25, it was the only personal meeting I had with Mr. Bidlack, and that's when we discussed this. MS. BARNETT: So it was a face-to-face meeting, so he was aware of the violation then prior to five days ago. Okay. MR. SUTHERLIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Stephen? Thank you, sir. Ms. Young, would you like to go first or-- MS. YOUNG: Sure. I-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Pull the microphone down towards you, ma'am, please. Thank you. MS. YOUNG: I was just aware of this when Mr. Sutherlin came to my door approximately a week ago and served me at home with the notice. I have been divorced for 10 years now, and he is supposed to have been getting me off the property that's listed here, to which he has failed to do so. And I've taken him to court three times for this. The judge has ordered that he do it and he has still failed to do it. And I'm just here representing myself, just knowing that this has happened, that we are -- that he is in violation. I have had nothing to do with the house, not collected rent, not done any repairs or anything with the house, made mortgage payments, et cetera, except for him just keeping, either paying late or getting, obviously, this type of violation on my credit report as well. Other than that, I have really nothing to do with the house. And I have brought my -- the divorce papers, as well as the subsequent times that I have gone to court to try and get him -- to get me off the mortgage as well. Page 57 November 13, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MR. BIDLACK: Okay. Okay. Any questions for Ms. Young? Mr. Bidlack, your mm, sir. Now that everyone has painted me into a bad picture, I just want to state, you know, that this house is 38 years old. There was a gravel drive, drive and park -- or parking in front of the home, okay. Since then, grass has grown between them rocks. But those rocks are still there. And the house is designed to have this drive in front of the house. Now, I didn't issue a certificate of occupancy 38 years ago, but Ms. Conover, who was the original builder of the property, still lives next door and has all the information pertinent to where these cars are parked or were parked. And the only reason that you can see them on the grass right now is because I was told they couldn't park in the right-of-way. So I had no alternative but to put -- put my renters on the grass. Subsequently I have lost a renter and rent from that apartment due to the fact that there's a parking dilemma. And it's very difficult to get somebody in there when they have no idea where they're going to park. You know, I propose -- I should have some way to be grandfathered in after 38 years of paying taxes. You know, I am not the bad guy here. And also, I received a citation, I guess it's dated May 13th of 2003, stating that I either am going to be fined or I have to appear in court. At that time, I went to Florida. I opted to appear in court to get my day in court to speak my -- to speak my -- to get my day and just to tell them what I had to tell them. And the county attorney, I guess, didn't have a good enough case for me, to submarine me, so they obviously -- they canceled the case, which didn't give me any time to speak with the judge or anyone that could give me a solid answer on this. Page 58 November 13, 2003 You know, I don't feel I've done anything wrong. The house has been there, the drive has been there for 38 years. All of a sudden I'm a criminal. You know, I go to court, people paint me in a bad light. And quite frankly, I don't think I deserve it, you know. And as far as the garage or whatever, I don't live in Pelican Bay, you know, I don't have a lot of money. And quite frankly, I probably spent five to $7,000 getting there trying to take care of this this summer, and right now I am out of money. So, you know, to have me pull money out of where I don't have -- you know, I am not a rich person and I do live from paycheck to paycheck at times. And I just don't feel that, you know, not having the ability to do what you ask is making me a bad guy or right to be fined, you know. I'm a decent individual and I don't feel that I deserve what's going on right now. You know, I've done nothing wrong. And it's keeping me from renting my property, you know. And also, quite frankly, my -- my own renters right now said that they've been kind of badgered by Mr. Sutherlin, which I have no firsthand acknowledge of except what I hear from them, you know. And I'd just like this resolved to a point where it's reasonable for me and reasonable for the county, you know. Right now thousands of dollars is beyond me, you know, and that's what they're asking. And every -- I went there and I tried to straighten this out. And due to the fact of bureaucracy involved, I wasn't able to do anything. So all they did was take my money, all my time from my summer, my vacation with my children and just played with me, you know. I was there to try to get something going, but I was not able to speak with the judge or somebody in a position to really let me know exactly what my rights are. This has been jammed down my throat and, quite