Loading...
CEB Minutes 01/22/2004 RJanuary 22, 2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida January 22, 2004 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 Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney Shanelle Hilton, Code Enforcement Coordinator Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA AGENDA Date: January 22, 2004 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 1S TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES- December 11, 2002 4. PUBLIC HEARLNGS A. MOTIONS Motion to Continue 1. BCC vs. Aljo Inc CEB NO. 2003-055 B. HEARINGS CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: iNSPECTOR: 2004-001 3861 4TM AVE NE, NAPLES, FL ROBERT G FRANCE JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.1.11, 2.2.3.4.3(2) AND 2.2.3.4.3(3) GARAGE TYPE STRUCTURE BUILT WITH A VALID PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BUT DOES NOT MEET THE SIDE-YARD SETBACK ESTABLISHED FOR ESTATES ZONiNG. THIS STRUCTURE IS PARTIALLY BUILT ON PROPERTY OWNED BY THE COUNTY. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: iNSPECTOR: 2003-052 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, NAPLES FL PACACIOS, MANUEL & AIDA JAUREGUI JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 1.5.6, 2.1.15, AND 2.2.3.2.1 SEVERAL WOODEN STRUCTURES BEiNG UTILIZED TO HOUSE ANIMALS ALL ERECTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAiNiNG AUTHORIZATION OF BUILDING PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND RECEIVING CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETIONS. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2003-057 128 FLICKER LANE, NAPLES, FL STEVEN B JOHNSON DENNIS MAZZONE VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 1.5.6, 2.1.11, 2.2.10.2.1, 2.7.6 PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 5 A METAL AND WOOD FRAME OPEN CANOPY TYPE WORKSHOP/STORAGE FACILITY WITH ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED WITH EXPIRED PERMIT NO. 20000120341. ALSO OBSERVED A WOOD DOCK, WOOD FRAME SHED AND A TRAILER/SHED CONVERSION. ALL ERECTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINiNG AUTHORIZATION OF BUILDING PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND RECEIVING CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETIONS. ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.6.7.1 AND 2.6.7.1.1 IMPROPER OUTDOOR STORAGE OF BOATS, TRAILERS, VEHICLES, BEING UNLICENSED, INOPERABLE AND NOT BEING USED FOR THEIR INTENDED PUPROSE. ORD NO 89-06, SEC 5 PARAGRAPH 16B COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING ORDINANCE IMPROPER OUTDOOR STORAGE CREATING A SAFETY AND FIRE HAZARD. ORD 99-51, SEC 6, 7 AND 8 WEED, LITTER AND EXOTICS ORDINANCE OUTSIDE STORAGE OF SALVAGED BUILDING MATERIALS, VEHICLE PARTS, TOOLS AND MACHINERY. ALL SAME OUTDOOR STORAGE LEFT EXPOSED TO THE ELEMENTS UNATTENDED UNSECURED AND IN A PROGRESSIVE STATE OF DISREPAIR PRESENTING A NUISANCE TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2003-058 121 WHITEWAY IMMOKALEE, FL KEITH T. HECKMAN DENNIS MAZZONE VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 1.5.6, 1.8.7, 1.9.2, 2.1.11, 2.1.15, 2.2.5, 2.2.5.2.1, 2.6.7.1 AND 2.6.7.3 IMPROPER OUTDOOR STORAGE OF SEVERAL COMMERICAL AND NON COMMERICAL VEHICLES IN VARIOUS STATES OF DISREPAIR, FRONT END LOADERS, COMMERICIAL TOOLS AND VAARIOUS ITEMS INTENDED TO EE USED TO EITHER REPAIR OR DISMANTLE VEHICLES ON IMPROVED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. ORD NO 89-06, SEC 5 PARAGRAPH 16B COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING ORDINANCE IMPROPER OUTDOOR STORAGE CREATING A SAFETY AND FIRE HAZARD. ORD 99-51, SEC 6, 7 AND 8 WEED, LITTER AND EXOTICS ORDINANCE IMPROPER OUTSIDE STORAGE OF HOMEMADE CONTAINERS CONTAINING VARIOUS AUTO PARTS IN A PROGRESSIVE STATE OF DISREPAIR PRESENTING A NUISANCE TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2003-059 121 WHITEWAY IMMOKALEE, FL KEITH T. HECKMAN DENNIS MAZZONE VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 1.5.6, 1.8.7, 1.9.2, 2.1.11, 2.1.15 PARAGRAPH 1, 2.2.5, 2.2.5.2.1, 2.6.7.1 AND 2.6.7.3 IMPROPER OUTDOOR STORAGE OF SEVERAL VEHICLES UNTAGGED AND UNLICENSED AND AUTO PARTS IN VARIOUS STATES OF DISREPAIR STORED ON PROPERTY NOT OWNED BY THE VIOLATOR. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC vs. Cora Sneibmn 2. BCC vs. Aljo Inc 3. BCC vs. Aljo Inc 4. BCC vs. Aljo Inc 5. BCC vs. Aljo Inc 6. BCC vs. Bidlack 7. BCC vs. Naples Lodge No. 2010 8. BCC vs. Kautsky & Doughboy Pizza 9. BCC vs. Guy & Melinda Fracasso CEB CEB CEB CEB CEB CEB CEB CEB CEB NO. 2003-031 NO. 2002-049 NO. 2002-050 NO. 2002-051 NO. 2002-055 NO. 2003-045 NO. 2002-001 NO. 2003-046 NO. 2003-028 10. BCC vs. Gopal Motwani CEB NO. 2003-034 Request for Reduction/Abatement of Fines No request submitted at the time of this agenda C. Request for Foreclosure 1. BCC vs. Haldeman Creek 2. BCC vs. Lorraine Burgess 3. BCC vs. Avisai Gonzalez 4. BCC vs. Derya Corp 5. BCC vs. Lopez 6. OLD BUSINESS Affidavits of Compliance 1. BCC vs. Aljo Inc 2. BCC vs. Aljo Inc 3. BCC vs. Robert Chipman 4. BCC vs. Naples Lodge No. 2010 5. BCC vs. Kautsky & Doughboy Pizza B. Affidavits of Non-Compliance 1 BCC vs. Cora Sneibmn 2. BCC vs. Aljo Inc 3. BCC vs. Aljo Inc 4. BCC vs. Gladys Rodriguez and Wachovia Bank 5. BCC vs. Robert Bidlack 6. BCC vs. Gopal Motwani 7. REPORTS a. Annual Report of Activity in 2003 o COMMENTS NEXT MEETING DATE February 26,2004 CEB NO. 2003-023 CEB NO. 2003-017 CEB NO. 2003-038 CEB NO. 2002-025 CEB NO. 2002-031 CEB NO. 2003-049 CEBNO. 2002-050 CEBNO. 2003-020 CEBNO. 2002-001 CEB NO. 2003-046 CEB NO. 2003-031 CEBNO. 2003-051 CEBNO. 2003-055 CEBNO. 2003-053 CEBNO. 2003-045 CEB NO. 2003-034 10. 9 ADJOURN January 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, we 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. 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. HILTON: Bobbie Dusek? MS. DUSEK: Here. MS. HILTON: George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. HILTON: Christopher Ramsey? MR. RAMSEY: Here. MS. HILTON: Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. HILTON: Albert Doria? MR. DORIA: Here. MS. HILTON: Sheri Barnett? MS. BARNETT: Here. MS. HILTON: Raymond Bowie? MR. BOWIE: Here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Approval of our agenda. Are there any changes, additions, deletions, what have you, to our current agenda? MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold. We do have a change to move Items 3 and-- 3, 4, and 5 to be heard first, prior to Page 2 January 22, 2004 Items 1 and 2, if we may. So 3 would become 1, 4 would become 2, 5 would be 3 and so forth. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other changes? MS. ARNOLD: Not at this time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'd entertain a motion to accept the changes to the agenda. MR. PONTE: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept 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 our minutes of December 1 lth. Are there any changes, corrections? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If none, I would entertain a motion to accept the minutes as submitted. MS. BARNETT: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the minutes as submitted. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now open our public hearings. First item is a motion to continue. MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. We have a representative here for Aljo, Inc. There is a motion for continuance. We've got several items that I think this person wants to speak to, because Aljo had four Page 3 January 22, 2004 cases before the Code Enforcement Board. And if you could come up to the podium and address the board? (All speakers duly sworn.) MS. ARNOLD: Could you state your name for the record, please? MR. PALARA: Frank Palara (phonetic), from Marco Island. I own Marco Island Real Estate Center. We're in the process of purchasing this property. MS. ARNOLD' Just to refresh the Board's memory, we do have -- we have had these cases before the Board. One was related to rental registration for 42 properties, and then we had three minimum housing code cases, and that's what he's speaking on. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. RAMSEY: Mr. Chairman, just to -- I think perhaps I may have to recuse myself in this matter. Mr. Palara I know personally. He's done work at my house. I would consider myself friendly with him and have regard for him, but I don't know that it would be proper for me to sit and hear the matter if it's under those auspices. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. And you are who, sir? MR. PALARA: Frank Palara. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And are you Aljo, Inc.? MR. PALARA: No. I'm here on their behalf. He's not here. I brought all these code violations, and they've all been addressed and finished except one. There's one vacant unit there that they're working on as we speak, which should be done, I would assume, by tomorrow. I'm going back with Carol Sykora and that should be the end of that one. All the registration forms have been turned in to Janet Powers. I did it myself personally. Really what I would like is a reduction in this fine so we can finish fixing whatever else has to be addressed over there. Page 4 January 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There's a procedure you go through if you're going to request a reduction, and this isn't it. You asked for a motion to continue, and-- MR. PALARA: Okay, I'll take the motion-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- and I have a question about it. So tell us why you want some kind of a continuance. MR. PALARA: Well, we're in the process of taking the -- within a year we're going to probably remove those buildings and put low-cost housing there. And we don't want to move the people. These people are going back and forth, who's responsible, with the clients. And we brought -- I went up to the county just specifically to bring everything up to date to keep these families intact so that we could move them into the new section that we're building. So if I can't get the reduction, I'd like to have a continuance then. I would seek legal counsel to get some sort of reduction in these fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, the Board has already issued an order and given Aljo, Inc. until a certain time to accomplish it, so -- MR. PALARA: I understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- in essence what you're asking us to do is amend our order to extend the time, is that really -- MR. PALARA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- trying to get at? MR. PALARA: Yes. MS. BARNETT: Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MS. BARNETT: Do you have any position in this? MS. ARNOLD: I'm not sure a continuance would be warranted on three of the cases, because they're now in compliance. You've got matters before you of imposition of fines on your agenda later on on the agenda to -- and affidavit of compliances for three out of the four cases. The rental registration case is in compliance and there are Page 5 January 22, 2004 fines because they failed to obtain the registration by the date of the order. And the two other minimum housing cases are in compliance and they complied with the Board's order, so there are no fines on those two, I believe. MS. DUSEK: So is there just one that he's asking for a continuance? MS. ARNOLD: That's the only one that would be appropriate for a request for a continuance, because it's not yet in compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. It's not really a continuance, it's an extension of time, amending the order of the Board to grant more time. And the order-- the order was -- you say -- Michelle, you said four separate cases? The order is on one. Were there more than one? Am I reading it wrong? It's on 42 properties. MR. BOWIE: I think that in our materials we only have the order pertaining to the permits. MS. ARNOLD: Let's see. MR. BOWIE: Is what I believe. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It says rental registration within five days. Then it goes operational costs. Now, is there something else, Michelle, that we should have? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, there is. Okay, case No. 2003-049 was a Minimum Housing Code case for the properties. And we had another Minimum Housing Code case on 2003-050. And there is also a Minimum Housing Code case, 2003-051. MR. BOWIE: I think what we need to know is which particular case we're extending the time for. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, it would be 051 is the only one that's not in compliance. MS. DUSEK: And what has to be done? What was that? What does he have to do in 051 ? MS. ARNOLD: There were several conditions that existed in Page 6 January 22, 2004 the mobile home that needed to be repaired and brought up to code. MR. PALARA: That house is -- that unit is vacant. It's been vacant. So people have gone in there and actually damaged it. MS. BARNETT: That was part of the order, I thought, was to leave it vacant until it's completed. MR. PALARA: Yes, and it'll stay vacant. Even if they fix it, they won't -- they will probably not have anybody in there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle, you have a letter in our packet -- MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- from Ms. Nancy -- I can't really read it, Botteo (phonetic) or Botio, something like that -- MS. ARNOLD: Bottino. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- referring to case 2003-055, which is a case you gave us. Now you're telling us this gentleman's in front of us talking about a totally different case; is that what we're doing? MS. ARNOLD: Well, I just wanted to bring to the Board the fact that you have all those cases that were before you. The 055 one is only related to the rental registration. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But what he's asking us for is about a totally different case -- MR. BOWIE: 051. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- than this person from Aljo, Inc. asked about. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I think that he was under the impression that he was here for all four cases, representing Aljo, Inc. MR. BOWIE: Could I just ask, Mr. Palara, what is your relationship to Aljo, Inc.? Are you a contractor working for them or some other agency relationship or-- MR. PALARA: No, I'm buying the property. MR. BOWIE: So you're a contract purchaser -- MR. PALARA: Yes. Page 7 January 22, 2004 MR. BOWIE: -- of Aljo, Inc.'s property? MR. PALARA: Right. MR. BOWIE: I don't know what kind of standing a contract purchaser would have to make that kind of request. MR. PALARA: They came in to see us. Actually, they called back and forth, of all these -- all these fines, everything that they had there. So I went up to see Janet Powers. I said, what will it take to get everything in compliance? We'll have everything taken care of. They were going to, I guess, move the people out. I didn't want them to move anybody out, period. I said, well, give them temporary housing until we rebuild and put them back. So I got all the registrations, we got all the paperwork done and I personally delivered everything. Put some people out there to make sure the manager would have everything cleaned. I brought everything up to code. Carol was satisfied. There was one which they're working on right now, and it should be done by tomorrow, if it's not done today. And I'll go back up personally with Carol Sykora and make sure that it is updated. MR. BOWIE: So the time period for which you're requesting the extension is what? MR. PALARA: A week. I mean, we're there. MS. DUSEK: Did Aljo, Inc. ask you to come today to represent them to ask for -- MR. PALARA: No, I volunteered. MS. DUSEK: And they -- MR. PALARA: I asked to come. MS. DUSEK: They know that you're here-- MR. PALARA: Oh, yeah. MS. DUSEK: -- asking for this extension. MR. PALARA: They gave me all the paperwork and everything. Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody else have any other Page 8 January 22, 2004 questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. Discussion with the Board. Personally, I'm not for revising the order. The order is the order. I don't really see any grounds for some big change in the deadline, sorry. MS. BARNETT: I agree with you, Cliff. The problem is not this gentleman. I think he's trying to be a new good owner or potential owner. I think the problem is still with Aljo, Inc., and our purpose was to get Aljo, Inc. to come into compliance, and they let everything go. And I'm not inclined to let them off the hook, personally. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If none, I would entertain a motion to either accept or deny the request to revise the order. MR. PONTE: I make a motion to deny the request to revise the order. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to -- we have a motion to deny the request. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. First case in public hearings, 2003-057. MS. ARNOLD: We do have another motion for continuance on the agenda. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: agenda, so -- MS. ARNOLD: Oh, we do? I don't see it on the It's on mine. It's Board of County Page 9 January 22, 2004 Commissioners versus Robert G. France. It was submitted by Chris Lombardo. You should have gotten a letter. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, okay. MS. ARNOLD: That is the case -- actually, Item No. -- now new No. four, 2004-001. And the motion is because the counsel for the respondent is unable to make this meeting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Couple questions. I notice here counsel states that he didn't receive this. We know that he is supposed to receive the information. Was it posted in the courthouse as it was supposed to be? MS. HILTON: The -- we actually -- the notice of appearance, I never received anything. I checked with Jeff, he never -- MS. ARNOLD: The question is did he receive -- MS. HILTON: He never received anything. But the CEB notice of hearing was sent to the respondent certified mail, regular mail and posting of the property and the courthouse. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BOWIE: And this, therefore, is the first notice we've received that he's represented by counsel? MS. HILTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a request to continue this to our next meeting. MS. ARNOLD: I just want to -- the investigator did speak to legal counsel on the phone previously. Do you want to speak to that, Jeff?. MR. LETOURNEAU: I spoke to legal counsel and also gave him paperwork concerning the case. MS. RAWSON: Maybe we need to swear him in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: I can't remember the gentleman's name, but he was a worker for the office of that lawyer, and he came by and picked up paperwork concerning the case approximately two months Page 10 January 22, 2004 ago. So they knew about it, I mean, obviously. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So they knew there was a case forth -- MR. LETOURNEAU: They didn't know what date it was going to be. It kept, you know, kind of getting postponed, postponed. But I posted the property over 10 days ago and the courthouse over 10 days ago with a Notice of Hearing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other questions for Jeff?. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MS. HILTON: I personally didn't receive anything from legal counsel saying that Mr. France was represented by Mr. Lombardo. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. What's the county's position? Do you have a problem in -- MS. ARNOLD: With waiting 30 days? No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Jean, do we have a problem if we wait another 30 days? MS. RAWSON: I don't think there's any problem. Really, in order to be sure that you give him his full due process, if you go forward today I'm sure that Mr. Pires and Mr. Lombardo will just be back in here. So if it's not, you know, a health or safety problem, you know, 30 days, we could put it on the next month's agenda and at least then he will have proper notice. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we grant the extension for 30 days. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to grant the extension to our next meeting. I don't know if that's exactly 30 days, but we'll use -- if you will revise that, Bobbie? MS. DUSEK: Whatever the date of the next meeting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 11 January 22, 2004 MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? MR. RAMSEY: One. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, 6-1. Okay. Any other motions, Shanelle? MS. HILTON: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: First case, 2003-057. MS. HILTON: Our first case of the day will be Board of County Commissioners versus Steven B. Johnson, CEB Case No. 2003-057. We have -- I'd like to ask if the respondent is present in the courtroom? MR. JOHNSON: Yes. MS. HILTON: Okay, the respondent is present in the courtroom. We have previously provided the respondent and the Board with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion to accept the county's exhibit. Do I hear a second? MS. BARNETT: Second. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) Page 12 January 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: The alleged violations are of Sections 1.5.6, 2.1.11, 2.2.10.2.1, 2.7.6 paragraphs 1 and 5, 2.6.7.1.1, and 2.6.7.2.1 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. And Sections 6, 7, and 8 of Ordinance No. 99-51, the weed and litter ordinance, Section 5, Paragraph 16(B) of Ordinance No. 89-06, the Collier County Housing Ordinance. The description of the violations: Improper outdoor storage of, but not limited to, six boats, 10 boat trailers, four unlicensed passenger vehicles, salvaged building materials, vehicle parts, tools and machinery on an improved mobile home zoned property, neighboring property and in the county right-of-way. All same outdoor storage left exposed to the elements, unattended, unsecured and in a progressive state of disrepair, presenting a nuisance to neighboring properties. A metal and wood frame open canopy type workshop, storage facility with electrical improvements constructed with expired Permit No. 2000120341. Also observed a wood deck, a wood frame -- a woodshed and a trailer shed conversion, all constructed without first obtaining authorization of a Collier County building permit and having all of the required inspections and receiving a certificate of completion. Improvements are encroaching on neighboring property. Location where violation exists: 128 Flicker Lane, Plantation Island, Florida. Name and address of owner in charge of location where violation exists: Steven B. Johnson, P.O. Box 5005, Everglades City, Florida. Date violation first observed: April 7th, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: April 18th, 2003 by personal service. Date on which violation was to be corrected: May 4th, 2003. Page 13 January 22, 2004 Date of reinspection: January 21, 2004. Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And the CEB Notice of Hearing was sent certified mail, which I have the green card back on. And at this time, I would like to turn the case over to the investigator, Dennis Mazzone, to present the case to the Board. (Speaker duly sworn.) MR. MAZZONE: For the record, I am Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Dennis Mazzone. The offices of Collier County Code Enforcement received a citizen's letter of complaint via the County Commissioners' office concerning the misuse and neglected condition of various yard areas of a mobile home zoned residential property belonging to Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Johnson's use and neglect of adjacent unimproved neighboring properties that bordered his property. These complaints were coming in as a result of unhappy neighbors getting together and composing a letter. Before visiting the Johnson property, I conducted an in-house office inquiry and research as to whether or not there were occupational licenses issued for Mr. Johnson on his property and giving him the availability to use it in such a manner for the repair of a small motor type of operation. We found no such occupational license on record. After having done that, we then -- I visited the location in question and confirmed the existence of seven boats, two boat trailers, one unlicensed red and white Mitsubishi pickup truck, all having been improperly stored on front yard areas of Mr. Johnson's residential property and portions of adjacent unimproved yard areas and right-of-way areas. All same findings constituted a prohibited storage use in a mobile home zoning district. I spoke with a Ms. Washington, who stated that she was an occupant of 128 Flicker Lane, and I verbally informed her as to the Page 14 January 22, 2004 reason for my visit, and issued a Collier County red tag notice, requesting phone contact by Mr. Johnson. Not having received any phone contact from Mr. Johnson, I revisited the site on April 10th, 2003, and returned to Mr. Johnson's residence and observed the same violations, with no improvement. During this visit, Mr. Johnson spoke with me and he handed me a handwritten note, stating that, in essence, that he understood that the storage use and the overall use of the front and side yard areas and neighboring properties was a violation and that he would correct it in due time. When asked how much time, Mr. Johnson stated, and not in writing in this note, but stated verbally that it would be six months. And I had informed him that six months was unrealistic, that we needed quick action on this and that it would have to be done much sooner than that. Again, I visited the property on April 18th and I met with Mr. Johnson and I provided copies of all appropriate ordinances and related sections, as I had provided a notice at our office previously. We discussed the nature of the violations and how to comply in detail, and I obtained Mr. Johnson's signature on the Collier County notice of violation and order to correct form. And I requested action toward the start of compliance within 16 days, or by May 4th, 2003. On May 1 st, 2003, I again met with Mr. Johnson at his residence and saw at that time that there was no progress towards compliance. On May 19th, another site visit confirmed no progress. On June 30th of 2003, again no progress. I took current photos and returned to our office and met with our -- my supervisor, Jim Hendrickson, and obtained approval to send a department memo to Mr. Johnson, informing that Collier County Code Enforcement Board review would follow if a lack of progress continued. Again, on July 29th, I visited the site and confirmed again, no progress. I met Mr. Johnson and he stated that progress should be Page 15 January 22, 2004 evident by my next visit. I requested a faxed note from Mr. Johnson which was to indicate a time frame for compliance, and no faxed note was received. On July 31st, Mr. Johnson did come in to our office and he obtained a demolition permit for the removal of unpermitted buildings, plural, at his 128 Flicker Lane property. And as per internal research, the demolition permit in question was CO'd on January 8th of 2004, after the removal of the wood frame shed, which was found to be in violation of his property. But that was the only structure that was removed. In addition to the shed, there was a canopy, aluminum and wood frame canopy type structure that was built from the rear of Mr. Johnson's mobile home, extending across to the waterway, and there's also -- there was an aluminum mobile home type structure that was converted into a storage shed type of facility. And that storage shed facility and canopy were still in place, the storage shed being -- not meeting setback requirements. The previously cited wood frame shed which was also encroaching was removed, but the debris remained on-site. And that was the status of the permitted items. All the other existing litter that was there, the building materials and the used electrical and mechanical type devices that were on his yard, remained in place on the yard. On August 22nd, another site visit confirmed that two unpermitted structures remained in place without change. And the -- all the other stored items were either switched out or still remaining in place. There was -- perhaps there was some that had left the site and others would come. Boats and trailers and other various types of equipment were found to be stored still on the neighboring property and Mr. Johnson's front yard area, constantly in a state of change because of what seemed to be ongoing traffic onto his property for the intent of repair or whatever Mr. Johnson did to these items to Page 16 January 22, 2004 make them available for storage on his property. That had not changed. From that point on, through September and October we -- and November and December I documented no progress of any mention. There is very minor progress, if there was any, and Mr. Johnson had verbally stated to me that he wished to come before the Board. He wasn't going to be -- we would not be seeing any progress from that point. On January 20th, when I returned to the site, I did find minor progress and I photographed the same, and that's in your packet. And the progress that I found was that the neighboring property now only had two very small aluminum boats on it and there was some yard furniture that appeared to belong to Mr. Johnson and some welding equipment that also appeared to belong to Mr. Johnson, as it was close to his yard -- as close to his yard as -- it was on the borderline of both yards. All the stored items remained stored on Mr. Johnson's front yard, and that was unchanged. The canopy roof and the aluminum storage shed remained the same, the shed being used for storage of different parts and whatever Mr. Johnson wished to put in there. And the yard remained in a state of-- covered with discarded items and litter. MS. DUSEK: Dennis, it sounds from your testimony that the only thing that's been done is the removal of one storage shed; is that correct? MR. MAZZONE: I'd have to say that that's -- that's actually what only has been done. It does appear as though Mr. Johnson's tried to clean up some of the neighboring debris that he put on the neighbor's yard. But we have seen that before with it just reappearing in a matter of days, if not weeks. It's an ongoing thing that the neighbors are very, very much over, and to a point where they had to write to the Commissioner, and that's what brought it to Page 17 January 22, 2004 our attention. The neighborhood in general, it's an older mobile home neighborhood. The whole place, the whole subdivision is zoned mobile home. They're for the most part kept up very nicely. They're older. This happens to be one that stands out because of perhaps the very large non-permitted structure that is a canopy over his home, and then all the items he has scattered about and going onto the other properties. If there is an absentee -- Plantation Island is a very small community, and many of them only live there part of the year. And when not in the residence, it's been the history of Mr. Johnson to store some of his repaired items or items that he's holding for other people on neighboring lots, because those neighbors are not in the State of Florida or they're not available or that he's gotten their permission to do so, which we've informed Mr. Johnson and some of these neighbors that they cannot do that, he cannot be storing these items on other people's properties or his own property, unless they're stored inside an enclosed structure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Dennis, you testified that when you talked with Mr. Johnson about, the problem, he told you he needed six months. MR. MAZZONE: He did, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That was in April? MR. MAZZONE: That was in April, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. It's now late January. MR. MAZZONE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's nine months, and he hasn't resolved the problem. MR. MAZZONE: No, he hasn't, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Has he cleaned out the right-of-way? MR. MAZZONE: I would say yes, there are no items in the Page 18 January 22, 2004 right-of-way at present. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. MAZZONE: As my check of yesterday. I wasn't there today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Are there any other questions for Dennis? MS. BARNETT: Am I getting the -- I'm sort of getting the impression that possibly he's doing a small engine repair out of this location, possibly? MR. MAZZONE: That's what it appears to be. That's why I did check the occupational license of-- on his property to see if indeed he had any kind of license going on there and then to see if we would allow such activity. And of course we would not. MS. BARNETT: and goings -- MR. MAZZONE: MS. MR. MS. MR. BARNETT: MAZZONE: BARNETT: MAZZONE: That would account for some of the comings Yes. -- and the different things -- But that doesn't -- -- disappearing and then reappearing. That's correct. And very often when I was there I would see people that were not residents of that location picking up trailers or dropping something off, or whatever they were doing with Mr. Johnson in the front yard. It appeared that way. I didn't question the individuals. MR. PONTE: Mr. Mazzone, why is that activity not listed as a violation, if he has -- if he doesn't have an occupational license? Is it legal for him to be operating a business in that area? MR. MAZZONE: No, it isn't, sir. It isn't, but it's not something we would direct him towards getting a license for, because we would not allow it. It's the use that we cited him for, the use of conducting such activity. And we're assuming that he's -- that he is conducting a small motor repair type of activity, because of all the types of items Page 19 January 22, 2004 we're finding on the property, all the electronic and the small motor equipment just lying about on the ground. Tires, numerous tires and loose wire and, like I say, small motors and tools just strewn throughout the property. It just does appear as though there is that kind of activity going on. MR. PONTE: Mr. Johnson said that he would -- in April of last year that he would come into compliance in six months' time. He has clearly not done that. Has he given you any reason or rationale or explanation for not -- for going back on his own word? MR. MAZZONE: I just -- I think as it does happen usually when an investigator from our department has to make repeated return trips to a property, the more we return to the property, the less we're accepted on this property. Mr. Johnson, I think, became as frustrated with the fact that we kept returning repeatedly and as often as we did, to the point of then not finding anything accomplished that was satisfactory to our office, that he sort of like said okay, take me to the Board. Sort of like saying I can't meet these deadlines. We want to work with Mr. Johnson, but we need -- we need these items that are not permitted, permitted or removed, and that was made very clear. We need the yard cleaned up so that the neighbors and the entire subdivision appears to be just what it is and that's a residential area, not one of industry or commerce. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. BOWIE: In your repeated visits to the property and contacts with Mr. Johnson, was it your impression that he is residing upon this property? Was he usually there when you visited the property? MR. MAZZONE: Oh, yes, sir. Oh, yes. He was either there or in the neighborhood working. He's always -- he's always about, yes. MR. BOWIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Dennis? (No response.) Page 20 January 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. MAZZONE: You're welcome. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Johnson? MR. JOHNSON: Good morning, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good morning. If you'll wait one moment, the young lady will swear you in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. JOHNSON: Good morning. I have -- it's been about seven years since I've had to handle a case like this. I've been doing code enforcement cleanup over 40 years. Mainly for other people. I got each of you a copy. You want me to bring it to you? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: I'll go. MR. JOHNSON: I'm out of practice. I'm not as young as I was, and I'm not able to get around as much as I was the last time I done one of these. I also have a packet of pictures. I have talked to the County Commissioners, told them what my plans were, and they said you would give me a chance to express my case and see if we can get this resolved. I would like to handle it one question at a time on each item. Dennis Mazzone doesn't have his facts straight. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, can we hesitate one moment, sir. The respondent has submitted a package. We'd like to entertain a motion to accept his Exhibit A from the respondent. If somebody would make the motion. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the Respondent's Exhibit A. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the Respondent's Exhibit A. Page 21 January 22, 2004 All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. MR. JOHNSON: Since you've heard so much about Plantation Island in the last few months, I have photographs of the whole island from the air so you can see what type of situation you're dealing with. I'm not complaining about none of my neighbors. I don't care what my neighbors do in their yard. I take care of several piece of property on the island. I take care of several pieces of property in Everglades City. I cut about four and a half miles of the county right-of-way to get the exercise, to keep my legs working. It's just that I have a back that when it goes out, it's two weeks that I can't move, hardly. And since this mess has started, it's gone out on me four different times. And honestly, I don't have the money to hire the help to get the job done any quicker. So if you'd look at these pictures here, I'd appreciate that. Dennis Mazzone and I have been having discussions for about four years. The first few times didn't even concern me, but he seems to thought it did. And you can definitely tell my place, because I made sure all my neighbors' cars and boats and everything was out of the way when the picture was taken. This canopy he's talking about is not a canopy, it's a roofover. There was a permit got for it, it was inspected, signed off on. The case against it was closed out and the paper -- I have the permit with me. The paper that said it was closed out was left for the code enforcement officer to close the case out and he did. He never returned it. I forgot about it. I figured since I done what I was supposed to, I didn't need to worry about keeping up with the Page 22 January 22, 2004 paperwork. But I do have a copy of the permit. It is not a canopy, it's a commercial galvanized steel roof on two-foot commercial trusses bolted and screwed together. And like I say, it was inspected, signed off on and the case was closed. The metal building he's talking about on the side of the trailer I'm having to rebuild the axle because I've had to put so much weight in it. It's going to need another axle. And as far as the engine part goes, I do my own mechanic work. I was brought up to salvage stuff, not throw good stuff away. I may take four or five engines to build one. The boats he's got -- he's talking about, I've salvaged a bunch of them of them, scrapped them. The landfill got to where they know me real well. Waste Management, they do a fantastic job out there. The Sheriff's Department's doing a good job. And it's got to where every time I turned around Dennis Mazzone had a camera out there. He's got enough film of my property to make a full-length movie. I don't know why my riding lawnmower was so interested (sic) to him, but I take of seven lots right there on that one strip, the ones on both sides of me all the way to the curve. I take care of the properties across the canal. The building you see falling down, he stood right beside that and took a picture of the -- across the front side of my property, and he just let that go. If you -- he was a code enforcement officer out there the biggest part of the time, I can place him there in '83. If these permits wasn't attained and he drove by and let them build, I think he'd have to take some of the blame. I've heard -- this channel here gets watched a lot on our island. And I heard the question asked several times why you have to get a permit when there wasn't a permit to start off with to tear it down. Well, I made up a cute little saying, and it's a fact. And I don't blame the county, but it's not a black thing, it's not a white thing, it's a green thing. This county needs the money. That's what they told Page 23 January 22, 2004 me when they made me get my roofover permit. They didn't care what I done, as long as I was willing to pay for the permit and get it done. And the code enforcement officer that was in charge of that -- I dealt with several, including supervisors over the years since I've been there -- I've always been able to deal with anybody else except Dennis Mazzone. I think by that packet there you got, that pretty well explains why. Now, it's not that I'm refusing. Maybe I (sic) just not getting it done quick enough. But there's definitely been -- as you can see, that's a partial list of stuff that's been got rid of. And these are witnesses. I deal with people all over the United States. Some of them I've never met, I just talk to them on the phone. Some stuff I have was left to me from people that died and I got to go through the legal procedures to get that. It's illegal for me to get rid of somebody else's property. I'm not going to go to jail for grand theft just because he said I had to get rid of it. We're going together, if that comes down to that. I mean, as far as the neighbors complaining, we've got one lady who has gotten together, Miss Della Butler and her friends, and they turned in 17 people on that island. They want to make it like Miami. If they want to live in Miami, why didn't they stay in Miami? I moved down there because I can't walk on concrete and asphalt that much. And my yard, my neighbors will tell you, I've got more stuff than most people in the world. But they've also tell you it's cleaner, because everything is moved, the grass is cut. All the boat trailers are tagged. I've got 14 tag receipts right here just for trailers. The boat, he's calling it my front yard, it's actually my backyard. The front of my house is next to the canal. I'm building a pontoon boat. I've changed the motor on my fishing boat. All my trailers are tagged. I have one boat in the backyard that doesn't have a legal Page 24 January 22, 2004 sticker on it, it's not paid for yet. The man -- I'd love for Dennis to go pay it off so he could give me the title. I'd love to have it. I mean, he's asking me to break the state law like he's doing, and I try to be a law-abiding citizen. And if I ever decided to break one, he probably wouldn't like the one I was going to break. I hope it never comes down to it. He's not the only code enforcement officer on the job. You have a fine code enforcement officer down there in that area. We're friends. She's been on my back ever since she's been there about my stuff in the yard. He tells me I can't have my tools there. I've got over $250,000 worth of tools. That's not what I've sold or got rid of. My living room is just one great big tool box. If I could put all my outboard motor parts in the living room, I'd do that. But with my back going out so often here lately, it's slowed me down. And I appreciate you listening to me rave on. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody have any questions for Mr. Johnson? MR. PONTE: Yes, I do. Mr. Johnson, how much of the items on your property are not owned by you? Half of them, 25 percent of them? MR. JOHNSON: Everything on my property belongs to me except for the boat that's not paid for. One of these days I'll get it paid for. MR. PONTE: I see. Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: And the pictures he's got aren't up to date recent. Like I said, I made sure I got a lot of shots of my house. So you see, my place does stand out. But I salvage stuff. I help my neighbors out. He talks about people coming in the yard. If my neighbors need help doing something, I do that as a hobby, just like I cut the right-of-way as a hobby. And no, I don't have a license to cut grass, but I've been doing it over 40 years, just sort of a habit. And Page 25 January 22, 2004 the same way with everything else. I was brought up in Florida. I was brought up not to waste stuff. My parents told me, if you want to eat, you better learn how to use the stove, because we're not going to have a microwave. I mean, that's the way I was brought up. MR. PONTE: I do have another question for you. In April of last year, you did say to Investigator Mazzone that you'd get it cleared up in six months' time, and clearly you haven't done that. What was the reason for saying six months? MR. JOHNSON: Well, what I told him was, is when the subject about how long it was going to take come up, I told him, well, if my back didn't go out on me, it didn't snow and the world didn't come to the end, I'd get it done as quick as I could. I've been there five years. And then he sort of went off the deep end, and I got very rude and crude. And I apologize for that, but I don't like somebody standing in my yard threatening me. I'm sorry. But I am getting it done. I have a man here that has been helping me do a lot of it. Like I say, the metal building, he's calling it, is actually a box trailer. I've used it on construction jobs in the past. It used to be just one great big tool box. But since I've had to tear down these buildings that the tax people say shouldn't had to been tore down and the building inspector said it shouldn't had to be tore down. Taxes have been paid on them since 1990. My yard is a mess. But I can't -- none of my roofover that I have a permit for, I used to could walk in and hand you anything you asked for if I had it. Now I spend a half a day looking for it. MR. PONTE: You do have somebody working with you; is that what you're saying? MR. JOHNSON: I have somebody that's willing to give me a hand, but he's not in much better shape than I am. MR. PONTE: I see. MR. JOHNSON: I guess the people my age is falling apart. I want you to understand, most of the people out there where Page 26 January 22, 2004 we're at are retired, living on fixed income, been living that way for years. The elderly people, they get out there and pick up paper and stuff on the side of the road. We got one lady been riding by done wore out four bicycles picking up aluminum cans. I mean, it's a community effort. And this complaint that the County Commissioners got, the name on the letter does not own property on Plantation Island. I checked in to that. I've got a good idea where it come from. Miss Della Butler, three doors down, she found out that she was going to have to get engineered drawings and everything else, because she's been building since '92. My place was there when Andrew went through. Della Butler's blew down. My didn't. The place across the canal blew down, mine didn't. I mean, it's been there since -- the taxes have been paid on the buildings and everything since 1990, according to the tax collector's office. I'm not saying there is or there isn't. A judge on the property, he died. Everybody before him is dead. I know for a fact in 1985 Dennis Mazzone walked into the house and told the man he didn't have a permit for it, he had to remove his, and the man laughed at him and showed him the permit. And no, Dennis Mazzone didn't get a copy of it, he was asked to leave. He would have been here today but I don't want none of my neighbors to be done the way I'm doing. And as you can see by my little packet, I'm not real happy with the code enforcement officer. And Michelle Arnold, she refused to return any phone calls. Since this has started she's returned one, to cancel a meeting that I had set up to talk to her about this. She has not returned no phone calls. And I've got witnesses to all this, but I don't want to involve my neighbors until it goes up to criminal, if that's where it's going to end up. MR. BOWIE: Could I just ask you one question, sir? I think Page 27 January 22, 2004 what you're telling us is that you are amenable to removing these things, it's just going to take some time. MR. JOHNSON: I have no problem. I need to get rid of stuff and start going fishing 'cause I'm not able to -- I'm not able to do anything anymore. MR. BOWIE: If you're amenable to curing these violations -- MR. JOHNSON: But I can't tell you exactly how long. MR. BOWIE: I think that's -- I think that's what we need to hear, though, is how long you think it's going to take to do it. MS. BARNETT: I have another question for Mr. Johnson. You had mentioned that you do have a permit for your large building? MR. JOHNSON: The roof-- it's the roofover, yes, ma'am. MR. PONTE: Could we wait for Mr. Johnson to answer his question? MS. DUSEK: Let him answer that-- the time frame. And that's the question. MR. JOHNSON: I'm sorry, I'm hearing voices everywhere. MS. DUSEK: You were asked how long you think it would take for you to remove everything off your property. MR. JOHNSON: All my parts and stuff?. MS. DUSEK: Everything. MR. JOHNSON: As soon, soon -- well, you mean I got to get rid of all my licensed trailers and boats and vehicles? MS. DUSEK: Whatever is illegal. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Unless you put them in an enclosed structure. MR. JOHNSON: Well, I can't get a permit for an enclosed structure on that island right now 'cause there's no engineers available to draw up the engineered drawings. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Then removal is it. MR. JOHNSON: Six months I'll have it all removed. You won't -- you won't hear -- and you won't hear no more complaints Page 28 January 22, 2004 about me, unless it's just somebody with a problem. I'll rent a building somewhere and pack it all up. They just no buildings on the island that's available. And I hate -- I hate to leave my yard art that far away. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any additional questions for Mr. Johnson? MS. BARNETT: building. MR. JOHNSON: Yeah, I was asking to see the permit for the I'm looking for it, ma'am. MR. MR. business, MR. has them just what CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle, you want to get the permit? MR. BOWIE: While we're looking at that, just one other question. You'd indicated that with the exception of maybe one or two items, everything on this property now is yours, is your property, correct? JOHNSON: Yes, sir. BOWIE: Okay. That being the case, what does your Johnson and Associates, do at this property? JOHNSON: That is an old business card I use. My family to get ahold of me, some of my friends have them. That is I've been come to know by. You said something about business licenses a while ago. When I was in Polk County, my business license would cost me $25 for each of them. I had two. I come down here and applied for one, they said well, we need $1,000 up front for the first one and then we'll talk about it. So I didn't figure I needed a business license that bad. The State of Florida says as long as I don't advertise, I don't need a license. MR. BOWIE: What you're saying, though, is you're not operating any kind of systematic -- MR. JOHNSON: No. No, sir. I just piddle. It's a hobby of me taking old stuff and making new stuff and not just throwing away everything that people throws away. If somebody give me two, three Page 29 January 22, 2004 boat motors, I'll go home and see if I can build one out of it. And the same way with anything else. As far as the letterhead goes, that don't say a whole lot about anything. I do know the State judges like it. They wish they had hours like that. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Johnson? Right here. MR. JOHNSON: Oh, sorry. MS. DUSEK: Do you understand that you're not allowed to store things on your property, that you're not allowed to have what is considered litter on your property? MR. JOHNSON: Well, the problem is, describe litter. That's like yard art. A state judge ruled it's in the eyes of the beholder what yard art it. That's why I call everything yard art. I know I have a lot of stuff I need to get rid of, and I will get rid of it as quick as I can. MS. DUSEK: You've known this for quite some time. MR. JOHNSON: And I've got rid of a whole lot more than listed there. MS. DUSEK: What happens if-- correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that when you get rid of some things, you bring more things on. MR. JOHNSON: That's just what I've always done. I just got informed I can't do that no more, evidently. That's why I'm going to start going fishing. I'll get rid of it all. Is that the right permit? I'm trying to find out if it is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. This is a galvanized roof, sir. MR. JOHNSON: Like I said it, I proceeded to put the roof up due to the cost when I was informed that it had to be permitted, and finally I had a couple of supervisors from code enforcement come out and tell me what I needed to do. I went and seen the building inspector, I got an engineered drawing on how it was supposed to be put down, because this county didn't seem to know. I took it in, the Page 30 January 22, 2004 building inspector finally inspected, signed off on it. I dropped the paper off with the initials on it saying it was signed off, the case was closed, and I forgot about it. And I don't want to mention any names in code enforcement, because I talk to a lot of them. I'm not sure all the right papers are clipped together. I've gone through it -- I had to prepare for this, and I just threw everything in folders and it's a wonder I got here with any of it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, you're here, sir, and that's what's important. MR. JOHNSON: Oh, I love a challenge. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good. MS. DUSEK: I have a question about your permit. You applied for it, there's a date of December 6th, 2000. There's no approval date on here. MR. JOHNSON: It was on a piece of paper that I left a code enforcement officer for the guy to sign off with the initials on it. And like I said, the case was closed so I forgot about it. It's not a canopy. MS. DUSEK: When did you -- after you applied for this permit, when did you actually begin construction? MR. JOHNSON: The roof was already up. Like I said, I was told if the cost was below a certain cost, that I didn't need a permit. The roof was already up when it was permitted. Completely. As a matter of fact, the code enforcement officer that wrote it up pulled up with a lady officer and he gets out and I meet him at the road and he says, you got a permit? I says, I don't need one. He says, why not? I says, because the cost is under $500. He said, well, you can't do that. And I turned around and looked at him, I said, well, I'm not going to tear it down. So like I said, his -- a couple of supervisors, I don't even remember their names, come out and told me what I needed to do. I went and got the engineered drawing, took it in and submitted it to Page 31 January 22, 2004 building. Building inspector come out, inspected it, signed off on it, and I forgot about it. I didn't know that I needed -- I done my part of everything I was supposed to do, as far as I know. I mean, if there's nothing -- something's not been done, it's not from my end, where I can see it. I mean, we're talking about somebody -- something that's been there almost five years now. But all I done was done a roofover. There was already a roof there. It was just in bad shape when I bought the property, so I went back to Polk County, traded for the material to do it and come back and put it up. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Just give us a second, sir, for everybody to take a look at your permit. MR. JOHNSON: Any other questions I can answer while you're all passing that around looking at it? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not just yet, sir. MR. JOHNSON: Well, I've got a question for you. Now, you've looked at the 35-millimeter colored air shots. Like I said, Dennis Mazzone has been down there since the early Eighties. Why is he targeting my place? Just because one neighbor complained? This woman complains about everything. She complained about the roads. They paved it. She took credit for it. She complained about the mangroves being hanging out. They cut it. She complains about -- she complained about that. She complains about me cutting the right-of-way. MR. BOWIE: I think it would be better if we focus this on whether or not code violations do in fact exist. MR. JOHNSON: Well, you pointed it out that they do. MR. BOWIE: Somebody's always going to complain, it may touch off an inspection. The real focus of this, sir, should probably be on whether or not code violations do exist, and if so, what you're prepared to do to take care of those. MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. Page 32 January 22, 2004 MR. BOWIE: Could the county confirm whether this permit was in fact granted, rather than simply applied for? MS. ARNOLD: Can-- MR. BOWIE: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: Can we see that permit? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I want you all to see it. MS. ARNOLD: First look at it. MR. JOHNSON: Would you like to see the engineer specs on how to put the metal down? I have that with me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, sir, the permit's the important item, sir. MR. JOHNSON: Everything that was under that roof was there. Under the old roof. In other words, I haven't added nothing under it. The same structure, according to the tax office, nothing's been changed on the sides of the building and everything has been attached just like it is. And I didn't know that until they come out on account of the demolition permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Dennis, what can you tell us about that? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, as far as the permit for the roofover canopy, whatever you want to call that, aluminum structure, we do find a permit which had expired. It had not received its final inspections, and no C.O. So that permit, we had asked Mr. Johnson to come in and renew that permit, to get the final inspection and the C.O. So that it was a permitted structure, because it was null and void once they expire, or to remove the structure. Same went for the wood frame shed, which he did remove, and for the aluminum shed, which still remains there, and a wooden deck which extends from the rear of his mobile home to the waterway. There's no permits on record. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But the document he has given us is the document that has expired; is that what you're telling us? Page 33 January 22, 2004 MR. MAZZONE: Yes, sir. And on the job site copy it shows no indication of engineering, building, mechanical inspection. It has expired due to lack of inspection. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Can you give that back to Mr. Johnson, please. MR. JOHNSON: Excuse me, he just brought up a subject about a deck. I went down, after I got the building removed, to permitting to get a permit for this what he's calling a deck. Well, they -- after I done the paperwork, and I've got it somewhere here. After I done the paperwork, permitting informed me that now that has to be handled by the State. I have made an appointment to go in and talk to them. I just hadn't got there yet. Like I said, if you're going to change -- if I'm going to call it a roofover and he's going to call it an awning, I don't know what you'd call this thing I've got behind my house. Like I said, it's been there since '77. And here's where I applied -- tried to apply for a permit for that. And that was the 6th of January this year. Dennis Mazzone made the statement that I ought to get all these permits at one time. Well, that might have been true, except the only problem is I can only do one thing at a time to do it right. And right here is the building inspect-- the permit for the demo, and I've got the sign-off sheet on it. I didn't have to take it up to the office and just drop it off. That's the reason why I have that sign-off. But according to permitting, the State's now handled all docks, seawalls, anything that has to do with the waterways. And like I said, I've been busy trying to get some of this stuff moved, hoping he'd go away and leave me alone, but that don't -- that didn't seem to happen. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, sir. Anybody else have questions for Mr. Johnson? (No response.) Page 34 January 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have anything else to tell us, sir? Otherwise, we'll ask you to you sit down. MR. JOHNSON: I need to sit down, my leg's giving out on me anyway. I appreciate -- I appreciate this Board's time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. Cherie', are you okay? THE STENOGRAPHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does the Board have any questions for the county? If none -- MR. PONTE: Yeah, I just, I'm con -- I don't understand. If a permit was issued, why does it expire? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, all permits have a date on it. You can't get a permit and leave it forever. MR. PONTE: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It has a time period. MR. PONTE: But what was permitted was already there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It may not be to code. Doesn't matter that it was there. He might have built it illegally. So you're going to get a permit after the fact. You're allowed to do that. MR. PONTE: Which he has. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, the permit expired. MS. DUSEK: It was applied for. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He applied for it -- MR. BOWIE: It was only a permit to commence construction. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But he never got it finished. MR. PONTE: On -- this is what I wanted to ask the county. On Page -- it's difficult to do this without the piece of paper in front of me, but on Page 4 or 5, in the upper right-hand comer, I thought it said Permit Approved. MS. BARNETT: Approved. It's up at the top. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Johnson, could we see your permit again, sir? Page 35 January 22, 2004 MS. BARNETT: There was a date, and it was in 2000. There was a date that it said applied. MR. PONTE: Yes. MS. BARNETT: And on the other side it said approved. MR. PONTE: It was approved. MS. BARNETT: Is that the approval of the permit? MS. ARNOLD: You go through an application. Application. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's just to get the application. I mean, there's a lot of things -- when you build a house, you get a permit. The permit may be approved, but then you must get the pad approved, the plumbing approved, the electrical approved, the structure. I mean, there's probably a dozen approvals. Then you must get a C.O. So just approving the permit, that just gives you the permission to start. Then there's a lot of other things you have to do. MR. JOHNSON: Sir, I heard you -- somebody say something about it was never permitted. This mobile home, Florida room and room that the roofover is over, it was all permitted and put in as a unit. It was taken down in Polk County by Judge Woods on one piece of property and brought down here and the trailer that was there removed, and this was -- whole unit was set up like it was up there. And it was final inspected, and taxes been paid. On it. I mean, it's a funny thing that the county's collected $900 a year taxes on it for the first 10 years and now you're saying, well, it wasn't even permitted, you got to tear it down. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Just the roof is in question, sir. Can we see that again, please? Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: Well, the roof came with the rest of it. MS. ARNOLD: Just put it up here to kind of walk you all through what-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. ARNOLD: Is that in focus? MR. PONTE: What I was asking about, Michelle, was on the Page 36 January 22, 2004 right, top line on the right, where it says valid approval date. MS. ARNOLD: Right. That is the issue date -- I'm sorry. The date under the permit number, which is 2000120341, is an issue date of 12/06/00, and that's when the permit was issued, meaning it was released from the county, they reviewed it and it had all the necessary paperwork to meet the application process. MR. PONTE: All right, what was confusing me, on that same line, on the other side of the paper, on the right-hand side of that sheet it says approval. MR. BOWIE: Move a little over to the right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Slide it over, Michelle, so we can see the approval date. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. The approval date -- MR. PONTE: Now what -- yeah, that's what's confusing me. MS. ARNOLD: That's also -- and the -- it's synonymous with the issue. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: George is looking for what does that mean. That's just -- this is approval of the permit, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not of the structure? MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. MS. ARNOLD: Had there been a final -- well, on this is just-- it's just an application. This is what the county issues you when you actually get an approval. And there's other paperwork that would show the inspections, and then there would be a date that says final. And that would indicate when a certificate of occupancy or completion is done. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And that's a-- a certificate of occupancy is a little piece of paper, as I remember. MS. ARNOLD: Similar to what's on the prompter. MR. PONTE: Thank you. Page 37 January 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, any other questions for the county and/or Mr. Johnson? MR. PONTE: I have one for Dennis. This list of items that Mr. Johnson said he has removed, including an airplane -- MR. MAZZONE: I'm sorry? MR. PONTE: The list of material that Mr. Johnson says he has removed, which includes a range of items ranging from airplane to 380 batteries to 500 concrete house blocks, does that look right to you? Do you -- is that -- would that be your feeling, that all of these items have been removed? MR. MAZZONE: If they have been, miraculously they've been replaced with other items that still warrant a misuse in litter type of case on this property. It doesn't appear as though the tires -- the numerous tires and concrete block, unset block and building materials that were originally there were ever moved or removed. We have photographs from the beginning of them and then we have photographs of the very same items being stored as they were originally. I don't question that some of this -- I don't even remember an airplane, for instance, being on the property. I think I would have seen that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I gathered from Mr. Johnson's statement that this is a list of things that over years he has removed, not that he has removed just since Dennis went down and talked to him. This has happened previously. MR. MAZZONE: And if I may clarify also that I am not the assigned investigator for that area. That is not my assigned area. I only went down there as directed by the -- by our department director, due to the fact that it had escalated to a point where a letter was sent to the Commissioner's office. Yes, indeed I'm familiar with the island. I've been an Page 38 January 22, 2004 investigator for a number of years. I have never had cases that went unresolved. They were either complied with or they were found not to be in violation. We don't leave cases hanging. The only reason why I would revisit a site or go on to a location is because I'm directed to do so. I do not just-- I didn't, nor do I have a history of being on Plantation Island for a number of-- as an assigned location. Nor have I -- and I want to defend myself as saying nor have I ever spoken in a rude or improper way to Mr. Johnson. I think that sometimes hearing the truth or hearing what one must do might be construed as being spoken at. Well, I don't do that. That's not my nature. I had Mr. Johnson in fact sign three notices in agreement that he would do -- we sat down and he even offered me coffee that afternoon as we signed three -- the three notices that he did sign. He was very congenial that particular day. He was less than congenial on the return visits, and I understand that, because nobody wants to see us returning. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Dennis. Any other questions for anybody? MR. PONTE: Just one for Mr. Johnson. A little clarification to make sure we're right here. That list that you gave us, Mr. Johnson, of all those items with the signatures attesting to the fact that these items had been removed, it's not dated. And over what period of time and starting when -- MR. JOHNSON: The question with the airplane, I was gone to deliver that at the time that I got cited on all this stuff. I mean, he red tagged five pieces of property, give me three days to clean it off. I was gone for two delivering an airplane. The airplane was on a trailer which was licensed by the State of Florida, legal vehicle. MR. PONTE: Mr. Johnson, my question wasn't about the airplane, my question was about the entire list. How long and starting when were all these items removed? MR. JOHNSON: A week before Dennis Mazzone showed up, I Page 39 January 22, 2004 knew someone was coming, I didn't know who it was going to be, and I started trying to get things moved out of there. MR. PONTE: So you removed all these items in one week? MR. JOHNSON: Well, over about three weeks. But I had people coming in. I sent a lot of stuff out of state. I sent stuff to Michigan, I sent stuff to Kentucky, I sent stuff to Alabama, I send stuff to North Carolina. And several parts of this state I sent stuff to. As soon as I get somebody in to haul it out for me -- I mean, like I said, I got rid of a whole lot of stuff real quick. The building blocks was for future use on that piece of property. When he told me it had to go, I started getting rid of them. MR. PONTE: I guess what I'm trying to determine is, if you could remove all of these items in three weeks' time, why should this Board consider giving you, as you've requested, six months time to come into compliance? MR. JOHNSON: Well, I'm not in as good a shape as I was at that time, for one. And for the other, some of this stuff I just can throw away, some of it I can't. But I will get rid of it. I'm asking for six months to get an axle put back under my box trailer and to remove the stuff out of the yard that's not licensed, you know, illegal. I understand that you're sitting here wondering about this. I had people come in and get most of this stuff. I didn't have to get rid of it. And people can only take so much stuff and they end up like I am. MS. BARNETT: I have a question for you, Mr. Johnson. You mentioned that you were sending some of this stuff and you mentioned several places out of the State of Florida. Are those family members that you're sending it to, or are these business associates or people that are purchasing this -- MR. JOHNSON: It's places where I have equipment. I used to cover the southeastern United States doing several different types of work. And they're not businesses. It's individuals, family, friends, Page 40 January 22, 2004 people that can use it, doing repairs on their places and need the stuff. It's too good to throw away, so they use it up the road somewhere, you know, whatever. But as far as running a business, I'm not. MS. BARNETT: So you just give this stuff away, you don't get any remuneration for it? MR. JOHNSON: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Mr. Johnson. He's not cited for running a business, so let's get back on track that he just has a bunch of stuff. What he does with it, I really don't care, and we shouldn't care. He can't have it on his property. When he's cited for a business, he'll be back here, I'm sure. Any other questions for Mr. Johnson or the county? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none -- yes, sir? MR. JOHNSON: I have one question. We still haven't come up with an answer for the roofover, since the roof and everything was put up at one time, it was all permitted. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let me -- let me stop you, Mr. Johnson. We can't give you an answer for that. What we're here to do is, there's a violation brought before us. The only thing we're empowered to do is either find that you are in fact in violation or you are not. Beyond that, we can't help you. You need to go down to Horseshoe Drive or somewhere else in the county to resolve that problem. We can only resolve that is there or is there not a violation. Beyond that, sir, we can't help you. I'm sorry. MR. JOHNSON: Well, how do you figure it's a violation if it's been there all along? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Based on what the county has said and what you have said, we will make that determination. MR. JOHNSON: In other words, since I don't have my piece of paper where it's signed off, and they claim there's not one, it's a good Page 41 January 22, 2004 possibility I'm going to have to tear down my house? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, unless you can come up with a signed off piece of paper after we make some type of determination, sir. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If none, we will close the public hearings and we will debate the violation. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion in the case CEB No. 2003-057, Board of County Commissioners versus Steven B. Johnson, that there is a violation. The violations are of Section 1.5.6, 2.1.11, 2.2.10.2.1, 2.7.6 Paragraphs 1 and 5, 2.6.7.1.1 and 2.6.7.2.1 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code, and Sections 6 and 7 and 8 of Ordinance No. 99-51, the weed and litter ordinance, Section 5, Paragraph 16(B) of Ordinance No. 89-06, the Collier County housing ordinance. The description of the violation: Improper outdoor storage of, but not limited to, six boats, 10 boat trailers, four unlicensed passenger vehicles, salvage building materials, vehicles parts, tools and machinery on an improved mobile home zoned property, neighboring property and then -- and I believe the county right-of-way has been cleared; is that correct? So we'll leave that part out? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: For the time being, yeah. MS. DUSEK: All same outdoor storage left exposed to the elements, unattended, unsecured, and in a progressive state of disrepair, presenting a nuisance to neighboring properties. A metal and wood frame open canopy type workshop storage facility with electrical improvements constructed with expired Permit No. 20000120341. All improvements were never inspected or received a certificate of completion. Page 42 January 22, 2004 Also observed a wood dock, wood frame shed and a trailer and conversion, all constructed without first obtaining authorization of a Collier County building permit and having all of the required inspections and receiving a certificate of completion. Improvements are encroaching on neighboring properties -- property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion that a violation does in fact exist. Do I hear a second? MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second. Are there any further discussions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the Board. MR. PONTE: Just looking at county's recommendation, what is the county's recommendation in terms of fine? I see $50 a day, $50 a day, $50 a day. Is this additive? I mean, could this result in $150 a day? MS. ARNOLD: For each violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, there's one, two, three, four. There's four of them. On four separate items, if we choose to go in that direction. So each item would have its own -- MR. PONTE: You're talking about $200 a day? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Possibly. MR. PONTE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Some things are sooner than others. And if some occur, maybe the others -- MR. PONTE: Dropout. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- are required, so they would drop Page 43 January 22, 2004 out, SO-- MR. LEFEBVRE: I would like to see number one stricken from this. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. Yeah, Mr. Johnson says he doesn't do that, so -- MS. BARNETT: And he wasn't cited for it, so -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. MS. DUSEK: Gerald, do you want to make the motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm just reviewing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He's still reading. MR. LEFEBVRE: And then also, number two, it does state relating to legal business operation also. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think probably after the word neighboring lots, you could probably put a period, and no one would be upset at that. Because we were -- have testimony that he's not doing such. MS. DUSEK: Well, I'll start it. MR. PONTE: Well, before you start, let's -- MS. DUSEK: You can start. MR. PONTE: No, I'm not going to start either. Let's just discuss, because what's going to happen after you've made your suggestion, we're going to discuss -- yeah, then we have to go back and restart it again. MS. DUSEK: Okay. MR. PONTE: Is the time frame. MS. DUSEK: Well, I was looking at number three, and I know it says 30 days. I realize that Mr. Johnson said last April he would do it in six months, it's now nine months, but I would like to give him 90 days in that section. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I was -- whatever came up, I was going to recommend, since we're probably going to, in item four, live with the getting a building permit and so on and so forth within a Page 44 January 22, 2004 90-day period, why don't we just use 90 days in everything and make it -- that gives him a sufficient amount of time, I think, to remove things while he's doing any applications. So if we keep everything at 90-- MR. PONTE: That certainly would make life easier. MS. DUSEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. Okay. If that helps, then Bobbie, go for it. MS. DUSEK: Okay, anything else, George, that you want to discuss? MR. PONTE: I really have -- I'm really parsing this because this is-- MS. DUSEK: It's quite lengthy. MR. PONTE: -- very complex. I'd just like to have a couple more minutes to do that. MS. DUSEK: All right. MR. PONTE: I'm not sure what we do about this waterway stuff. Is it in fact now state responsibility? MS. BARNETT: I think if it's a dock they have to have a permit from the state. MS. ARNOLD: There is a requirement for a permit from the county. MS. BARNETT: Is it from the county? MS. ARNOLD: As well. MS. BARNETT: As well as the state. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I'm not really sure what that state process is, because it seems to be changing. MS. BARNETT: I just know that -- I've just been noticing in the -- I don't know if it's local, but like up in Port Charlotte and Cape Coral areas they've been having a lot of problems trying to get -- MR. BOWIE: That's just to build a dock. MS. BARNETT: -- dock permits. In order to build, they have Page 45 January 22, 2004 to get permission from the state. And I don't know if that applies down here or not. MR. JOHNSON: They said it did. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It does. In this case it's already there, so it may be -- maybe. I use the word maybe, may be an easier process since it exists. MR. DORIA: Are we talking about a dock or a deck, a deck walkway? I mean, I think that's two separate things. MS. ARNOLD: A deck walkway. MR. JOHNSON: It's actually a dock. MR. PONTE: It's in the water? MR. JOHNSON: It sits out over the water on posts. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. PONTE: I have a question. This reporting back to the CEB monthly? I'm not seeing -- reporting back to the CEB on a monthly basis. What is that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, to give us progress. I'd rather he report to the county. MR. PONTE: Well, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not to us. MR. PONTE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The county can report to us. He needs to report to Michelle or one of her people. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by immediately stop storing any and all, but not limited to, vehicles of any kind, boats and trailers, vehicle parts, salvage, building materials, tools or private ownership machinery and debris on subject lot and neighboring lots. Must remove all storage and debris from all locations within 90 days from the date of this hearing or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Page 46 January 22, 2004 Submit and complete sufficient building permit application for all allowed structural improvements or remove all non-permitted structures within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Must follow through with all required inspections and receive a certificate of completion within 90 days after obtaining the required building permits, or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. If any structure is not permittable, then respondent must obtain a demolition permit and follow through with all required inspections and receive a certificate of completion within 90 days from the date of this hearing or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Must properly store all allowed recreational equipment that is owned by owner/occupant in rear yard or waterways. Must properly store any items of value in an enclosed structure or remove all improperly outside stored items. Must report back to the county on a monthly basis prior to the above noted compliance dates, as to provide a status report on the compliance progress, so that the CEB may reassess the compliance dates and determine if an extension of time is appropriate. Respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and to request the inspector to come out and perform the site inspections. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions on that? MS. ARNOLD: I have one question, if I may. Is there a need to indicate a time period for must properly store all allowable recreational vehicles or must properly store all -- MR. PONTE: I can't hear you, Michelle. I honestly can't. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think, Michelle, where he's going to store anything, the items above where we put the days in about removing all storage and debris and such in 90 days, I think that Page 47 January 22, 2004 really is just a verbal -- I don't want to call it reinforcement, but reinforcement that you must do this. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The days are up above. I think that was properly covered, everything else. Any other questions about the motion? MR. BOWIE: Could I just make a suggestion or a question? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MR. BOWIE: If you look at old number seven, which reads, must properly store any items of value in an enclosed structure, that is very, very vague. Item of value could be his own personal automobile, and there's no reason to require that. Maybe we should delete that portion and just focus on all improperly outside stored items? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, just take the words "of value" out, and store any items in an enclosed structure. How's that, Bobbie, could you do that? MS. DUSEK: I amend-- MR. BOWIE: I would say must properly enclosed in a structure or remove all improperly outside stored items. Those are the two alternatives, you put them enclosed or you remove them if they're improperly stored. MR. PONTE: Does that-- you raise an interesting question about his car. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He wasn't cited for his car. MR. BOWIE: That's what we're trying to avoid. There's a lot of things of value that don't necessarily have to be removed or enclosed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If we take the word value out, I think we've solved that problem. MS. BARNETT: Should we say a permitted enclosed structure? MS. DUSEK: I think it -- let me read and see how this sounds. Page 48 January 22, 2004 Must properly store in an enclosed structure or remove all improperly outside stored items. MR. BOWIE: I think that makes sense. MS. BARNETT: Should we say permitted enclosed structure? MS. DUSEK: Well, we could add that to it. I think that's probably a good idea. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Tell Jean what you want. MS. DUSEK: Okay. I'll tell you, Jean, again, that sentence: Must properly store in an enclosed permitted structure or remove all improperly outside stored items. MR. PONTE: Can we just have a little discussion here before we move to a motion? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me just make one comment to Jean, please. There are still eight items, Jean, the first item being paying the operational costs, okay? So we're sure that it's a separate item. MS. RAWSON: I got that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, thank you. Yes, sir? MR. PONTE: I'm just -- the $50 per day on the surface looks like fine, but what we have here is fine creep, and we're looking at the possibility of $200 per day, which I don't think is fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, what we're trying to do is make him do certain things -- I realize that we're giving him the same amount of time, but the -- we're trying to give him incentive to do various things, since there -- he has been cited for so many violations. I think that was the intent. MR. PONTE: Well, what would be a reasonable per diem? I mean, now that we've got it all focused on 90 days, which I think was the right move, but $200 a day seems excessive. Let's say it all falls into place, I mean, then does it warrant a $100 a day fine? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, okay, first of all, he's doing the Page 49 January 22, 2004 -- removing the debris is a $50 fine. MR. PONTE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay? Then getting a permit or removing his structure is another $50 a day fine. MR. PONTE: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I understand that. What I'm concerned with is the possibility if, for whatever reason, all this isn't in compliance in 90 days, Mr. Johnson would face a $200 a day fine. MR. RAMSEY: I think if none of it's in compliance within 90 days, that means he hasn't done any of the things that we've asked him to do, so it's not unreasonable. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't have a -- MR. PONTE: Even if that were the case, it's not a $200 a day fine offense, if he did nothing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Individually they are $50 a day fine reasonable. What you're doing is you're combining -- but as we have done in the past, getting the permits and not getting them has been, in various occasions, $50 or more and cleaning up debris has been $50 or more. And individually, if you look at these, they are correct. You're looking at the bottom line, which may be true, but you'd have to take the violations individually. You can't say they're individual but, oh, gee, if he doesn't do any of them, the fine's too high. No, they're individual violations. And that's -- he needs to correct them. The gross amount at the bottom line unfortunately is really not important. They're individual violations, and that's how we're structuring the fines. MS. BARNETT: I have a question in that if he comes back on a monthly basis and he's been working at this and we are deeming that he needs an extension of time, which we have put into this order, are we then going to change the fee structure -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, ma'am. Page 50 January 22, 2004 MS. BARNETT: -- due to the extension of time? MR. PONTE: We can't. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, an extension of time, what we're saying is he notifies -- the progress is there in case he would ask for an extension of time. We don't automatically grant extensions of time. It must be requested and -- MS. BARNETT: We're actually putting it in our order that he's to come in-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And just report progress. MS. BARNETT: -- and report progress so that we can determine whether an extension is time is -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If an extension is appropriate. But he still has to ask for the extension. It's not automatic. MR. JOHNSON: Can I call -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No comments, sir, thank you. Do you understand what I'm saying, Sheri? MS. BARNETT: No, I don't, because I don't find we've ever done an order this way where we've spelled out that they had to come in and report and for us to determine whether an extension was needed. So I think that's giving us latitude without him asking for it, and that's my point. MR. PONTE: I don't think -- the way the recommendation was made and read, it doesn't say that he has to come in, it says he must report back to the county on a monthly basis. And I would think given the distance involved a phone call or a letter would be considered as a report back and not having to make a trip to Horseshoe Drive. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Did you say come in, Bobbie? I don't see come in. MR. PONTE: MS. DUSEK: CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, she did not. No, no, no. I doesn't say come in here, so -- and I Page 51 January 22, 2004 didn't hear her say that, so -- MR. PONTE: No, she didn't. But we're talking it as if-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So, I mean -- I'm not looking for him to come in. MS. BARNETT: Do you get my point, Cliff, where I -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand what you're saying, but I don't read it that way, so -- MS. BARNETT: I'm just afraid it's open to interpretation and I was trying to say -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, give is some guidance. MS. RAWSON: We've never put it an order that -- I mean, you could stop by putting a period after CEB may reassess the compliance date, period. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Period. Okay. MS. RAWSON: Because you really have probably never put in one of your orders the out that maybe an extension of time is appropriate. I see where Sheri's going. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Bobbie, would you like to amend it -- MS. DUSEK: Yes, I will amend that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- to delete those words, starting with the word "and" in number eight. MS. DUSEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: How is that, Sheri, does that help? MS. BARNETT: That makes me feel better. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Not a problem. As long as we get it worked out. Okay. Everybody understands what we're doing? George, do you understand the fines? Are you happy with that, sir? Possibly? MS. DUSEK: Don't ask him that question. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You notice I added that word? MR. PONTE: I'm not really comfortable with it, no. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion on the floor. Is Page 52 January 22, 2004 there a second? MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) We have a second. Any further Hearing none, all those in favor, CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Pass. We're going to take five minutes. Cherie', is that enough for you? Five minutes before the next case. (A brief recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Our five minutes are up, everybody. We have a lot to cover in a short amount of time. All right, Code Enforcement Board is back in order, please. Next case will be 2003-058. And does that go in line with 059, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it's the same respondents, just two different properties, and that's why we broke it up. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, can we do them both same if we do separate orders at the end? MS. RAWSON: Yes, you can. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. HILTON: This is Board of County Commissioners versus Keith T. Heckman, CEB Case No. 2003-058. I would like to ask at this time if the respondent is present in the courtroom? (No response.) MS. HILTON: The respondent is not present. We have previously provided the respondent and the Board with Page 53 January 22, 2004 a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. MR. RAMSEY: Second. MS. BARNETT: Can I ask a question first? Michelle, I'm just curious, because you said that they were two pieces of property, but the addresses on both folios are identical. MS. ARNOLD: Well, the second piece of property is actually an easement, so there's no address on that. MS. BARNETT: Okay, because I just wanted a clarification on that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. It's an easement adjacent to the property owned by Mr. Heckman. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second to enter the County's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by say -- by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm sorry. I'll get it out eventually. Those opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of Sections 1.5.6, 1.8.7, 1.9.2, 2.1.11, 2.1.15, Paragraph 1, 2.2.5.2.1, 2.6.7.1, and 2.6.7.3 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. Section 5, Paragraph 16(B) of Ordinance No. 89-06, and Sections 6, 7, and 8 of Ordinance 99-51, as amended. The description of the violation: Outdoor storage of, but not limit to, several commercial and non-commercial vehicles in various states of disrepair, homemade containers containing various auto parts, front end loaders, commercial tools and various items intended to be used to either repair or dismantle vehicles on improved Page 54 January 22, 2004 residential property. Location where violation exists: 121 Whiteway, Immokalee, Florida. Name and address of owner in charge of location: Keith T. Heckman, P.O. Box 201, Immokalee, Florida. Date violation first observed: July 25th, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: June 27th, 2003, by personal service. Date on which violation was to be corrected: Was July 30th, 2003. Date of reinspection: January 21, 2004. Result of the reinspection: The violation remains. And the CEB Notice of Hearing was sent certified mail and a copy of the Notice of Hearing was personally served on Mr. Heckman. MS. BARNETT: Correction. You said July 25th, and the paper says 29 -- June 25th, I mean. MS. HILTON: Oh, sorry. June 25th, 2003. The second case is Board of County Commissioners versus Keith T. Heckman, CEB Case No. 2003-059. We would like to ask if the respondent is present in the courtroom? (No response.) MS. HILTON: The respondent is not present. We have previously provided the Board and the respondent with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A in the case of 2003-059. MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 55 January 22, 2004 (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: The alleged violations -- alleged violation is of Sections 1.5.6, 1.8.7, 1.9.2, 2.1.11, 2.1.15, Paragraph 1, 2.2.5.2.1, 2.6.7.1 and 2.6.7.3 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. Description of the violation: Outdoor storage of, but not limited to, several vehicles untagged and unlicensed, and track rear axle with four tires attached, all in different stages of disrepair, discarded, but not limited to, major and minor vehicle parts and tires. Location where violation exists: 121 Whiteway, Immokalee, Florida. Name and address of owner: Keith T. Heckman, P.O. Box 201, Immokalee, Florida. Date violation first observed: June 24th, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: June 27th, 2003, by personal service. Date which violation was to be corrected: July 30th, 2003. Date of reinspection: January 21, 2004. Result of reinspection: The violations remain. And the CEB Notice of Hearing was sent certified mail and a copy of the Notice of Hearing was personally served on Mr. Heckman by Investigator Mazzone. And at this time I would like to turn the two cases over to the investigator, Dennis Mazzone, to present them to the Board. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. MAZZONE: For the record, I am Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Dennis Mazzone. In the month of June, the office of Collier County Code Enforcement received a citizen's complaint concerning the unauthorized use and neglected condition of various yard areas of Page 56 January 22, 2004 residential zoned lots 11 and 12, belonging to Mr. Keith Heckman, and adjacent unimproved portions of a 60-foot Collier County road easement known as the west end of Boston Avenue in Immokalee, Florida. On June 24th, 2003, I confirmed the existence of three commercial tow trucks, 20 derelict vehicles, all in various stages of disrepair, two large homemade makeshift receptacles filled with major and minor vehicle parts, to include tires and batteries, two commercial front end loaders, and numerous other items of tools -- items and tools intended for the repair or dismantling of vehicles of Mr. Heckman's 121 Whiteway, Immokalee, Florida residential property. Also three commercial tow trucks all advertising Keith Towing Service signage on the side of the trucks, one dismantled truck rear axle with four attached tires, 10 derelict passenger vehicles, all in various stages of disrepair, and numerous discarded major and minor vehicle parts, to include tires, and a non-permitted concrete culvert, which was improperly set in place for illegal access onto unimproved portions of the 60-foot Collier County road easement adjacent to Mr. Heckman's 121 Whiteway, Immokalee, Florida residence. All of the above findings of unauthorized storage, improper activity and prohibited use were constituting a violation of Collier County residential multi-family-6 zoning district regulations. During this visit, I discussed the serious nature of my findings with Mr. Heckman's step-brother, Mr. Robert Heckman, and requested a phone contact by his step-brother, Keith Heckman, upon his return of the property. On June 27th, I prepared a Collier County notice of violation and order to correct form and served to it Mr. Heckman at his place of business, his place of business being 905 Alachua Street, in Immokalee, Florida. I provided Mr. Heckman with a copy of all the appropriate Page 57 January 22, 2004 ordinances and related sections found to be in violation, and I explained the violations in question in detail, and explained what course of action had to be taken as far as compliance to find the situation in compliance. The locations in question have been continuously monitored throughout the duration of the case in question, and varying degrees of minor change have been seen during my visits, but the properties in question remain in a non-compliant state. On January 2nd -- I'm SO1Ty, on January 12th, 2004, the violations remained when I rechecked it. There were five tow trucks on the easement and one on the residential lot that belonged to Mr. Heckman. I took current photos. I met with his daughter -- pardon me, please. At that time I met with his -- I took current photos and then I met with his daughter, Victoria, at their 905 Alachua place of business, and I requested that Mr. Heckman remove all of the items that were on the county's road easement. And that would show in good faith that he's at least trying to do something to correct this situation, and then from that point start removing the items that were in violation on his residential property that was adjacent to the road easement. I provided -- on January 13th, 2004, I met with Mr. Heckman at his 905 Alachua Street place of business, and I informed him as to what was needed for compliance, and I provided him copies of the CEB meeting hearing data, letting him know that there would be a meeting held and that he would have had -- he has the opportunity of being in attendance here today. On January 21st of this week, 2004, I again went to Mr. Heckman's property and to the easement and I confirmed that indeed Mr. Heckman had cleared a good portion of the easement. What remained in violation were two commercial tow truck with Mr. Heckman's signage on them, and one opened utility trailer with some Page 58 January 22, 2004 equipment stored on the back of it and some minor debris still left in the easement. Mr. Heckman's private property, lots 11 and 12, were relatively -- the front of the property was relatively clean of debris. All the bins of dismantled car parts were removed, the vehicles were removed. The only thing remaining was a commercial flatbed truck belonging to Keith Heckman's towing service and some minor items on the front yard that could easily be removed. The photographs in front of you show -- this first picture shows a small pile of debris which is in the county road easement. That's the same debris. That's a closer picture of the same debris. That is Mr. Heckman's front -- this photo currently on the screen is Mr. Heckman's front yard. That's the flatbed towing -- the tow equipment that he has stored in the front yard that is in violation. This is a picture that was taken previous to my last visit. That has since been re -- oh, no, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, that is the culvert, the concrete culvert that is located in the county easement and used as -- in the drainage part of the easement, and used as an access point to Mr. Heckman's side yard, or from his side yard onto the easement. That's how he accesses our easement. And that is the utility trailer found on the road easement. That is -- those are the two vehicles remaining on our road easement. They both have Mr. Heckman's signage on the trucks. They're trucks of value and certainly should be stored properly. That is just -- that is an area where Mr. Heckman once had a truck. I took a photo showing that it is now clear. That end of the easement has been cleaned by Mr. Heckman. There's one small piece of debris on the ground at that location, a wire of some sort. Nothing maj or. And that's it. MR. PONTE: So just -- what we have in a nutshell, right, is Page 59 January 22, 2004 there are four items or six items -- four items: The flatbed truck is there, the two expensive tow trucks are there -- MR. MAZZONE: Yes, sir. MR. PONTE: -- the utility trailer is there, and there is the problem with the culvert and the county easement. MR. MAZZONE: Culvert and then some minor debris, a pile of minor-- it's really about a -- not even two pickup trucks full. MR. PONTE: So he's really done a good job of restoring the place. MR. MAZZONE: Yes, he has. I have to say, up until January, he really was reluctant to do anything. I don't know if he realized how serious we were about coming to the Board with this case. He has a business where he probably has a shortage of storage area there, so he's been using his residence for a very long time, until we got this complaint, and then we had to make him aware of the fact that he cannot use the residential property to store this equipment and then also use our easement, which abuts this property, to store anything. So we've made him aware of that. And it seems as though he's made an attempt here to clean up. MR. PONTE: You mentioned his office location. Is there land around his office where he could park these expensive trucks? MR. MAZZONE: He has -- yes, he does. Yes, sir. He has an industrial site and there is a large yard area that's fenced in where it would allow for the storage of this type of equipment. MS. ARNOLD: Dennis, the property that's being brought to the Board today, is that a different site that you --.than what you were -- MR. MAZZONE: Yes, the property we're speaking of today is a residential site. MR. PONTE: Yes, I understand. MR. MAZZONE: He does own an industrial site on Alachua Street in Immokalee. That's where his place, his business is. And he Page 60 January 22, 2004 does have a fenced in area that would allow for him to move some of his equipment there. MR. PONTE: Would it all fit? Could he get all, you know, the four trucks and -- MR. MAZZONE: Mr. Heckman has a good business going for him, it appears, in that he's got a lot of towed vehicles on the premises. So for me to say they would all fit, I can't say that they would. He might need additional area to store, another off-site, another location that's legal to store this large and expensive equipment. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. MAZZONE: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Dennis? MS. DUSEK: Dennis, even though he's cleared a lot of this debris and trucks away, he still is in violation of the violations cited, even though there aren't as many items on the property and the easement? MR. MAZZONE: That's correct. MR. BOWIE: Both of these subject properties, lots 11 and 12, are vacant, unimproved lots; is that correct? MR. MAZZONE: No, lots 11 and 12 are for his residence. MR. BOWIE: He resides there? MR. MAZZONE: He resides there. And the Collier County road easement, which is the west end of Boston Avenue in Immokalee, abuts -- it's unimproved road easement and it abuts up against his property and is a large area that he's found to be a good, convenient place for him to store some of his things, you know, so -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Dennis? (No response.) MR. MAZZONE: Would you like me to show you a map of the area in question? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure, Dennis, that's fine. Page 61 January 22, 2004 MR. MAZZONE: We'll try to zoom in on this map. That's Whiteway. At the very end of Whiteway, you'll see his lots, 11 and 12. Those are the improved lots. They're residential -- in a residential zoning district. And that area just beyond his lots is the Collier County road easement, although it is unimproved at that point. It's a grassy area. We received this complaint from the neighbors that have to pass by that property. They just improved their property, and they're in an industrial -- or a commercial area where a lot of people pass by there and they want it to be presentable. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Dennis. MR. MAZZONE: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since the respondent is not here, we'll close the public hearings and the Board will debate the issue. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of CEB No. 2003-058, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, versus Keith Heckman, that there is a violation. The violation is of Sections 1.5.6, 1.8.7, 1.9.2, 2.1.11, 2.1.15, Paragraph 1, 2.2.5.2.1, 2.6.7.1 and 2.6.7.3 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. Section 5, Paragraph 16(B) of Ordinance No. 89-06, and Sections 6, 7, and 8 of Ordinance No. 99-51, as amended. Description of the violation: Outdoor storage of, but not limited to, commercial and non-commercial vehicles in various states of repair-- disrepair, and various items of debris on improved residential property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that in fact a violation exists. Do I hear a second? MR. RAMSEY: Second. MR. BOWIE: Would it not also be proper to include the same Page 62 January 22, 2004 finding in 2003-059? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We've got to do two separate cases. MS. DUSEK: We'll do that separately. MR. BOWIE: I thought we could address -- I thought the -- we had the opinion previously that we could address both as long as they were separate orders. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we could do the -- we could do the cases, and we're now about to do the order, so -- this is part of an order is the finding of fact. So we do them separately. 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: Okay. You want to just continue with that order, Bobbie? Are you going to make your recommendation on this one, and then we'll go back and do the other one? Okay. Make it easier. MS. DUSEK: Does anyone else want to make a recommendation? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: A finding of fact? MS. BARNETT: I just had a question. In reading the county's recommendation, would go through 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and then it states that there would be a fine of $50 a day per violation. Are we talking about 2, 3, 4 and 5, or are we talking about per item that is on the property? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think five is relating to itself, i.e. dispose of litter and debris, and that $50 is for disposing of the litter and debris. That's the way I read the sentence. So that seems to be the only fine on any violation that the county is recommending. I Page 63 January 22, 2004 may have something to -- MS. BARNETT: I was kind of curious as -- I guess I can't bring up the previous case, but it was very similar in nature -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. BARNETT: -- and we fined it per order-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. MS. ARNOLD: And I think that it was intended to apply to all the violations, not just the litter and debris. But it was worded poorly. MS. BARNETT: That's why I wanted the clarification. Because it said per violation, so I wasn't sure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The county's recommendation then is $50 for everything? MS. ARNOLD: For each violation. Similar to the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't really like that but -- MS. DUSEK: Well, what -- as I read this over, what I would like to suggest is that we put violations 1 and 2 as one violation, 3 and 4 as one violation, and 5 as one violation, with $50 for each. MR. PONTE: But 4 has been mitigated. There is -- debris has been cleared. MS. DUSEK: Well, not all debris has been -- MS. BARNETT: Not all. There is still a couple of truck loads. MS. DUSEK: There are still some items there. MR. PONTE: Enough to have a court case over? MS. BARNETT: It's still there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we're here. MR. PONTE: It just looks like it was left behind when he cleared it, that's all. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I understand what Bobbie's saying and I wouldn't have a problem with that. My comment would come in that I don't have a problem with $50 a day fine on the litter and debris, but I think until he removes all his trucks and does his Page 64 January 22, 2004 commercial business elsewhere, that a fine should apply to that. MR. PONTE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And we should give him some kind of time, like he has two days, five days to get rid of all his commercial business from his residence or a $50 a day fine, and then you can get into debris and everything else in "X" and a $50 a day fine. I think that would be proper. MS. DUSEK: Well, that's where I was putting 1 and 2 together. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. You can combine them. I'm just saying there's no fine if he doesn't remove his commercial business, and I think there should be. Otherwise we're just saying remove it-- MR. PONTE: What you really mean, though, when we write this or craft this, he has a place of commercial business which is separate from this. What he's doing is parking -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: At his house. MR. PONTE: -- a couple of expensive trucks at his house. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MR. PONTE: So naturally he can't do business from his house, and he could get telephone calls and dispatch the tow trucks from his place of business, right? So all I'm saying, it's not he can't do business, he just can't park his trucks there. MS. ARNOLD: I'm sorry, can I just mention one other thing? This recommendation should have been modified. The -- there is reference to the immediate removal of a non-permitted concrete culvert on 2003-058. That reference shouldn't be there because the culvert's actually on the other property. So that should be removed CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: concrete culvert. MS. ARNOLD: Exactly. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: In what I've got have, 59 has the Well, it's not in 58 and we haven't Page 65 January 22, 2004 mentioned that. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, okay. Because my copy says that. I guess I just didn't get the corrected version. Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ours doesn't say that. MS. DUSEK: Cliff, going back to what you said, would not putting 1 and 2 together with a $50 fine satisfy what you were saying? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. It's just that there is no fine right now and I would -- MS. DUSEK: Right. Well, that's what I was suggesting we do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's fine. That would be terrific. MR. BOWIE: I'd like to -- I'd like to go even further and suggest that we consider deleting 1 altogether, because 1 doesn't make too much sense to me. Stop storing any and all items from his residence. I don't, you know-- MR. PONTE: I think what it says -- what it's trying to say is stop parking your commercial vehicles in your front yard. MR. BOWIE: Yeah. I think we take care of that with 2. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. We may have to reword 2 to -- George is right, if he wants to receive telephone calls at home, I don't have a problem with that. But I don't want any vehicles in a residential area. So immediately stop -- MR. PONTE: Parking. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- maintaining his commercial vehicles at his residence. How's that, something like that? MS. DUSEK: Parking and maintaining? MR. LEFEBVRE: For clarity, can we put a date -- or not a date, but like within three days from today? Because immediately could be tomorrow, could be the following day. So within three days? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I think that -- Jean, don't we Page 66 January 22, 2004 really need a date? MS. RAWSON: We do need a date, but three days is probably -- it will be three days before Mr. Flegal signs this order. MR. LEFEBVRE: Five days. I mean, a specific date versus immediately -- MR. BOWIE: Probably 15 is reasonable. I don't know. By the time the bureaucracy moves. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We've done it before where we've had -- where we've said, you know, immediately means immediately, like right now when this meeting's over. When you get it in the mail is too late. I mean, we've done this in the past now. If we want to change that practice, ! don't have a problem with it, but we need to be consistent. MS. BARNETT: If we said three days from this hearing, does he have to sign it to put it into order before it becomes -- MS. RAWSON: Well, what generally happens is I prepare the orders, Mr. Flegal comes in and signs the orders, then I mail it to them. So it's going to be three, four, five days before he knows about it. And then I guess he would know that it's already too late, so he better do it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Today's Thursday. Normally when we do this, you call me and I sign the orders Monday morning. MS. RAWSON: Usually Monday morning. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You probably mail them Monday afternoon, I guess -- MS. RAWSON: I do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- or something like that? So he's going to get it Tuesday? MS. RAWSON: Could be. MR. PONTE: hearing? MS. DUSEK: Can we just say 10 days from the date of this Why don't we keep the 15 days in this one like Page 67 January 22, 2004 we did the other one? You know, it's debris and litter 15 days, why don't we just do 15 days? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: County have a problem with that? MS. ARNOLD: (Shakes head negatively). MS. DUSEK: It's not a safety issue. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good point. Make it the same. MR. PONTE: Makes sense to me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Everything consistent. Fifteen days for and $50. MR. BOWIE: CHAIRMAN MS. DUSEK: CHAIRMAN that That's the 15/50 rule, we're going to call that. FLEGAL: What me FLEGAL: MS. DUSEK: All right, Okay. to try? Yes, ma'am. then you all can beat up on it. I make a motion that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by, number one, within 15 days stop storing any commercial items from his residence. Number two, immediately stop parking and maintaining his towing business from his place of residence and only do such work in a properly designated commercial location, or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed. Number three, properly store all commercial equipment and any items -- MR. BOWIE: Let's take that out again. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, let's take that out. MS. DUSEK: Properly store all commercial equipment in an enclosed structure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, on -- MS. BARNETT: I'm afraid if you do that, if he builds a garage then he could start parking his trucks there. MR. BOWIE: I think you need to say a properly permitted Page 68 January 22, 2004 commercially zoned enclosed structure, to be on the safe side. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Properly store all commercial equipment in a-- MS. DUSEK: Enclosed permitted structure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, in a commercially zoned area, because residential isn't commercial. How does that sound? MR. BOWIE: That sounds good. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does that get us what we need? MR. BOWIE: Commercially zoned area, yeah. MS. DUSEK: Okay, sure. Properly store all commercial equipment in a commercially zoned area. Remove all debris and litter resulting from vehicle repair within 15 days from the date of this hearing or a $50 fine will be imposed per day. MR. PONTE: We don't know that the litter resulted from vehicular repair, do we? There was just a cable left there. MS. BARNETT: No, no, there was some other debris that there was another picture of. He said there was a couple of truckloads left that were still in the easement. There was two pictures of it. MR. PONTE: As a result of vehicular repair? MR. BOWIE: I think the point is you could just leave it and say litter and debris. MR. PONTE: That's right. MS. DUSEK: Okay. MS. BARNETT: I had one question. If we say all commercial equipment has to be stored in a -- this is just a technical question -- a commercial -- can he come back on us? Because pool companies bring home their trucks and they have pool commercial equipment in them and they store them like overnight-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, let's not bring in the rest of the world. Here we're trying -- he's got these large trucks, which have been presented as evidence -- Page 69 January 22, 2004 MS. BARNETT: But we're classifying all commercial equipment, and that's where my question is. I mean, does he have small commercial equipment that fits in the back -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: In a residential area, a commercial isn't to be permitted anyway. There's some, quote, deed restricted communities that you can't have anything, any vehicle that has any lettering on it. So that's a commercial -- you have to get it out. MS. BARNETT: But this isn't a deed restricted -- there's an overlay with Immokalee, and that's what I'm getting at, Cliff. I'm questioning with Michelle. MS. ARNOLD: I think we probably should clarify that and say commercial vehicles, because-- MS. BARNETT: Rather than equipment? MS. ARNOLD: Well, the code allows -- or defines what a commercial vehicle is, and a pool truck is not a commercial vehicle. It's a pickup truck. What is prohibited is all the equipment that is generally stored on that pool truck. If they have those equipment, it has to be enclosed and covered. So the code kind of specifies what you can and can't do in residential areas. So I don't really think that this would be applicable. What they're -- what we're making reference to here is that the trucks and then the trailers and other commercial type things that he's utilizing for his business and he's storing on a residential area, that's not permitted. It's outside of the -- MS. BARNETT: So equipment would classify that being okay as the terminology then? That's where I'm just trying to get a clarification, rather than -- MS. ARNOLD: It should be vehicles and equipment. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I mean, you're showing-- Page 21 you're showing this large whatever it is. That ain't a truck. It's a big metal something with a -- MS. ARNOLD: I'm saying it should be -- it should be vehicles Page 70 January 22, 2004 and equipment, because he has both. MR. BOWIE: It's definitely equipment, whatever it is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's equipment, whatever it is. We don't want it in a residence. MS. DUSEK: We'll do vehicle and equipment. Does that help? Properly store all vehicle and equipment. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Commercial. MS. DUSEK: Excuse me, all commercial vehicle and equipment -- commercial, understanding that that's what equipment is -- in a commercially zoned area. MS. BARNETT: Is there a fine attached to that? MS. DUSEK: Yes, I did that with 3 and 4. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I think she said $50, ifI remember. MS. DUSEK: Fifty dollars. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Wasn't that it, Jean? MS. DUSEK: Yes. MS. RAWSON: Fifty dollars, yes. MR. BOWIE: Fifteen days and $50. MS. DUSEK: That's right. And now to number 5. Must dispose of litter and debris in appropriate location and to provide code enforcement applicable receipts or a fine of-- MR. PONTE: What does that mean? MS. DUSEK: I'm not sure about that myself. MR. BOWIE: What is the appropriate location? MR. PONTE: What's the applicable receipts? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I know. I think-- MS. DUSEK: Well, let's just leave that out. MR. MAZZONE: Usually we ask for a landfill receipt for proof that it went into a landfill, not on a neighboring lot. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I think this is the first time now Page 71 January 22, 2004 that I'm -- after we just put the 50 -- the 15/50 in the previous one, that if a guy doesn't bring you a receipt, I have a real problem with fining him $50 because he didn't bring you a receipt. If he's cleared the property, what he did with what he took off the property, I really don't care. That's another violation somewhere else. I don't think it's a violation of an ordinance to not bring somebody a receipt, so I have a real problem putting a fine on that. MS. DUSEK: Okay. Let's leave that out. MR. DORIA: I think we should care about where he's depositing the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we can say that -- MR. DORIA: -- because then we're going to have another violation upon the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- but we can't associate a fine with it. I mean, he could take it to another piece of property, he could put it in a warehouse. He doesn't have to take it to a landfill. I mean, there's a lot of things he can do with it. I think telling him he must take it to an appropriate location is fine, but providing a receipt that he did that, I have a real problem with that. He could rent a storage area and put it all in there. MR. DORIA: He could give us a receipt for the storage area. MR. PONTE: But why are we putting in this extra step that I've never seen before, and on what grounds? And who's policing it and who's enforcing it and why hasn't it been done over the last nine years? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, again, I want you to show me a paragraph in an ordinance that says if somebody doesn't give you a receipt you can fine them at all. I'm almost positive you can't do that. So why do we want to do it here? MR. PONTE: We don't. MS. DUSEK: Okay, I'm -- No. 5, must dispose of litter and debris in appropriate location or a fine of $50 per day will be Page 72 January 22, 2004 imposed each day the violation continues. Respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and to request the investigator to come out and perform the site inspections. Now, is everybody clear on what I've just done? Just to recap, pay the operational costs, items 1 and 2 are going to have a $50 fine and that's to immediately -- within 15 days, stop any commercial items -- excuse me, stop storing any commercial items from his residence. Within that 15 days also, stop parking and maintaining his towing business -- I'm just recapping generally. That has a $50 fine, those two items. The next two items that have a $50 fine: Properly store all commercial vehicle and equipment in a commercially zoned area. Remove all debris and litter within 15 days from the date of this hearing. Those two have a $50 fine. Must dispose of litter and debris in appropriate location or a $50 a day fine will be imposed each day the violation exists. And then respond -- respondent must notify code enforcement, et cetera. That's kind of generally summing it up. Does everybody understand it? MR. PONTE: I think that's right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion on the floor. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second from Sheri. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now to case 059. MS. DUSEK: Now, someone else -- it's pretty much -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It has the same items, if you would care to do that, Bobbie. We first need to have a finding of fact that in Page 73 January 22, 2004 fact a violation exists. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, versus Keith Heckman, Case CEB No. 2003-059, that a violation does exist. The violation is of Sections 1.5.6, 1.8.7, 1.9.2, 2.1.11, 2.1.15, Paragraph 1, 2.2.5.2.1, 2.6.7.1, and 2.6.7.3 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: Outside storage of, but not limit to -- and I think at this point it's one vehicle and some debris, discarded but not limited to major and minor vehicle parts and tires. MR. BOWIE: Also includes the culvert. MS. DUSEK: Well, that's where this is. I mean, I think-- MR. BOWIE: He shouldn't have put that there. MS. DUSEK: In the county public easement. MR. PONTE: It says immediately remove non-permitted concrete culvert from the southside property line. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a -- let's first determine that in fact a violation exists before we get to an order. We've culled out all the paragraphs in the various ordinances in the Land Development Code. So let's just -- and an overall general statement of not everything that that contains, but -- MR. PONTE: Well, it should be part of the description of the violation, no? MS. DUSEK: Well, I think, Dennis, if you can just answer this. From my notes, there was some debris and one truck still in the easement? MR. MAZZONE: There are two trucks, two commercial trucks, tow trucks, one commercial flatbed truck with some items on the back of it, and the concrete culvert that's placed without a permit, and a small pile of debris. Not all of it is vehicle-related debris. Some of it is a dismantled fence section. MS. DUSEK: Okay, the description of the violation: Outdoor Page 74 January 22, 2004 storage of, but not limited to, several vehicles, untagged and unlicensed, and concrete culvert without permit, and some minor debris. Does that satisfy it? MR. PONTE: I'm not clear, are these -- MR. MAZZONE: Any and all remaining debris. MR. PONTE: Dennis, the vehicles there in the easement, are they untagged? Are those trucks untagged? MR. MAZZONE: No, he has licensed trucks there with his Keith Towing Service signage on the trucks. They're very expensive vehicles, ready for operation. MS. DUSEK: So they're all licensed, they're all tagged? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The trailer, too? MR. MAZZONE: I didn't check the trailer. The trailer looks very new. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Tell us what you're talking about where you say outdoor storage but not limited to several vehicles untagged and unlicensed and truck rear axle. MR. MAZZONE: That was what we found originally. MS. DUSEK: Originally, but it's been cleared. MR. MAZZONE: It's been cleared. He cleared all but two trucks and the flatbed and the trash and the culvert. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Great. Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: But what we're asking you to do is find whether or not we presented enough evidence that those things did exist. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand, but we need to understand some of it's been removed and some is left. So we need to separate all that so we know that in fact there is still a violation. MR. MAZZONE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion that in fact a violation exists. Is everybody clear on that? Do we have a second? Page 75 January 22, 2004 MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that in fact a violation does exist. 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 on 059. Bobbie, you want to tackle this one? MS. DUSEK: All right, I'll start it. I make the motion that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by removing non-permitted concrete culvert from southside property line between road and easement so that access is no longer available within 15 days. Remove all stored items from easement within 15 days of the date of this hearing, or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, no cost associated with removing the culvert, just has to get it out of the way in 15 days? MR. BOWIE: I think that violates the 15/50 rule, doesn't it? MS. DUSEK: I think that we should -- I think we have to put a fine in there, because it doesn't give him any incentive to do it. So $50 for the removal of the concrete culvert. Fifty dollars for the second one, the stored items. And remove all stored items within 15 days -- or debris. I don't know that it's stored items. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, the stored items, I think since there's vehicles, we need to say vehicles and -- remove all vehicles and litter, I guess, from easement within 15 days. Would that get us what we need? I think so. MS. DUSEK: Okay. And third, must immediately stop storing any and all items from easement. Page 76 January 22, 2004 Respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and to request the inspect -- investigator to come out and perform the site inspections. So it ended up with two $50 fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. Immediately stop storing any and all items from the easement. MR. BOWIE: Should be on the easement. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: On the easement, isn't it? Would make -- I kept trying to think from, from -- MR. BOWIE: We want him to keep the stuff from the easement. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I know what the intent was, but I think the proper word is on the easement. Okay, we have a motion for the order of the Board. Any further question? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Case 01 we continued to next meeting. We're down to case 052. MS. HILTON: Yes, this is Board of County Commissioners versus Manuel Pacacios, P-A-C-A-C-I-O-S, and Aida, A-I-D-A, Jauregui, J-A-U-R-E-G-U-I. CEB Case No. 2003-052. At this time, we would like to ask if the respondent is present in the courtroom? (No response.) Page 77 January 22, 2004 MS. HILTON: The respondent is not present. We have previously provided the Board and the respondent with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of Sections 1.5.6, 2.1.15, and 2.2.3.2.1 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: The existence of several wooden structures being utilized to house animals, all erected without first obtaining the required Collier County Building permits. Location where violation exists: Is 1186, 41st Street Avenue Northwest, Naples, Florida, in the Golden Gate Estates. Name and address of owner in charge of location where violation exists: Manuel Pacacios and Aida Jauregui, 19554th Northwest, 59th Avenue, Miami, Florida. Date violation first observed: August 27th, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: September 9, 2003. Date which violation to be corrected: September 14th, 2003. Date of reinspection: January 21, 2004. Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And the CEB Notice of Hearing was mailed certified, regular mail and posting of the property and the courthouse. And at this time I'd like to turn the case over to Investigator Jeff Page 78 January 22, 2004 Letourneau to present the case to the Board. (Speaker duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. On August 27th, 2003, I received a complaint from Collier County environmental specialist Alex Sulecki, who had been out in the area and who had seen these structures on the property. I went out that day. I observed a couple of wood structures and a little bit of debris out there. I came back to the office because I wasn't really sure what the property was because it's so far out there and so swampy that I had to go over some aerial maps with Alex and determined that I had the right property. So I went over those with her on the 29th and determined that I did have the right property. I went out that day and posted a notice of violation, and we mailed the notice of violation. These are the two structures I saw on the original visit. I wasn't really able to access the property very well because of the swampy conditions. I went back a few more times. I went September 12th and September 22nd. On the 22nd, some of the water had abated and I was able to see another structure towards the rear of the property, which would be that one right there. A few more inspections. Never had any contact from the owners, who live in Miami. I did a couple more inspections and then determined that we had to take this case before the CEB, because nobody had done anything about it. We sent out CEB warning letters and I submitted the case for this to go to the Board in November. About a week after I sent the CEB warning letter, I received a phone call from the property owners, stating that they just got the letter and they hadn't any other notice and they wanted to meet me on Page 79 January 22, 2004 the property to, you know, discuss what the violations were. They said they had bought the property sight unseen and they didn't know any of this stuff was on there. So I set up a meeting to meet them out there late in the afternoon. I got out there and I waited approximately a half an hour for them and they didn't show up. On my way back to the office they called my cell phone and stated that they were on their way, they just got off Exit 15 and could I wait another half hour. ! said, no, I had, you know, another case and I had to get back to the office. But, you know, go out there and look at the structures, and that's what needed to be removed. I mean, it's pretty plain the three structures have to go down because it's an unimproved lot and they were built without permits and you can't have those structures on there anyways without having a primary structure on there. From that point forward, I never heard from them. I told them that, you know, since -- they said they would remove them. And I said, okay, I'll put the case on hold from the CEB for another month and I'll come back -- I'll give you 30 days to get rid of all this stuff. So I didn't hear from them again. I went back out there 30 days later, and the structures still remained. So I submitted the case again for CEB and here it is now. I went out and posted the Notice of Hearing on January 15th, and I did notice that the first two structures have been probably 75 percent dismantled. So they are making an effort to get rid of the structures. But they haven't notified me or called me or anything. But it looks like they are trying to comply. MR. PONTE: Jeff, what happened to the animals? MR. LETOURNEAU: You know, I think there might have been some pigs contained in there at one time or another, because there's wild-- there's like a horde of wild pigs running around all through this area out there. I don't know if they were in those pens or Page 80 January 22, 2004 not, but that's what I think Alex and myself heard at one point or another, but I don't think they're -- MR. PONTE: Wild pigs.9 MR. LETOURNEAU: They're wild pigs, yeah. I don't think they were in there. They were just in the area, so it looked like they might have been in the -- you know, it appeared. I've never been able to really get back to the structures because of the -- you know, it's really wet, it's really swampy out there. MR. PONTE: It's a swamp. MR. LETOURNEAU: I mean, it's out in the middle of nowhere. There's no other -- there's no other residences or anything within probably a mile of this property. MR. LEFEBVRE: Have any demolition permits been applied for? MR. LETOURNEAU: No. MS. DUSEK: And the last date you were out there was January lSth? MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct, a week ago. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jeff, when they called you on your cell phone, they didn't give you a number where you could get in touch with them, did they? MR. LETOURNEAU: I have no number. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BOWIE: When you testified that it looked like part of the structure had been removed, has it been intentionally removed or did it just collapsed? MR. LETOURNEAU: No, I think it's been -- MR. BOWIE: Because it looks like it's been gradually collapsing for a while. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, it looks like -- it looks like there was tire tracks, you know, as far as they get in there. And I think people, they've been wading back there and just -- and removing Page 81 January 22, 2004 them. I really think they're trying to comply. I don't know why they haven't contacted me. I figured after I left the note there on the 15th they would try to get ahold of me, but they haven't. MS. BARNETT: Jeff, is this large structure, it looks like -- is it like a trailer? MR. LETOURNEAU: It could be a trailer. I haven't been -- I mean, that's the -- that's the biggest magnification I could get on my camera. It might be a trailer. I can't really get close enough to tell, though. Either/or, it's still a violation. MS. BARNETT: Yeah. I was just trying to -- if that was a trailer or a building or what. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Jeff?. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. MR. PONTE: I think we just wait for a windstorm to blow it down. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sheer weather will rot it away. Sheer water ought to rot it away eventually. Okay. MS. DUSEK: I had a question for Shanelle or Michelle. The correct spelling, is it Pacacios, or is it P-A-L? Because I think on the deed it says P-A-L. Looks like Palacios? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: P-A-L-A-C-I-O-S? MR. BOWIE: But public records has it down as P-A-C. Must have been a typo -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I would think the deed would be MR. BOWIE: Yeah, that's what I would go by. Yeah. MS. ARNOLD: We're not sure. It's -- in the property appraiser's record it's P-A-C. It's in -- under the deed, it looks like it's P-A-L. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think the deed is the one you'll have Page 82 January 22, 2004 to go by to be proper. MR. BOWIE: Sometimes we see the property appraiser's key punch error. And it might well be. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's understandable. We'll use the deed's name, P-A-L, to be correct. Okay, order of the Board -- or I'm sorry, finding of fact. I'm getting ahead of myself. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, versus Manual Palacios and Aida Jauregui, in the case CEB No. 2003-052, that a violation does exist. The violation is of Sections 1.5.6, 2.1.15, and 2.2.3.2.1 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code. Description of the violation: The existence of a few wooden structures, all erected without first obtaining the required Collier County building permits. However, in stating that, testimony says that you can't get a permit because it's not allowed; is that correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: That's correct. Without a primary structure, a house, you cannot build on that property, anything more than a fence. So these structures have to be removed. MS. DUSEK: So Jean, should we just say the existence of several wooden structures, or-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, they were built without a permit. MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Even though the house wasn't there, they were still built without a permit, I think is what the county is trying to tell us. MS. DUSEK: All right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Even though, you know, he was supposed to build a house first and then these, everything with permits. So they're just saying these were built without a permit. Page 83 January 22, 2004 MS. DUSEK: The only part I'll take out is being utilized to house animals, because that we don't know. MR. BOWIE: The pigs could have just been visiting. Might not have been housed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They stopped by for lunch. MS. DUSEK: Okay, did you understand that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion that in fact a violation exists. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: aye. We have a second from Sheri. All those in favor, signify by saying (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the Board. MS. DUSEK: I nominate Sheri. MS. BARNETT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Bobbie is getting dry here doing all these things. MS. BARNETT: Okay. I make a motion that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by removing all structures from the unimproved property, after obtaining the required demolition permit within 45 days of this hearing, or a fine of $75 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. They must require the inspections to be performed and obtain certificates of completion within 15 days after obtaining the required permits or a fine of $75 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Page 84 January 22, 2004 The respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and to request the investigator to come out and perform the site inspection. MR. BOWIE: Question about that. How can we in the alternative to demolition ask them to obtain a certificate of completion, since none legally can be granted? MS. BARNETT: They have to complete the demolition. BOWIE: You get a certificate of completion for that? BARNETT: Don't you? MR. MS. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. MR. BOWIE: You do? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: you've actually done it. MR. BOWIE: MR. PONTE: MS. DUSEK: MR. PONTE: Okay. For that. Okay. Just for that portion. That means Okay. All right. The $75 fine per day for shacks in the swamp -- I agree. -- is highly excessive. MS. BARNETT: Would you like me to lower that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Give us your recommendation for it. MS. BARNETT: Give me a number. MR. PONTE: Twenty-five dollars. MS. BARNETT: So be it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: In both instances, George, or just in the one, the first one? MR. PONTE: I don't want to get to $12.50. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, no, no. I'm just saying we've got $75 a day for two different items. Do you have a problem with both items or-- MR. PONTE: Yes, $25 per item. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, just wanted to clarify. Is that all right with you, Sheri? MS. BARNETT: Yes, I don't have a problem with that. Page 85 January 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Will you amend your motion for that? MS. BARNETT: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion on the floor. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: A second, please? MS. DUSEK: I second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. BARNETT: Bobbie, thanks for giving me an easy one. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That closes our public hearings. We move on to new business, which is request to impose fines. It should go rather quickly. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. If I may, because we have some members of the public here for this particular item, talk to you about Item No. 7 under the imposition of fines first, and that's Code Enforcement Board case 2002-0001. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, we have representatives, I believe, from the Naples Lodge here. This particular case was heard by the Board on March 28th, 2002. At that particular hearing, the Board found the respondent in violation of landscape requirements on the eastern boundary of their project. The respondent at that time was ordered to come into compliance with the sections cited in the Land Development Code for the landscaping for their PUD within 120 days of the hearing. The respondent was also informed that if they failed to comply with that order, that fines of $75 per day would be imposed each day the violation continues. Page 86 January 22, 2004 The respondent was also ordered to pay operational costs. There was, for those Board members that were here at the time, a concern from the neighboring neighbors that the landscaping was not meeting code, and I believe you heard testimony from those neighbors as well. Staff is at this time requesting that the Board impose fines in the amount of $5,775 for a period of July 27th, 2002, through October 12th, 2002. And that date reflects when they submitted their site development plan to make modifications to the site. And an additional $12,375 for a period of December 20th, 2002 through June 3rd, 2003, which is when they finally came into compliance. And we, instead of fining them those days that the project was in review with the county, we took those days out. And so that's why we're making that distinction. And then there's operational costs in the amount of 1,040.90, for a total fine of $19,190.90. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. KILLAN: My turn now? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. KILLAN: My name is Tom Killan. Unfortunately -- I was here once before. I don't know what to tell you. I'm sitting here totally embarrassed. The Elks have done nothing wrong. I volunteered to get this PUD redone. I've never worked so hard in my life. I've pushed, I've yelled, I've screamed, I've cajoled. I've been insulted, I've been maligned by the Planning Department, one individual. It's like the whole world has fought against me to get this thing done. We got it accomplished. I had a four-way bypass in the middle of it that did not -- that did not actually affect the timing, but it just put me out of commission for a while. But I've never -- I've been in this business for 20 years in Collier County. I am no longer in this business. I have never put up with so much garbage and problems and bureaucratic red tape in all my life trying to do a Page 87 January 22, 2004 simple thing, to redo a PUD to take care of a landscaping problem. We had some other things that county -- that county requested that we also do, legal staff, these were all added to it. Traffic reviewed it three times. We wound up with the Elks to put a six-foot, five-foot or six-foot wide sidewalk all the way down Donna Street at some point in time when they could afford it. I've been beat up, I've been run over, I've been yelled at by my wife for even being here today. I feel sorry for you all. As I said, I didn't have to do it. I volunteered for this job. I've done it for free. I've worked for all of you here. And I'm about in tears about this whole thing. The Elks will survive it. They're not having a good time right now. I pushed and shoved with Fred over there. And finally, we got this August 4th, 2003 when finally the public notice into paper to get to the Planning Commission. I went to the Planning Commission, one gentleman on the Planning Commission refused for me to testify. I had to go buy a planning license, or an application to a planning license. It cost me about $250 before he would listen to me. Fortunately at the next meeting he wasn't there. So we did, we did survive that. I'll tell you, I'll never in my life go through this again for anybody, even if I got paid for it. I don't know what to tell you. I've been here 20 years doing this. I'm going to leave it to the kids who are running around smiling and having fun and think this is a lot of fun and games. It's not fun and games. It's tough to get my age and have to put up with things I have to put up with. I feel like crying about it. Elks have done nothing wrong. sue me for the money. I would hereby ask and plead that you as the Board drop this whole thing. The landscape was done before we came in here the first time. The money was spent. The county -- the other part of the I don't know what to tell you. The If you want to sue me for the money, Page 88 January 22, 2004 county is what held us up. The Elks have done nothing wrong. We had to wait until they finally got through planning, then through a commissioner who rubber stamped it at the end. Meanwhile, all the landscaping has been legal. It's been there for two years. The length of time it took us to get this PUD, this PUD amended, two years. If there's anything else you want to know, I can tell you. Please ask. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is that all, sir? MR. KILLAN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. KILLAN: I had the secretary of the Lodge, but he had to go to the Lodge to lock up. We did not know it would be this long. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to recuse myself. I do have'family members that are members of the Elks Club. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Back to imposing the fine. Any further discussion? MS. DUSEK: I just need some clarification. I think I'm just going forward, but we haven't imposed the fines yet. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct, that's what we're here to do today. MS. DUSEK: I understand. This gentleman is asking, before we impose the fines, that we just abate them all is from what I've gathered he's asking us. But we haven't imposed the fine yet. Is that -- is that what I've heard today? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That seems to be what he was asking, that we not impose the fine. And I think, Jean, we do have that right, do we, to not impose anything? MS. RAWSON: You do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But that's what I got out of what he was basically saying, that he feels the Elks hasn't done anything Page 89 January 22, 2004 wrong and we shouldn't impose a fine. But now you have to remember we did issue an order for them to do certain things, because we did find them in violation of an ordinance or two. So we did find a violation. Now we're here to just say the cost of complying with our order. MS. BARNETT: Chairman, I've got another question for you. If we do impose a find -- I can't talk -- a fine, do we then run into the problem if he wanted to come back and ask us to reduce the fine, that we run into that gray area where we're not really supposed to reduce our fines after the approval? MS. RAWSON: Depends on if you record it. It's a good question. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The question there, and we -- that's going to come up a little later is the actual -- when we impose the fine, the normal procedure is to impose it, it is then recorded in the courthouse as a lien on the property until it is paid or someone asks us to reduce it. And the question has come up, which we haven't got a clarification on. And ! guess, Jean, our position is we're continuing to do what we've done in the past -- MS. RAWSON: We are. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- is if we want to reduce it, we'll reduce it, until we get further clarification. So that option is still there. MS. BARNETT: Okay, I just wanted to -- because I know it's being kicked around, and I need to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. And we've kind of more or less tabled it until we get another clarification. Which I don't know if that's been asked for yet. But that was kicked around that it would be asked for. MS. DUSEK: My intuitive feeling, which is not the code, this gentleman has made some pretty powerful statements, in my opinion, Page 90 January 22, 2004 and has convinced me that he worked more than diligently to try to accomplish what we asked him to do and he wasn't able to do it, by no fault of his. I am inclined to either make the fines less or not do anything about the fines except operational costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think Michelle said in the beginning that she had taken out days while it was involved in planning, if I remember her comment. So he wasn't being fined for that. MS. DUSEK: I remember her saying that, but it sounded like the entire process was held up through the county. I mean, I can't say that that's a fact, I'm just taking his testimony. MR. PONTE: Yeah, that's a part of the problem. What we have is testimony from one side only. We don't know in fact other than what was stated here that -- how much of a lag time the county really was involved. Now, given that everything isn't black and/or white, maybe there's a middle ground. Is there a way you just say, okay, well, in spite of the fact that we don't have testimony from the county as to the delaying situation, maybe look at something, cutting it in half. MR. KILLAN: And if I might add, it had been filed when we were here the last time. We had already filed, but this entire time it's been the county holding the thing up and processing it to get done. If you would like to get testimony from the county, Fred Reischl was the planner. I think he got almost as frustrated as I did. And it almost came down to making people not take vacations just to get this thing processed. I've never, I've never seen a project kicked around -- it's like someone wanted it not to happen. It was putting under the influence on certain members of boards and things to make it not happen. And I sincerely believe that that might be the case. But all this time has been the county. None of it has been the Elks' fault. MS. DUSEK: Did you start the process immediately? Page 91 January 22, 2004 MR. KILLAN: It was already started when we were here the last time. It was already filed. It's taken two years to process this PUD. The first gentleman had it was fired, Chahram was fired. It already had been filed before we even got here. And they went through several months to find a new planner. Fred was given -- assigned the case. And we were working on that when I was here at the Board the last time I was here, which was some -- what, I don't know when-- even remember when it was. Things don't work as well as they used to. But I just reiterate, it was nothing the Elks did and nothing I did to slow it down. It was all in the hands of the county and the bureaucracy that we have created here in Collier County. MS. BARNETT: Well, if you look at the recommendation, it does say that she has taken out time frames, and she gives the period of times that she is fining for. The first one is for the fine liened from July 27th through October 12th. It's the date of a resubmittal of requested documents. And then the second one is the period of December 20th through June 3rd, which is the date of the rejection letter from planning. And then the date of resubmittal of requested documents. So it does kind of point to me that I'm seeing that there was some problems with the whole thing. Am I wrong, Michelle? I mean-- MS. ARNOLD: I think that this project went on a lot longer than it should have. I was talking to Mr. Killan a little bit to see whether or not if-- you know, depending on what the Board did today, if he and I could sit down and go through the justification process for request for reductions or abatement of fines, because we do have that process, so that he could help us understand why it may have taken them that long for resubmittals back to the county as part of this process. Because I don't have that information. MR. BOWIE: Michelle, you're amenable to maybe tabling this until you've ascertained-- Page 92 January 22, 2004 MR. KILLAN: Please, please, don't table this. MR. BOWIE: Well, otherwise-- MR. KILLAN: I can't, I can't do this. I physically cannot do this again. MR. BOWIE: What you're saying, you would like to get more information from other agencies within the county to confirm whether they did in fact-- MS. ARNOLD: As well as Mr. Killan, to see what would be -- MR. KILLAN: I -- really, if you just contact Fred Reischl in the planning department, Fred is one of the main players. He can tell you exactly what I'm telling you. It was nothing we did. The county just beat this thing to death. We had -- I don't know what those people are doing over there. Traffic department reviewed it three times. The landscape has been signed off. Nancy's been handling that for a long time. This thing was passed a couple of months ago. They were waiting for it to be approved in Tallahassee. I finally said, Mike, I don't know how you people do your clock work, when you put your dates. It takes a long -- it's like -- it's something -- I don't even want to remember this project, other than it's done, it's successful. You know, the Elks, hopefully we'll get out of the bind here. We got the land under contract to be sold on the car, which is another problem. We can solve that problem to pay off some of that million dollar debt they've got. And you're talking -- you're talking it's so easy, you'll give them $19,000. For what? Pay us -- pay us your fees for whatever it is you do. For what? I'm telling you, the Elks did nothing wrong. If you want to collect money, sue me. I plead with you, please. You have it within your power to let the Elks Lodge off the hook. They've done nothing wrong. It's done, the neighbors are happy, the man that filed the complaint, little boy goes over and uses his boat in our lake, and he's happy we didn't put the plants up in the first place. He's the guy that complained. One man who was a Page 93 January 22, 2004 developer, and he was mad because the County didn't make it happen. ! don't know what his problem is with him in the world. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: At some point, sir, if you let us make a decision, we'll try to do something. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, I have two questions for you. Is it in your opinion that this project took much longer than it should have taken to be accomplished by the county? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. The thing is, the matter at hand was the landscaping issue, and as Mr. Killan indicated, there were many other things that were asked for as part of the review process. So we're kind of looking at a landscaping issue that got drawn out into many other issues, and so that's what I want to look at to be fair to the respondent, as well as the county. MS. DUSEK: Now, have we ever tabled an imposition of fines when you've brought it before us? I mean, postponed it, not tabled it, but postponed. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, I think we probably have. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We can -- it's at the Board's pleasure what we do. The county has asked us to impose the fine. We can either impose the fine or continue it until the next meeting for the county to bring us additional information. Or not impose the fines. There's your three alternatives. MS. BARNETT: Can we change the fine? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, you can reduce it, if you want. But I think if the county goes looking to find more information, I would lean more toward saying I'd like to continue it till the next meeting, let the county come in with proper information. You know, they can bring the numbers back and say based on that we want to reduce our numbers or we recommend to you forget the numbers altogether, we want to withdraw it, let them get their information to kind of balance out what Mr. Killan has said. I think the county is Page 94 January 22, 2004 willing to go find that to see if they can get on the same page as Mr. Killan. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we continue this imposition of fines until the next meeting. Will that give you enough time, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. PONTE: I second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to continue this request until our next meeting. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? MR. DORIA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, 6-1. Okay, Mr. Killan, what we're going to do, the numbers are here, we understand your concerns, we'd love to have you back next month, if you can. The county is going to present their side and say possibly they agree with you and it should be reduced, or it should be -- you know, we just have to wait for them to find out. MR. KILLAN: If you would just be so kind as to get with Fred Reischl. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think Michelle will do that. MR. KILLAN: Nine-tenths of these things added were at the county's request. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think she will do that, sir. Okay. Back to Ms. Cora Sneibrun. That's the first one, I think? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Page 95 January 22, 2004 Okay, the first item is -- or the second item is Case No. 2003-031, Board of County Commissioners versus Cora Sneibrun. This matter was heard by the Board on October 28th, and a violation was found at that time. The respondent was ordered to abate all violations by submitting a fence permit by November 28th, was further ordered to obtain all inspections and a certificate of completion by that same date, and also ordered to obtain a building permit for the animal pen/barn by November 28th. This matter was continued once by the Board, and the respondent was also ordered, had they not come into compliance with those items, that $50 per day would be imposed for each of the violations noted. The respondent was further ordered to pay operational costs. At this time, staff is requesting that the board impose a fine of the amount of $2,700 for a period of November 29th through January 22nd, 2004, at a rate of $50 per day, and operational costs of $681.10, for a total of $3,381.10. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: County is recommending imposition of fines. Do I hear a motion? 'MS. BARNETT: So moved. MR. PONTE: I make a motion to impose the fine as requested by the county. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Louder, Sheri. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion. And a second. All those in favor, signify by saying (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? Page 96 January 22, 2004 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 2002-049. MS. ARNOLD: This is Board of County Commissioners versus Aljo, Inc. This case was regarding Minimum Housing Code violations at the subject property. Case was heard on November 13th, 2003. A violation was found at that time, and the respondent was ordered to complete all corrective actions by November 23rd, or a fine of $100 per day would be imposed by the Board. The respondent was also informed that they would be responsible for operational costs. Staff is at this time asking that the Board impose operational costs of $1,034, since the case did come into compliance. MR. RAMSEY: Mr. Chairman, I didn't participate in the motion to continue this. Should I refrain from participating in this as well? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. Okay, we have a motion to impose the operational costs, as requested by the county. MS. BARNETT: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. Can't do it that way? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. DUSEK: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm just -- did you get that, Cherie'? THE STENOGRAPHER: Yes. 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: Case 2002-050. MS. ARNOLD: This is again Aljo, Inc. versus Board of County Page 97 January 22, 2004 Commissioners. This was another Minimum Housing Code case on another property. Again, the case was heard on November 13th, 2003, and the respondent was given 45 days, until December 28th, to correct all the violations noted in the case, or fines of $100 per day per violation would be imposed. The respondent was also informed that operational costs would be assessed for the prosecution of the case. The case is in compliance and staff is at this requesting the Board impose fines for operational costs in the amount of $1,054. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that we approve county recommendations. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the fine as requested by the county. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 055. MS. ARNOLD: 51. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Did I skip one somewhere? I did, okay. Sorry. MS. ARNOLD: This one again is Aljo, Inc. -- board of County Commissioners versus Aljo, Inc. This was another Minimum Housing Code case heard on November 13th. A violation was found. The respondent was given 10 days to com -- make -- to begin repairs and to complete those repairs within 45 days. The respondent was also ordered to request the necessary inspections for all those repairs as well. Board informed the respondent unless the items were abated, $100 per day per violation would be imposed, and also operational costs would be assessed. Page 98 January 22, 2004 Staff is at this time requesting that the Board impose $6,000 for the period of November 23rd, 2003, through January 22nd, 2004, at a rate of $100 per day, plus $2,000 of operational costs -- oh, excuse me -- plus another $2,000 for the period of December 29th through January 22nd, and an additional $1,094 for operational costs, for a total of $9,494. And this case is still out of compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a request to impose fines. MS. DUSEK: Maybe I misunderstood. But I see 6,000, 2000 and 1,094. Where does the 400 come from? MS. ARNOLD: Oh, yeah. MS. DUSEK: Should be 9,094. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it should be. Addition problem. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: $9,094 is requested to be imposed. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MS. BARNETT: So moved. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the $9,094, as requested by the county. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Any opposed? Now 055. This case is another Aljo, Inc./Board of County Commissioners case, 99-58 -- I'm sorry, not 99, 2003-055. This case was heard on December 13th, and the Board -- it was for a rental registration against 42 separate properties. All properties were not registered and did not become registered until after the December 18th deadline imposed by the Board. The respondent was advised that failure to come into compliance would mean a $30 per day per property fine, with operational costs incurred as well. Page 99 January 22, 2004 At this point the properties are now registered and in compliance, and staff is requesting that the Board impose fines in the amount of $30,240, for a period of-- from December 19th, 2003 through January 12th, 2004, for the 42 properties, and operational costs of $7,721.25, for a total of $37,961.25. MS. DUSEK: I think we need to add that again. MS. ARNOLD: Shanelle, Shanelle, Shanelle. MS. DUSEK: Does it work? I don't know why I'm coming up with 38. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The 1,260 doesn't get added in. That's a per property total. MS. DUSEK: That's right. Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a request by the county to impose the $37,961.25. MS. BARNETT: I'll make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation. MR. DORIA: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Albert. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We skip to 045? Did I miss one? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it's 045. Next is Board of County Commissioners versus Robert D. Bidlack. This was the case heard on November 13th where the respondent was found in violation. And Mr. Bidlack, who was present telephonically, was ordered to ensure that the tenant's parking was put in place, or cease parking in the right-of-way; that all the violations regarding the stabilized surface be corrected within 60 days; and that failure to comply with that would require a fine of $75 per day. Mr. Bidlack was also Page 100 January 22, 2004 ordered operational costs would be assessed. At this time we're requesting that the operational costs of $1,094 -- 97.75 be imposed, as the violation has been abated. MR. DORIA: I make a motion that we accept the Board's recommendation -- or the county's recommendation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the fines as requested by the county. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Any opposed? 046. This is Board of County Commissioners versus Norman Kautsky, Patricia J. -- and Patricia J. Kautsky and Doughboy Pizza II, Incorporated, also known as Leoni's Pizza. This was heard by the Board on December 11 th for a sign violation. The respondent was ordered to correct within seven days or a fine of $50 per day would be imposed and operational costs would also be assessed. Respondent is in compliance and we are at this time requesting that the fine of-- oh, I'm being told that Mr. Kautsky is here? Kautsky? Yes. I don't know whether or not he wants to approach the Board. I apologize, I didn't realize he was in the room. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You want to make a comment, sir? MR. KAUTSKY: No. They were supposed to be here today, and they didn't show up, but I did. I just wanted -- I just wanted to hear what -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's fine, sir. MR. KAUTSKY: Then I'll talk to him. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. The attorney for Mr. Kautsky and Leoni's Pizza did contact me yesterday, inquiring about the Page 101 January 22, 2004 operational costs and the breakdown, and we provided that to him. And we are at this time requesting that the operational costs of $1,147.25 be imposed. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that the fine of $1,147.25 be imposed. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the fine as requested by the county. All those all in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 028. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. This is the Board of County Commissioners versus Guy and Melinda Fracasso. This was a case heard in September, on the 25th, 2002 -- is that right, 2002? Excuse me, 2003 -- regarding a dumpster enclosure and some construction in the right-of-way. Respondent was found in violation and ordered to correct within 90 days and submit any applicable site development plan and building permit to the county within 30 days, and obtain certificate of occupancy or completion within 30 days of receipt of an approval. They were further ordered to cease using the dumpster enclosure and relocate as permitted. And if they failed to comply, they would be aSsessed $100 per day per violation and operational costs would be assessed as well. Staff is at this time requesting that the Board impose a fine in the amount of $900 for a period of December 24th through January 2nd at a rate of $100 per day, plus $1,025.60 for operational costs, for a total of-- MS. DUSEK: That has to be changed. MR. PONTE: That doesn't add up either. Page 102 January 22, 2004 MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. $1,925.60. I can do that in my head, can you imagine that? MR. PONTE: Who's in your accounting department? MS. DUSEK: We'll give you a gift of a calculator. MS. ARNOLD: We have to give her a better calculator. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a request. Do I hear a motion for the $1,925.607 MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we impose the fine of $1,925.60. MR. RAMSEY: Second. MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second for the amount of $1,925.60. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Turn the page now -- oh, we have one left. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, one more. Mr. -- this is Board of County Commissioners versus Gopal Motwani. This case was heard by the Board on September 25th, 2003, and the respondent was ordered to complete the permitting process by obtaining a cert -- and obtaining certificate of occupancy and follow through with a site development plan within 90 days until December 24th. He was further ordered to -- if not complying with that order, a fine of $150 per day would be imposed and operational costs would also be assessed. At this time staff is requesting that we impose fines of $4,050 for a period of December 25th through January 22nd, 2004, plus operational costs of $1,323, for a total of $5,373. Mr. Motwani is in the room, if he -- he's at the podium. Page 103 January 22, 2004 (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. ARNOLD: I'm sorry. Before he goes on, Shanelle just pointed out that she put a motion for an extension on the agenda, so we may want to hear -- extension of time. So we may want to hear that before the Board actually does the imposition of fines. MS. HILTON: I had -- I had handed those out to you first thing this morning. It's a packet of 25 pages. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, it's Item D on the agenda. We're on item-- MS. ARNOLD: D, it should be A. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- A right now. So let's sidestep Number 10 in Item A and we'll skip down to Item D and have Mr. Motwani tell us about his request for an extension. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Did you swear him in, Cherie'? THE STENOGRAPHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, thank you. MR. MOTWANI: When I mention that I need 90 days last time, I didn't know the permitting process takes that long. I got the permit last week, and it was lot of requests they had to make. And finally the permitting was given to me. And I'm asking right now 60 days from the permitting from today, I'll finish that, close the permit. I never had asked extension before, and I didn't know the permitting process takes that long. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: In December your wife made a request for an extension of time. MR. MOTWANI: No, before even my time was over, I'm sorry, I requested a permit, because the permit was not coming through. So I said before it expires, I better go and talk with them. Because I was told to keep Ms. Hilton, or Shawn (sic) advised, so that's what it was. We shouldn't have even come that time. Because the time -- at that time was not even three months. MS. BARNETT: I think the original time, I was one of the Page 104 January 22, 2004 persons that made the motion to deny the request, and the reason for that is because we have had such a long time on this particular project before he started moving, and he had been given ample time. But until we got real serious with him, he didn't really want to comply. Now he's trying to get things done, and the process is taking longer than maybe he thought. MR. MOTWANI: If I may, I have brought the drawings, which is stamped from the department. Says May the 19th. First time I was supposed to come here, she told me you've been very good customer, and you abided by all the rules. While I was gone to India, she suddenly submitted this to code enforcement. I cannot believe that was even submitted. I was in India. There was a hearing -- that's the reason, you know, it looks like. But I did submit these plans May the 19th. That's what the third drawing that I had to show her. So I was very careful. And if you permit me, and you look at this what I had done that is talking about -- it's mind boggling what I'm gone through. I am paying $110,000 on the piece of property, taxes alone, leave alone on the market and other things. She has closed me almost a year for a simple thing, a little shed was put up. You could look at that -- I cannot even go on the project that would show somebody. MS. BARNETT: Originally it was because there were people living in the facility, there was a pool that was not enclosed properly. There was a lot of problems initially. MR. MOTWANI: The pool, the pool -- everything was enclosed, she had closed this far. But the deers and things like that coming through on the fence. She told me don't put the permanent fence until you get the permit. So I was stuck both sides. MS. BARNETT: I can appreciate that. MR. MOTWANI: And people were breaking in. Even last week I had to call the sheriff to go and look at it because they went and Page 105 January 22, 2004 vandalized the whole place again. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anything else you want to tell us, sir? MR. MOTWANI: All I want to request is give me extension, 60 days, and this permit will be closed nicely, I promise you that. And whatever request I made, I mean, even though I had a survey, they wanted to make another survey. I mean, I went through so much commotion. And I did everything they asked me, that's why it took three and a half months. And I'm going through the regular permitting processes. It takes three to four months in the county. MR. LEFEBVRE: We have the minutes from last meeting when we spoke to your wife, and it stated in the minutes that the application was incomplete when it was submitted. I see that you applied for some permits on the 25th of September, and it was approved on the 7th of this -- January 7th. Are you saying that this delay is causing you delay in repairing what you have to repair, the work you have to do? MR. MOTWANI: Yes, because it was a stop work order totally. I could not go in the building. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. But it was mentioned in our last meeting that the application was incomplete, which might have slowed up the process to get the application. MR. MOTWANI: The application was not incomplete, sir. You got the -- a report on that figures in itself. There was a different complete application. It has nothing to do with this particular application. There was somehow mixup, misunderstanding. You got that print-out, sir, on the application, on the whole -- every day I go on the computer trying to find on how far they have reached on the permitting. It gives me exactly what it is. And before I submitted a second time, I went and spoke to everybody, whatever the concerns were, what exactly assured (phonetic), and they finally signed the permit off. If somebody care to look at it, these are the concerns. I wish I Page 106 January 22, 2004 would have put it. And I assured all the concerns, and it was signed off. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm reading Page 51. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I'm looking at his status report. Back there. I can count the number of pages. But back in there you get an actual -- it's titled permit reports, primary contractor, following permits. Then it has Permit Number. I don't see any of those numbers that match his supposed permit number, so -- nice information, but-- Right, yeah, we've got that. But you also have other information in here. None of this -- you need to be back there, sir. None of this applies to your permit, so it's a waste of time. MR. PONTE: Though doesn't this -- Cliff, doesn't this page here -- I mean, this is 250. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, that one does. But as you go further back, he has a chart that isn't applicable. I mean, it's a nice piece of paper, but it doesn't apply. And I mean, is that -- do you have anything else to tell us, sir? don't want you to just stand there while we're trying to review data. Anybody have any questions for Mr. Motwani? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir, you may sit down. While we're looking at this, any comments from the county regarding their request for an extension of time? MS. ARNOLD: I really don't have anything to input. I mean, he just got the permit approved this month, and it was issued on the 14th, so -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, if I -- Michelle, since we're reading his thing that he's getting from a print-out off the computer, am I understanding that he's submitting something where it says "reject", that means that he submitted it and for some reason the county said it's wrong and you need to correct it? Page 107 January 22, 2004 MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So if he doesn't give them the proper information, they can't approve it, so that's not the county's fault. I see that on the other permit also that there's a couple places where obviously the information wasn't correct and he had to go back and then because it got rejected, then it come back in and he got it approved. Okay. Okay, we have before us a request for a 90-day extension of time amending our orders to give him another 90 days. That's what's before us right now. MR. PONTE: Sixty days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sixty? Okay, sorry. MR. PONTE: What it does indicate, if you look at that 250, whatever, there's no page reference here, he's working on it and he's getting stuff through in due course. Some of it's been rejected. I just think we should give him the 60 days and get it done with. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, do you have the date of when this violation was first recognized or given to him? Before it came before US. MS. ARNOLD: Let me -- MS. DUSEK: When was he first noticed? MS. ARNOLD: One second, please. April, 2003. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I was going to say, it was a while ago. MS. ARNOLD: And I think that we actually continued the case once before we heard it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We did. Our order was at our September meeting, and he was before us in August, because we note in our findings of fact he waived notice of the next meeting in our August meeting of the forthcoming September meeting. So I guess Page 108 January 22, 2004 he was first before us in August. MS. BARNETT: Actually, I think that was the delay she was talking about, because they could not make it, so he asked for a continuance, so it came out actually the month after that so that he could someone here to represent him, because he was in India. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MR. PONTE: Without knowing any exact dates, we know we meet at the end of the month. The first end date recorded here was 9/25, so within 30 days he had already filed his first application for permit or whatever, and it was complete. Then he moved -- then he did a couple of others that day. One was rejected, another four days later it was complete. I think he's moving along as best he can over foreign territory, unfamiliar territory. I just think give him 60 days and make certain that he's all in compliance. He says he can do that. MR. MOTWANI: Yes, sir. MR. PONTE: Absolutely certain? MR. MOTWANI: Yes, sir. MR. PONTE: Give me your word that you will do it? MR. MOTWANI: My word. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's your motion, George, if you want to make it. MS. DUSEK: I'm just having some reservations, only because he was first noticed last April, and it wasn't until we gave an order that he-- CHAIRMAN MS. DUSEK: CHAIRMAN MS. DUSEK: MR. PONTE: FLEGAL: In September. In September that he -- FLEGAL: Started to do something. -- started to do something. I don't think that's unusual, though. I think that's when we do things like that. But he's moving along. Anyway, I'll make the motion that the 60-day extension be Page 109 January 22, 2004 granted. MR. DORIA: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Albert. I know you're not looking up all the time, so I'll try to remember to say their names. I apologize. Okay, we have a motion by George and a second by Albert to grant the 60-day extension. Any discussion on it? MS. ARNOLD: Can I have a clarification? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. ARNOLD: Is it 60 days from today, or the date of your -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, you have a point. MR. MOTWANI: Please, give me from today, 60 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's first go back and see. The order of the board was you had to have everything done by December 24th. That's come and gone. So instead of 60 days, we're going to have to at least give you 90 days, because we're going to have to catch him up. Sixty days would bring it from December to January to February, so that's really only 30 days from today. So you're going to have to amend it to 90, just -- MR. PONTE: Ninety days from the date of-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Date of-- we're amending the order to add an additional 90 days. So it would be 90 days from December 24th. MR. MOTWANI: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct, Jean? That's what we need to do? MS. RAWSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, so it's 90, not 60. 30 of that is to make up for already time passed. And that's -- MS. BARNETT: I hate to be a hard case, but I really have a hard time with this case, because there were some serious violations to start with, and there was a lot of discussion prior to it ever coming Page 110 January 22, 2004 before us, and then we have gone on and gone on and gone on. And granted, he is working at it, and I appreciate that diligence, I really do. I just am afraid that if we keep continuing to continue, it's not going to end. MR. PONTE: We won't continue it again. MR. MOTWANI: I gave you my word. MS. DUSEK: I agree with you, Sheri. MR. MOTWANI: I will be glad to pay a fine from there on. MS. BARNETT: I think that we're letting him out of the box. That's my personal feeling. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Well, we have a motion and a second. So we're going to vote on it, and just to make sure when we vote, I'm going to request -- now in the voting, only the permanent members can vote. And Ray is an alternate, so he can't vote on this. He's allowed to participate in all discussions. I'm going to ask for a show of hands, just in case, to make it easy for all of us and for Cherie' to get the proper count. All those in favor of the 90-day extension, please raise their hands. MR. DORIA: (Raised hand.) MR. PONTE: (Raised hand.) MR. RAMSEY: (Raised hand.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One, two, three. All those opposed? MS. DUSEK: (Raised hand.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (Raised hand.) MS. BARNETT: (Raised hand.) MR. LEFEBVRE: (Raised hand.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Motion fails. No extension, sir. MR. MOTWANI: May I go back again answering my other questions, if you want to hear it now? Page 111 January 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're done. MR. MOTWANI: No, because then you should hear, because I think -- honestly, Your Honor, listen to me for a couple more minutes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sir, we've made -- we've heard you, we've made a motion, you asked for 60 days and we've turned it down. So we're not going to vote on it again. You just do the best you can, and when it's all said and done you still have the right to come to the Board and ask us to reduce the fine. Okay, whenever it gets done you have that right. MR. MOTWANI: The fine should not be there to start with. That's what I'm saying. This lady, whoever your code enforcement officer is, giving me a wrong drawing to follow these drawings. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. When it's all done, when you're all finished, instead of reducing the fine, bring all your information and tell to us waive the fine totally for those reasons, and we'll listen to you. MR. BOWIE: But Mr. Chairman, would it not be in order now that the motion for extension has been voted down to have a motion to impose the fines? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we're going to have to go back there. We kind of side stepped it to do this first, so -- All right, sir, that's the best we can do for you right now. You have the right to come back when you're all done and say for these reasons you want the fines waived, and we'll listen to you. MR. MOTWANI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. Okay. Now we go back to Item A(10), which is imposing the fines up to a certain date. MS. ARNOLD: And staff is requesting for the total fine amount of $5,373 be imposed. MS. BARNETT: So moved. Page 112 January 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion. Do I hear a second, to impose the fines as requested. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the fines as requested by the county. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Opposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Two. 5-2. Now Item B, there are no requests for reductions. Item C, foreclosures. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. You have a memorandum identifying a -- you have a memo requesting authorization for five cases, but one of them we're requesting to remove from there, the Gonzalez case, 2003-038, because they're proceeding with payment arrangements. And so we're requesting at this time Case No. 2002-025, 2003-017, 2003-023 and 2002-031 be forwarded to the County Attorney's Office. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, we have to make a motion to forward them to the County Attorney's Office. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we forward the four cases to the County Attorney's Office. MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to forward the cases. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 113 January 22, 2004 (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: D we have taken care of. We're now out of new business into old business. Affidavits. MS. BARNETT: I have a question, Chairman. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. BARNETT: I was just looking through my packet trying to find where we were and found a reduction -- a request for a reduction in lien on Derya Corporation. MS. HILTON: That went with one of the cases that's being forwarded for-- to the County Attorney's Office. MS. BARNETT: Just trying to find my spot. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have affidavits of compliance. There's five of them. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, we've got affidavits of compliance that staff has filed for the following cases: Board of County Commissioners versus Aljo, Inc., 2003-049; Board of County Commissioners versus Aljo, Inc., 2002-050 -- sorry, 2003; Board of County Commissioners versus Robert Chipman, 2003-020; Board of County Commissioners versus Naples Lodge No. 2010, and that's Case No. 2002-001; and finally, Board of County Commissioners versus Kautsky and Doughboy Pizza, Case No. 2003-046. And likely we will be filing or have filed affidavits of non-compliance on the following cases: Board of County Commissioners versus Cora Sneibrun, Case No. 2003-031; Board of County Commissioners versus Aljo, Inc., Case No. 2003-051; and Board of County Commissioners versus Gladys Rodriguez and Wachovia Bank, 2003-053; Board of County Commissioners versus Robert Bidlack, 2003-05 -- 45; and Board of County Commissioners versus Gopal Motwani, 2003-034. The 055 case is now is compliance, so we'll file one of the Page 114 January 22, 2004 affidavits of compliance at a later date. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Reports? Report of activity. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I know you're doing more than 2003, because I asked you to go back-- MS. ARNOLD: Right, right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- because I remembered some things that were laying out there. MS. ARNOLD: You should all have a report that has on there Board -- I mean CEB Report of Cases. And what we've done is reported on the activity by calendar year so that you all can see what cases were heard, giving you the names of the respondents, the case number, a general description of the violation, the compliance or non-compliance of the property, the fines and the costs that were imposed, if any, and a status of where those cases are. So -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Just for general information, to make sure I'm understanding your chart, and I appreciate you doing this, on the first page, like the Calixto (phonetic) and Brenda Lazio, am I understanding that that is still accruing? Now, you say county attorney. Have we requested -- or have we sent that to the county attorney for foreclosure? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So whenever I see county attorney, I can assume that we've already sent it to them for foreclosure -- MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- or collection, whatever they choose to do? MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, great. MS. ARNOLD: And the compliance, the dates that are on there should reflect the date of compliance noted in the Board's order. And Page 115 January 22, 2004 we're attempting to put kind of like an update, if there was a modification to that date or-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: -- additional dates. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: When I go to like Page 5 and we get down to the last two items, the blockers, illegal land use, none at this time, none at this time, none at this time, nothing imposed and case closed. Tell me, maybe I'm not remembering what we did or -- MS. ARNOLD: Those particular ones were removed. We put it on the agenda. It actually started and then the county removed them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. MS. ARNOLD: And then at each -- at the end of each year, we are giving you a total cases, number of payments we've received, number of cases closed and number filed with the county attorneys. And in some cases we do have cases that have been appealed in front of the court. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And, like on Page 8, the Manatee Resort one, I remember that I think we gave a continuance because the county was going to try to negotiate a deal or something. And if that's been done or not done, would the county come to us and say okay, we're going to remove the case? Otherwise, my brain's telling me the Board continued it and it's still laying out there waiting for somebody to do something. So you either need to remove it from us or bring it back before us. That's what I'm remembering happened way back when. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, I'll have to check the record to see if the -- what-- if the Board-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If it's actually done? MS. ARNOLD: -- made it a continuance then -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: But there is a settlement agreement that's been entered in between the respondents and the county. Page 116 January 22, 2004 But you're right, we need to report back. If it was in fact continued, we need to just-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: As I remember that's what we did to give the county and them time to work something out. So you need to tell us either it's worked out or we're going to make you come back here and we're going to work it out. MS. ARNOLD: It's worked out and we're probably going to withdraw it if in fact we continue it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And the same would apply to the one, as I remember, the -- was it Ngala, the animal thing? That too, I think, as I remember we continued while somebody tried to work something out. MS. ARNOLD: I thought you all took -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Because I still have a big package on my shelf waiting for something to happen. MS. ARNOLD: I thought there was a decision made on Ngala. I wasn't here, so Jennifer, you can speak to that one. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, I don't -- there was never anything, and I've only missed one meeting, so -- MS. RAWSON: There's not an order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I didn't think there was an order. I think we just -- we continued it until something got worked out, trying to get it in compliance. MS. BELPEDIO: I think it may have been continued indefinitely or waiting for a date, as scheduled by code enforcement. But there is a settlement that is being drafted, and that is in its preliminary stages. And once there is some resolution, if there is resolution, we will bring it back. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I guess I heard that word and I thought of that word before. Maybe I can ask Jean to remind us. I don't think the Board should ever continue something indefinitely. MS. RAWSON: I would agree. Page 117 January 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think we can give it 30, 60, 90 days, six months or something -- MS. RAWSON: That way you'll always have a report on what's the progress. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. That way you need to come back and if the respondent or the county is not moving along, their option is you're going to come back before us and we'll move it along. But the indefinite doesn't work for me. That's kind of like forever. MS. DUSEK: On the Southern Development Company, it says extended to 11-1-03, compliance date. Is there a conclusion to this? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: At one time they were suing a bunch of us, as I remember. MS. ARNOLD: Southern Development. That's -- you're thinking of Southern Exposure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, Southern Exposure. Okay. MS. DUSEK: Ah, that's right, that's right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I never heard of that either. What happened to that one? I know they were suing the county and each of us individually and all that, and that kind of disappeared, too. MS. ARNOLD: Actually, that's one that we forwarded to the County Attorney's Office, I believe. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But great report, lot of information. MS. DUSEK: It is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Terrific. Next meeting is February 26th in this room at 9:00 a.m. Are there any other comments? MS. RAWSON: I have one. The reason that she handed all of you the bylaws, the rules and regulations for the Code Enforcement Board, is because the March meeting, for you new people, is always the annual meeting, and at the annual meeting we have election of officers, a chair and vice chair, and we also make any changes that Page 118 January 22, 2004 you might see necessary for the rules and regulations. So what I would appreciate your doing is going through, reading through the rules and regulations and see if you have any suggested changes. Then if you want to bring them up next month, we'll be ready to vote on them in March. MS. DUSEK: I hope you didn't give Cliff one, did you? MR. PONTE: Didn't we just do this? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I already have one. No. MS. RAWSON: We do this all the time. We have to do it every -- at the annual meeting, which is every March. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, any -- and remember, this is our rules, and we can do what we want, and then Jean will tell us if it's something quote, unquote, against the law. But if there's something that maybe we're doing in how we conduct our business that you would like to see implemented or handled a different way, this is the time to try to get it into our rules and regulations, and then let Jean tell us yes, you can do it that way or no, you can't. Since she's our counsel, she's pretty good at guiding us that way. So kind of everything is open. It's a time for you to look and say, gee, our operation could be better if we do this, maybe. So think about it. Any other comment? MR. BOWIE: Do the rules have to be approved by the County Commissioners? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, the rules are approved by us and forwarded to them. MS. RAWSON: Well, they do. Well, yes. When you approve them and you all sign them, actually we do submit them to the County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. But as I remember how the statute reads, we're allowed to have rules and regulations. That's one of the things given to the Board. We do them because we like the Page 119 January 22, 2004 County Commissioners to know what we're doing. So they're kind of protected. MR. PONTE: Seriously, just help my memory. Did we sign it late last year? Why does it seem to me that we just -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, we did. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we did it in May. I think we did them in April, and then we signed them in May. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, we signed them late because I think there was -- we couldn't get ahold of a few of you, and then also there were some vacancies. MR. PONTE: So it's not my mind that's going. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's debatable. MS. RAWSON: You signed them late, that's why you're getting them in January, so we have -- so we can try to get them -- if we're going to change them, change them, but get them approved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: At least discuss them in our March meeting so we can-- MR. PONTE: Get it signed by August. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We discuss it, get it changed, and then Jean will bring them back probably in April and we'll actually sign them. MS. DUSEK: And may I also, just to make a comment, that we really dissected these last year-- MR. PONTE: We did. MS. DUSEK: -- and I can't imagine that there should be any changes. MS. BARNETT: Oh, wait a minute, Bobbie. We dissected them last year, and because we put in a word "shall" someplace, we had an attorney say that was up for question whether he had to do something. If I recall, just a couple of cases ago. MS. RAWSON: The word "shall" -- the word "shall" -- this is easy. The word "shall" is mandatory, the word "may" is not. Page 120 January 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. BARNETT: There was something in there, I remember that -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think we used the word may and the word shall is what you should be using. MS. DUSEK: We did a lot of changing of the shalls and the mays last year. MS. RAWSON: Well, I think that what we did, as I recall, is when you wanted the county to do something, you said may, because you really can't order them to do things. But in terms of the respondents, you can order them to do things, so shall is appropriate. MS. BARNETT: I think that was the case, because he was saying something -- this was just last month, the attorney that was here didn't bring something because it said may. MS. RAWSON: Right. Whether or not -- and that's probably a good may. He can bring discovery, he can bring his packet for you, if he wants to, but if he doesn't bring it within your time limit, we don't look at it. MR. BOWIE: Right. He may bring it or he may not. If he doesn't bring it, we may not look at it either. MS. DUSEK: He's not forced to. He's not forced to. He has a choice. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hypothetically, if he brings it the day of the meeting -- MS. RAWSON: You don't have to look at it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- we don't have to look at it. Our rules say you've got to get it here -- what is it? MS. RAWSON: I think it's 15 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 10 days or 15 days before. So if he walks in and has a stack of stuff, we have the right to say, sorry, you know, just, we'll listen to you, but we're not going to read your stuff. MS. BARNETT: I just remembered there was something that Page 121 January 22, 2004 came up about that, and you said that's because you guys changed that shall to may. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Anything else? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we adjourn. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor? (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you very much. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:13 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY AND CHERIE NOTTINGHAM Page 122