frankly, I don't like the taste of it. I don't feel I've done anything wrong. For 38 years I've been paying taxes and parking in that area for that house. Not myself personally, since 1988. And I just feel this is Page 59 November 13, 2003 unfair. And that's my stand. MR. PONTE: Mr. Bidlack, George Ponte. Have you obtained any estimates for the work that you've just said would cost thousands of dollars? MR. BIDLACK: Well, I've already spent thousands of dollars and lost thousands of dollars in lost time. And I did apply for a permit, unbeknownst to, I guess, Mr. Sutherlin to try to put a driveway in. But as seeing all the electrical and county plumbing, I just thought it was a task that I couldn't begin by myself. And right now, not having the money to do it professionally and without damaging the county's assets, I -- I canceled it for myself. Because I had a permit. And the permit was for three months for a drive, a driveway just in the front. Now, I'd like to take -- it says you can't do more than 50 percent of the front. I'd like to put a 30 -- a 30-foot by 20 stone, you know, crushed stone thing in there or something like -- something to that effect. That would be -- that would be a lot easier on my pocket. And, you know, pouring a driveway and getting contractors and construction on a-- you know, a house that's been there. I had-- I should -- I should have been grandfathered in on my parking, as far as I'm concerned. You know, after this length in time the house is -- you know, not brand new, and I just did -- this was like this since the house was built, you know. I just don't know what to do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right. Mr. Bidlack, Cliff Flegal. You say you did have a permit issued from the county. MR. BIDLACK: Yes, sir, I did. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: When was this, sir? MR. BIDLACK: This was while I was there in July, I obtained the permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: July of this year? MR. BIDLACK: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, sir. Page 60 November 13, 2003 Stephen, did you find any records of such? MR. SUTHERLIN: I believe Shanelle's checking now. I didn't see any. But the problem with driveways is there's two different places to check: The Transportation Department for the right-of-way portion of it. And, honestly, you don't even need a permit for the driveway part. I mean, as we discussed, Mr. Bidlack and I, before, if you use gravel -- and I just explained that to Ms. Young as well, you don't need a permit except for the apron there at the front in the right-of-way. I saw some confused looks as well when he mentioned the citation. I did not bring this up, but this case, or this violation has been going since February of this year. The original case, I issued a citation and through the county attorney's office because I did not get specific enough with the ordinance, I just used 2.3.5 instead of the .3, they thought it best to dismiss the citation and start a new case. So that's where he mentioned the citation. And as far as being grandfathered in, the other ordinance I quoted on, the notice of violation, 2.3.5.8, states you have 90 days after the effective date of that ordinance, so there really is no grandfathering in. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There is no grandfathering for that. Is it -- in looking at this property, one would assume that the driveway which may be designated for this property would be not at the, quote, end of the building, as we see in one of your pictures. There's a car parked, but looks like in front of a tall pine tree. I assume that's not the actual driveway there. The driveway would probably be going in and running where the front doors are. Is that what would be a proper driveway for this facility? MR. SUTHERLIN: Correct. His concern, as he stated to me, was he didn't want people parking in front of the doors and windows here. The other county issue he's speaking of is there is a water meter Page 61 November 13, 2003 right there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But what I'm looking for is, if he were to put crushed stone in, the stone would have to go, I assume, from the edge of the structure to the -- I don't know whether that's east or west, but as you're looking at the picture, coming toward the Board, not where -- MR. SUTHERLIN: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- where the car is. MR. SUTHERLIN: It would go --that's the violation of being county right-of-way. It would go from the road here and extend back this way. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. BARNETT: One question. If you have a parking space, though, don't you get an ability to use a little bit of the county right-of-way in order to have access ability, so -- MR. SUTHERLIN: Access ability. Correct. You just can't park there, you can't store vehicles in the county right-of-way. MS. BARNETT: Is there enough space there between the building and the right-of-way? MR. SUTHERLIN: He would-- yes. But he would have to get · rid of some landscaping, the tree and-- where that red car is parked in that picture, that is completely in the county right-of-way. It started-- you can barely see it. Over to the right of the picture there, there's a-- like a railroad timber. Had it all the way across the right-of-way where all the vehicles, all the tenants had to park in the right-of-way. I finally got him to move that landscaping timber where they could pull further up in the yard. Still in violation but not -- not a safety issue. You're not taking up emergency vehicle spots. MS. BARNETT: But if he got rid of the tree and some of the landscaping, he could actually park on that end of the building, technically? MR. SUTHERLIN: Yes. As long as -- I mean, it would be Page 62 November 13, 2003 limited. That's a duplex, so you figure at max you may have four cars, which that would be real tight to put four cars there on the end of the building, yes. MR. RAMSEY: Question. There was some testimony by Mr. Bidlack, something about there was a driveway and it's overgrown or something to that effect? MR. SUTHERLIN: You'd have to ask him, because I didn't see it. But I believe he's talking about the right-of-way where I was talking the landscaping timbers were out there. So even the driveway he's speaking of is really against the ord -- you can't do any improvements to the right-of-way without permits, so -- MR. PONTE: How many cars have you observed parked there? MR. SUTHERLIN: At the most, three. The red one -- MR. PONTE: Two families, is that what you're saying? MR. SUTHERLIN: It is a duplex. I don't know if all three cars belong to one side. I've only spoke to one tenant there, and that's how I got Mr. Bidlack's address in Las Vegas, because the only address we had on file was at that address, 641 Forest. So I don't know where the cars belong to, but yes, three cars on the property. MS. DUSEK: Stephen, so right now I understand the only place for him to put a driveway is in front of the building? It may be possible if he removes the heavy -- the tall tree and the bushes there that he could put the three cars there, that's an outside possibility? MR. SUTHERLIN: It's possible, but like I said, it would be tight. If you had a husband and wife move into both, it's four vehicles, it's going to be real tight. The other possibility that he mentioned, which is fine, is to put a driveway the length, where we talked about the length of the building and putting like a parking structure in back. You wouldn't be using over 50 percent of the yard for parking. The driveway doesn't count unless you park in it. So he could have a driveway leading back to a parking structure. But as he said, you know, being short on money, Page 63 November 13, 2003 that that would be the most expensive way to go. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Stephen, does he need a structure? What if he had a driveway going back there and in the back of his property he put a crushed stone parking area? Would that be sufficient to satisfy the county requirements, rather than an actual structure? MR. SUTHERLIN: I mean, he doesn't even have to go all the way to the back. That's his choice. Because he doesn't want vehicles parked in front, which, you know, that's up to him. But yes, that's -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But to solve that problem, though, if he -- if he ran crushed stone or something back to the back and then put a large crushed stone area that people could park on away from their front door, would that be sufficient? MR. SUTHERLIN: Yes. And the only thing he would need permits for is that section of the right-of-way. He would have to contact the transportation department. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. Yeah, okay. MS. BARNETT: How long does it take approximately to obtain that type of right-of-way permit? MR. SUTHERLIN: I guess it would depend on the availability of the engineer. The reason you have to have a permit for that is they want to make sure it's not going to cause a flooding issue. So they'll have to send an engineer out to make sure that, you know, you have to put a culvert in or you have to have a swale. That's really with the transportation department, and I can't honestly answer that, I don't know. I wouldn't say more than a couple of weeks. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other questions for anyone? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Bidlack, did you understand that some of us were asking the county rather than the expense of doing something in the front, which sounds like we're being told really Page 64 November 13, 2003 wouldn't work, that you don't have to build a structure, you could put a gravel pad, so to speak, in the back of your property and people could drive back there and park? I don't know if that's acceptable to you, I'm just saying, that's the questions we were asking to at least try to get away from the front door and away from you having to actually build a structure. MR. BIDLACK: That would -- that sounds like it would logistically work. But the thing is, I'd be driving by the house and also my neighbor's front door and her -- and her privacy as well would be encroached upon with me driving to the back of my property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that, sir. We're looking to find, I guess, the -- MR. BIDLACK: The solution, I understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: for you, but a way to get you like parking in the street side MR. BIDLACK: Right. -- easiest way out or least expensive into compliance. Because it sounds is not going to be an option, let's say. The front of the house, it's 30 feet from center of road, which -- which puts it up to where space for a car couldn't fit anyway. The house wasn't built and designed to have a 30-foot easement is the problem with the parking area right now. To extend a gravel driveway even that much further would be a lot more expense, too. It's by the foot and, you know, the cubic yard of stone, and that would encompass a whole lot more stone than the original parking area. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Did you also understand that when the ordinance was revised, it gave you a time limit to do something, so there is no such thing as being grandfathered in? MR. BIDLACK: Right, I understood that when -- yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I just want to make sure you understood that part of it. MR. BIDLACK: I did understand it. But you know, with my Page 65 November 13, 2003 hands tied with financial aspects, you know, I'm between a rock and a hard place, you know. If-- perhaps if I sold the property or just to get away from this. Because, you know, I'm just trying to get to the end of the road without as few bumps as possible and -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand, sir. MR. BIDLACK: -- if I can just, you know, just alleviate this problem just by getting rid of it. You know, at this point in time, you know, I don't know what to do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any further questions from the Board to anyone? MS. BARNETT: Cliff, I have a question -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. BARNETT: -- and I don't know if I need to direct this to Jean or not. Because I'm kind of feeling a little bit sorry for Ms. Young. If she does have court documents that state that she has been -- or should have been taken off in subsequent court hearings, how can we hold her accountable -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, she's still a property owner on the records. I don't know that -- MS. RAWSON: Unfortunately she's still on the deed. You can, if you wish, make your order -- she's still a respondent, but you can make your order only to the one respondent, not to the other. MS. BARNETT: Based on the court here -- order, or how do we-- MS. RAWSON: Well, based on a number of reasons. But we've done that before, holding one respondent accountable for the compliance and not the other. I mean, she's still going to be on the deed so she's still going to be on our compliance. And, I mean, it's -- obviously if there's a foreclosure, she's still involved. But you can order one respondent to bring a property into compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any further questions? (No response.) Page 66 November 13, 2003 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. all. You may sit down. Finding of fact by the Board. MS. DUSEK: Before we do that, Jean, just to extend what you just said, can we -- let's say that we decided to remove one of the names today. Can we do that just because of the testimony given? MR. BIDLACK: That would be fine with me. MS. RAWSON: He said it would be fine with him. MR. BIDLACK: You know, I assume all responsibility as far as financial obligations go towards that property. I don't want her in any way charged anything for whatever is going on here. MS. RAWSON: From a legal standpoint, you can't really remove her, because you don't have the power to remove her from the title of the property. But as I said before, you can certainly order only one respondent to bring the property into compliance. And I think he's just testified that that's okay with him and he would hold her harmless. MS. DUSEK: So when we go to the recommendation, that's when we would do that? MS. RAWSON: Correct. MS. DUSEK: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're right. You would-- you're -- you would find a finding of fact against him, not against both. MR. BOWIE: I think you would have to be aware, however, that the lien for any fines would be on her half interest, as well as his. MS. RAWSON: Our real estate attorney is correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. They go against the property. MR. BOWIE: CHAIRMAN they're both on the MS. DUSEK: of fact that we include both names or one name. we include both names. No way around that. FLEGAL: They go against the property and deed, so -- I just want to make sure when we do the finding My -- my feeling is Page 67 November 13, 2003 MS. RAWSON: You include both names, but when you get to the recommendation about how they come into compliance, you just order the one respondent to bring it into compliance. MS. DUSEK: Yes, yes. Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, finding of fact. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Robert Bidlack and Rosemary Young, in the case CEB No. 2003-045, that a violation does exist. The violation is of Sections 2.3.5.3, 2.3.5.7 and 2.3.5.8 of Ordinance No. 91-103, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. And before I go any further, is that 2.35 or 2.3.5? MS. HILTON: 2.3.5. MS. BARNETT: Bobbie, also, while you took a stop, you said Ordinance No. 91-103, it should be 102. MS. DUSEK: All right, I didn't know that I said that, thank you. Description of violation: Observed a dual family structure duplex without required driveway parking surface, causing residents to park on unimproved surfaces and right-of-way. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion that in fact a violation does exist. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second to that motion. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Order of the Board. Jean, correct me, I think in our order our first item would be that Page 68 November 13, 2003 the order of the Board is directed towards Respondent Robert D. Bidlack only. MS. RAWSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. DORIA: I make a recommendation that the Code Enforcement Board order Mr. Robert D. Bidlack to pay all operational costs, to pay -- to abate all violations by adding a stabilized surface made of concrete, crushed stone, asphalt or pavers, specifically designated for parking, and obtain all required permits, inspections and certificate of completion within 60 days from the date of this hearing, or a fine of $75 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. That the tenants must immediately cease parking in the right-of-way and the respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and to request the investigator to come out and perform the site inspections. MR. PONTE: I just have one concern with that recommendation. It goes too far, as the county has recommended it, that the tenants must immediately cease parking on the unimproved surfaces. There isn't any place for the tenants to park. MR. DORIA: Okay, I've changed that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He changed that to the right-of-way. Albert changed it to the right-of-way. So they can park in the yard. MR. PONTE: In the yard, okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He changed those words to the right-of-way MR. PONTE: Okay. Thank you very much. MS. BARNETT: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second for the order of the Board. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying Page 69 November 13, 2003 aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Mr. Bidlack, did you understand, sir? MR. BIDLACK: Yes, sir, I did. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir, thank you. That concludes the public hearing portion of our business. Under new business, we have covered -- Item A was moved up. There is nothing under B, C. Item D was moved up. Old business, we have no affidavits to be submitted. Under Item 7, reports? MS. HILTON: Yes, Ellen has passed the torch to Jeff Klatzkow, who is going to be handling our Code Enforcement Board lien enforcement matters, and he is here to introduce himself. MR. KLATZKOW: Morning. My name is Jeff Klatzkow. I'll be taking over Ellen's role. Hopefully, I can do nearly as good a job as she has been doing and look forward to working with the Board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Welcome, sir. MR. KLATZKOW: K-L-A, as in Adam, T-Z-K-O-W. MS. HILTON: And clarification, notice of the date change. It is just going to be December 12th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Just December 12th? Okay. MS. HILTON: Yeah. And our next Board hearing is on a Friday, December 12th. MS. DUSEK: I have, under comments, we were supposed to vote today. MS. HILTON: Yes, and Michelle asked that that be continued so she can be here for the discussion. MS. DUSEK: Okay. MR. PONTE: What are you--just out of curiosity, when are Page 70 November 13, 2003 you estimating the December 12th meeting to be? In other words, is the sunshine portion going to follow immediately, or is it following at 2:00. MS. HILTON: MR. PONTE: MS. HILTON: Well, hopefully we won't take till 2:00. No, that's right. So it's going to take place after the Code Board hearing, and it starts at 2:00. So if we get done at our usual time, 12:00 or 12:30-ish, then it starts at 2:00, so you'll have to come back. MR. PONTE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One note. In the beginning I mentioned that we had two new permanent members, and I inadvertently mentioned Gerald, but he's been a permanent member. Albert is our other new permanent member. So I apologize, Albert, and welcome. MR. DORIA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anything else? Please make sure we understand about next month's meeting. Nothing else? I'd entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. PONTE: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to adjourn. We are adjourned. Thank you kindly. Page 71 November 13, 2003 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:30 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE NOTTINGHAM Page 72