Loading...
CEB Minutes 02/26/2004 RFebruary 26, 2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida February 26, 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 Raymond Bowie 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: February 26, 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 IS 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- January 22, 2004 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS Motion to Continue 1. BCCvs. Davy 2. BCC vs. Gray 3. BCC vs. Capolino 4. BCC vs. Monika Van Stone CEB NO. 2004-004 CEB NO. 2004-005 CEB NO. 2004-006 CEB NO. 2003-048 B. HEARINGS CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2004-004 266 3RD ST W, BONITA SPRINGS, FL ROBERT AND DARLENE DAVY SHAWN LUEDTKE VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.7.6 AND 2.7.6.5 CANVAS CANOPY TYPE STRUCTURE ADDED TO A BOAT DOCK WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION OF BUILDING PERMIT. A BUILDING PERMIT CANNOT BE OBTAINED FOR THE CANVAS CANOPY BECAUSE IT IS NOT AN AUTHORIZED MATERIAL FOR USE AS A COVER FOR BOATHOUSES IN COLLIER COUNTY. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2004-005 267 3m) ST W, BONITA SPRINGS, FL DONALD GRAY SHAWN LUEDTKE VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.7.6.1 AND 2.7.6.5 ORD 98-76 SECTION 104.1.5.1 AS REPEALED BY ORDINANCE NO 2002-01, SECTIONS 104.1.1 AND 104.1.3.5, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE WOODEN ROOF STRUCTURE CREATING A BOATHOUSE INSTALLED OVER A BOAT LIFT WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING .AUTHORIZATION OF BUILDING PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND RECEIVING CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. BOATHOUSES ARE NOT PERMITTABLE STRUCTURES ON SUBJECT LOT. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2004-007 2217 41sT ST SW, NAPLES FL THELMA NOVELO DAVID SCRIBNER VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 89-06, AS AMENDED, SEC 5, SUBSECTIONS 12B AND 12C AND ORDINANCE NO 2002-01, SECTION 101.4.9.2 CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: WATER DAMAGE TO EXTERIOR OF HOUSE AND WATER DAMAGE TO ROOF CREATING ROTTING WOOD AND POTENTIAL HEALTH HAZARDS. 2004-001 3861 4TM AVE NE, NAPLES, FL ROBERT G FRANCE JEFF LETOURNEAU 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 2004-003 3968 20TM PL SW, NAPLES FL ROBERT AND SUSAN DIXON DAVID SCRIBNER ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 1.5.6, 2.1.15, AND 3.3.11 USING IMPROVED COMMERICAL PROPERTY FOR OTHER USES THAN ALLOWED UNDER APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SDP#00-103). STORAGE OF VEHICLES IN AREA DESIGNATED FOR TRUCK DRIVING SCHOOL AS AUTHORZED IN SDP#00-103. ALLOWING OTHER UNATHORIZED BUSINESSES TO OPERATE OR USE THE DESCRIBED PROPERTY. 2004-006 5245 MCCARTY ST, NAPLES, FL KELLY CAPOL1NO RITA CRISP ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.7.6.1 SHED BUILT WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING AUTHORIZATION OF COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT, HAVING ALL OF THE REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AND OBTAINING CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION 2004-002 8300 RADIO RD, NAPLES FL FRVG LLC CHRISTAL SEGURA ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.1.15(4), 2.3.4, 3.9.3 AND 3.3 REMOVAL OF VEGETATION, ADDITION OF FILL AND USE OF PUD ZONED PROPERTY AND STORAGE OF VEHICLES WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING REQUIRED COUNTY VEGETATION REMOVAL PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SDP) APPROVAL. o NEW BUSINESS A. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC vs. Moise Wesner 2. BCC vs. Dreamscape Homes Inc 3. BCC vs. Keith T.Heckman 4. BCC vs. Keith T.Heckman 5. BCC vs. Manuel Rosa 6. BCC vs. Monika Van Stone CEB NO. 2003-053 CEB NO. 2003-047 CEB NO. 2003-058 CEB NO. 2003-059 CEB NO. 2003-019 CEB NO. 2003-048 Bo Request for Reduction/Abatement of Fines 1. BCC vs. Aljo Inc 2. BCC vs. Aljo Inc 3. BCC vs. Aljo Inc 4. BCC vs. Aljo Inc 5 BCC vs. Naples Lodge No. 2010 C. Request for Foreclosure No request submitted at the time of this agenda D. Motion/Request for Extension of Time No request submitted at the time of this agenda 6. OLD BUSINESS Ao Affidavits of Compliance 1. BCC vs. Moise Wesner 2. BCC vs. Dreamscape Homes 3. BCC vs. Keith T. Heckman 4. BCC vs. Keith T. Heckman 5. BCC vs. Manatee Affidavits of Non-Compliance 1 BCC vs. Dreamscape Homes 2. BCC vs. Manuel Rosa 3. BCC vs. Monika Van Stone REPORTS 1. BCC vs. Steven Johnson COMMENTS ao March Annual Meeting Election of Officers Rules and Regulations (changes if any) NEXT MEETING DATE March 18, 2004 Workshop - large conference room at Code Enforcement March 25, 2004, Code Enforcement Meeting CEB NO. 2003-049 CEB NO. 2003-050 CEB NO. 2003-051 CEB NO. 2003-055 CEB NO. 2002-001 CEB NO. 2003-053 CEB NO. 2003-047 CEB NO. 2003-058 CEB NO. 2003-059 CEB NO. 2001-086 CEB NO. 2003-047 CEB NO. 2003-019 CEB NO. 2003-048 CEB NO. 2003-057 10.9 ADJOURN February 26, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We call the Code Enforcement Board to order, please. Please note, any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore, may need to 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: Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. HILTON: Christopher Ramsey? MR. RAMSEY: Here. MS. HILTON: Raymond Bowie? MR. BOWIE: Here. MS. HILTON: Sheri Barnett, Albert Doria and Robert Dowling all have excused absences. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One, two, three, four, five, six. Since we only have five regular members, Mr. Bowie will participate in all aspects, including voting. Approval of our agenda. Are there any changes, corrections, additions, deletions? MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold. No changes Page 2 February 26, 2004 recommended by staff. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would entertain a motion to accept the agenda as submitted. MS. DUSEK: So moved. MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as submitted. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Approval of our minutes from January 22nd. Are there any changes to the minutes as submitted? MR. BOWIE: Just a point of question, Mr. Chairman. Would it be possible in the future for these minutes, which is about yea much material, possibly to be e-mailed to the board members? Maybe in PDF format, which is pretty universal at this point. Almost anybody that has Acrobat Reader can open it and read it. Save a lot of paper and a lot of time. MS. ARNOLD: I'm all for saving paper. And yes, we could probably look into that. And it probably could be sent as a Word format as well. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Would anybody on the Board object to that? MS. RAWSON: I don't object either. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Why don't we try that this next time, Michelle, and see how that works. MS. ARNOLD: Sure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: In the meantime, back to the motion -- to the minutes we have. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the minutes from Page 3 February 26, 2004 last month's meeting. 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: Thank you. We'll now open our public hearings. First item on the agenda is motions to continue. First one, BCC versus Davy. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, Mr. Robert Davy is here, and he has submitted a letter for the Board dated February 19th, if I can have Mr. Davy come up to the podium. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir, Mr. Davy, tell us why you'd like a motion. MR. DAVY: Well, I was notified of this proceeding on the 19th of this month, and told that I had to have everything in by the 20th if I wanted to get a packet together for you folks. And the material was -- or the information I got or the notice to appear was sent to the wrong address. And that was the mixup. The post office didn't get it to me until the 19th of the month and I was told I had to have the paperwork in by the 20th. I couldn't do it. I need to subpoena witnesses, I haven't got time to do that. I've done my best to get things together, but I just can't do it. And I would like an extension to next month's docket and from then on we'd be ready to go, I think. I'm sure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Comments from the county? MS. ARNOLD: Staff objects to the continuance because this matter has been going on for a few years now, since 1999. Mr. Davy has had previous findings from -- that -- of non-compliance, and this is being brought to the Board as a repeat violation. I don't understand what information would -- could possibly be gathered, and staff Page 4 February 26, 2004 objects to the continuance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, tell me about the address problem. MS. ARNOLD: The -- it was mailed to the address in our case, and Mr. Davy said he didn't get it until the 19th. We did post the property of violation, as required by the state statutes. So as far as notification, we provided sufficient notice. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Davy? Mr. Davy? MR. DAVY: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: You were -- were you, excuse me -- were you verbally told that you were possibly going to be coming before the Code Enforcement Board? MR. DAVY: No, I was not verbally, uh-uh. Well, not -- not -- MS. DUSEK: I mean, not given a specific date, but were you told that you might have to come before the Code Enforcement Board? MR. DAVY: Oh, yes, I was told several times that I might be coming before the Code Enforcement Board. In fact, the first time Ms. Arnold there referred to a repeat violation on this thing. The first time that this thing happened with these boat covers, I was told that I would be coming before the Code Enforcement Board, and at the last minute I was taken into circuit court. I questioned Ms. Arnold about that, and she said well, that was their prerogative to do that, either way, the county. So I was at a loss at that time. And now this has happened, and this is sent to the wrong address. I get a last minute notification. In the meantime, I had sent a certified letter to Ms. Arnold and to Mr. Luedtke, who is handling this thing, and requesting to come before the Board, because I was afraid they might change their mind in the interim here, because I got another notice that I would -- I was being cited. But I didn't know when I was coming before the Board or if I was coming before the Board, and I Page 5 February 26, 2004 wanted to know, so I sent a letter. I've got a copy here. And I was waiting for that notification. It came. Then I knew I was coming before the Board, but it was too late. I had to prepare for either one, one or the other, and I hadn't had time to do that. I didn't know for sure where I was going, if they were going to change their mind and take me into circuit court again. I did not know. So then a last minute thing, I had no time to prepare. I thought I was going to get ample notification from the Board, then I would know for sure I was coming here, I could prepare for here and present a case here. Get my witnesses here. I wanted to -- I asked several times if you folks had subpoena powers to -- so that we could -- I could request that you allow some witnesses, you know, or subpoena some witnesses for me. And I was told you do. But I -- I couldn't do it all from the 19th to the 20th, and then I just didn't have time. I'll have the time if I can get this 30-day extension. I'll be fine. And that will be the end of it, one way or the other. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Recommendations to the Board, please? MS. RAWSON: If he wants to subpoena witnesses, of course you have to issue the subpoenas. So, you know, he needs to ask you to issue the subpoenas and give you the names and addresses of people he wants subpoenaed. Assuming that you grant him his continuance. That's the procedure that needs to be followed. It's basically your decision. He's telling you he's not ready to proceed today. Obviously the county is telling you they are. So it's -- MS. DUSEK: I'm a little bit concerned because I think that Mr. Davy knows pretty much the procedure that is followed, and because of testimony from Ms. Arnold that this could possibly be a repeat violation, I don't think it's as though this is something that -- our procedure is not something that he's not aware of. So I would be Page 6 February 26, 2004 inclined to deny the motion. MR. PONTE: I concur, and the fact that this has been an issue since 2001, I think it's time to bring it to conclusion. MR. RAMSEY: Mr. Davy, may I ask a question? MR. DAVY: Yes, sir. MR. RAMSEY: You indicated that the -- it was the wrong address. Could you be a little more specific? Did it go to your neighbor's house? What was the problem with the address? MR. DAVY: Well, I used to live across the street, right across the road and down the street a ways from where I currently live. And that address, the address shown in the letter I got inside the packet had my correct address on it and it shows that I was served at that address, but I was not -- or notified, I should say, at that address. But I was not. It had gone to my former address, and I hadn't lived there in two years. The mailing label on the packet said -- went to my old address. Everything went there. But inside the packet it said I was notified, which I've got a copy of the letter here, notified at my current address, which I was not. MR. RAMSEY: You say the mailing label. Is that the mailing label that's prepared by the county or something that was -- MR. DAVY: By the county. I got a copy of it and I've got a copy of the certified stamped thing here that came on the 19th, you know, the service notification, or whatever it is, if you'd like to look at it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And that too was the wrong address? MR. DAVY: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: There's only one -- there's a certified letter with a receipt on it, and when the recipient receives it, they sign for it. What he's -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Davy, what he's saying is that green certificate indicates the wrong address. MR. DAVY: That indicates the wrong address. There was a mailing label on the envelope that had the wrong address as well. Page 7 February 26, 2004 MS. ARNOLD: Right, it's the same -- it's the same letter. There's a label on the letter and there's also a green certificate that gets attached to it. MR. DAVY: And then inside the packet was a statement there where they're saying that they served me at my current address where I now live. So it was all mixed up there. And I immediately called your secretary. I don't know who the lady is, but I called and talked to her and she said I would have to send something in writing, which I did, I faxed it, and I would have to come here and ask you for the continuance. I did that. I'm here. I want to bring this thing to an end, too. It's been a long time. But I'd like the opportunity to get my witnesses in here that I do need. And I -- based on what I had there, I didn't have time to put a packet together, get it to you. I need the time to do that. And I'm asking for your indulgence on that. These things are not a public hazard. They've been there, they've been there for however long it's been now, I'm not sure exactly, but it's been three to four years, right? I believe. So one more month to give me this opportunity I don't think is going to hurt anybody. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What is your address? Let me ask that question. MR. DAVY: My address is 26950 Nicki J. Court, Bonita Springs, Florida. And on the bottom of that letter that came in there is the address that claims that I was notified at by the Board. And on the envelope that it came in and on the receipt that I signed, or had to sign to get back, I was notified on the 19th. You know, I actually received this on the 19th. Everything had to be in on the 20th. I called, right away. I tried to stay on top of things, you know. Then I knew for sure I was coming to Code Enforcement Board, now I can prepare for that, if I had the time. But I don't have the time. MS. DUSEK: Ms. Rawson, correct me if I'm wrong, but mailing is just one means of notification, it is not the only means, it is not the Page 8 February 26, 2004 one that we have to rely upon. MS. RAWSON: That's correct. Posting on the premises and posting on the courthouse are the other two. MR. DAVY: Well, you see that -- if I may, back when this thing originally happened, this thing happened, I was afraid it was going to happen again, so I didn't know which way to go on this thing. Originally I was notified that I would be going before the Code Enforcement Board. And I wanted to do that, way back when this thing first started. And at the last minute I got another notice that I was going into circuit court on it. I called right away and questioned that, why this sudden change. Well, it's our prerogative to do that, is what the county told me. We can do this, we don't have to go to the Code Enforcement Board. I said, well that's a nice time to tell me. I wasn't prepared for that either. And I was afraid the same thing would happen here. And that's why, after I got my first notice on this thing this time around, I waited to see whether I was going before the Board or not. Because they always tell you, you may be going before the Code Enforcement Board or you may go -- ! assume that I had to come here first and go elsewhere, but that's not the way it worked the last time. And so I sent a certified letter requesting to come before the Board and -- so I would know. And Mr. Luedtke, I was expecting him to call me and say yes, we're going to put you before the Code Enforcement Board or no, we're going to put you into circuit court. Then I know which way to go. And then I didn't get anything back on that until this notice came. I was waiting for a notice to come so then I would know I was going either place and I could prepare for it. But that didn't happen. I got this notice that I was coming here and I didn't have the time. If I -- I don't know how much time you normally give on a notice that we're before the Board, but I didn't get any time to let me prepare for the Board instead of circuit court or vice versa see? That's the problem I have. Page 9 February 26, 2004 And I -- like I said, this is not a public safety issue or anything like that. If it was, I wouldn't be here, I'd be -- you know, this thing would be resolved a long time ago. But I'm just asking for the time so I can get some witnesses subpoenaed and try to do this thing the right way. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anymore questions for Mr. Davy? (No response.) MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we deny the motion -- or the request for continuance. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion to deny the request for a continuance and a second. Anymore discussion? MR. RAMSEY: Well, the only point I'd like to make is I think-- I understand the urgency of moving this forward, since it is a case that's been apparently active for some period of time. But I also think the request by Mr. Davy to be able to mount an adequate defense in his -- for his position is something that if, you know, we deny his request, hear the case, we're perhaps just setting ourselves up for a more protracted endeavor if he would like to appeal. I mean, was service good, was it not good? I think there's some question there. If we take him -- he's testifying under oath. If we take him for what he says at face value, he's telling us he didn't get notice. If he's determined that he's endeavoring to move this along at a slower pace, then, you know, we have to assess his credibility. But I don't see a lot of harm in giving him some time to come in and mount a defense and then adjudicate this with everything he'd like to present. I mean, I understand the Board's -- or some of the members' positions, but I don't know that I concur with it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: members? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other discussion from Board Okay, all those in favor of the motion, Page 10 February 26, 2004 signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One, two, three. All those opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. MR. RAMSEY: Opposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Opposed. 3-3. MR. DAVY: If I may say something, sir. I want this thing to come to an end, too. But I just want the opportunity to get my story put to you in a proper way. I want to end it, one way or the other, but I want to be able to present it in a proper way so you folks can make a good decision on it. And I don't think I can do that today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The -- I guess I'm with Mr. Ramsey as far as posted notification. I know about the posting and everything. What bothers me is the actual mailing and trying to be fair and give you the chance to do what you need to do. If this has been going on for a couple of years, I too -- another 30 days? I'd like to see it ended, but if in 30 days I can end it, I'm kind of willing to wait 30 days. MR. DAVY: I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Tell me what the -- you say you have a copy of the green slip, the -- MR. DAVY: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- receipt of-- tell me the address that's on that, please. MS. ARNOLD: It's 26911 Nicki J. Court. MR. DAVY: CHAIRMAN MR. DAVY: CHAIRMAN MR. DAVY: Yes. FLEGAL: 26911 ? 26911. And I live at 26950. FLEGAL: Okay. So that's your old address. That's -- yes. Page 11 February 26, 2004 MR. BOWIE: Could I just maybe just say one thing? Perhaps, you know, balancing the equities of the situation, if this was the first time this issue came before this Board to be heard on the merits of it, maybe I could see doing this. MR. DAVY: This didn't come before the Board, sir. MR. BOWIE: I see as a matter of record, this went before a Collier County judge and you were held in violation. You took the canopy down after the judge held you in violation of the ordinance. Then you put it back up. MR. DAVY: Right. MR. BOWIE: Then you applied for a variance, the County Commissioners denied the variance. Even though you knew the variance was denied, the canopy remains. You received notice that this was a continuing problem and was deemed -- still deemed a violation of the same ordinance. So this is not a case of first impression. You know very well what the issue is. MR. DAVY: Yes, I do. MR. BOWIE: You've basically contested the same issue in several different fora now: Before a county judge, before the County Commissioners, now you're back here. I think you're well knowledgeable of what the issue is. MR. DAVY: Well, I know what the issue is, but let me say it this way: I went before the judge unprepared, because I was told I would be coming here, and I went there. That was a short notice thing, but not this short. I went there. The judge ordered me to take those tops down because it didn't have a permit, all right? I said fine. I didn't want to defy the court. I took them down. Then there were other things transpired. And these are the witnesses I want in here. Other things transpired along the way -- MS. ARNOLD: I object. This is testimony, that's -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We really don't want to get into the Page 12 February 26, 2004 case -- MR. DAVY: Okay, that's what I'm saying. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We just want to know and try to make a decision as to why you want a continuance. We need to keep that to -- MR. DAVY: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- your item of you didn't get notice on time or you're ill prepared, those kind of things. We're not going to hear the case because that's not going to be part of the decision -- MR. DAVY: I understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- to give you an extension or not. MS. DUSEK: I think that-- MR. DAVY: But I'm just -- go ahead, I'm sorry. MS. DUSEK: I think that Mr. Davy is basing his request for a continuance on the fact that he did not get enough notice in order to prepare. I think that we as a Board have to look at the whole picture and not just base our decision on the fact that he was not given enough time by mail for notice for him. I think that, as Mr. Bowie has said, this is not something that this particular respondent is not unaware of. I think he knows the procedures. Each of our inspectors usually give notice verbally that he will be coming before the Board. So I don't think it's something that is just innocent. And I think that's how we have to make our decision. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Go ahead, Chris. MR. RAMSEY: I think we need to consider -- I think we're preventing Mr. Davy from-- initially he said we didn't let him testify as to the facts because they're the substantive issues of this case, and we're really dealing with a procedural issue. I don't think we can impute the procedural knowledge to Mr. Davy, just because he's been in this system a bit, that he understands all the nuances of notice and those types of things. So to deny his continuance on what is really on a procedural issue, thereby preventing him from presenting his substantive defense I just think frustrates what he's trying to do. Page 13 February 26, 2004 MS. DUSEK: I disagree with that. MR. PONTE: But-- I disagree, too. MS. RAWSON: If I might, I think you've already voted and it was 3-3 -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's a tie, yeah. MS. RAWSON: It's a tie. So that means you don't have an affirmative number of yeses, so I think it's already failed, unless you vote to revote. MS. DUSEK: What are Roberts Rules of Order? MS. RAWSON: You've got to have an affirmative number, a majority number. And 3-3 is a tie, and if it's a tie, it fails. MS. DUSEK: That means the motion is denied? MS. RAWSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. DUSEK: Then I think we should move forward. I think we've had enough discussion on this. MR. DAVY: May I -- excuse me, may I -- this letter I sent to Mr. Luedtke regarding this very thing, can I read that to you? It's got to do with coming before the Board here. It's not -- not to do with the case itself, so to speak. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Unfortunately, we took a vote, okay, and the vote tied. Which, under the rules that govern operation of various boards, committees and bodies, legislative and so on and so forth, since it was a tie, as our attorney has said, that means it failed. So basically what we're saying is your request for a continuance is denied and we're going to -- MR. DAVY: You're going to go ahead. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- proceed. Okay, sir? Next motion, BCC versus Gray. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Gray has submitted a letter for a continuance by the Board, and Mr. Gray is here. If you can step up to the podium. Page 14 February 26, 2004 (Speaker duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good morning. MR. GRAY: Yes, sir. My case is regarding also a boat dock lot in Bonita Springs, but my case is a little unique and different than Mr. Davy's case, and should be judged on its own merits. My boat dock was a permitted use. I'm the one who originally did the resolution-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What we want -- MR. GRAY: That's why I'm telling you, this is a different case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. All we want to hear is why do you want it continued. Give us that reason. MR. GRAY: Okay. That reason is similar to Mr. Davy's, due to the mail. I received my notification on the 18th, of the evening of the 18th. And they told me I had till the 20th to prepare 15 copies of all these documents and submit them by the 20th. And there's just no way I could prepare that. You know, I have permitting, I have called the county to request copies of my files. They said things are in records and they have to be ordered and it's going to take a couple of weeks to get those records. There's just a lot of documentation that has to be put together. And if you look at one of the papers, the case code that was submitted to you, when it originally started was 1/23/02. I never received any kind of notice that I was in any kind of violation. And the case goes right on where it was -- Shawn had requested information. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We don't want to hear the case, sir. MR. GRAY: And it's been going on and on and on, you know, and then I just got notified, so it was very complicated. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We want to get back to -- MR. GRAY: Okay, why. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- why you want not today, but you Page 15 February 26, 2004 want some other period of time. MR. GRAY: Well, I need to -- I need to have the time to due process so I can prepare this case in a professional manner and present it to the Board. This is the first time I've been to the Board on this issue. My issue was a little unique because I did apply and I did meet all the requirements and the County Code Enforcement said that I did not. And I have information on file to the difference. And that's why I need to get this proof and this information together, and letters from the county, to prove that what I say is correct. So that's what I'm asking for is due process so (sic) allow me proper time to present a case, like Mr. Ramsey indicated. And this is the first time I've ever been through this type of hearing ever. And I've already started requesting things. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You say you received notice when, sir? MR. GRAY: What happened was there was a-- I was out of town on business, and there was a slip, I don't know the exact dates. But there was a slip stuck in my door mailbox and said I had a certified letter from Shanelle. So a day or two went by, I just kind of forgot about it. And then I signed it and dated it, and I stuck it back in the door. Then I left again on business, I came back four, five days later and it was still there with the same date, the same slip. So then I took it, stuck it in the mailbox part of my mailbox and then two or three days later on the 18th, the evening of the 18th, I went to pull my mail out and there was the packet. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So basically it boils down to you got notice that you had something, you signed it and left town and then came back and found it. So really, what you're saying is you were out of town and didn't have time to read it. MR. GRAY: Well, no, the post office didn't deliver -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what you just said, so. MR. GRAY: No, that's a little confusing. I signed it, I put it in my door. Page 16 February 26, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And you left town. MR. GRAY: And I left town. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's what I just said. MR. GRAY: The post office never picked up the -- it said on my slip please leave this packet at my door. that? upi You know how you sign CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MR. GRAY: I stuck it in the door. Well, they never picked it Four, five days went by and it was still in my door. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But you were out of town, how do you know that? MR. GRAY: It was still there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: When you got back to town. MR. GRAY: No, I came in there and it was still in the door. So I took it out of the door, went down to my regular box that's out by the street and I put it in there. Then they picked it up and two, three days went by and I got the packet. And that was the evening of the 18th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But what we're saying is, you're getting this document and you sign it and because you didn't quote, unquote, process it correctly, the mail people couldn't bring you the package. MR. GRAY: No, I processed it. They said leave it on your door, leave it in there and they will del -- they will leave it at my door, is what they said, because I wasn't there to sign. You have to have a signature, sir. MS. DUSEK: MR. GRAY: MS. DUSEK: Mr. Gray, let me ask you a question. Yes, ma'am. Let's assume that you received notice right away, that it wasn't the 18th, that it was the 12th or whenever that date was. Would you -- if you had received it then, would you have felt that you still did not have enough time to prepare? MR. GRAY: Exactly. I went to the county and I talked to the building department, and they said that the history and the old Page 17 February 26, 2004 documents takes up to two weeks and you have to fill out a form and order these files to look at them. They don't even have them on -- where you can just go down and look at it. Now, the county has some of the information that they submitted to you in the packet I received, and it's even -- you know, it's not complete. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Gray, can I -- what file are you waiting for? Because we have copies of your permits. MR. GRAY: Yeah, I'm waiting for a letter from the -- also from the building department. I requested letters from the building department and also from staff members regarding the case. I put in a verification request. MS. ARNOLD: That are in storage? MR. GRAY: No. And the zoning, the-- the building department one, that was the one Shawn had -- it said that he had been requesting it for a long time and he never got it. That's why the case was continued. If you looked on this sheet, it was continued about 20 times, because they didn't get proper information. They were waiting on information from the county, it was continued, continued, continued. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, sir. MR. GRAY: So I end up with just a day or two to prepare. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Mr. Gray? MS. DUSEK: Michelle, I wanted to know what your opinion is. MS. ARNOLD: I'm objecting to the continuance because we gave sufficient notice. On the green card that we received back, it indicates February 14th, but perhaps Mr. Gray didn't get the -- pick up the information until the 18th, as he indicated. But the 14th was when it was noted on the green card as to been delivered. MR. GRAY: Like you mentioned earlier, that's not even enough time. But ! never received it then. I signed it, left it in the door, and I Page 18 February 26, 2004 never got the packet.' CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN recommendation? MS. DUSEK: continuance. Okay, sir. No other questions for the FLEGAL: Decision of the Board, I make a motion that we accept the request for a MR. PONTE: I think that the fact that the information that he requires has not been retrievable sets this case apart very differently from the other. And that being the case, I would like to continue the case until such time as the material can be retrieved. MS. DUSEK: You want to second my motion? MR. PONTE: Yes, I will second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion and a second to grant a continuance. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Gray, when would you like this case to be heard again? We're not going to grant a continuance forever, so we need to know -- our next meeting, would that be satisfactory? MR. GRAY: But I have to tell you, I plead ignorance on when to get these files. You know, if the county can -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think the county is aware right now that you need something, so I'd say they're probably going to do their utmost to see that you get it. MR. GRAY: The very-- 30 days is -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Our next meeting? MR. GRAY: Yes, sir, that'd be fine. MS. RAWSON: May 25th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right. You mean -- MS. RAWSON: March 25th. Page 19 February 26, 2004 MS. ARNOLD: I don't know what files Mr. Gray is requesting, SO-- MR. GRAY: I'll give it in writing to you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're going to instruct him to give you a list so that the county can make this available. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to grant the continuance to our next meeting. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. ARNOLD: Can I request that Mr. Gray waive -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Notice for our next hearing? MS. ARNOLD: -- notification for the March 25th, meeting? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. Mr. Gray, what we're asking is, since you're standing here and you and I have just discussed when you would like this to be heard and you said our next meeting and we're doing that, will you waive notice that you will be required to be here for our next meeting? MR. GRAY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. GRAY: I do have one thing that I think is very important that I would like to just ask about, because it's a procedure from the county. You received-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You need to ask the county, because we couldn't help you there. The Board can't tell you about procedures, you need to talk with the county. MR. GRAY: Oh, that's why I was curious, because you received a packet that didn't have all the information in it. This was out. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, then you submit your own packet Page 20 February 26, 2004 with whatever you think we need to review. MR. GRAY: That's what it is. Okay. I didn't understand the procedure for that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you have something you think we need to see, you get that prepared and submit it. That's your 15 copies of "X", whatever you think "X" is. Okay? MR. GRAY: Okay. Because that's why I was curious, because my whole permit was there except for my roof permit. And I said, why was that missing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. MR. GRAY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Work that out with the county. MR. GRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. Next motion is Capolino. I hope I'm saying that right. I apologize if I'm not. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, there is a motion for, let's see, an extension by Kelly Capolino. Present? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Are they here, or is it just a written request? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, apparently no one's here. And it's a written request. You have it in your packet under -- MR. RAMSEY: The written request appears to indicate she's out of the county, so -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Well, we're not having a meeting March 3rd or thereafter, okay. It appears there were some problems with title, which by this letter the title company is acknowledging responsibility. MS. ARNOLD: This is an item that has not yet been presented to you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. ARNOLD: It's on the -- Page 21 February 26, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. But she's asking for it to cominue since she's not here. So I'm just reading the reason she's saying. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we grant the continuance. MR. BOWIE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to grant the continuance. 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: Last motion to continue, BCC versus Monika Van Stone. Is Ms. Van Stone here, or an attorney? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to note for the last one, I did have an objection. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. Yes, sir, and you are? MR. BIALEK: My name's Josh Bialek. Our firm represents Monika Van Stone. There's no introduction. This is Case No. 20 -- 2003-048, and this is our motion to continue a hearing regarding the imposition of fines or a lien. On February 23rd, 2004, that being Monday, my office received a copy, a courtesy copy from the county of the notice of hearing regarding imposition of fine/lien to be held today. Our efforts to contact our client during this week have been unsuccessful. As stated in our brief motion, we know Ms. Van Stone is very interested in partaking in a hearing such as this, and that Ms. Van Stone's interests would be greatly affected by what goes on today. Page 22 February 26, 2004 As you know, one of the most basic tenets of Florida law is that the requirement that all proceedings affecting, well, property among other things, must be conducted according to due process. The essence of due process is that fair notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard must be given. We think Ms. Van Stone deserves such an opportunity. The county has already -- already has its ruling on the merits in this matter. This is merely an imposition of fines. We believe no prejudice is going to come to the county by waiting basically a month to give her an opportunity. I don't know, I mean, to be entirely honest with you, if Ms. Van Stone has received any notices. I know that she's not around to communicate with us. And base -- being her attorneys in something like that, we're asking you guys to give us an opportunity to speak with her and give her an opportunity to come before you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions from the Board? (No response.) MS. DUSEK: County's position? MS. ARNOLD: In this particular case, because there is non-compliance, the non-compliance continues. There's no --~one issue, if they complied and she's unavailable, but I think if-- once the compliance is met, that would be more an appropriate opportunity for them to come back and request some modification to the Board's order. But staff objects to a continuance of the imposition of fines. MR. BIALEK: If I may, my understanding is that this motion that was set for today or is set for today is merely to impose fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. MR. BIALEK: If we're talking about waiting 30 days, the county gets their fines plus 30 more days worth of fines. All we're asking for is a brief delay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Interesting. We still get the 30 days, until she complies. Page 23 February 26, 2004 MR. BIALEK: Exactly. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson, any recommendations? MS. RAWSON: He's not asking for an extension of time in order to comply so that no fines will accrue. What he's really asking for is that his client be allowed to come and talk to you about whether or not she's in compliance and why she might not be in compliance, as I understand it. So it appears to me that you don't have any prejudice by granting him time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Even if we implement the fines, she still has the right to come and ask us to reduce or abate the fines, correct? MS. RAWSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So either way, she's really not -- MS. RAWSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- hurt. If we impose them today by denying by this request -- MS. RAWSON: She can come back and ask you to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- she can come back and ask us to reduce or abate, correct? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. RAMSEY: I think other considerations, we've had certain cases like this in the past I think where we've faced perhaps the same situation. But I think this differs a bit. I mean, obviously she's retained counsel. Counsel I'm sure is not here in a pro bono manner. So even though she's not in compliance, there are some other things going on behind the scenes, and I think counsel is really just asking for the opportunity to work with his client effectively, and I don't see that we're injured by giving him that opportunity. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other questions? MS. DUSEK: Are you making a motion? MR. RAMSEY: I'll make that a motion. I make a motion that Page 24 February 26, 2004 we grant counsel's request for extension. If it's an appropriate time to make that motion, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. We have a motion on the floor to grant the next meeting for this imposition of fines. MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There is a second. Any further discussion? MR. BOWIE: Yes, could I just ask counsel a question. Your client -- to your knowledge, is Ms. Van Stone making any plans to sell this property? Is the property held out now for sale or under contract to be sold? MR. BIALEK: I have no knowledge -- no information that she is doing anything to that regard. MR. BOWIE: My only concern was if we don't proceed with an order and record it now, there'd be no lien on the property and this could be a dilatory move to keep the lien off the property until such time as it closes and title passes to a new owner. That's the one risk we do incur by granting this extension, just for the record. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. continuance to our MR. BOWIE: Aye. MR. RAMSEY: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those opposed? MS. DUSEK: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (Indicating.) 4-2, it passes. You get your continuance until the next meeting, sir, which will be in March. Page 25 February 26, 2004 MR. BIALEK: MS. ARNOLD: to the next meeting? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: that this is notice for your because it will be heard? MR. BIALEK: Yes. Thank you. Can we ask the same, too, about waiving notice And it's March 25th. March 25th, yes, sir. Would you accept client to be here at our next meeting, CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. That covers all our motions. We move on to public hearings. Cherie', do you need a break? COURT REPORTER: No I'm fine, thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: First case under Public hearings, Case 2004-004, Robert and Darlene Davy. MS. HILTON: Yes, sir. First case is Board of County Commissioners versus Robert C. Davy and Darlene Davy, CEB Case No. 2004-004. I would like to ask if the respondent is present in the courtroom. And he is. 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 County's Exhibit me Do I hear a second? We have a motion and a second to CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: accept the County's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Davy, since the county is going to go first, you can sit down, sir, rather than just stand there and wear yourself out. Page 26 February 26, 2004 MR. DAVY: Thank you. MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of Sections 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: Observed a canvas covered boathouse installed without the benefit of a building permit at subject location. Said canopy is prohibited, as it is not an authorized material for use as cover for boathouses in Collier County. With prior notification of this violation from Code Enforcement, as well as a judge's ruling on August 1,2001, this violation is a repeat violation. Location where violation exists: 266, Third Street West, Bonita Springs, Little Hickory Shores. Name and address of owner: Robert and Darlene Davy. And that should be corrected, it's 26950 Nicki J. Court, Bonita Springs, Florida. Date violation first observed: December 18th, 2001. Date owner given notice of violation: February 6, 2004, by personal service. Date on which violation was to be corrected: February 8th, 2004. Date of reinspection: February 25, 2004. Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And at this time I'd like to turn the case over to the supervisor, Shawn Luedtke, to present the case to the Board. (Speaker duly sworn.) MR. LUEDTKE: For the record, Shawn Luedtke, Supervisor, Collier County Code Enforcement. In May of 2001, I responded to a complaint at 266 Third Street, located in Little Hickory Shores subdivision. This is a boat dock lot. It does not have a principal structure. These lots are primarily used for just docks only. Upon my arrival, I witnessed a boat dock with two green canopies installed over it. I researched the property, was not able to Page 27 February 26, 2004 find any permits for these canopies. I sent a notice of violation in May 11 th, 2001 for failure to obtain permits. Mr. Davy failed to comply with correcting the violation, so I issued a court citation at that time. Mr. Davy contested the citation, the complaint was heard in the county court by Mr. Judge Turner. He was found in violation of the sections he's cited for at this time: 2.6.7.1 and 2.6.7.5 of 91-102. He was ordered to pay $105 fine, court costs and remove the canopies by August 15th, 2001. Mr. Davy complied with that order and he did remove the canopies. On December 18th, 2001, I witnessed the canopies reinstalled over the boat docks and no permits had been obtained. Because there was other lots in the area that had similar violations, they did what's called a blanket variance request for the whole area for those boat dock lots, to allow for roof structures. So we worked with all the people that we had cases on and gave a lot of time. But the request was denied by the Board of County Commissioners on September 9th of 2003. As a courtesy, I mailed a letter to Mr. Davy on September 16th, 2003, advising him that since the variance was denied, he'd have to come into compliance by obtaining permits or removing the canopies. I gave him 'til October 12th, 2003 to come into compliance or we'll forward the case to the Code Enforcement Board. No attempts were made by Mr. Davy to correct the violation at that time, so I forwarded the case to Code Enforcement for hearing. MS. ARNOLD: Shawn, you mentioned the violations were 2.6.7.1 ? What was the violations that were cited? MR. LUEDTKE: 2.6.7.1 and 2.6.7.5, failure to obtain building codes of 91-102. MS. ARNOLD: Are you sure? MR. LUEDTKE: I'll double check. I'm sorry. I'm dilexic (sic). 2.7.6.1 and 5. I'm reading my typed notes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions for Mr. Luedtke by the Page 28 February 26, 2004 members of the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Davy, you are allowed to ask Mr. Luedtke questions, if you'd like. MR. DAVY: Could I reserve that? Could I present my case and then perhaps -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Recall him? MR. DAVY: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir, we'll permit that. Any other questions for Mr. Luedtke? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. Mr. Davy, sir. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. DAVY: Well, I'm going to have to fumble through this. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's all right, sir. MR. DAVY: First of all, I guess I should make sure if this is a verbatim record of this. If I want a copy of it I can obtain it some way? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, we don't provide you one, nor does the county. If you want to make some arrangements through the MR. DAVY: I could request it through -- okay, just so I know that the record is going to be there if I want to get it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. DAVY: All right. Now let me get to this. Since I didn't have an opportunity to get the packets together for you folks like I wanted to do, I managed to get this together. About 2:00 this morning I finished it. And I would like to submit this as a defense packet to you, if you'd allow me to do that, and do it as ! go along, offer some of this stuff into evidence, if I could. Is that permissible? As I go -- as I go through here, I'm going to present my case in a Page 29 February 26, 2004 similar fashion that Mr. Luedtke did, and as I go, I would like to submit some of this documentation as evidence. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Pleasure of the Board? Anyone have a problem with him -- as he does something he wants to submit, from what I'm gathering, is a piece of paper here, a piece of paper there, or two pieces, as he's going along. MR. PONTE: I have no objection to it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: None? All right, sir. MS. ARNOLD: Can staff request that we be allowed to examine the information as well, and then note our objections? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We can note your objection, but it will be submitted to the Board. MS. ARNOLD: Right, but I'd like to be able to see it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, you can get to see it, that's fine. Go ahead, sir. MR. DAVY: Okay. For the record, my name is Robert Davy and I'm the accused violator in the matter before you. And bear with me, I have to read some of this, because my memory is not quite as good as it should be. So as I go, and I'll try and go as quickly as I can for you. I don't want to tie up your time or mine either, so -- but just also for the record, I want it noted that I had witnesses to subpoena here and I wasn't given that opportunity, in my opinion. And I'd like to enter those names into the record, if I could. Under Collier County employees, Mr. Edward Perico, Thomas Kuch, K-U-C-H, Shawn Luedtke, he is here, and Mr. Joe Schmitt. And other witnesses I have, I managed to get one witness here today, it will be Mr. Mark Allen, and I'd like to call him at the opportune time. Mr. Mark Strain, Brandon Quant, John Gettinger. Architect L. Wayne Dewhurst, Mr. Richard Van Dale, Mr. Lyle Rochow, R-O-C-H-O-W, and Mrs. Chris Quant. I would like those people subpoenaed. That's what my request is all about, getting those people before the Board. Page 30 February 26, 2004 I have a summary of what I'm going to submit to you here, if I could give this to the Board so you could follow along with me, if you want. Or perhaps you don't need that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Just present your case, sir, I think that would be easiest for us. MR. DAVY: Okay. All right. I just don't want you to think me as being defiant because I'm here before you. I'm not. I believe in what I'm doing, right or wrong, but I'm not being a defiant person, never have been. I've gotten along well with the county, they've treated me fine. I've got no complaints against any of them, all right? And they've been very professional in everything they do. It's just we have a difference of opinion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. That's fine. That's why we're here. MR. DAVY: All right. First of all, the county has not defined these canopies. And by failing to do so, the county has continually led me and others down the wrong path, by providing information when was asked for that was inaccurate or misleading, and that myself and others relied on that information which has resulted in great financial losses. The Land Development Code does not address these non-permanent boat lift canopies. There's no definition in the code. However, the county has continually referred to the boathouse petition of the Land Development Code -- or portion, I should say, of the Land Development Code, 2.6.21.1 with regards to these boat lift canopies. Canopies and boathouses are different things. And I'd like to give you this portion of the Land Development Code, 2.6.21, pertaining to docks and boathouses, if I may. Who do I submit this to, or how do I go about this? MS. RAWSON: You should have the court reporter mark it as your exhibit. MR. DAVY: Okay. MS. RAWSON: And then I would show it to the county and Page 31 February 26, 2004 then the county can pass -- I assume you don't have 15 copies. MR. DAVY: No, I don't. That's a problem, yeah. MS. RAWSON: And after the court reporter marks it into evidence, then show it to the county and then the county can give it to the Board, they can vote to admit it, and then they can pass it through. MR. DAVY: Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's mark this A for the respondent. Jean, should we are ~just accept it as is as -- MS. RAWSON: That would be speedy, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I make a motion that we accept Respondent's Exhibit A into evidence. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) (Exhibit A marked.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And if it's objected to, we'll note that later by the county. MR. DAVY: And -- oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let her mark that and -- okay, we need to get that to Michelle and let her take a look at that and she can hand it to us, or Shawn, whichever. Okay, sir, while that's being worked around, would you continue. MR. DAVY: Yes. This is the portion of the Land Development Code that deals with boathouses in particular. And I want to enter these photos into evidence as well that show what a boathouse is, a permanent style boathouse, if I could, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And this will be B. We need a motion to-- MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept defense packet B. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Second. We have a motion and a second to accept defense packet B. All Page 32 February 26, 2004 those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) (Exhibit B marked.) MR. DAVY: I'm sorry to make so much work for you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir, continue, please. MR. DAVY: Also, the county did adopt a canopy ordinance into the Land Development Code, Section 2.6.2.4, allowing them to be used by the residents as a sun shade and for the storage and protection of recreational vehicles, even without structural engineering. I'd like to offer that ordinance into evidence as well, if I could, along with an attached photo of a couple of those canopies which are located relatively close to where we are located with our property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: C. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept defense package Co MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second by Chris. We have a motion and a second to accept defense packet C. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) (Exhibit C marked.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. DAVY: And I'd like to show that at the time it was clear to the Commissioners -- let me see, I skipped over something, I'm sorry. In 1987, when the Commissioners originally adopted Resolution 87-260 designating these lots as non-commercial boat launching facilities, they intended for the boat owners to use them for individual or multiple private boat docks, boathouses, including mooring pilings and with our without boat lifts. When they referred -- when they referred to Section 8.46 of the zoning ordinance, 87-02, and I'd like to offer that particular item into evidence as well, being that resolution 87-260. Page 33 February 26, 2004 MR. PONTE: Motion to accept. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept defense packet D. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) (Exhibit D marked.) MR. DAVY: At the time it was clear to the Commissioners that these small lots were non-buildable lots with regards to a primary residence and the Commissioners wanted to make certain that the owners of these small lots were afforded the same rights and privileges as any other waterfront property owner within the county, and also show that the county realized they had made an error in 1987 by not including the lots on the south side of the road -- that's what we're talking about. And after my refusal to pay for a conditional use application after stating that I was not at fault, Mr. Ron Nino from the county at that time, I understand he's no longer there, instructed his staff to pursue a resolution by way of executive summary that resulted in resolution 99-236 establishing those lots as non-commercial boat launching facilities. And I'd like to offer that resolution into evidence as well, if I could, please. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the evidence package. I forget which letter it is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: E. MR. RAMSEY: Second it. MR. DAVY: I'm sorry this is so lengthy, believe me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's all right, not a problem. We have a motion and a second to accept defense packet E. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 34 February 26, 2004 (Unanimous votes of ayes.) (Exhibit E marked.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Proceed, sir. MR. DAVY: Okay. And that the Commissioners, by adopting that resolution, made it clear that they understood that these lots were actually unique unto themselves and to place the same qualifying criteria upon them as on the property with a primary residence would not only be impossible to meet but very unreasonable and overly restricted. And that remains true today. And that the 1987 resolution authorizing boathouses to be constructed on these lots. And finally the resolution 2000-51 was adopted, which reduced the side lot setbacks to zero and that the physical conditions surrounding these lots in the neighborhood still remain the same today as they were back when the 1987 resolution was adopted. I'd like to offer that resolution into evidence as well. It would be resolution 2000-51, and refer to the finding of fact of 87260 and 99236 as being the same. And that's between 1987 and 2000. The qualifying criteria were all the same, according to the finding of fact sheet attached to those resolutions. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept evidence package MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept defense packet F. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) (Exhibit F marked.) MR. DAVY: Okay, with that part done there, ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to, with your permission, continue by giving you a little history on these lots and what has transpired along the way that Page 35 February 26, 2004 leads to my being here today. But first I would like to say that I believe the county government is here to assist and help us citizens by providing us with accurate information when we inquire about certain things, such as permitting requirements. And when we go out of our way to ask for inspection of our property to make certain we are in compliance, we should be able to rely on the outcome of that inspection, be able to get a good night's sleep, knowing all is well and you're in compliance, and not have to wonder what's coming next, especially from some disgruntled neighbor. I'd also like it on the record that I think it is a very serious mistake for the county to allow someone to make unfounded complaint after unfounded complaint anonymously against anyone's property. This has been done to me, and in my humble opinion, the county is, by taking this -- these anonymous complaints, condoning the individuals to use Code Enforcement to harass others such as myself, and it's been going on with me for five years. So it's -- I had one Commissioner say at a meeting, it's kind of like two skunks squirting each other, you know. So that's basically what this started with. I think it's very important that you know exactly what has transpired along the way with these canopies, and I would like to put on the record as part of my testimony the following chronological sequence of events that have led us here before you today: On June 23rd, 1999, upon observing many of these boat lift canopies installed throughout Collier County waterways, and liking their appearance and design, I contacted Waterway Boat Lift Cover Company and arranged for an estimate on the same protective canopy covering for my boat. Waterway Boat Lift Cover Company employee, Mr. John Wilkinson, came to my boat lot and provided me with an estimate. I asked who was to take care of the permitting and was told that Collier County did not require permitting because of the canopy's Page 36 February 26, 2004 non-permanent design. And just to give you an idea what they mean by non-permanent design, this whole thing is held on by six little cotter pins that are pulled out and you can lift the thing off and get rid of it, take the canvas off, disassemble the thing and you're done. Fold it up, put it in a box, if you will. But I -- at that point I informed Mr. Wilkinson that I did not want any code enforcement problems and would call Collier County to verify what he had told me before entering into any agreement. Between June 23rd, '99 and June 30th, '99, I'm not certain which day it was, I called Collier County Planning and was transferred to a female planner, and I believe the name was Cheryl -- and I'm not really certain of that, that's the name I think it was -- who was working the front desk. I explained to her what type of canopy I wanted to place over my watercraft and what the company had told me about permits not being required. The lady seemed quite familiar with the type of cover I had described and confirmed that there was no required permit, since these canopies were non-permanent by design. On June 30th, 1999, after confirming what I was told by the company, I entered into an agreement with Waterway and subsequently had my canopies installed. I would like to offer you at this time -- I would like to offer these three items in here. It's the structural engineering, the invoice for my canopies, their literature from the company, and engineering for-- for Mr. John M. Harrington on these structures that was in place at that time. Also, I would like to enter into evidence photos of what we're talking about here, these canopies. In this particular incidence, there's nine canopies at Vanderbilt Towers in their cove that were there long before mine was even put up. Nobody paid attention to them. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept this evidence package G into evidence. MR. DAVY: These will all be considered the same? Page 37 February 26, 2004 MS. DUSEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MR. DAVY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do we have a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept defense packet G. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) MR. DAVY: Oh, I'm sorry, could you add another packet to that? That's just some additional photos. They're copies of photos, they're not very -- that would be part of that as well. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. I don't have a problem just adding that. (Exhibit G marked.) MR. DAVY: Okay. And following a barrage of anonymous harassing complaints against my property by a person I had a difference of opinion with, I called and requested that Collier County Code Enforcement examine my property for any code violations, and if so, tell me what would be required to correct them. And if there were no violations, to give me something in writing showing there were none. I'm trying to comply with the rules at this point. On April 20th, 2000, I met with Mr. Shawn -- Investigator Shawn Luedtke, and provided him with the paperwork he needed to show that the latest in his barrage of anonymous complaints was in fact unfounded so he could close that case. He then examined my property, as requested, including my canopies. At which time I advised him of no permit and why. Mr. Luedtke stated he would research the permit history and applicable rules and provide me with something in writing within a couple of days. April 21st of 2000, Mr. Luedtke, holding true to his word, came Page 38 February 26, 2004 to my home and provided me with a memorandum stating that he had in fact examined my property for code violation and that as of the date the of inspection, there was no code violations existing on my property. I would like to offer that memorandum into evidence, if I may. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He wants to submit another, Exhibit H. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept Exhibit H. MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second for Exhibit H. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Exhibit H marked.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Chris -- sorry. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sorry. Trying to do two things at once. It's not working. Yes, sir? MR. DAVY: Are we all caught up? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. DAVY: All right. Also, I'd like to offer at this time a sworn statement from a Mr. Lyle Rochow, it's been notarized, attesting to the fact that he was also told by Mr. Luedtke at a point in time that his canopies didn't need permitting. And if I could, I'll read that to you, unless you'd rather look at it yourself, I can-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you want to submit it, sir, or do you just want to read it into evidence? MR. DAVY: Well, I take it you're going to read it, so I'll submit it into evidence. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Fine, sir. MR. DAVY: Okay. Page 39 February 26, 2004 MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept evidence package MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second for Exhibit I, defense. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) (Exhibit I marked.) MR. DAVY: On May 5th, another anonymous complaint was made against -- made concerning my canopies. On June 30th of 2000, I returned home from an extended vacation and learned of the complaint and promptly called Mr. Luedtke. July 1 lth, 2000, I received a return call from Code Enforcement Officer Shawn Luedtke, who stated at that time that the boat canopies were prohibited. However, he was unable at that time to tell me what section of the Land Development Code specifically prohibited those canopies. July 11 th, 2000, I spoke with Chris at Waterway Boat Lift Cover Company. She stated these canopies were designed to be non-permanent and that several inquiries were made to Collier County as to the need for any type of permitting and was always told that no permit was required because they're non-permanent in design. She estimates that her canopy company has installed in excess of 100 canopies in Collier County to date. That's as of July 1 lth, 2000. And that no permitting has been required by the county. She stated that she has even seen-- has even sent someone to the county with engineering drawings and materials, and that they were sent away by the county because no permits were required due to the design of these canopies. I requested that Chris fax me a partial customer list, which she did. And at this time, I would like to -- well, wait, I'm getting ahead of myself here. Just a second. Chris also provided me with two letters outlining the company's efforts to find out what Collier County Page 40 February 26, 2004 required for permitting and the canopies -- and the company's desire to comply with whatever permitting requirements the county may have had in place at the time. And I'd like to offer into evidence the letters from -- two letters from Chris Quant, who is the owner of that company -- or one of the owners, I should say. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept evidence package J. MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept packet J from the respondent. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) (Exhibit J marked.) MR. DAVY: September 15th of 2000, at my request, a meeting was held with Commissioner Carter, Michelle Arnold and Jim Hendrickson, in Code Enforcement, and myself. Everyone -- we held a meeting with Commissioner Carter. I'm sorry, I stumbled on my words there -- Commissioner Carter, Michelle Arnold and Jim Hendrickson of Code Enforcement and myself. Everyone seemed to agree that this thing could and should be worked out at that time. Following that meeting, myself, along with Michelle Arnold and Mr. Hendrickson of Code Enforcement, went to the office of Mr. Ed Perico, where it was determined that the complica -- wait a minute, I'm sorry -- that the items addressed in the complaint could most likely be resolved without further complication. I requested something in writing and Michelle stated she would send something shortly. Okay. On that previous exhibit I entered, I forgot two things here that should go in along with that. And I'm so sorry. On J, could I submit those items and let you know what they are on the record? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. Anybody have an objection to including them in J? Page 41 February 26, 2004 (No response.) MR. DAVY: Okay. The first item would be a letter from a certified architect concerning these boat covers, Mr. L. Wayne Dewhurst. And in that, he says this office has examined the subject boat dock lots -- I'm sorry, boat lots. The existing boat docks have no permanent roof assembly and thus cannot be defined as boathouses. These docks are provided with removable vinyl shades, similar to those used by the school board, to provide shaded schoolyard areas or those used by the county to provide shaded public areas, which you might see when you walk under, coming into the building here. And these vinyl shades are removable and would in the event of approaching storms be removed in the normal course of securing the area. In that respect, these shades pose no hazard to the public health, safety or welfare. And also, this letter, a sworn statement from Mr. Richard Van Dale (phonetic), who happens to be a friend of mine, and his sworn statement is to the reference to the rapid removal and installation of these tops so they're non-permanent. So I would like to submit that under J as well, if I could. September 26th of 2000, I received a letter from Michelle Arnold. The letter states no additional permitting is required and no code violations exist concerning my seawall, but there was no mention of the canopies. And I'd like to offer that letter into evidence, if I could, please. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept evidence package CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: K. MS. DUSEK: K. MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Exhibit K from the respondent. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. We have a motion and a second for Page 42 February 26, 2004 (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) (Exhibit K marked.) MR. DAVY: Following that, I made three attempts to meet with the head of Planning, Mr. Robert Mulhere, who declined to meet with me, for whatever reason. Finally, I called and spoke to Mr. Mulhere on the telephone and he agreed to a meeting on December 1st of 2000. Mr. Mulhere, however, did not show for this meeting as agreed and instead sent two people from Code Enforcement and three from Planning. Needless to say, I was somewhat overwhelmed at the time and concerned that Mr. Mulhere did not attend this, as agreed, and at that time nothing was resolved. I'm just trying to put into perspective what I've gone through with the county to get to where we're at. And that I did try to comply with everything, and try to see what was -- work something reasonable out, whatever we could do. That's all I'm trying to show. On May 23rd, 2001, notice of code violation was issued by Mr. Shawn Luedtke and received by myself a couple of days later. I promptly called Mr. Luedtke and at that time asked Mr. Luedtke what the process, if I were to desire to contest the citation. He advised me at that time the first step was, if I did not take down the canopies I would be required to appear before the Code Enforcement Board, where I could present my case by examining -- or explaining why I should not be required to take them down, and explained briefly what to expect. And I told Mr. Luedtke I would begin preparing to go before the Board and ask who makes the decision on these matters, since Mr. Mulhere is no longer there at the county. And he stated that probably Susan Murray, in Planning. I requested time to set up a meeting with her and stated that would -- and he stated that would be fine, and I'd like to offer a copy of that citation into evidence. I'm giving you evidence against me, it Page 43 February 26, 2004 looks like here. MS. DUSEK: L. I make a motion that we accept evidence package MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept packet L from the respondent. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) (Exhibit L marked.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. DAVY: On June 18th of 2001, I met with Susan Murray in an attempt to resolve the canopy issue, along with Mr. Brandon Quant from Waterway Boat Lift Cover Company, and Mr. Mark Allen. Susan stated that these canopies qualify in her opinion as boathouses, and that she would review the code and let us know what she decides should be done. I asked why I was the only one in the county -- only one in the county being forced to remove these canopies when they are all through the county. I showed her the partial list of owners and said -- and she requested a copy of this list. In fact, she made the copy herself. And I'd like to offer that copy of-- that partial list of canopy owners. MS. DUSEK: I move that we accept defense package M, is it? MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second for Exhibit M from respondent. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) (Exhibit M marked.) MR. DAVY: And this is where it gets tricky between the Code Enforcement Board and circuit court. I was given -- I was then given very little notice that I would be going before a judge instead of the Page 44 February 26, 2004 Code Enforcement Board, as originally told I would be doing. I was at a loss and I had prepared to go before a Board made up of members of the community rather than a judge. However, August, 1st, 2001, I appeared before Judge Turner in response to the citation I received. Judge Turner ordered the removal of these canopies because no permit -- because of no permit and commented on the nice appearance of the canopies based on photos presented, and stated he could not see why the county staff would not issue a permit for them. And Mr. Luedtke was present at that time when that statement was made. The judge suggested that I meet with the people in charge of permitting and planning to see if this could be worked out. And if not, then perhaps I should get my Commissioner involved. I did not wish to defy the court, and removed my canopies. On August 13th of 2001, I received a letter from current Planning Manager, Susan Murray, outlining her decision regarding these canvas boat covers, as she said. And I would like to offer that letter-- I'd like to offer that letter into evidence at this point, if I could. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept defense package N into evidence. MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second for Exhibit N from respondent. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) (Exhibit N marked.) MR. DAVY: On August 20th, 2001, as suggested by Judge Turner, a meeting was requested and held with Mr. Ed Perico, the Director of Building Review and Permitting. Mr. Tom Kuch was present, who also works for the county as Director of Planning Services at that time. Myself attended that meeting, along with Mr. Mark Allen and Mr. Brandon Quant, the owner of Waterway Boat Lift Page 45 February 26, 2004 Cover Company. The decision put -- the decision put forth at that meeting by both Mr. Perico and Mr. Kuch was that these were indeed canopies, and due to the way they were attached to the boat lifts for rapid removal, they did not qualify as boathouses, and were by design non-permanent and therefore would not need a permit. Those were one of my witnesses I wanted to bring here. September 20 -- or, I'm sorry, September 10th of 2001, based on the August 20th meeting, Mr. Allen purchased and had his canopies installed. My neighbor right across the street from where I'm located. On September 19th, 2001, Mr. Allen sent a follow-up letter, along with photos of his recently installed canopies, by certified mail to Mr. Ed Perico, thanking him and Mr. Kuch for their assistance with regard to our canopies. I would like to offer that letter into evidence, and I would like to read that, if I may. It says -- it's addressed to Mr. Ed Perico. It says I'm sending you two pictures of my -- of the boat covers that were installed on Lot 12, Block G replat of Little Hickory Shores. These covers are a result of our meeting August 20th of 2001 at 1:30 p.m. with Mr. Ed Perico, Director of Collier County Building Department, Mr. Tom Kuch, Director of Planning, Mr. Mark Allen, owner, Mr. Bob Davy, neighbor, and Brandon Quant, the owner of Waterways Boat Lift or Cover -- or Boat Cover Company, I'm sorry, located in Punta Gorda, Florida. Per our conversation, it was determined that these boat covers, although structurally designed for 110 mile an hour winds, are not permanent because of the design. Being non-permanent, there's no building permit required. I appreciate the time that you and Mr. Kuch took to examine the Commissioners' resolution addressing our particular situation. I appreciate your time. And he's referring to the boathouse resolution that he was referring to there, that it didn't apply here. So I'd like to submit that as Page 46 February 26, 2004 evidence, please. MS. DUSEK: package O. MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Exhibit O from the respondent. I make a motion that we accept evidence defense We have a motion and a second for All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) (Exhibit O marked.) MR. DAVY: On December 10th, 2001, three months after Mr. Allen's letter to Mr. Perico, and four months after installation of Mr. Allen's canopies, with no complaints or Code Enforcement action against Mr. Allen, I was confident the issue of the canopies had been resolved with the meeting on August 20th, 2001. And knowing that Mr. Allen had installed his new canopies and had sent a letter of thanks along with photos to Mr. Perico and there had been no further problem with the canopies, I finished repainting my frames and reinstalled my canopies. That's where I got in trouble, I guess. On January 7th, 2002, I received another notice to appear in court due to a recurring violation of having boat canopies installed without permits. This was due to another anonymous complaint being lodged against me, reference Case No. 2001-120609. However, there did not seem to be any problems with any other canopies, including Mr. Allen, which was directly across the street from mine. And I'd like to offer that notice of violation as evidence, please. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept defense package P into evidence. MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Exhibit P from the respondent. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) We have a motion and a second for Page 47 February 26, 2004 (Exhibit P marked.) MR. DAVY: I'm sorry to take so much time with this, but I'm trying to get through it, believe me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine, just keep going. MR. DAVY: That that was? What was that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: P. MR. DAVY: I'm sorry, I can't hear. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: P, as in Paul. MR. DAVY: P. Thank you. Okay. I then proceeded to schedule an appointment with Commissioner Carter, as suggested by Judge Turner. January 16th, 2002, I met with Commissioner Carter in his office, along with Mr. Mark Allen, Mr. Ed Perico and Mr. Ross Gochenaur. When asked about his statements made to us about our canopies, Mr. Perico admitted to the Commissioner that he and Mr. Kuch had concurred that these canopies were non-permanent and did not need any permits, and that they had in fact told us that very thing. I mentioned the list of other canopies I had given to him at that meeting and asked why I was the only one being cited. Mr. Perico stated that he did not know why I was being singled out. Mr. Allen inquired if the certified letter and photos of his canopies had been received, and Mr. Perico stated that he had in fact received the photos and letter. Mr. Allen asked that if there were -- was a problem, why he had not been cited at the same time I was cited, since he was just across the street. No one had an answer at that time to that question. I once again advised everyone in this meeting that I thought the matter had been resolved at the August meeting and that no one else had been cited, including Mr. Allen, and I wanted to know why I was being singled out, when there were more than 100 other canopies in this county. Commissioner Carter was quite concerned and expressed his Page 48 February 26, 2004 desire to get the matter -- to get this matter resolved. The Commissioner stated that he was meeting with the County Administrator the following day and would discuss the matter with him and have him look into it. He stated that someone would be in touch soon. The Commissioner stated that the court matter would most likely be placed on hold until some sort of decision is reached. January 16th, 2002, I requested and was granted a continuance by the court. A new hearing date was scheduled for February 27th, 2002, at 10:00 a.m. January 28th, 2002, I received a call from Mr. Allen who stated that he had now received a notice of violation on his canopies from Collier County Code Enforcement. The notice was dated January 23rd, 2002, seven days after our meeting with Commissioner Carter, reference Case No. 2002-2010688. And I'd like to note, Mr. Allen says that he spoke with the investigator, Mr. Luedtke, who tells him that he observed both violations, mine and Mr. Allen's at the same time, and that the violations were issued at that time -- at the same time. This couldn't be the case. One violation is a 2001 case and the other is a 2002 case. January 31st, 2002, having not heard from the Commissioner, I called his office and was advised that the Commissioner had indeed met with the Administrator, Mr. Joe Schmitt, and it would probably be best to reschedule -- or to schedule an appointment with the Administrator. I proceeded to do so and a meeting was scheduled for February the 5th, 2002 at 1:00 p.m. February 5th, 2002, 1:00 p.m. at 2800 Horseshoe Drive, myself and Mr. Allen met with Mr. Joe Schmitt. He expressed a sincere desire to do the right thing as it relates to these small boat lots. He did not seem really familiar with the specifics of the matter at hand and did say that he would be -- he would get to the bottom of the matter and make a decision as to what to do. Said that he would hear -- we would hear from him as soon as possible. You have to excuse me, I'm Page 49 February 26, 2004 pretty dry here. We requested that he suspend any further action on the pending cases until some sort of decision or agreement is reached. He stated he would see to it at once. On February the 8th, 2002, 9:00, a.m., I contacted Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement, to make certain on a continuance. Stated she would agree to an additional 30-day continuance. I signed and mailed in a stipulation for continuance form which was mailed to me by Assistant Prosecutor Jennifer Belpedio. The hearing was subsequently rescheduled for March 27th, 2002, 10:00 a.m. February 21st, 2002, I received a letter from Mr. Joe Schmitt, wherein he points out various conditions that would need to be met for any boathouse or canvas boat cover to be allowed on these lots. And I'd like to enter a copy of that, along with an inter-departmental memorandum from Mr. Perico, where he seems to have changed his mind. I'd like to enter those into evidence. I'd like to read that memorandum, if I could. It says -- well, I'm not going to waste your time. I'm going to let you read it, you're reading this stuff as it comes through here. I'll just submit these two as evidence, if I could. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept defense package Q into evidence. MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second for Exhibit Q from the respondent. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) (Exhibit Q marked.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Proceed, sir. MR. DAVY: On March 1 lth, 2002, based on the first paragraph of Mr. Schmitt's letter, Mr. Allen -- which referred to permits -- Mr. Allen and myself both completed and submitted express permit Page 50 February 26, 2004 applications for our canopies in person at the counter -- permitting counter of Collier County. And we were turned away at the counter after being told that these canopies cannot be permitted. I then called and scheduled an appointment with Mr. Schmitt for March 19th, 2002, 3:30 p.m. And I'd like to offer those applications, both of them, into evidence, if I could, please. They're stapled together. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept defense package R into evidence. MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second for Exhibit R from the respondent. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Unanimous votes of ayes.) (Exhibit R marked.) MR. DAVY: On March 19th, 2002, at 3:30 p.m., as scheduled, myself, along with Mr. Mark Allen, met with Mr. Schmitt and Susan Murray in Mr. Schmitt's office. We discussed in general the content of Mr. Schmitt's letter and what seemed to be a desire on the part of the county to prohibit these boat canopies. However, Mr. Schmitt stated that he felt we as the owners of these boat dock lots should be allowed to protect our boats the same as anyone else. I advised Mr. Schmitt that we have continually been told what the county Planning Department would not support, and asked him what would they support. Mr. Schmitt responded by stating that his department would support regular hard cover boathouses on these lots. They would support eliminating the setback requirements. They would support waiving the matching roof material and support single roofs such as on the boathouse on Lot 6, Block G. And finally, they would support the protrusion of boathouses into the waterway beyond the 20-foot limit, due to the unique characteristics of these lots. Mr. Schmitt also stated that the best approach would be gather Page 51 February 26, 2004 the lot owners together and submit one variance application to cover all of the lots. We agreed and requested that any further action on our boat canopies be withdrawn and that they be allowed to remain until the variance process was completed and we could arrange for a boathouse to be constructed. Mr. Schmitt agreed, and we proceeded to Code Enforcement, where we spoke with Michelle Arnold, who agreed to withdraw the complaints against myself and Mr. Allen. March 21st, 2002, the complaint was withdrawn and a notice of nolle proseqi -- is that correct, does anybody know that? I got it spelled out here, if you want to hear it, it's N-O-L-L-E, P-R-O-S-E-Q-I. MS. RAWSON: Nolle. MR. DAVY: Nolle. No prosecution, right? Okay. So they dismissed the case. I was sent to me by Collier -- and was sent to me by Collier County Attorney Jennifer Belpedio. And I'd like to offer cover a copy of that, if I could, please. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept defense package S into evidence. MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second for Exhibit S from the respondent. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) (Exhibit S marked.) MR. DAVY: And that was S? Okay, thank you. And March 22nd, 2002, as suggested by Mr. Schmitt, I sent a letter to all 33 boat dock lot owners, along with affidavits, describing our meeting with Mr. Schmitt and what was being required of us to protect our boats, and trying to work with the county in regards to these canopies, which they really don't want them in the county, but there's no ordinance to cover it. So we said well, if you can get us Page 52 February 26, 2004 some protection, we'll work with the county. So anyhow then, following through this -- these affidavits and stuff I sent out to -- the property owners were asked to return the enclosed affidavits if they wanted to participate in the variance request. The vast majority of boat lot owners, a total of 26 out of 33 owners, chose to participate and return those affidavits. March 28th, 2002, I sent a letter to Mr. Schmitt to thank him and to keep him aware of the progress of this petition, with a copy to Commissioner Carter. And I'd like to offer that letter. If I can find it. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept defense package T into evidence. MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second for Exhibit T from the respondent. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) (Exhibit T marked.) MR. DAVY: On May 9th, 2002, I met with assigned planner Fred Reischl and turned in the completed variance request. And on May 14th, 2002, I sent another letter to Mr. Schmitt with copies to Mr. Reischl and Commissioner Carter so as to keep them informed of the progress, as I promised I would do. And I'd like to offer that letter as well. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept defense package U into evidence. MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Exhibit U from the respondent. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) We have a motion and a second for Page 53 February 26, 2004 (Exhibit U marked.) MR. DAVY: On October 17th, of 2002, after what seemed like an unreasonable period of time, nearly five-and-a-half months, learning that Commissioner Carter -- and we hadn't gone before the Commissioners yet regarding this variance; that's an exceptionally long time, I think. And learning then that Mr. -- Commissioner Carter would most likely not be in office when this matter came before the Commissioners, and learning from Mr. Reischl that there now was not enough time to get on the agenda before the Commissioner would leave office, and suspecting this may be by design -- and that's just a suspicion, but it looks awful tricky -- I sent another letter to Commissioner Carter. And I'd like to offer that into evidence. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion we accept defense package U? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: V MS. DUSEK: V. MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Exhibit V from the respondent. We have a motion and a second for All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) (Exhibit V marked.) MR. DAVY: Ma'am? Just on this little part here I don't, but then I want to have a witness come up. If you need a break? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. That's what I want -- MR. DAVY: Okay. I'm very sorry that this is so lengthy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not a problem. Proceed. Let's get it over with. MR. DAVY: All right. On November the 4th, 2002, a letter from Commissioner Carter expressing his support and advising he would be informing his fellow Commissioners of his support was sent to me. Page 54 February 26, 2004 And I'd like to offer that letter if I could, please. I think I got a couple of things backwards, so bear with me. Okay, this is the correct letter, and it -- I'd like to read this in here. It says I would like to thank you for meeting me recently and for working with staff over the past two years to resolve the boat dock cover issue as it affects property owners on Third Street West in Little Hickory Shores. Although I will no longer be seated on the Board of County Commissioners when this variance request is brought forward, I want you to know that I did support you in this request and truly appreciate your dedicated efforts to find a reasonable solution, which enjoys the support of the majority of affected owners on Third Street West. I am taking the liberty of forwarding your letter of October 17th, 2002 and my memo to Joe Schmitt -- his memo of October 24th, 2002 to Joe Schmitt -- and to my fellow commissioners for their information. And it says best wishes to you for finally bringing this issue to closure. I'd like to submit that. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept defense package W into evidence. MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Exhibit W from the respondent. has? one, We have a motion and a second for All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) (Exhibit W marked.) MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask how many more exhibits Mr. Davy Mr. Davy? MR. DAVY: I'm sorry, I'm sorry. MS. ARNOLD: How many more exhibits do you have? MR. DAVY: Oh, I'm sorry, I've got about one, two -- I think two, three, four, five -- I believe six. MS. DUSEK: What I would like to suggest is that we submit all Page 55 February 26, 2004 of those as one package -- MR. DAVY: Certainly. MS. DUSEK: -- make reference to each one before it's submitted, and then submit it as one package. MR. DAVY: Okay. MS. DUSEK: If that's all right with the rest of the Board. MR. DAVY: I can do that. MS. ARNOLD: That was going to be my request. MR. DAVY: What's that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's all right, sir. Go ahead. We'll just do it all at once, and I think it will speed things up. MR. DAVY: I agree, and I want to do whatever I can to do that. All right. Okay, I'd like to submit the following: A letter from Commissioner Carter dated June 4th, 2002, wherein he states: Dear Mr. Davy, I'm in receipt of your letter to Mr. Joe Schmitt, and will continue to follow the progress of your petition. I congratulate you on following due process and meeting all the requirements for your petition to be heard. Thank you again for keeping me updated on your situation. And the memorandum that -- here that was referenced in that last packet I had there, I didn't -- here, that last one I give you, I want to submit that also with this. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. MR. DAVY: It's an inter-departmental memorandum. It is my under-- it's from Mr.--Commissioner Carter to Mr. Schmitt, Administrator, wherein it states: It is my understanding Messrs. Davy and Allen have met with you and are in agreement that canvas covers -- okay, it says that canvas covers should be replaced with a boathouse structure. Boathouse structure, that's what it was. I believe the attached is basis of your decision with them and they're in agreement about bringing this to the Board of County Commissioners. It is this -- if this case -- if this is the case, I don't understand why it has taken so Page 56 February 26, 2004 long to bring to the board. Regardless of the difficulties, as sitting Commissioner, I would support this agreement and vote it in the affirmative, providing staff and the parties were in agreement. It is my understanding that they have submitted, that 26 out of 33 boat lot owners concur with the agreement, and their proposed variance package to be brought to the Board of County Commissioners. Please advise me where we stand on this and if I have all the correct and relevant information. I'd like to submit these letters -- MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, staff doesn't have any objections to the balance of the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think it will go faster, sir, if you can submit them rather than read them. They will be in the record. There's no sense you reading it if you're going to give it to us. MR. DAVY: Okay. All right. Fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It precludes you from making a mistake if you let us read what is actually written on a piece of paper. MR. DAVY: I understand. Okay. Also, I would make reference to -- well, let me get on through here and see -- okay, the minutes from the June 5th, 2003 Planning Commission wherein-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have more? MR. DAVY: I've got the others here. I'm sorry, I got so used to doing it that way. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, just tell us -- MR. DAVY: And also, the notice -- the letter that Mr. Luedtke referred to when he sent it as a courtesy, he did. And that was good. Notice that I would have to go before the Code Enforcement Board. But I wanted somebody to tell me for sure I was. I got one of these before and I wound up in court. So that's what I was concerned about there. Then I got another notice served to me, official notice by Mr. Ron Martindale, that I was in violation. And then I sent a certified Page 57 February 26, 2004 letter to Mr. Shawn Luedtke, outlining my desire to go before the Board, if he would let me, and making reference to what had happened previously, and I didn't want that to happen again, I wanted to make sure I was coming here. And I sent that certified mail to him. And then I sent a fax to the board, requesting my extension, and the time to call witnesses and outlining the problem with the service delivery. I would like to submit that. And then I also sent a letter to Assistant Prosecutor Jennifer Belpedio, advising her of the same thing, because I was under the impression because she handled this thing before, that she would be handling it. I got a call from her office later, telling me that Michelle would be handling this, Michelle Arnold. So I talked to her on the phone and here we are. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Is that all the exhibits, sir? MR. DAVY: That's all of the exhibits for now. Not for now, that's all the exhibits. Okay. I'm so sorry. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept defense package X into evidence. MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second for Exhibit X from the respondent. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) (Exhibit X marked.) MR. DAVY: That brings me to the end of that. And I have -- I know you want to do a break here, and that's fine, but I would like the opportunity to call a witness, the only one I could get here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine, sir. We'll do that after. We'll give you a chance to take a rest and our reporter a chance to take a rest. MR. DAVY: And following that I'd just like to do a little summary, and that's all. Page 58 February 26, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine, sir. MR. DAVY: Okay, and I thank you very much. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, before we take a break, can I just state my objections to those exhibits? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. ARNOLD: We object -- the county objects to Exhibit H, which was a memo from Shawn Luedtke, noting no violations at that time. And if we can -- when we come back, he can speak to that. We also object to Exhibit I, which was a sworn statement from Mr. Lyle Rochow, indicating information from the investigator. And we object to Exhibit K, which is a letter from me regarding seawalls, not boathouses. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So noted. Let's take 10 minutes. And I'll remind everybody, we're in the middle of a case, so please do not discuss it, okay? It's five of, so five after, please. (A brief recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll call the meeting back to order. We are in public hearings on our first case. I'll take one moment to note, we have a new alternate member that has joined us, Mr. Rob Dowling, who is on the end. Mr. Dowling, you will participate. You are permitted, you can ask questions. You also have the opportunity to vote with the rest of us since one, two, three, four, five, six, you make the seventh member. All right, sir, we'll pick it up. MR. DAVY: We're ready to go again? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. DAVY: All right. I'll try to make this as short as we can -- MS. ARNOLD: Can I make an interruption? I just wanted to introduce our new alternate Mr. -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I just did that. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I was spacing out over Page 59 February 26, 2004 here. Okay. MR. DAVY: Okay, I'd just like to call one witness that I was able to get here today on such short notice, and -- with your permission, and then I would like to summarize what I presented, and that will be the end of it. I'd like to call Mr. Mark Allen up here to give you a narrative of where he came in and what transpired along the way. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. MR. DAVY: Mr. Allen? (Witness duly sworn.) MR. ALLEN: Well, I'm going to give you a different perspective of this. Mr. Davy's a wonderful note keeper. He's very organized and he's very right in what he's doing. My name's Mark Allen. I'm a surveyor. I've been here 47 years. I learned to drive on Vanderbilt Beach. We used to take a car hood and we would mm it upside down and my dad would pull us up and down the beach and that was our sled in a car hood. Things have changed, as I hate to tell you. Those are my memories and there's others -- those are probably other people's dreams. But what has happened over a period of time, as a surveyor, I've seen how these setbacks and easements actually physically exist in the world as we live today with the buildings and the setbacks and what's going on. I was able to purchase one of these boat dock lots which is directly across the street from the one you see here. And I went through the permitting process, I went through the dock process, the lift process, Army Corps. Achieved all my permits for my boat. And the funny thing about this is, I've never owned anything new. Never had a new car, never had a new house. But what I buy, and you're welcome to laugh, but I bought a new boat. So in that event, I bought this new boat and I have it in my dock and I wanted to protect this Page 60 February 26, 2004 boat. And I knew there had been some issues about these canopy covers. So being in the surveying business and working with Mr. Perico and Mr. Kuch for-- as a professional since 1981, and my father before that, I went to Mr. Perico with Mr. Davy, Mr. Quant, who installed these tops. And we met. And I said to Mr. Perico, I said, you know, gee, what's the deal here? And we took our plans and of course we had all the information and we discussed this with Mr. Kuch and Mr. Perico, and he said Mark, these are not permanent. He said these do not need a permit, they are not a permanent structure and they definitely are not a boathouse. So he says, you go ahead and install them. And I did. I followed up with a letter thanking them for their help, followed up with that, and that's all in the evidence that Mr. Davy has submitted. And time went on and things were good. And Mr. Davy, after a period of time, he erected his top, and a very short time later, he was -- had a violation. Well, he came to me and he said, Mark, I got a violation, what are we going to do? I said, well, you know, gee, we had permission, I don't know what to do. So this is when I became involved, you know. I'm only 60 feet away, right straight across the street. And I had no violation, I had -- you know, Mr. Perico has been here a long time, and his word's good. Mr. Perico and I worked many problems out in the surveying business, and we've -- you know, I've been around a long time, and there's a lot of trust there and I placed my trust in him. So anyway, as you can see, there's been a format here. We've been to a lot of meetings and we've had a lot of support. What happened was we wound up with Ms. Susan Murray and we went to a meeting there, and Susan Murray said these were -- these were boathouses. And, gee, I don't see a boathouse when I see that. I see a canopy. I see them in our school, I see them in the public parks. We have them right down here. As we entered, we come under Page 61 February 26, 2004 canopies. And so, as we discussed with her, she said no, it's a boathouse. And I questioned that. She said it's permanent, it's a boathouse. So Mr. Davy asked her, said well, why is this a boathouse? And Mrs. Murray said, and I quote, she said, well, Mr. Davy, when you leave the dock, do you take your canopy with you? He says no. Well, it must be a boathouse then. So, you know, I don't feel that the definition of boathouse is properly placed here. These are not boathouses, they are not permanent. I think what is happening, there's actually not an ordinance for a boat canopy. So what is happening is we're saying hey, they're boathouses and the county is using that as the tool to have these removed. What I don't understand is Mr. Schmitt came along and he said, well, look, he said, you know, he said, maybe you should built a boathouse, it looks like that would be the thing to do and he would support that. So we said, well, look, I just want to protect my boat. I'm making payments on this boat, I want to protect my boat. So if we have to do that, it's what we'll do. Well, that issue became a nightmare. The neighborhood was upset, saying that if we had a boathouse and if we covered our boats, it created a marina, it impacted the streets, it created roads, traffic. All these things that made no sense. Just made no sense, guys. So we continued with this process, and it just seems as though that we're not getting the true picture here. The interesting thing was is the opposition, the folks that said that we were damaging the roads and so forth and so on, I called one of those gentleman, he was on the petition, Mrs. Maggio's petition. And I called the gentleman, I said, well, what have I done to bother you? Or what have I done, I'll fix it in any way. And he said, Mark, I don't even know where your boat canopy is. And it's 100 yards from his house. And he -- I said would you do me a favor, please, go look at it. Page 62 February 26, 2004 Please go look at the thing. And he did. And he said, I don't object to that at all. As a matter of fact, he removed his name from one of the complainants on Mrs. Maggio's list. And he wrote me a letter and said, man, I support you, it's a nice thing. Well, meanwhile, we had gone to Commissioner Carter. We had gotten in this meeting with Commissioner Carter, and I made the most silly mistake I've ever, ever made, I guess. I said Commissioner Carter -- in this meeting was Commissioner Carter, Mr. Davy, myself and Ross Gochenaur. And I guess the most stupid thing I ever said, I said, Mr. Carter, what I don't understand is these are Mr. Davy's tops. He's been cited. Mine are right 60 feet away, and I've not been cited. I don't understand this. Is this selective enforcement? What's going on here? I don't understand this. The following day I was cited. So that fixed that. You know, I mean, I don't understand. It's not fair, guys, it's not fair what's going on here. So now I've been cited and I don't have any money to fight. I don't have -- I don't have the means to do all of this. All I want to do is protect my boat. I want to cover my boat. If we need a boat ordinance for canopies, I support it. These are not boathouses. The architect wrote a letter and said these are not boathouses, they are not permanent. They are not public safety issue. We have them on our school board, we have them on our Collier County Courthouse. We have them right down here. We have a boathouse, by ordinance, right down here on the sidewalk. It's the same thing, it makes no sense. If we need-- if we need some type of mechanism to control these tops or these covers, that's good. And I support that. But don't throw us in the boathouse deal, because it's not a boathouse. Mr. Perico -- going right back full circle, Mr. Perico said they're non-permanent, they're not a boathouse, put them up. The architect said these are non-permanent, they are not public safety issue, they are taken in what I thought-- what I feel is wonderful, in the event of a storm, this comes down in 40 minutes, it's Page 63 February 26, 2004 gone. It's gone. It goes in back of your truck and you're out of there. You secure the area, there's no debris. It's not a boathouse, it's not shingles flying, it's not pilings -- we don't have a problem. It's very unique, very unique. Very clever. But anyway, so we have an architect that says gee, it's not a boathouse, gee, it's not a permanent structure. We got the director of the Building Department, the director of the Planning Department says, you don't need a permit. Mr. Perico said to me, he said Mark, he said, we've had over 3,200 building permits this month. Can you imagine if we had to start permitting stuff like this? And that's to quote Mr. Ed Perico. And believe me, folks, Mr. Perico is a fine man. I trusted him 100 percent. I didn't ask for any signatures, because what Mr. Perico tells me has -- over the -- since 1981, in my business if Mr. Perico spoke, that's -- that was a done deal. You put your trust in the man. That's what -- you know, that's the way it goes. So anyway, so what we've got now we've got Susan Murray who said it's a boathouse, but you don't take it with you when you go fishing. And you've got architects and building planners that say, hey, it's not a boathouse. But we're being cited for -- the cite, the citation even says a canvas boathouse. If you build the -- if you read the ordinance, a boathouse is a building or structure that matches the house that is made of the similar materials, and it precludes plastic or vinyl. So the code itself, by it being plastic or vinyl, has now taken it out of the boathouse code. It's just a crazy area right here. Like I say, in this picture, if you can see just to the right-hand edge here, where the white lift box is on Mr. Davy's dock, you see the two cabbage trees? There's an identical top to this one right there. Identical. 100 yards to the right is a tan one. I don't understand why we're in the suit. Everybody in Collier County -- there's 12 or 13 of them in the Vanderbilt boat basin. They're all over Naples Park. They're a very unique item and should be used. They should be Page 64 February 26, 2004 considered. If they need regulation, I support it. But to say it's a boathouse and take it down and single us out and say out of here with it, that's not fair, guys. That's just not fair. It's just not fair. I'm telling you the truth. Forty-seven years. It's just not fair. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Sir, we don't write the ordinances, we're just here to make the decisions, are you in violation. So unfortunately we can't help you. MR. ALLEN: Okay. Well, I'm just telling you, there is no violation because that is not a boathouse. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. What we're looking for Mr. Davy to do, and we hope that you're trying to tell us is you're supposed to give us some evidence to prove that he's not in violation of what the county says. MR. ALLEN: Oh, I believe that's true. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you want a new ordinance, we can't help you with it, okay? MR. ALLEN: Well, I understand what you're saying. But you can't force an ordinance on something that is different. That is not a boathouse. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. Just one moment. Does the county want to question him? MR. LUEDTKE: I do have one question, Mr. Allen. On the case we had against your property, when the BCC or the Board of County Commissioners denied the variance request, did you not immediately remove your boat canopies? MR. ALLEN: I did, because I had already spent $8,000 on attorneys. I had no more money. I took them down, actually for maintenance. And by the way, that's pretty interesting, because we went to the Board of County Commissioner meetings -- that occurred in the morning. I left that meeting at about quarter to 12:00. I drove to my Page 65 February 26, 2004 house in Golden Gate and I changed my clothes. By 1:30 or a quarter to 2:00, those boat canopies were in my truck, a Mazda truck, delivered to Mrs. Maggio so she could see that I had taken them down. MR. LUEDTKE: So you immediately came into compliance, is your answer, within a day? MR. ALLEN: That's why they're not -- they are not permanent structures. MR. LUEDTKE: I understand. MR. ALLEN: You cannot take down a permanent structure and put it in the back of a Mazda pickup, that's why it's not a boathouse, you cannot cite us under that ordinance. MR. LUEDTKE: That was my question. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Davy? MR. DAVY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Continue, sir. MR. DAVY: Could I ask-- could I ask, Michelle Arnold, you objected to some of these things and I didn't catch what that was. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, it was Item H. MR. DAVY: H? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Which was a memo from Shawn Luedtke. And if we could have Shawn speak to that, that would be -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's let him get through his -- MS. ARNOLD: Oh, I thought he was done. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- side first and you can rebut. MR. DAVY: That was the only -- the only objection? MS. ARNOLD: H, I, and, oh, K. MR. DAVY: H, I and K? MS. ARNOLD: H, I and K. MR. DAVY: Thank you. Yes, I'd just like to summarize this thing a little bit, if I could. These things -- these boathouses -- the boathouses and canvas covers are two different things. I believe here that with the evidence Page 66 February 26, 2004 I've given you there, but without having the witnesses here to support that, to testify that this is where this stuff came from and who signed what, I'm kind of at a loss. But anyhow, I think with that stuff, I believe I've shown that boathouses are permanent by design. They're something that stays there. You put it in there and build it like a structure, it's there to stay. And then also, they're incorporated into the Land Development Code, as they should be. These canopies, however, are non-permanent in nature. They're designed to be taken down in the event of a storm. They're designed to withstand high winds up to 70 miles an hour. But you've got a forecast of a heavy storm coming, you go over, you take a couple of bungie straps off, you roll the canvas up, you take six pins out, you take the thing away. It's gone. I don't call that permanent. That's a non-permanent structure, or design. It's non-permanent by design. And they're not defined in the Land Development Code as boathouses. The boathouse ordinance doesn't refer to canopy boathouses. And here in this -- if I may, in this notice that I got to come here, it says right in here, description of violation: Observed a canvas covered boathouse installed without the benefit of a building permit at subject location. It's not a boathouse. There is no ordinance. It's a gray area. And I had people at the county tell me, yeah, this is a gray area, we got to do something. That's why we worked with the county to resolve the thing. They didn't know what to do with these canopies. And I don't think they still know what to do with them other than use me for a test case. I've tried to go along with the county and work with them and do what I can. I just want to protect my boat. I'm like anybody else, you know, I want to protect my property. I've established, through what I've given you there, there are many of these canopies in Collier County, and that to date no one other than myself and Mr. Allen, after coming to my defense, have Page 67 February 26, 2004 been cited, to my knowledge. Even though the county was provided a partial list of owners, it would appear I have been targeted as a test case. I don't think anyone -- or I know of no one that's been cited, other than me. The county's refused to issue permits for these canopies, even though there is a canopy ordinance, which I've provided for you. That ordinance does not demand that those canopies comply with rules that pertain to a garage or a shed, because they are neither. That's only common sense. The county is trying to apply rules to these lots that just do not make sense by requiring that they comply with the boathouse ordinance when in fact these canopies are not boathouses. I've shown that these boat lift canopies are just that, canopies, and are not permanent. I've shown that several people, including myself, were told these canopies do not need a permit, and I've relied on that information. I've shown that I've attempted at the county's direction to bring this matter to a closure by seeking another variance to allow boathouses on these lots when in fact in 1987 in a resolution I provided to you, boathouses, boathouses now, are already allowed. There's no mention of these canopies either in that ordinance. They were pertaining to boathouses. This here, I might add, was done at a considerable expense to myself. The odd part is that it took five-and-a-half months to bring this matter before the board. It would appear that someone did not want this matter to go before the board while Commissioner Carter was in office because he was in support of our ordinance that we -- or our resolution we wanted. I want to play by the rules, but it is impossible when people keep telling me conflicting things, and after you spend your hard-earned money you have someone else tell you, oh, by the way, that is not right. I don't think this is proper. I have, if you will excuse the expression, jumped through every Page 68 February 26, 2004 hoop the county has put in front of me, and still the county Planning Department will not recognize the fact that they need a boat lift canopy ordinance. You know, there's a situation there in Cape Coral. They finally come to the idea after a lengthy, costly lawsuit that they indeed do need a canopy ordinance and they put one together. And I applaud that. That's what we need here. We don't need to take somebody and put them through the ringer like me as a test case and then go after somebody else because they beat me up. I think that's what's happening here. I should be able to rely on the information given to me by those people who work in positions where they affect people's lives when they give out that information. And believe me, it's really affected my life. I haven't had a good night's sleep in four years thinking about this thing. Mr. Luedtke gave me information, after researching the code, and I relied on it. He wanted the time to research the code and then come back-- and came to my house and delivered that memorandum. I requested -- I'm glad he did that. He did that just at my request, come and inspected my property. We discussed the canopies. He searched the records, he come back to me, gave me a memorandum. You have it. Now they want to object to the memorandum. For what reason, I don't know. Waterway Boat Lift Cover Company has requested information so as to consider their business -- or conduct their business according to the rules, and were given information that they relied upon to conduct that business. I believe that to be improper, too. I gave you two letters from the company where they said we were told they didn't need permits. So that tells me that there's nothing in the Land Development Code to cover these. They cover other canopies, but they don't cover these. I don't want to be someone who's looked upon as a troublemaker here, but I also do not wish to be penalized for mistakes of others. Page 69 February 26, 2004 Although they may have been honest mistakes, and I'm not saying that the county did anything improper, it's just that it was misleading to me. But I, too, honestly thought I was getting the proper information and proceeded according to that information. Twice. That's why I'm here. On August 21st of 2003, County Attorney Jennifer Belpedio conducted a workshop for this very Board. And on Page 27 of the minutes of that meeting, she was explaining to you about the standard of review for the Code Enforcement Board. And I'd like to quote a part of that where she refers to competent, substantial evidence. And I quote, and I typically -- and typically what I found is what would be -- what would a reasonable mind accept. And I'd like you folks to think about that with all that stuff that's been going on with me. Is it reasonable. And is it reasonable for me to be singled out as the one to be cited on as a test case. If you need a test case, then there can't be something that covers this thing. They didn't go after everybody. If it's a violation, you should go after everybody. I provided them with a list. Nobody got a -- nobody got a citation. And finally, I do not and I -- I do not think that was -- that's proper to be doing that anyhow. And I ask you to find in my favor and allow my canopies to stand and to stop, if you will, any further action against me. If the county wishes to prohibit or regulate these non-permanent boat lift canopies, I'll do everything I can to help. I think they need to be regulated, but there's nothing here to say I'm in violation of something here. I don't think there's anything in the Land Development Code that shows that. They should define them in the Land Development Code and adopt an ordinance to regulate these boat lift canopies, such as being done -- such as is being done in Cape Coral, as I mentioned before, after a trial that was very costly to both sides. I hereby defer to your expertise and seek only for a fair review of Page 70 February 26, 2004 this case and for you to ask yourself is what has happened to me and others in this case reasonable. And with that, I wrap it up and I thank you very much for your indulgence. And I wish I'd have had the opportunity to bring architects in here and the people who make these things, you know, and work with them daily, for comparison purposes. And I -- again, I thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, sir. The county has a right to cross-examine Mr. Davy. MR. DAVY: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle? Jennifer? MS. ARNOLD: I don't have any questions of Mr. Davy -- well, actually, I do. You provided the list of other property owners with canopies to whom? MR. DAVY: I provided that to Susan Murray at our meeting when myself and Mr. Allen was there. And I believe Mr. Quant was there. It's in my -- I put that on the record. I provided that list -- MS. ARNOLD: Okay, thank you. That's all I have, thank you. MR. DAVY: And also, I'd like to add then pertaining to that list, we also gave that to Mr. Perico. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other questions from the county? MS. ARNOLD: Not of Mr. Davy, but-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Davy, the Board is going to ask you some questions. You don't get off that easy. MR. DAVY: I don't get off that easy? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have some questions. MR. DAVY: Sure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You were ordered by a judge to take the canopy down; is that correct, sir? MR. DAVY: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is it down? Page 71 February 26, 2004 MR. DAVY: It is not. It was down. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's all I asked you, is it down. And it is not. Okay. You requested from the county a variance and that was denied, correct, sir? MR. DAVY: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. You submitted to us in your evidence -- Land Development Code, you've been talking about canopies and they're not regulated, 2.6.2.4, that talks about canopies. MR. DAVY: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And it says you should get a building permit. Do you have a building permit, sir? MR. DAVY: It was refused. I gave you copies of those. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have a building permit, sir? MR. DAVY: No, I do not, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Questions from other members of the Board? MS. DUSEK: I have a question, Mr. Davy. Do you have another structure on this property, or is it just an empty lot with your boat dock? MR. DAVY: Just a vacant lot. There's power and electricity to the lot and two boat lifts. A dock and two boat lifts. MS. DUSEK: In part of the evidence package that you presented to us which talks about canopies, it says not only do you need a building permit, but that it is limited to one structure per residential lot with a principal structure. MR. DAVY: Right. MS. DUSEK: MR. DAVY: MS. DUSEK: MR. DAVY: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have a principal structure on the property? No, I don't. My point on that was that -- That's all I asked. Other questions from board members, Page 72 February 26, 2004 please? MR. RAMSEY: Mr. Davy, is it fair to say, and you've submitted quite a bit of evidence here this morning, but is it fair to say that your defense in this -- against this citation can really be summarized by saying that the sections cited do not apply to what you have erected in that spot? MR. DAVY: That's basically what I'm saying, yes, sir. MR. RAMSEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Now you can sit down. MR. DAVY: Okay, thank you. I need to sit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let the county have a rebuttal if they want to offer. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, I wanted Shawn to speak to the fact that we believe the section cited is in fact correct and applies to these structures. Mr. Davy has several times said that they were boathouses and they were canopies and they were structures. And I want Shawn to speak to the sections that were cited. MR. LUEDTKE: Thank you. He supplied a lot of evidence referring to boathouses. We did not cite him for boathouses. It doesn't apply. Basically all we issued the notice of violation for were for building permits. Failure to obtain permits for the canopies noted on there. We cited him for 2.7.6, Section Number 1, and I read, no building or structure shall be erected, moved, added to, altered, utilized or allowed to exist without first obtaining authorization of a required building permit. Then we did subsection Number 5, which says no improvement of property or construction of any type may be commenced prior to the issuance of a building permit. That is what the notice of violation is for that he's standing here for. Has nothing to do with boathouses. It has nothing with do with a great majority of the packet that he's submitted to you. I just wanted to clarify that. Page 73 February 26, 2004 I don't object to the memo that he submitted that I signed off on. I wanted to clarify. We had numerous cases, as he stated, against his property at one time dealing a lot with environmental removal of mangroves. He extended the property out into the water, giving him a larger piece of property. And there was a lot of research into that. And I was tied up a lot into those issues, and that was mainly what that memo was referring to. I did not search for -- I did not research permits at the time. As far as the boat dock, as far as the electrical, as far as the canopy, I didn't get into that aspect. ! was new, I should have got into all that stuff. So I did want to clarify that with you. There was also a sworn statement supplied about a comment that I had made to a third party in reference to another case. I can't comment on that. I don't know the person off the top of my head. I don't know the address. I could research it and get back to you. I just -- I want to object to that until I have more information, whether I even had a case on that property. That's all I have to say at this time. MR. DAVY: Am I allowed -- excuse me, am I allowed to ask a question of Mr. Luedtke? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. MR. DAVY: Mr. Luedtke, on that memorandum that you brought to me to my house, and I thank you for doing that, when you brought that memorandum -- or prior to bringing that memorandum there, you met me at my property, is that correct, at my request? MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct, that's correct. MR. DAVY: You had a case that you were working on against me. MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct. MR. DAVY: And do you recall what that particular case was? MR. LUEDTKE: Not off the top of my head. Like I said, we had a couple of cases dealing with environmental, mainly. MR. DAVY: Okay. Now, with regard to that case, that case that you came about, you asked for paperwork to verify that one of my Page 74 February 26, 2004 boats was in fact my boat. MR. LUEDTKE: I remember a case referring to that, yes. MR. DAVY: All right. And at that time I had asked you to -- I gave you the paperwork for that, if you recall; is that correct? MR. LUEDTKF.: That's correct. MR. DAVY: Okay. And you examined my property. We discussed those canopies. I told you at that time, if you recall, that I didn't have permits for those, and you assured me that you'd research the records and get back to me; is that correct? MR. LUEDTKFJ: I'm not going to sit here and call you a liar, I just don't recall that. That's all I'm going to say. MR. DAVY: All right. Didn't you in fact, after that at another day -- MR. LUEDTKE: I was there at that time, as you stated, dealing with illegal land use of renting dock space and we ran, you know, the FL numbers on the vehicles, on the boats. MR. DAVY: Right. And didn't you in fact go back and research the -- if that cleared up that case right there, there was no need to do anything else. You verified there was no more -- you went back and researched the records to make sure there were no more violations against my property, and came back -- did you give me a memo stating that there were no more violations? MR. LUEDTKF.: That I was referring to the environmental violations. MR. DAVY: What environ-- you didn't-- you wouldn't-- you wasn't involved in an environmental case at that time with me. MR. LUEDTKE: I think we're getting off the subject. But -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, other cases -- MR. LUEDTKF.: -- there was -- there was mangrove removal and there was rip-rap installed after the fact. MR. DAVY: That had been resolved a long time before that. What I'm getting at is the case -- you came out there at my request to Page 75 February 26, 2004 make sure there were no more violations to give me something -- to state there were no violations. MS. ARNOLD: And I think you've already answered -- he's already answered that he did not research the permit for the canopy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, let's stick to this case, okay? Do you have a question about this case? MR. DAVY: That is this case, sir. That's the memorandum that I submitted to you from him telling me that I wasn't in violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're asking about other cases, and I don't care about other cases. This case. Ask questions about this. MR. DAVY: All right. I got it. All right. ! think that's all I've got. It's -- I can't go any further, I think. Thanks, Shawn. MR. LUEDTKE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions from any members of the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, ! have one. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, Chris -- or Gerald, I'm sorry. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, is this canopy permittable? MR. LUEDTKF.: It is not permittable. MR. LEFEBVRE: It is not. MR.' LUEDTKE: They attempted to get a permit to make it permittable, and that was denied. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. DAVY: I'd like to clarify that, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let us ask our questions. MR. DAVY: Okay, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, any other questions from the board? MR. RAMSEY: I have a question. Shawn, part of Mr. Davy's presentation, he made the -- indicated that these structures do not require a permit. And that I think goes directly to, you know, your statement that he is being cited for failure to get a permit. Page 76 February 26, 2004 MR. LUEDTKE: Exactly. MR. RAMSEY: How is that resolvable? I mean, I understand that -- MR. LUEDTKE: He needs to obtain a permit for any structure. The code reads no building or structure. If you guys define, as Judge Turner has, that those canopies are a structure, then it's going to require a permit. He's not going to be able to obtain one, but it requires a permit. And that's what he's here for. MS. ARNOLD: This speaks to -- if they're -- like any zoning district, we have uses that are allowed and uses that are not allowed. In this particular case, the use in question is not allowed on the property. Therefore, it's not permittable. But that does not allow someone to erect it without a permit or with a permit. Because it's not an allowable use. He's erected something on the property without obtaining a building permit, and that's a violation to the code. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Would his -- along Chris' line, trying to -- I guess maybe what he's looking for, since it's not permittable, the only way he could get anything is if he would get some type of variance from the Commissioners; would that be correct? MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So that's his only out, so to speak, is if he would go -- MR. LUEDTKE: Or remove, that's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Or remove it. MR. LUEDTKF,: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He's not allowed to have it unless he gets this variance. MR. LUEDTKE: And a permit, correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, once he gets the variance, you would then give him a permit, correct? MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Page 77 February 26, 2004 MS. DUSEK: Has he -- has he already tried to get a variance? MR. LUEDTKFJ: They did attempt a variance. That was denied by the Board of County Commissioners. MS. DUSEK: Okay. So that's no longer-- MR. DAVY: There was no variance for those permits -- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, you need to be on the microphone. MR. DAVY: MS. DUSEK: -- for those canopies. Also, another question. I don't know whether you can answer this, but in this 2.6.2.4, where it says a canopy cannot be erected unless it has a permit and in order to get the permit you have to have a principal structure on the property. If he were to have a-- I don't know if this lot allows it, but if he were allowed -- if he could put a principal structure on there, then he would be allowed to get a permit? MR. LUEDTKE: We have zoned that special -- and correct me if I'm mistaken, those boat dock lots are so small there's no room for a principal structure, so they did allow an accessory use, boat docks only. MS. DUSEK: Okay. Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have another question. The other-- the other photos, evidence that he showed that did have a canopy type structure, those, I take it, were permitted? MR. LUEDTKE: The photograph he showed was a hard roof, and that was the prior case that you gave a continuance on, to my knowledge. MR. LEFEBVRE: But there were several other pictures I saw with some condos? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we have cases on those. MR. LEFEBVRE: You have cases on those. MR. PONTE: I have a question. Is it-- with all of the evidence that we saw today, going back several years, there seemed to be a shift Page 78 February 26, 2004 in viewpoint on the part of county. And particularly in Ed Perico's letter of January 22, '02. At one time was this canvas covering permitted, and then on March 1st when the new wind load standards became effective, then became not acceptable? MS. ARNOLD: I can't answer that. No one's ever told me that these were permittable structures. I saw the memo from Ed Perico indicating that it would require to meet the wind load requirements, but I have not gotten-- Shawn, do you-- MR. LUEDTKE: No, I'm not aware if they were ever permittable at any time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions from the board members? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Shawn. MR. LUEDTKE: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, we'll close the public hearing portion and make a determination as to if in fact a violation does exist. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of Board of County Commissioners, Collier County versus Robert C. Davy and Darlene Davy, CEB Case No. 2004-004, that a violation does exist. The violation is of Sections 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: Observed a canvas covered -- it's referencing boathouse. ! don't know whether that's correct. MR. BOWIE: Let's not reference boathouse. MS. DUSEK: Let's just say a canvas covered installation without the benefit of a building permit at subject location. Said canopy is prohibited, as it is not an authorized material for use as cover for structures in Collier County. With prior notification of this violation from Code Enforcement, as well as judge's ruling 8/1/01, this violation is a repeat violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that in fact a Page 79 February 26, 2004 violation does exist. Is there a second? MR. BOWIE: Well, I'll second it for purposes of discussion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is there a discussion on the matter? MR. BOWIE: I'd like to move an amendment to it that deletes any reference to the particular nature of the cover or that the structure is defined as a boathouse, because I don't think that's really material to the nature of the violation. It seems to me that the issue is not whether this structure should be deemed to be a boathouse or not, or whether the covering on it is proper or not, or whether this is deemed to be a temporary structure or not. What I think is conceded is that this was a structure of some type and that this structure was installed without a permit. MS. DUSEK: I'll amend-- MR. BOWIE: In violation of these two statutes. MR. PONTE: In some -- what we were reading today, and I wish I had made copious notes on the mountain of paper of the past -- there was no building permit required because the boat covers are not permanent. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's not a permitted use. MR. BOWIE: I mean, it's definitely a structure. And I think we don't even have to ask ourselves that, because we have a prior judicial determination from the Collier County Court that this is in fact a structure of some type that is in violation of those very code sections. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MR. BOWIE: This was determined August 1st of the year 2001. A variance thereafter was sought and that variance was denied. MS. DUSEK: I will amend my motion. I think that's a good amendment. Not to reference other than that it is a structure that's unpermitted. And it -- well, just leave it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If she amends it, do you second the amendment? Page 80 February 26, 2004 MR. BOWIE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So we have a revised amended motion that we're dealing with a structure that does not have a permit, which is what the two citations were about. And the -- as I understand Mr. Bowie's discussion, that is evidenced naturally by Judge Tumer's ruling that it is in fact in violation of the two sections that the county has brought forth to us. MR. PONTE: But don't we also have testimony that a permit cannot be obtained for the structure? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's right. So the question before us is he's got a structure without a permit. Whether it can get a permit or not is immaterial. He's built something that doesn't have a permit. And that's all they're asking us to find, does he in fact have a structure without a permit. I think, unfortunately, the answer is yes. He admitted he didn't have a permit. A judge has ruled he didn't have a permit. Whether he can get one is not the question. The question is he has a structure that doesn't have a permit, is that yes or no. And I think that's the question before us. And the answer is no, he doesn't have a permit so he's in violation. Granted, we've already heard testimony that his only relief is to get a variance and if he gets that, then he can get a permit. He's tried once, based on the evidence submitted, to get a variance and was turned down. Does that mean he can't go back and try again? I would think he probably could. I don't know. Unless the Commissioners just tell him they don't want to hear from him. But I would probably go try again. Maybe something has changed. I don't know. But our only question is does he or does he not have a permit to meet the two sections he's cited for, and the answer is he does not. Any other questions? Any other discussions on the motion on the floor? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If none, all those in favor that a Page 81 February 26, 2004 violation does in fact exist, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Motion carried, okay. Order of the Board. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, we do have a public speaker on this. Would you like to hear the public speaker? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure, that would be fine. MS. ARNOLD: Emily Maggio. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One question, ma'am, before you start. Jean, since it's a public speaker -- ma'am, let me ask the question, are you representing one side or the other? MRS. MAGGIO: I'm here representing 14 property owners who opposed the variance petition when it was brought before the board. So I would be happy to -- I'm not going to say anything that isn't tree and I'd be happy to be sworn in. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Well, that was denied, so -- I don't know what you're going to tell us, but -- Jean, do we need to swear her in or anything? MS. RAWSON: Yes, I think we'll swear her in. Basically, the purpose of your question, I assume, is she appearing as a witness on behalf of the petitioner or the respondent, and I think she answered she is not. She's a public speaker and she's speaking for, apparently, some of the neighbors. And you certainly have the ability to listen to any public speakers, within time limits, of course. But I do think she should be sworn in. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. PONTE: Do you want to set some sort of reasonable time limit for the public speaker? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. Three minutes, please. MRS. MAGGIO: Yes, I will be as brief as I can. Page 82 February 26, 2004 (Speaker duly sworn.) MRS. MAGGIO: For the record, my name is Emily Maggio. My husband and I have lived on Second Street in Little Hickory Shores for 35 years. Although that doesn't mean anything. I could live here 100 years, I'm no different than any other citizen, and I'm sorry I didn't wear my patriotic hat. The problem here, we could talk all day about who told who what, and the bottom line here is zoning. Mr. Perico can't make law, you can't make law. The only one that can make that law is the County Commission, and they have already said no boathouse. This is the variance that was granted for these boat dock lots, which everyone who lives there knew that they were marketed as boat dock lots. We who live there have no objection to the conditional uses that were granted to allow them to be used as boat launching facilities. That's what the ordinance allowed, not boathouses or anything else. Boat launch facilities. These people pay taxes, they're entitled to a reasonable use. They not only have a reasonable use, they have more than a reasonable use, they can put a boat dock. And in 2000, the county saw fit on their petition to do away with setbacks, so they can build lot line to lot line boat docks, which is something we as homeowners in this residential neighborhood, and that's what the zoning is here, we do not have that right. We can't build anything lot line to lot line. So in effect they have more rights than we as property owners. I'd like to address the --just quickly the subject of is this a building. Right here in the county's own definitions, a building is any structure, temporary or permanent, having a roof impervious to weather that is used or build for the shelter or enclosure of persons, animals, chattels or property of any kind. This definition shall include tents, awnings, cabanas or vehicles situated on private property and serving in any way the function of a building, but does not include the screen enclosure. Page 83 February 26, 2004 If it's looks like a duck and quacks like it, it's a duck. I don't care where it is. It's a building. Buildings are not allowed there because there is no principal structure. And real quick, I'd like to just show you, if I could -- I didn't take this. This is an aerial photo. As you can see, there are docks on both sides of the road. Many of the docks are not as yet improved. With zero lot line -- can you bring it up just a little -- no, up the other way. I want it -- no, I want to show these boats here, right here, right here. This is Mr. Davy's two structures, which you're right, the code says one structure per lot. There's two there. Okay, one of the things I pointed out to the County Commission -- like I say, we all knew these were boat dock lots, we expected docks. It went from 33 docks with the zero setback to 66, minimum. You can put three boats on some of those lots. In fact, Mr. Allen had three boats, which is fine with me, if it's allowed. And the county allowed it. Right here you can see these boats, three touching -- boat touching boat touching boat. Now, when these lots are all developed, that's going to be the reality of it, boat touching boat touching boat. One boat catches fire, and it doesn't matter if it's an act of God, an act of vandalism, negligence, or whatever, you're going to have in the middle of this residential neighborhood -- and this is where these docks are located. This is Little Hickory Shores streets, this is a street with houses, and this is the docks right in the middle. It's one thing when you research where you live and you buy a piece of property and you know what can be built there, fine. But you don't come along afterward -- this is an old neighborhood, we're not a PUD, we have to depend on the county to uphold your zoning. And if you plan -- we've already been plunked with a fire hazard with the zero setback. I think that's clear to everyone. Adding roofs to these structures of any kind is just adding fuel to a dangerous situation. These are absentee owners. As Mr. Davy himself told you, he was away on vacation. When he came back Page 84 February 26, 2004 he had a notice. But you notice, while he was away on vacation did he take his canvas down? Like I say, we're not vindictive. I mean, we don't mind them being there, we don't mind them being there. Mr. Allen, I have to give him credit. The day the Commission said no boathouses, he did take them his down that day. In fact, he showed up at my door, extremely angry and agitated, and read me the riot act and left. He told me as a matter fact before he left I could have the blank blank lot and the boat too. He showed up two weeks later when my husband was there, came to our dock and again began to rant and rave about -- MR. BOWIE: Could we just -- MRS. MAGGIO: I understand. But, you know, we have -- the homeowners there had very short time to get ourselves together and hire an attorney, which we did, et cetera, et cetera. And we managed to get it all done. And I'm wondering why Mr. Davy, when he was in front of the County Commission, who was -- he was represented by counsel, why didn't he have all these people that he now wants to call, all these engineers and everybody else, why weren't they there then? The Commission denied it. We're asking you to please just uphold the laws on the books. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, ma'am. MR. DAVY: Sir, I'd like an opportunity just to rebut that a little bit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, I'm sorry, that's public comments. You're done, sir. The public hearing portion is closed. That was just a public comment. Okay, back to order of the Board. MR. BOWIE: I'd like to make a motion which is this: That the Code Enforcement Board, one, find that a repeat violation of Sections 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of the Land Development Code exists. Two, order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case. Three, order the respondents to abate all violations by Page 85 February 26, 2004 removing -- and I'm going to change this a little bit from what was recommended -- by removing the structures from atop the boat dock and lift within seven days from the date of this hearing, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues, dating back to February 6th, 2004, the date the repeat violation was confirmed. And four, order the respondents to notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and to request the investigator to come out and perform the site inspections. MS. DUSEK: Just one comment. The first part of your recommendation, motion, has already been a motion and passed. That was finding a repeat violation, Sections 2.7.6.1. So that we already did. MR. BOWIE: Okay. Then the balance of it will stand as a motion for our action. MR. PONTE: Can you repeat what you have there as number three? MR. BOWIE: Number three is order the respondents to abate all violations by removing the structures from atop the boat dock and boat lift within seven days from the date of this hearing, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues, dating back to February 6th, 2004, the date the repeat violation was confirmed. MR. PONTE: I guess my question is, if you just say the structures and you don't define it, it could interpret meaning remove the boat lift or the boat-- MR. BOWIE: Yeah, that's my concern. MS. DUSEK: I'd like to say unpermitted structures. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think he's looking -- are we -- yeah. MR. BOWIE: The boat dock and boat lift have been approved by the county. There's no contesting that. What we're concerned about is any structure that was added to those. MS. DUSEK: Would it be clearer to say unpermitted structures? Page 86 February 26, 2004 MR. PONTE: Yes. Would you amend your motion to -- MR. BOWIE: If unpermitted structures is interpreted to mean any kind of covering including the framing for that covering, whatever the constitution of it, yes, if that's the understanding, yeah. Not just the canvas cover, but also the framing that supports the enclosure. MR. PONTE: Unpermitted structure. That covers anything you want to -- CHAIRMAN MR. BOWIE: CHAIRMAN MR. BOWIE: CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Is that acceptable? Absolutely. FLEGAL: He'll make that amendment, George. Unpermitted structure. FLEGAL: So we have a motion on the floor. Jean, I only have one question. MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Can we go back in time? MS. RAWSON: You can, because it's a-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Second violation. MS. RAWSON: -- already been a finding of fact that it's a repeat violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good. I just want to make sure for the record. Great. We have a motion on the floor. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MR. PONTE: CHAIRMAN MR. PONTE: CHAIRMAN No. FLEGAL: Yeah. FLEGAL: aye. Do I hear a second? We have a motion and a second. Any George, you're pondering? You okay? All those in favor, signify by saying Page 87 February 26, 2004 (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Unanimous. Mr. Davy, do you understand, sir? MR. DAVY: Yes, sir. Yes, I understand. And I'm not going to defy this Board. I wanted to come here just to state my case. I'll take them down. But I just still feel it's not a reasonable thing that happened to me, the way the county put me through this. And -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sir, unfortunately you have to go somewhere else for that. MR. DAVY: I know, I know. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All we can do is what we do. MR. DAVY: All right. Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. DAVY: Oh, with regards to the administrative costs, what -- can we talk about -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The county will have to tell you what that is. MS. ARNOLD: We can tell you before you leave. MR. DAVY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Back to public hearings. The next case -- let's see, Gray, is that -- MS. ARNOLD: We continued that one. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We continued that one? Then we get down to Novelo, is that correct, 2004-007? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, Novelo. Okay, we've got -- we do have -- if we may make an amendment and hear Item Number 4, Code Enforcement Board Case 2004-01. This was a case that was continued from a prior hearing, and the attorney is willing to stipulate to the violation and we can just proceed without testimony. Mr. -- Page 88 February 26, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any Board member have an objection to rearranging the agenda a little? MR. PONTE: I just need a little help. Where is that now? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's currently Case No. 4. MS. ARNOLD: Board of County Commissioners versus Robert G. France. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we're just going to move it up one set. Anybody object to that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That would be fine, Michelle. MS. HILTON: I still need to read in the information, right? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. Just to get us on the record so we know what we're doing. MS. HILTON: Okay, this is Board of County Commissioners versus Robert G. France. At this time, I would like to ask if the respondent is present in the courtroom? MR. FRANCE: Yes, he is. MS. HILTON: We have previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear a motion, please? I make a motion that we accept the County's MS. DUSEK: Exhibit A. MR. RAMSEY: 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.) MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of Section 2.1.11, 2.2.3.4.3, Paragraph 2, and 2.2.3.4.3, Paragraph 3 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. Page 89 February 26, 2004 The description of the violation: A garage type structure that was built with a valid permit, 2001-040278, and certificate of occupancy, but does not meet the side yard setback established for the Estates zoning. This structure is partially built on property owned by the county. Location where violation exists: 3861, Fourth Avenue Northeast, Naples, Golden Gate Estates. Name and address of owner: Robert G. France, 3861 Fourth Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida. Date the violation first observed: August 27th, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: August 27th, 2003 by certified mail, return receipt requested, returned unclaimed, and property and courthouse posted on September 9, 2003. Date on which violation was to be corrected: Was October 1, 2003. Date of reinspection: February 25, 2004. Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And the notice of hearing for the Code Board was sent certified, regular mail, posting of property and courthouse. And at this time I would like to turn the case over to the investigator, Jeff Letourneau, to present the case to the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Before we have Jeff say anything, I understand the attorney for Mr. France is here and wants to make a stipulation, sir? MR. LOMBARDO: Yes, thank you. I'm Chris Lombardo of Woodward, Pires and Lombardo, representing Robert France. And if I can explain briefly what the circumstance is, and so that you can understand what we're willing to do from the standpoint of resolving this situation. This situation involves a metal structure that is a garage type structure that was built on Mr. France's property prior to his purchase of the property. The prior owner built this structure in 2001. If you Page 90 February 26, 2004 can see from the overhead, the structure we're talking about is the structure that's in that upper comer of the yellow marked area. Mr. -- the previous owner had a survey when he purchased the property that showed the property was a rectangle. The previous owner submitted a building permit and was granted a building permit. The structure was built. The structure was subsequently subject to a spot survey, and a C.O. was issued because everything showed the property as a rectangle. That little yellow box was not excluded from the property. Roughly a year ago it was discovered that that little yellow box was actually purchased by the county in 1975. And we're not quite certain why. We believe it was for a well, but actually the well exists at the front of the property, which is a whole other issue. We -- a survey has not been done at this point to tell us exactly where that line is. That is a piece from the County Appraiser's Office and so it's not to scale from the standpoint of being able to determine exactly where it is. But we stipulate that the structure, if isn't on the property, it certainly does violate the setbacks. The problem is, because of the size of the property, we are in a difficult position, we cannot the building back because it would violate setback on the other side. He does not want to place the building in his front yard, for obvious reasons. We cannot put the building beside the house because there's an easement for South Water -- Southwest Florida Water Management District; there's a canal right there on the eastern side just beyond that little dirt road. So what we're willing to do and what we've asked the county is -- essentially this is one of those situations where we acknowledge we have a problem but I think the county acknowledges they have a problem as well. Someone, we would have thought, would have picked this up before we got to the point where we actually built the building and got a C.O. for it. It's an unfortunate mistake, but it happened. And what we'd like to do at this juncture, what we're Page 91 February 26, 2004 willing to do, is stipulate that it violates the setback, allow us six months to negotiate with the county to either acquire the property -- it's a 200 by 200 square foot -- a 200 by 200 square. Acquire the property or acquire some form of an easement, because we're not certain that there's any need for the county to have that parcel anymore, inasmuch as the well is at the front of the property, and obtain a resolution. We'll agree that within three months we'll report to Michelle Arnold with the progress we've made with the county, and at the end of six months either we will have resolved our differences with the county or we will be close to resolving, in which case we will ask for an extension to cover us until we can get to the resolution. Or if we can't get it resolved, then we'll be subject to a $50 a day fine until we get the building moved. You know, this is a situation where Mr. France inherits this problem, he did not build this structure, he did not permit this structure. He bought a piece of property, he had a survey when he bought the piece of property and the survey indicated that there were no encroachments, that that parcel -- in fact, if you see the lower-- the survey indicated that the parcel was a rectangle and included that 200 by 200 foot square. In fact, here's the survey, and you'll see that there's no exception. And the structure is that 60-foot by 40-foot structure. There's the steel building. And the square that is not indicated on that would be roughly where Jeff is moving the pencil. So Mr. France comes by this honestly. This is not a situation where you have someone who is ignoring the rules and built a structure. The previous owner as well pulled a permit thinking that they owned that piece of property and unfortunately they did not. MS. DUSEK: Are you basically asking for an extension of time of six months in order to resolve this? MR. LOMBARDO: That's essentially what we're trying to achieve. MS. ARNOLD: No, what we're asking is that he stipulate to the Page 92 February 26, 2004 violation to the -- MR. LOMBARDO: Setback. MS. ARNOLD: -- setback and/or encroachment, and that this be -- they be given six months to comply. MS. DUSEK: So they're admitting the violation and they want six months to comply. MS. ARNOLD: Right. Which-- you-- instead of us going through the whole testimony here and there, you just go ahead and do your order and we'll go -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a finding of fact that -- based on their stipulation, that they're guilty, they're guilty. And then our order would be basically operational costs, give them six months to abate the problem. At the end of six months, "X" dollars per day, and that's that. MR. LOMBARDO: We'd like to reserve the opportunity, though, to ask for an extension at the end of six months if we think we're -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's automatic, sir. So does everybody understand and anybody have a problem with that? If both parties agree, we'll close the public hearing and go to the board's debate. Sufficient for the county? MS. ARNOLD: That's -- I am agreeable to that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Okay, the public hearing portion is closed on Case 2004-001. Finding of fact? We do have an admission of violation, so-- MS. DUSEK: So we don't have to read through the whole thing? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, you should find the fact for the record, please. MS. DUSEK: Okay. I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, versus Robert G. France, CEB Case No. 2004-001, that a violation does exist. The violation is of Section 2.1.11, 2.2.3.4.3, Paragraph 2, and 2.2.3.4.3, Page 93 February 26, 2004 Paragraph 3 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code. Description of violation: A garage type structure that was built with a valid permit, 2001-040278, and a certificate of occupancy, but does not meet the side yard setback established for Estate zoning. The structure is partially built on property owned by the county. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that in fact a violation does exist. Do I hear a second? MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board, please? MS. DUSEK: Is someone prepared to do that, or do you want me to give it a stab? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Go ahead, Bobbie. .MS. DUSEK: I recommend that the respondent pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of the case. Before I continue, is this at the point we give the six months? I mean, do we state it in our recommendation? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, that would be -- yes, that would be one, you know, that you're going to give him "X". MS. DUSEK: All right. That the CEB give the respondent six months to abate all violations or a $50 per day fine will be imposed each day the violation remains. Should a var-- well, I don't know how specific we need to get with all of this. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, we just -- I think the time limit to abate the violation and how he chooses to abate it is up to him. Page 94 February 26, 2004 MS. DUSEK: violations? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. MS. DUSEK: Otherwise a $50 per each day the violation remains. CHAIRMAN MS. DUSEK: CHAIRMAN MS. DUSEK: violation has been update to Michelle CHAIRMAN MS. DUSEK: So we're giving him that six months to abate all day fine will be imposed FLEGAL: Correct. Yes. I think that's sufficient. Is that enough? FLEGAL: And then notify -- And then to notify the Code Enforcement that the abated. He also has agreed to give a three-month and the county. FLEGAL: Okay. Did you understand that, Jean? MS. RAWSON: Abating all the violations within six months and reporting back to the county within three. MS. DUSEK: I did put a $50 fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And a $50 a day fine, right. Okay. Do I hear a second from the board? aye. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second from George. All those in favor, signify by saying (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. LOMBARDO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. Now we move to Novelo? MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. MS. HILTON: This is Board of County Commissioners versus Page 95 February 26, 2004 Thelma Novelo, N-O-V-E-L-O. CEB No. 2004-007. At this time, I would like to ask if the respondent is present in the courtroom? 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 the motion. 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.) MS. HILTON: The alleged violations are of Section 5, Paragraph 12(B) and 12(C) of Ordinance No. 89-06, as amended, the Minimum Housing Code, and Section 101.4.9.2 of Ordinance No. 2002-01, the Florida Building Code. The description of violation: Water damage to the exterior of the house in at least two places. In the rear of the home, the fascia board is missing and the wood has rotted away at the valley of the roof, causing some rotting of the wood sheathing of the roof. On the north side there's evidence of a water leak in the roof which has caused rotting of the wood where the valley of the roof meets the fascia board. Location where violation exists: 2217 41st Street Southwest, Naples, Florida. Name of owner and address: Novela -- Thelma Novelo, 920 Dexter Street, Los Angeles, California. Date violation first observed: September 10th, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: September 16th, 2003. Date on which violation is to be corrected: September 22nd, 2003. Date of reinspection: February 25, 2004. Page 96 February 26, 2004 Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And the CEB notice of hearing was sent certified, regular mail and posting of the property and the courthouse. And at this time I would like to turn the case over to the investigator, Jeff Letourneau, to present the ca -- excuse me, David Scribner to present the case to the Board. (Speaker duly sworn.) MR. SCRIBNER: For the record, my name is David Scribner. I got this case back on September 10th from the Collier County Sheriff's Department. There had been some issues at this property and they asked me to take a look at it. There were a number of violations that have all been corrected except this one. I contacted the owner, Ms. Novelo. I had a conversation with her as recent as yesterday in California, and she's aware of the problem. And she did tell me that she was going to have a representative from her family here. I take it that they are not here. I discussed the issue with the roof leak and the rotting. She had gotten some estimates for repair work, and I had explained to her she needed to get a licensed contractor, that this permit could not be pulled by her. This is a rental property. And the reason this case is in front of the Board is there's been no action taken to get this resolved in a timely manner and there are people living in the house. I stopped by yesterday to take a look to see if anything had changed and I found that some work had been done on the property, but no permits had been obtained. The roof sheathing is still rotten and it looks like they just covered up some of the wood that -- covered up some of the violation, actually. So I talked to her yesterday and explained to her what we were recommending for compliance, and she was working on getting a contractor. She told me she was going to get a contractor within the 30 days that we were required to do that and have the work completed. Page 97 February 26, 2004 I have some photos here of what it looks like as of yesterday. This is a spot where the soffit has rotted and you can see where the roof has been leaking down through. This is another spot right here that hasn't been repaired for a roof leak. This is on the back side of the house where it shows the -- some soffit boards have been put on, but you see right where the fingers, you can see how the valley of the roof has dropped right down where it's all rotted out. And it really needs to have some substantial work done to it if they're going to save this property. That's the case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Have you been inside the structure? MR. SCRIBNER: No, I have not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So we don't know if, like, in this area that there is water also inside. MR. SCRIBNER: No, I have not been allowed inside. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions for the investigator? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No questions. Thank you, sir. We'll close the public hearing. Finding of fact by the board? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, versus Thelma Novela (sic) and CEB Case No. 2004-007, that a violation does exist. The violation is of Sections 5, Paragraph 12(B) and 12(C) of Ordinance 89-06, as amended, the Minimum Housing Code, and Sections 101.4.9.2 of Ordinance No. 2002-01, the Florida Building Code. Description of the violation: Water damage to the exterior of the house in at least two places: In the rear of the home the fascia board is missing and the wood has rotted away at the valley of the roof, causing some rotting of the wood, with sheathing of the roof. On the north side there is evidence of a water leak in the roof, which has caused rotting of the roof where the valley of the roof meets the fascia board. Page 98 February 26, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have violation does exist. Do I hear a second? MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Chris. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: aye. a motion that in fact a We have a motion and a second by 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 make a motion-- MR. PONTE: Fix it and get it inspected within 60 days or there'll be a fine of $50 a day. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, 30. She already knows the deal. MS. DUSEK: What was that? MR. PONTE: Fix it and get it inspected. MS. DUSEK: Do you want to do it? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll do it. Just going to be pretty much what Code Enforcement recommends, that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case by submitting a complete and sufficient building permit application, obtaining permits for all work -- repair work within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Must request, cause, require inspections to be performed and obtain 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. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement that the violation has been abated and to request investigator to come out and perform the site inspections. Page 99 February 26, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess my only question is you want to give him 30 days to get a permit and then you're going to give them 90 days after that to do the work and get a C.O. I think to fix a roof, that's a little excessive. I really do. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thirty days after? Instead of 90 days, give them 30 days? MS. DUSEK: Or 60. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I think after they get a permit that, to fix a roof-- I mean, if you can't fix a roof in the 30 days -- MR. SCRIBNER: We were offering -- the reason we set that time frame is because sometimes it's difficult to get contractors to work expeditiously, and we felt that a 90-day period was probably proper in this case. They can pull the permit within the 30. We want something showing that there is a good faith effort to comply. And certainly the permit can be obtained within 30, and.then completion within another-- MR. PONTE: Investigator, what you're saying is this can't be abated through the work of a maintenance man? MR. SCRIBNER: No, it's got to be a licensed contractor. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll be happy with 60 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That was just my question. I mean, the rest of them may live with 90 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll change that to 60 days. I'll make it the 60. MS. DUSEK: Before we do that, Gerald. Inspector Scribner, do you feel that we're being unreasonable with 60 days? MR. SCRIBNER: I'm not about to tell this board that it's unreasonable. MS. DUSEK: MR. BOWIE: Unfair. After the rains we had yesterday, it might be a little tough getting a roofer at this time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Gerry, I have no problem -- Page 100 February 26, 2004 MS. DUSEK: Leaving. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: to leave it at 90, I don't have a problem with that. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll amend it to 60. MS. DUSEK: I like the 90. MR. PONTE: I, do, too, actually. It's very difficult to contractor to do a small job. MS. DUSEK: I think we should leave it at 90. contractors can be difficult, especially on smaller jobs. MR. BOWIE: Let's leave it at 90. MS. DUSEK: Do you agree to leave it at, 90 or did you want to change it? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, I changed it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It hadn't been seconded yet, so you can manipulate it any way you want. You want to go back to your 90? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, it seems like most of the board would agree with 90, so I'll leave it at 90, after you told me that 90 might be too long. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's 90 and 50. Do we hear a second? aye. MR. PONTE: I'll second. MS. DUSEK: I second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- it's just my comment, and if you want Okay, we have a second by George. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: that correct, Michelle? get a I know that All those in favor, signify by saying Aye, I agree. Okay. Next case, 2004-003, Dixon. Is Page 101 February 26, 2004 MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. MS. HILTON: Yes, this is Board of County Commissioners versus Robert and Susan Dixon, 2004-003. The respondent was here already, was present. And we have previously provided the Board and the respondent with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. MS. DUSEK: I'll make a motion that we accept County's Exhibit MR. PONTE: 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.) MS. HILTON: And we also have a videotape that we would like entered as Exhibit B at this time. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept County's Exhibit B. MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second, Chris, to accept County's Exhibit B. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: The violation is of Sections 1.5.6, 2.1.15 and 3.3.11 of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: A, using improved commercial property for other than that is allowed under SDP No. 00-103. B, storage of vehicles in area designated for truck driving school, Page 102 February 26, 2004 as noted in SDP No. 02-AR2074, and SDP No. 00-103. C, allowing other businesses to operate or use the described property in violation of the Collier County Land Development Code. Location where violation exists: 3968, 20th Place Southwest, Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner: Robert and Susan Dixon, 6451 Daniels Road, Naples, Florida. Date violation first observed: October 21, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: November 18th, 2003. Date in which violation was to be corrected: December 1, 2003. Date of reinspection: February 25, 2004. Result of reinspection: The violation remains. The CEB notice of hearing was sent certified, regular mail and posting of the property and the courthouse. And at this time I'd like to mm the case over to Investigator David Scribner. (Speaker duly sworn.) MR. SCRIBNER: Well, I'll start off by saying I have some good news. You won't have to read through all of that packet, we do have an agreement in this case. And the agreement is essentially what is listed in the recommendations, with a few minor changes. And additionally, as part of the agreement, the county is going to show a video so you'll see the severity of the violation here. We think it's important that you see what we're talking about, because we've asked for some pretty substantial fines in this packet. And they've agreed to meet those conditions. And we want you to see what's happening in this property. Just for reference, this property is located on 20th Place. It falls behind the McDonald's on 951, the Pizza Hut and Mel's Diner. On the other side of it is some residential properties. So that gives you a frame of mind with what they've got for neighbors in that area. This is showing from the property. Page 103 February 26, 2004 Actual violations taking place on this property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We can't hear him. MS. ARNOLD: I think-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle, can you turn this down? MR. SCRIBNER: This property is supposed to be used only for employee parking. A tow lot for some cars, and then there's a truck driving school that's supposed to be the back part of this property. In a minute you'll see where the truck driving school is located, or supposed to be located. This video was taken back on October 30th. There were some other companies, you can see construction companies' vehicles. There's a trailer, some other equipment that's in the back of this property. We found a couple of-- there's some dump trucks that are parked on-site. We found a lawn maintenance company and there was also a paving company operating from this site. Remember, this is just a small portion of this lot that was for towed in vehicles only. As parts of their SDP, they're only allowed to keep those vehicles there 60 days. And this is approximately the area where the towed vehicles are supposed to be kept. And this is the area for the truck driving school. As you can see, the vehicles were stacked over the fence line. Now, mind you, where I'm taking this video, this is the backyard of residential properties on 41 st Street. The fact that those cars were stacked up was actually a violation of the towing issue, which you can see there were boats there. All of this area being seen now is all a part of what's designated a truck driving school. We did contact the Department of Environmental Protection to have them check this site, and they did make a site inspection of this property and did find some violations. This is just a ground level view from the area of the residential Page 104 February 26, 2004 properties. You can see the vehicles just protruding right up over the fence. First I thought that was a wire that was going to be strung across the top, some type of a laser that's used. A laser beam is I believe shot around that property to detect if anyone comes over the wall. This is actually from the rear of Mel's Diner. We'd note that all the video that you see -- we're not allowed on the property. This was all taken actually from an eight-foot ladder in the back of a pickup truck. So if it wobbles a little bit, bear with me on it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle, I think this is just overkill at this point. I think we've seen enough. We understand what's there. MR. SCRIBNER: We did capture them also crushing cars on the site. We have videoed that also. I talked with Attorney Bass who's representing the Dixons in this case, and our recommendations, as we outlined, are the stipulation that we agreed to, with the exceptions that they have 15 days to commence compliance and 60 days to complete on all three violations. MS. DUSEK: Could you repeat that again? They have 15 days -- MR. SCRIBNER: They have 15 days to commence the compliance and 60 days to complete. MR. PONTE: And what about the level of fines in this case? MR. SCRIBNER: $250 per violation -- MR. PONTE: Thank you. MS. DUSEK: Per day. MR. SCRIBNER: Per day. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle, I didn't find in the pack the actual sections of the ordinance like we normally get, 1.5.6, 2.1.15 and 3.3.11. I didn't actually find those. MS. ARNOLD: That should have been included. MS. DUSEK: None of us, I don't think, received those. But I went back and referenced -- Page 105 February 26, 2004 MS. ARNOLD: Is the mic. on? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, they're on. MS. DUSEK: I didn't find them-- MR. SCRIBNER: I have copies of those for-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I'd like to see them, if I could, please, since I didn't have them. And I asked for a specific reason, which I'm going to ask Jean directly. 3.11 and 2.15, okay. And 1.5 -- okay, good. Jean, my reasoning for this is their recommendation is all based on fines for not complying with a site development plan, which is not an ordinance. It's required by an ordinance, but it's not an ordinance. So that's why I want the three sections, because if there's three violations, we have something to hang a daily fine on that is in fact an ordinance, not an SDP, looking ahead to being overruled or overturned by a judge somewhere that says gee, you picked on the wrong thing. Am I correct in -- MS. RAWSON: You are correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And since they've agreed to the violations, I -- and the dollars, I don't have a problem in us, if we get that far, to do that, to assign those dollars to specific sections. Since they've already agreed to the amounts and there are three of them listed, we're just going to put those to sections rather than SDPs. MS. ARNOLD: If we can find 3.3.11, that's the section that refers to the site development plan. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, it says you shall have an approved site development plan, but I don't want to -- I don't think we can cite them for not meeting the site development plan, okay? We can't put a dollar number because you didn't follow your site development plan. We need the section of the ordinance is what we need to cite, not the SDP itself. That's what I'm worried about. MR. RAMSEY: Well, are we okay, though, with 3.3.11, which is violation of the terms identified in the approved site development Page 106 February 26, 2004 plan shall constitute -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. In other words, we can -- we could hang some number per day because they're not complying with that 3.3.11, and we can hang some number per day because they're not meeting 2.1.15, and some number per day because they're not meeting 1.5.6. But I don't think we can legally cite them for not meeting section "X" of SDP number "X", because SDP isn't an ordinance, it's only required by an ordinance. MS. ARNOLD: Right. And I don't think that's what we're asking. What we're asking -- we've cited them for 3.3.11, which says you have to comply -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. I just want to make sure we have all of the legal words so we don't get, down the road, overturned and -- since they're agreeing to pay the money, if they don't meet it, I want them -- I want it to be specific so they can't get out of it, if we get that far. Okay. Any questions for the investigator? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And you have, sir, stated that their attorney is the one that has agreed to all this, or -- MR. SCRIBNER: Mrs. Dixon was here, as well as Attorney Bass, representing the Dixons, and we did have negotiations this morning, discussions, and they've agreed to -- everything is outlined, and they talked with the County Attorney about it, and they just didn't want to wait the period of time until -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. I just wanted their names in the record so that we knew who they were. MR. SCRIBNER: And I also had worked out with Attorney Bass, helping them gain compliance. And we are actually going to -- he's going to continue to work on this case with me to assist them to make sure that they get into compliance within the time frames. That is part of the deal. Page 107 February 26, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions for the investigator? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If none, thank you, sir. Any other information from the county? If none, we'll close that section of the public hearings and we'll open it up to discussion of the board. And first we need a finding of fact. And as noted, we did have a stipulation that they agreed they are in violation. MS. DUSEK: We just need to put it on record. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, in the Case CEB No. 2004-003, Robert J. Dixon and Susan A. Dixon, that there is a violation. The violation is of Sections 1.5.6, 2.1.15 and 3.3.11 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation is: Using improved commercial property for other than that is allowed under -- do we use the SDP number? MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. MS. DUSEK: 00-103. B, storage of vehicles in area designated for truck driving school, as noted in SDP No. 02-AR2074 and SDP No. 00-103. C, allowing other businesses to operate or use the described property in violation of Collier County Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion in fact a violation does exist, and you referenced the three section numbers of the -- MS. DUSEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: ordinance? MS. DUSEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- land development -- of the That in fact a violation does exist. Is Page 108 February 26, 2004 there a second? MR. BOWIE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: aye. We have a motion and a second. Any All those in favor, signify by saying (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. In this section, since we've had word that there has been an agreement, in trying to follow the recommendation, I think Items 2, 3, and 4, rather than cite the SDP, we need to be specific and cite each of the -- each item should have a section number of the ordinance. MS. DUSEK: Could we say something like -- I'll give it a try and then we can tear it up. I make a motion that the CEB order the respondent to do the following: That the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case. That the respondent come into compli -- commence compliance in 15 days for Section 1.5.6, 3.3.11, 2.1.15, and 60 days to complete. If the respondent does not, there will be a $250 per day per violation enforced. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, the last time we did that, I think, is the one that got overturned because the -- we didn't get a chance to tell the judge what we really meant when we said we lumped the three in a line and said 250 a day, he just took it to mean one. Should we not do -- Item 2 would be one section, like 1.5.6, Item 2 would be 2.1.15, Item 3 would be 3.3.11, each of them carrying $250 a day. MS. RAWSON: Yes, that's -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That that would be a better way than -- Page 109 February 26, 2004 because we tried this other way before and it didn't work. MS. RAWSON: Well, I guess, what I'd like to knOw is what the agreement is. MS. ARNOLD: Right. The agreement is as stated, but if you want to state it but point out that the fact Paragraph 2 is referring to 3.3.11, Paragraph 4 is referring to 2.1.15 and Paragraph 3 is referring to 1.5.6. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we -- I'd feel much more comfortable with the ordinance section numbers in each item, again because just saying SDP gives me a little problem. I don't think we have the power to do a fine against an SDP. MS. DUSEK: Okay, I didn't say anything about SDPs in that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, no, but you lumped them all together and I need to separate them, is what we're saying. MS. DUSEK: So 15 days to come into compliance for 1.5 or-- and 60 days to complete or a $250 a day for-- a violation, per day. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If it continues. Correct. You got the right idea. And then the same thing -- MS. DUSEK: And then the same thing for the 15 days to commence compliance for 3.3.11 and 60 days to complete or a $250 per day for that violation will be enforced. Fifteen days to commence compliance for 2.1.15 and 60 days to complete or a $250 per day for that violation will be enforced. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And then -- MS. DUSEK: And then the respondent must contact Collier County Code Enforcement when each of these violations has been abated, and allow an on-site inspection to verify compliance for each violation. And I've also included that the respondent pay all operational costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jennifer, does that meet with your agreement with Mr. Bass that you all had talked about? MS. BELPEDIO: Yes, sir, it does. Page 110 February 26, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion on the floor. Rather than go back through it all, I think everybody understands is there's five items in the motion. Three of them carry a $250 a day penalty. Do I hear a second? MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second by Chris. 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. Do you have to leave? We can try it, if you're willing. We're going to do it if you think you can -- if you have to get up, I understand. Back to the public hearings. The Capolino case is continued. The next case would be Segura. Is that the way you say that? S-E-G-U-R-A. MS. ARNOLD: She's the investigator. The case is -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, I'm sorry,' this is FRVG Limited Liability Corporation. MS. HILTON: Yes. The respondent is present in the courtroom. And we have previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information that we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. MR. PONTE: Excuse me, if can I request that we have the volume restored that was turned down when we were watching the film, or the videotape? MS. ARNOLD: I think it's on. MR. PONTE: Yes, it's on, but it's a very low volume. That's Page 111 February 26, 2004 good. That's the right button. MS. HILTON: Okay. For Cherie's record, that's the Board of County Commissioners versus FRVG, LLC, CEB Case No. 2004-002. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A into evidence. MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the county's exhibit. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of Section 2.1.15, Paragraph 4, 2.3.4, 3.9.3 and 3.3 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: Removal of vegetation, addition of fill and use of PUD zoned property for display and storage of vehicles without first obtaining required county vegetation removal permit and PUD/SDP. Marking a display area -- areas are not consistent with requirements of off-street parking, including drainage and lighting. Vegetation removed consists of pine flatwoods. Location where violation exists: 8300 Radio Road, Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner: FRVG, LLC, 3936 Tamiami Trail North, suite D, Naples, Florida. Date violation first observed: November 14th, 2002. Date owner given notice of violation: November 26th, 2002. Date on which violation was to be corrected: December 29, 2002. Date of reinspection, February 26th, 2004. Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And the CEB notice of hearing was sent certified mail and Page 112 February 26, 2004 claimed. And at this time I would like to turn the case over to the investigator, Christal Segura, S-E-G-U-R-A, to present the case to the Board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: For the record, make note that Ms. Dusek had to leave due to a prior commitment. (Speaker duly sworn.) MS. SEGURA: Good afternoon. My name is Christal Segura, I'm an environmental specialist with Code Enforcement. This case was originally former Investigator Susan Mason's. It was turned over to myself upon her transfer to the Planning Department. On November 14th, 2002, Susan Mason observed that the site had been cleared of pine flatwoods and filled, and about over 50 cars were on display in this area. Upon investigation, she realized that there were no permits for the site, and she put a stop work order on the site and advised them to remove all the vehicles from the newly cleared area and store and display them only on a parcel designated for a parking area. And she issued an NOV on November 26th, 2002, stating to immediately remove all the vehicles from the unpaved area, store and display only in designated parking areas, prepare a mitigation plan according to 91-102, as amended, Sections 3.9.6.9 through 3.9.6.9 (sic) for vegetation removed, submit plans for a site development plan for area and commit -- complete development per approved plans or remove all fill and restore to original grade and mitigate, as previously described. I've brought some photographs that were taken on that day by Susan Mason. This is the cleared area with the cars on display, parked on it. This is actually on the southern end of the property, on Radio -- on Davis Road -- Davis Boulevard, excuse me. Page 113 February 26, 2004 And this is another portion of the parking lot that was cleared. Upon research by Susan Mason, this is a previous aerial photograph of what existed on the site before it was cleared. She estimated approximately 50 large, mature slash pine were removed from the site. And this is the most recent aerial taken, showing the cleared area. Most of the vehicles have been removed from the cleared area; however, I went by the site this morning and noticed there are still seven vehicles parked on the southeast side, and two trucks. One truck and one trailer advertising the dealership still exists on the site. And to this date, no site development plan has been submitted to the county. A pre-ap meeting was held on February 19th, 2003, and since then a site development plan has not been submitted. Their mitigation for removing the trees was to be included in the site development plan. They were ordered to replant 36 trees and I believe it was agreed to be 36 oak trees to be replaced after the site development was complete. I have had numerous conversations with Clayton Miller, who is here from Coastal Engineering. He has been working on the plans for Coastal Engineering -- or excuse me, for Morande Mazda, and they just haven't been submitted yet. Two days ago I was actually -- they submitted a landscape plan which includes their minimum mitigation -- or excuse me, their minimum landscape, and there was another page that included 36 mitigation trees that are intended to be planted. But again, without the SDP approved and the development completed, they still cannot replant their trees to mitigate for the violation. I guess that's all. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: questions? (No response.) That's all? Anybody have any Page 114 February 26, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Before they can put their trees in, they must submit to the county a revised SDP or -- MS. SEGURA: They can actually remove the fill and restore the area, or they can mitigate the vegetation removal portion of the violation by replanting 36 trees. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, and before they can do it, though, do they have to get something from the county to do that, or can they just go plant them today? MS. SEGURA: They could plant them today. That would abate the vegetation removal violation. However, they did start development without getting building permits and you cannot get a vegetation removal permit before you are issued a building permit, so they needed to get their site development plan in and approved before they started the work. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, so they need to get that after the fact, and once they get that, then they can put their trees in, is that -- MS. SEGURA: Well, they can put their trees in, like I said, right now. However, they chose to wait until the development was done as to not injure the trees during the development. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, ma'am. Does the county want the Coastal Engineering man to say anything? MS. ARNOLD: Well, I believe he's here representing the property owner, so -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Fine. (Speaker duly sworn.) MR. MILLER: For the record, I'm Clayton Miller. I'm the civil engineering manager for Coastal Engineering. We were retained by Morande Mazda to do their SDP and their site plan for this site. We will stipulate that the violation did occur and Page 115 February 26, 2004 that we're working to correct it. The first thing that happened to us when we went to modify the SDP, we found out that they -- the original developer of this site got their building permits and didn't have an SDP. So that complicated the issue of taking the existing site and adding this proposed site to it. County staff has been very cooperative in working out how do we handle something that can't happen but did. And we've moved forward on that. The next thing that happened to us was the dealership that they thought was going to put on there withdrew and they switched dealerships. Last fall the new dealership decided that the building that we were using did not meet their new architectural standards, and so at the moment we are finishing the fourth site plan. It's time-consuming, it's our problem, it's frustrating to all concerned. I believe in the stipulation or the recommendation of staff, there are some time frames. There are a couple things that we would like to change, when you get to that. Currently I believe the recommendation is that we submit the SDP within 30 days. We're talking about a site plan for four acres of development. And Morande is in the process of purchasing the property, rather than leasing it from the current owner. That is scheduled to close this coming Wednesday. It's the third time the closing has been scheduled. We would request that that 30 days be extended to 45 days, rather than 30. The -- another stipulation is that the vegetation be installed within 30 days after the end of the SDP approval. Obviously we cannot build a four-acre commercial site in 30 days, so if we stipulated that the trees that are on the existing site be installed within 30 days of approval of the SDP and that the vegetation on the new construction be completed within 30 days of infrastructure construction that's impacted, we would have no objections to any of the other Page 116 February 26, 2004 recommendations of staff. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anyone have any questions? MR. PONTE: Yes. Mr. Miller, just -- what would be your estimate in terms of dates rather than 30 days and that sort of vague thing? What do you think the dates might be when you have an approved SDP so that vegetation can be restored and we can do it all within the nice rainy season that helps it grow and we don't end up at the end of the year. MR. MILLER: I believe staff recommendation is that we obtain that SDP within six months, and that is dependent upon review by county staff. And that sounds like a reasonable time frame to me. But that's beyond our control. MS. ARNOLD: .Yeah, we don't have any stipulations on the approval. What we had was a submittal by a certain amount of time, and then upon approval, the -- actually, planting. Okay, submit a sufficient SDP and complete within 30 days of the date of the hearing and -- oh, it does have six months. I'm sorry, I spoke out of turn. It does have a six-month time frame. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, and then after they get the approved SDP, you're saying 30 days later you want the vegetation mitigated; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's the way I'm reading this? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: After it's approved in 30 days you want the trees planted. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. I had a question, because I heard Mr. Miller indicate that Morande was purchasing the property? MR. MILLER: Yes, they do -- they currently have a lease on it and the right to do the work anyway. MS. ARNOLD: Right. But we have the case against the current owner, and if we wait until the closing of the property, my question is, Page 117 February 26, 2004 how does that affect our case, or do we need to add Morande to this case so that it doesn't affect what we've done here today? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I think they both should be part of the case. Would that be correct, Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes, definitely. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Then we'll do that when we get to the -- MS. ARNOLD: I don't know if Mr. Miller has the right to agree to that or what. MS. RAWSON: I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, he probably doesn't have the right to agree to that. But is that not something we can do now that we know there is a leasee (sic), which is Morande? We can make them a part of it? MS. RAWSON: Was he notified? MS. ARNOLD: Morande was not notified. But we have been talking to them, because -- can you say that on the record? MS. SEGURA: The registered agent representing the property was notified. MS. ARNOLD: But that's not Morande, correct? MS. SEGURA: No, it is James Vogel of FRVG. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And did you have any discussions at all with anybody from Morande? MS. SEGURA: Mr. Casey Fickey (phonetic) is the manager of that dealership there. I've been speaking directly with Mr. Casey Fickey and Mr. Clayton Miller regarding the progress on the case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We'll, I guess, bring him up and ask him a question or two. MR. MILLER: For the record, the reason we're here today was your investigator called us to make sure we knew about it this Monday, and that's when we found out about it, about the hearing today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, sir. Any other questions for the Page 118 February 26, 2004 gentleman? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. You need to take a break? Let's take a couple of minutes and chance to change, because Cherie' has heard enough. (A recess was taken.) xxx CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: from Morande. give the court reporters a another appointment. She's Sue mentioned that somebody was here MS. ARNOLD: I believe Crystal indicated Clayton Ficke. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Would you come up, sir? MR. FICKE: Yes, certainly. For the record, Casey Ficke, General Manager for the Morande Mazda Suzuki store. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're aware of the problem? MR. FICKE: Yes, we are, very much so. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I assume you've been trying to assist in some manner to resolve the problems? MR. FICKE: We are aware the violation exists. We've been working for over a year with Coastal Engineering to come up to the amendment the site depth plan and as Clayton pointed out there's been some citizen yacht I go circumstances and some changes with the manufacturers that we've been dealing with. And we do agree that and have agreed to mitigate the problem by replacing the trees. I think we're at the point now where Coastal Engineering is very close to submitting the plan, and I think the plan will be satisfactory, as we've all agreed. But I think the time frame to get it finalized, as Clayton pointed out, we may need a little longer than 30 days is where we are. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One of the things that I'll say normally takes place -- which may or may not be an actual case -- when there's a violation against a property owner, if there is someone else on the Page 119 February 26, 2004 property that they are normally included. In this case we noticed that your name being a lessee of the property, your name was not included. Do you have a problem that we include your family, since you're aware? MR. FICKE: No, not at all. We've been very aware of it. Morande has an option on the property since the beginning, since he purchased it, and they are very close to closing on it. Anything we were meaning to do on the property in the meantime was leasehold improving only, which we would own at the time of the transfer. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have any objections to us including -- MR. FICKE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody else have any questions? Thank you, sir. MR. FICKE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does that get us what we need, Jean? MS. RAWSON: That will do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If there is nothing else, we'll close the public hearing portion and open for discussion. The first thing we need is a finding of fact in fact a violation does exist. MR. PONTE: They have already stipulated, have they, to the violation? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. Everybody on both sides have talked it out and I think both Morande, who is a lessee, and from what I'm gathering from the county with the registered agent, they are aware of it and they have got Coastal Engineering working on trying to solve the problem. So I think they have stipulated yes, they know the violation exists and they are trying to resolve it, which is not going to be very quickly, but we understand that. Page 120 February 26, 2004 MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion a violation exists in the case of Collier County versus FRVG, LLC. and Morande Motors. MR. BOWIE: How do you hold title under the lease? MR. FICKF.: Actually, Morande Enterprises, Inc., dba Morande Mazda Morande Suzuki Morande Enterprises, Inc. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: CEB case number 2004-002. MS. ARNOLD: The violation is of Section 2.1.15(4), 2.3.4, 3.9.3 and 3.3 of Ordinance 91-102 as amended of the Collier County Land Development Code. Description of violation is vegetation has been removed and fill added in a PUD zone that was used for the display of and storage of vehicles without first obtaining required county vegetation removal permits and PUD SDP approval. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that in fact a violation does exist. Is there a second? MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye, any opposed? (All respond in the affirmative.) Order of the Board. MR. PONTE: Just bouncing off what has been recommended but with the corrections, because there have been some things that have been corrected. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MR. PONTE: Let the Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to pay all operation costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations, submit a complete SDP within 30 days from the date of this hearing and obtain an approved SDP within six months of the date of this hearing, or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Upon approval of a completed SDP to mitigate the vegetation Page 121 February26,2004 that was cleared within 30 days or a fine of 150 per day are be imposed for each day that violation continues. Two things. One, let's -- if there are any vehicles there, let's ask them to remove any vehicles that are on the property. That would be another item. MR. PONTE: I thought those vehicles had been removed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think she said there were some this morning, six or seven. Let's order them to remove those within five days from the date of this hearing. That will be an item. MR. PONTE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And the last item we normally add to notify Code Enforcement when they obtain these things so that they can investigate and check to see that they are in fact completed. MR. PONTE: Motion so amended to include those two items. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion on the floor and I will reiterate I think we all understand it. MS. ARNOLD: Can I have a verification? Fine with the removal of the cars or within five days? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. Just remove the cars. I think on that portion of it they will be kind enough to remove them without us saying they are going to get fined X per day. I think they understand that. Do I have a second? MR. BOWIE: I second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? Unanimous. That completes the public hearing section. We are know down to new business, which is the request for imposition of fines. MS. ARNOLD: We have a couple people, I see them walking outside. The first item is Board of Commissioners versus most I west near Code Enforcement Board case 2003-053. This case was heard by the Page 122 February 26, 2004 Code Board on December 11, 2003 and that a violation was found. The Board ordered the removal of all litter including within 30 days, or as an alternative, within 45 days hire a contractor to remove, the county would hire a contractor to remove the litter. The county also ordered that register and license all unlicensed vehicles by January 10, 2004 and respondent was informed if they did not comply with the removal of the litter by the time specified, $50 per day would be imposed, as well as another $50 per day if all unlicensed vehicles were not licensed. The respondent was also ordered to pay operational costs and to notify Code Enforcement when the violation was abated. Staff is now requesting that the Board impose fines in the amount of $1,180.75 for the cost as the violation has been abated by the respondent CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I would entertain a motion to impose the cost as requested by the county. MR. BOWIE: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Motion by Mr. Bowie. A second please, George? MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (All respond in the affirmative.) MS. ARNOLD: 2003047. This case was heard by the Board October 23, 2003 and violation was found. The Board ordered the respondent or actually ordered the county to take appropriate action to board up the structure and secure the structure and remove the hazard. The Board also ordered that all the violations be abated by submitting a complete and sufficient building permit for the uncompleted structure by January 23, 2004 and the Board requested that all the appropriate inspections and Certificate of Completion be Page 123 February 26, 2004 commenced and completed within 90 days of the hearing. The Board informed the respondent that failure to obtain permits would result in a fine of $100 per day and another $100 per day for failure to commence with inspection and Certificate of Occupancy. The Board also ordered the respondent to pay operational costs. Staff at this time is requesting that the Board impose a fine of $$500 for the direct cost of boarding up the structure or securing the structure and $3,300 for the period if January 24 through February 26 at a rate of a hundred dollars per day, plus another $975 for operational costs, for a total fine of $4,747. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You said $975. Is it $947? MS. ARNOLD: Sorry, 47. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I would entertain a motion to request the fines requested by the county. MR. RAMSEY: Make a motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Motion by Chris, second? MR. BOWIE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. (All respond in the affirmative.) Next Mr. Hickman, case 2003 058. MS. ARNOLD: We have two cases against Mr. Heckman, 2003 058 and 059. I believe Mr. Heckman is present in the courtroom. I don't know if you want to have him speak at this time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Why don't you tell us what you want to do and then we'll let Mr. Heckman tell us what he'd like us to do. MS. ARNOLD: The case which was brought before the Board on January 22 was for commercial vehicles and other equipment and litter in the right-of-way, as well as on Mr. Heckman's property, and the Board did find a violation existed. Staff is at this time requesting the operational costs only be Page 124 February 26, 2004 imposed for both cases. In case number 058 it's $1,298 and in case number 2003 059 it is $1,262. The property is in compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Mr. Heckman. (The speaker was sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. Tell us what you'd like to tell US. MR. HECKMAN: and -- I thought I complied about what y'all wanted CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. If you read the order what the orders say is normally item one is that whatever it cost the county to bring you to us to prosecute this case, we order you to pay that. Then we order you to fix whatever the problem is, and if you don't do it, we're going to fine you. Obviously you have fixed the problem? MR. HECKMAN: Beforehand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: and that's where you are, sir. impose this amount of money. But you still have to pay going to court, So that's why that they are asking us to That was one of the items, whatever it cost the county to prosecute you, we're allowed to say you have to pay that, and we've done that. Okay, sir? MR. HECKMAN: Whatever. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's an item, Jean, as I understand it, that's not a fine, that's an operational cost. MS. RAWSON: Operational cost. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We can't waive those. We don't have the right to waive those. We'll listen to you. MR. HECKMAN: Nobody from the county ever does, so what does it matter? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You did fix the problem and we appreciate it. MR. HECKMAN: If you want my property you can have it, too, Page 125 February 26, 2004 I guess. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We don't want your property, sir. MR. HECKMAN: Okay. Well, you do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anything else, sir? MR. HECKMAN: No, guess not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, thank you. We have a request by the county I to impose the operational costs on case 2003-058. We'll handle these separately. Do I hear a motion to impose the operational costs as requested. MR. BOWIE: So move. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have a motion. Do I hear a second? MR. RAMSEY: Second CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (All respond in the affirmative.) Case Number 059, the county has a request before us to impose the operational costs. I would entertain that motion to do that. MR. PONTE: So move. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Second, please. MR. BOWIE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All in favor signify by saying aye. (All respond in the affirmative.) Manuel Rosa. MS. ARNOLD: Case number 2003-019. This case was heard by the Board on June 26, 2003 and respondent was found in violation and ordered to obtain all the appropriate building permits within 30 days or a fine of $50 per day would be imposed. They were further ordered to obtain all the required inspections and Certificate of Completion or a fine of $775 per day would be imposed. The order also indicating that operational costs would be assessed. Page 126 February 26, 2004 On August 28, the respondent did request an extension, which was granted by the Board until November 27, 2003. Staff is at this time requesting that the Board impose a fine in the amount of $4,500 for a period of November 28 through February 26, 2004, at a rate of $50 per day with the operational costs. We don't have to impose the operation cost. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right; says they were paid. So this is just a fine because they didn't comply; correct? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would entertain a motion to impose the fine as requested by the county. MR. RAMSEY: So move. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Second, please? MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and second to impose the fine as requested. All those in favor? Any oppose? (All respond in the affirmative.) MS. ARNOLD: The next item was continued. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. Stone was continued, so that finishes our requests for imposition of fines. Next is request for reduction or abatement of fines. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. We've got four items: Board of County Commissioners versus ALJO, Inc., case number 2003 049 through 51, and 2003 055 and Mr. Albert Botino is here to speak to the Board on that. Just to give the Board some history, the three cases were for minimum housing and one was a rental registration case. MR. BOTINO: Hi, my name is A1 Botino. I'm the vice-president of ALJO, Inc. I'm here before you asking that you waive the fines against ALJO, Inc., which appear to be about $30,000. ALJO was fined this amount because we sent the rental dwelling registration forms in late. Page 127 February 26, 2004 Have you got a copy of what I read? As ALJO consists of 42 rental units, we were charged $40 per day for all, which comes out to about $1,200 a year total claiming about $30,000 for being late with a registration rental form. This comes under 2003 055, failure to complete and submit and maintain a rental registration certificate for rental registrations as required. The sum was not for code violations. This particular sum was not for code violations. We also have incurred costs of $10,903.25 for administrative and operational costs separate from the fine which breaks down to number one, $7,721.25, 2003-055 administrative and operating costs posting, et cetera, regarding the 42 rental forms that were not included at the time the rental fees were received by the county office. Number two was $1,034 for 2003 049. Number three, 1,094 for 2003-051,608 Prince Drive, and number four, 1,54 for 050 that was 602 Prince. That totals $10,903.25. We are not asking that these administrative costs be waived. We'll pay all the administrative costs of $10,903. What happened to us, which was a series of unfortunate events regarding ALJO and Code Enforcement rules that led to this situation. I'm following number 8 that I received in asking that the fines be waived or abated, so that's why I put number 8. We would like the fines imposed be waived and we are giving the following reasons. One major source of our trouble is that ALJO is 1100 miles away from Naples, Florida, basically in Long Island, New York. Therefore, we have to rely on agents and workers who often prove to be unreliable. Still we recognize it is still our responsibility to conform with the Code of Enforcement rules and regulations, but it does make it very difficult. Page 128 February 26, 2004 Another problem was that ALJO was not completely aware of procedures and regulations regarding rental units, especially regarding the rental registration form because that's what $7,721 of the administrative costs amounted to. Also, there were events, sometimes bizarre, that led to this predicament. In November 2003, ALJO moved from 399 Truck Boulevard, North Fork to 129 Erlinger Boulevard, North Fork. We later found out that the post office had put 127 Erlinger Boulevard instead of 129 Erlinger Boulevard as the forwarding address. November 7, 2003, we faxed a letter to the Code Enforcement Board, letter enclosed. There should be a letter-- MR. BOWIE: If I can interrupt you one moment, apparently you're intending to read from page letter which has already been entered into evidence. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. You don't need to read it, sir. MR. BOTINO: Okay, great. I want to thank you for that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. MR. BOTINO: So you've read it already; you know the whole story. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We can understand that part of it, sir. MR. BOTINO: You know the story. Let me go back then, just for one item. I have the transcript of the meeting of the Code Enforcement Board January 22, 2004, and in it -- this is just something else that came up, but it does have some relevance -- anyway, the way this happened, when I flew down here I was going to meet before the Board, I think it what was January 12 or 22 that was the date of the hearing, and we met a realtor and this is what happened. I'd like to have this into the record. If you could turn to page 8. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We don't happen to have that in front of tlS. MR. BOTINO: Here's what it says, anyway. Mr. Polara Page 129 February 26, 2004 appeared in front of you-- I don't know if you remember that-- about a month ago. He's a realtor and he appeared in front of you. Basically Ms. Dusek said, did ALJO ask you to come here today to represent them or to ask for whatever? He said no, I volunteered. I tell you he volunteered for $2,000. That was no volunteer; I'd like that known. In other words, I was going to volunteer come in here with a lawyer that day because there's been a real mess with this rental registration form, really, and Mr. Polara is trying to buy Diamond Shores, which is where we own some of the property. ALJO, Inc., had advised me not to appear. He said he could do more than a lawyer, he knows the people, and as a matter of fact, it looks like Sherry Barnett that day recused herself because she did know him. But anyway, he asked for $2,000, and when you don't live here, you don't know the workings of the county, you really don't. You have a situation where he said I'd only make the thing worse if he appeared, et cetera, et cetera. I don't know, maybe it was all front. I don't think it was innocent on his part. But anyway, he said he could kind of fix everything he said he had breakfast with Carol Zukor, the agent. She gave him a letter to show to you people and he didn't put it in here. There is no volunteering; he asked for two $2,000 to do it. When it was over, because part of the hearing you asked me if he had any standing in here, and some of you people said you have. This is Mr. Bowie. I said I don't know what kind of standing a contract purchaser would have to make that kind of request. And he said Mr. Polara replied they came in to see us. I came down to see Mr. Polara; he called me up to talk about purchasing the property. That wasn't anything to do with the county. When we were talking to him he said we're having trouble with the county he said I Page 130 February 26, 2004 can do that it's going to cost you some money. So we agreed on $2,000. MR. BOWIE: That's your problem. MR. BOTINO: I want it known that he didn't volunteer. MR. BOWIE: We can't do anything. You can respond to the Florida Bar about his unlicensed of this seeking compensation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Get back to why you want to us reduce the fine. MR. BOTINO: Basically the real problem was Renee Wise died, and Renee Wise was our agent at ALJO. She had always taken care of the paperwork which mainly come out to this rental registration forms, but you know what? We knew nothing about it. I just didn't know. Renee filled out the forms and paid it with the ALJO check, et cetera, and she moved in June, just about the time when I found out from -- I can't remember her name -- Mrs. Arnold over here. She's very helpful, too. I found out it's mailed out in May or June and you're supposed to pay it in June. But in June she died -- not she died -- she moved from Diamond Shores in Naples to Texas, and a little while later we found out that she died. So that's why primarily that rental registration form wasn't filled out in June because she was the one who took care of it. There was a whole series of mishaps. We hired this fellow Dennis Thomas, and we think he took between nine and $10,000 of the rental money, and we were very concerned about who paid the rent those next couple months and who didn't. We had a lot of trouble finding out. Our mind was on this and we also spoke to the State Attorney General about Dennis Thomas and how we were going to pursue him. They asked for documents. There was a lot of dialogue going back and forth, papers, et Page 131 February 26, 2004 cetera, and as I said, we just didn't know about the rental registration form. MS. ARNOLD: Can I interrupt? Staff doesn't have any objection to his request. I understand that he's got a check to pay the operational costs and I just wanted to state that maybe it will speed things up a little bit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You want to tell us anything else, sir? MR. BOTINO: Well, as I-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The county just said that they don't object to your request. I was just wondering do you want to tell us anything else? MR. BOTINO: Well, do you agree to that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're not going to agree to anything. We are waiting for you to get done with whatever you want to tell us. MR. BOTINO: With limits. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We don't want to hear the case. That's been decided. All we want to know is why we shouldn't charge you the money we already found you guilty of something which just want you to tell us. MR. BOTINO: When she died we had to get somebody. Dennis Thomas was in jail for four years; we couldn't find the money for the rents, et cetera, they weren't in the bag and we called up the Attorney General. Our mind was turning. If you run a business to survive to there was a lot of money involved and it disappeared, we couldn't find it. We didn't know anything about the rental registration record. MR. PONTE: The rental registration forms and payments were made last year, so somebody knew about it, ALJO knew about it. MR. BOTINO: Well, that was Renee Wise. In other words, she was down here. She lived down at Diamond Shores and she took care of those forms, that's the thing. And when she moved in June and she Page 132 February 26, 2004 died in July, she didn't take care of it. We just didn't know. Just at that time we got involved with Dennis Thomas. MR. PONTE: This is an ALJO managerial problem, it isn't one that doesn't go with the Board. MR. BOTINO: But I'm saying -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We are asking you why you don't want us to charge you the money, but if you got a management problem, that's not our problem. That's internal. Why do you not want to pay this money? Because you can't manage a business isn't a good enough cause. I hate to be blunt about it but that's basically what you're telling us. MR. BOTINO: Well, we also in November, we found out that we needed this rental -- I think I wrote this out. Anyway, we sent a letter in lets see, this is a letter we sent in to 28 Orchard Drive, Collier County dated November 7, and we told the people, Mrs. Powers, that we, ALJO had moved from Truck Boulevard to 129 Erlinger. Here's what happened. Every time the county sent a letter to us we never got it. In other words, it would go to the Erlinger, go to the wrong Erlinger. Then when they sent certified letters to us, the certified letters can't be forwarded so we never got the certified letters. By the time we found everything out what we were supposed to do, this is how the fines occurred. On September 28 my brother spoke -- let me go back to that part. See, we moved and we got these very late or we didn't get them at all, the notices from the county. At that time, what happened -- MR. BOWIE: In all honesty, a lot of these circumstances are circumstances of your own creation. If there was injury it was self-inflicted. You were moving, your failure to appoint a new agent in a timely manner, again these are management problems which this Board has no control over. Page 133 February 26, 2004 MR. BOTINO: But in any event, we did send a letter in to Mrs. Powers saying that we had moved. But all the letters that you sent us regarding the registration still went to 39 Truck Boulevard. Last week I still received a letter. No matter how many times we told the county we are now at Erlinger Boulevard, they still send it to Truck Boulevard. MR. PONTE: Have you told the post office that you moved and have them forward your mail? MR. BOTINO: Well, no, it isn't that. Here's what happened, too. The way that the system works, you have to have your -- the only way that the county can send you letters if they are looking into the computer, which is in what I wrote, and they could only go by what's in the computer. In other words, the letters we sent to the county saying that we have moved didn't mean anything. They only looked in the county records in the computer and it still said 39 Truck Boulevard. Finally we said, how do you get your computers to show we are now on Truck Boulevard so we get all the notices? They said you have to go to Abe Skinner's office. That's the first time we heard that. At any rate, we did send someone to Abe Skinner's office to change our -- each one had to be changed. So we gave it to them, and to this day it's still not in the computer, it's still listed at 39 Truck Boulevard. That's what happened. So in other words, when I talked to Michelle, she told me they are delayed six to 10 weeks and more. So whenever they look at anything in the county records, it's still saying 39 Chuck Boulevard and we don't get it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sir, let me try and help you. MR. BOTINO: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The county has said they have no objection to waiving the fine? MR. BOTINO: Right. Page 134 February 26, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The best course of action would seem to be, since they are on your side, for you to be quiet and quit while you're ahead. MR. BOTINO: I'll be quiet. I don't want to claim anybody -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All of that is of no importance to us. MR. BOTINO: No, but you said to me I have to tell you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Tell us why you want us to reduce the money. Somebody has your wrong address, you know you're responsible for telling people about addresses. I don't care about that. I can't guide you any place. The best thing you can do, seriously, you should sit down. MR. BOTINO: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The county is on your side. It could be worse. They are trying to help you. MR. BOTINO: It was a misunderstanding. I thought you said you want an explanation about the fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What I have said is since the county wants you to reduce it I'd like you to reduce it, sir. MR. BOTINO: I didn't understand. I thought you wanted detail what happened. MR. BOWIE: I'd like to make a motion since the county has agreed with the request for abatement of the fines, not the operational costs but the fines, a motion that the fines be abated for the rental registration violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is that what you are agreeing to, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we are. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you know whether that will leave any amount of money that you're going to ask to be imposed? MS. ARNOLD: I don't have the numbers in front of me, but he can get all the figures from us. I believe it would be a total of $7,721 for the rental registration portion, and then a total I don't think he's Page 135 February 26, 2004 asking there aren't any fines with the others so -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The other ones are just operational costs also; right? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So we have a motion from Mr. Bowie to waive the fine portion of case -- I think it's 2003-055, which is the rental registration section, but the fines only, not the operational costs. MS. ARNOLD: Correct CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Do we have a motion? MR. BOWIE: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I have a second? MR. PONTE: I have some concern about this. The fines as I guess they are calculated are about $30,000. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. PONTE: I certainly haven't heard any compelling reason that the fine should be reduced $30,000. Perhaps the fines can be mitigated, but certainly not done away with. Talking about 42 rental units here, 42 separate violations. We've heard this case in great detail and I think no one has convinced me that we should just decide to drop a $30,000 fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and there is no second; if not then it will die for lack of a second. Hearing none, the motion has died for lack of a second. Is there another motion? I don't know how else to say that, but first of all, let's have a motion that we either accept or reject the request to abate the fine from ALJO, Inc. He's made the request to us, Mr. Bowie has said reduce it to costs only. Is that what we need to do, Jean, to be official? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear a motion to deny the request for abatement for the fine portion, because he didn't ask to waive the operational costs. Page 136 February 26, 2004 MR. PONTE: I understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We need a motion to deny his request to abate the fine. MR. PONTE: But the fine may be some way abated or mitigated. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He's asked to abate it all. MR. RAMSEY: It seems to me typically when we have a situation that somebody asks for some abatement or mitigation of fine there's a reason that's somewhat compelling or a set of facts and circumstances that perhaps were unknown to us or seemed since the order was entered. And other than the fact that this fine is somewhat large by comparison to what this Board normally deals with, other than the fact that it's very imposing, there doesn't seem to be any showing of any particular facts and offer of proof to say, well, gee, this should be mitigated. I haven't heard a compelling reason, either. I certainly sympathize with managerial problems, but again, they are not in what happens here, so I have some difficulty supporting that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What I'm saying is we need a motion to deny his request. Otherwise, we're going to accept it and reduce the fine. Right now, what I'm understanding that's what Mr. Bowie did and it didn't get a second so it died. So now we need to just make a motion to deny the request altogether and then we'll just impose the whole fine or some portion thereof. MR. RAMSEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But he's made a motion to ask us to abate it all and that ain't worked because Mr. Bowie tried that. So now we need to make a motion to actually deny the respondent's request. MR. PONTE: I make a motion to deny the request. Page 137 February 26, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Everyone understand? Is there a second to that. MR. RAMSEY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (All respond in the affirmative.) Any oppose? Now we're down to -- we have - that's that one. That's request to reduce it back. The next one would be Naples Lodge, because we imposed them sometime ago. This is just a request to abate them. So it's done. MR. BOTINO: Can I come back? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, we're done, sir. MR. BOTINO: But you told me to sit down. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, you were only giving us managerial problems. You've heard what we've said; your management skills aren't our problem. MR. BOTINO: But there is something else, it isn't only the managerial skills. We never got notice. The county never gave us proper notice. This is what I'm trying to tell you. No matter what we did, we didn't get notice. Right now you still didn't change the correct address of ALJO, no matter how many letters we wrote. That comes up with the county, not me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If it's that there was a hearing to in effect find you in violation, which we did -- I don't remember when the original hearing was, but obviously sometime ago. When was it, last year? December, that's when I signed the order. So the case was in our November hearings, I suspect. During November there was a notice mailed and it was also posted on the bulletin board. In other words, the county at that time did everything they were Page 138 February 26, 2004 supposed to do to notify you that there was going to be a hearing. There was a hearing. In all honesty, there's been a lot happened since November. I can't remember who was here or wasn't here, whatever. But we did find you guilty, okay, in violation of the ordinance, and we issued an order saying this is what's going to happen, you have to fix it or get fined, okay. That occurred. Evidently after that occurred or while that was occurring, all these things were going on internally and you didn't get the problem solved. MR. BOTINO: But the county sent the notices to the wrong address we got your letter after the hearing. Right now in your county computers you've still got ALJO listed. That's not me; that's the county record. That's Abe Skinner, that isn't me. In other words, why would we pay an $800 rental registration fee that's going to cost us $30,000? That's absurd. Why would we do it? Because it kept going to the wrong address certified mail, not forwarded. This is what happened. There isn't anybody suffered in any way because the roofs were leaking. This is like a clerical kind of thing, which we didn't get notice. If you look now in Abe Skinner's records he still has Truck Boulevard if this records he [said] says the count I is behind putting these correct addresses in when you don't have the correct addresses it's Collier County not me because we're not getting the notice. Why should we ignore the county? I think we didn't get notice we are far away. There was two things that happened: It wasn't changed in the computer and the people in your department kept sending it to the wrong address and it kept going back. The second thing is, at that time we moved -- MR. PONTE: We've heard all of this. Page 139 February 26, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, yes. You said these things before when you were standing up. MR. BOTINO: I'm saying I think you should take that into consideration. It is still wrong, going to the wrong address, and we didn't get notice. When you had the hearing we got that notice of the hearing about two weeks after you had the hearing. So it's kind of unfair. MR. BOWIE: Would a motion be improper if not to abate the fines to reduce them? MS. RAWSON: The answer to that question is yes. because if you look at his motion it says clearly, "Respondent's Request for Reduction/Abatement of Fines." MR. BOWIE: Regardless of the merits of the respondent's arguments here, it just seems to me that $30,000 in fines for basically a paperwork violation is more serious a fine than the IRS would impose for failing to file a tax return. We're talking about rental registration forms here. MR. PONTE: Talking about 42 of them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It wasn't just one, it was 42. That's why the fines are so great. MR. BOWIE: Only reason is it's compounded CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It sounds a little excessive, but there were 42. MR. BOTINO: We don't have a lot of money. On one of the forms you put down that it's an excessive fine; two people, Al, me, and my brother Joe, and these are very low income rental units. We're not getting 8- $900 a month. So if this fine is imposed, even a part of it, we're going to have to raise the rent; this is the reality of it. Of the 42 units -- I understand what you're saying of the 42 -- but if you fill out one you fill out 42. It isn't anything, you go across the Page 140 February 26, 2004 line that would take me an hour to fill it out. To fine me $30,000 for an hour's worth of work. That doesn't seem to be just. MR. BOWIE: Let me just ask what is the amount of the fines alone that we're looking at? MS. ARNOLD: It is $30,000. Let me see if I can add it in my head. MR. PONTE: I don't have a calculator. What does that translate to on a fine per unit basis? STAFF: $30 per property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: For how long? MS. ARNOLD: December 19 to January 12. MR. BOTINO: T was about three weeks and we mailed -- here's what happened. We mailed it in, we got it in, and Frank Polara appeared before you, and he brought in the rental registration forms in person. So it was about three weeks late. And the registration form cost 820 because you paid the $20 each, or whatever, and I don't know if it being three weeks late to be fined $30,000, not only that we didn't even know. In other words, what I'm saying is somewhere along the line -- I don't want to blame Michelle Arnold, she has been very cooperative. She has nothing to do with it -- but we did speak to some people from the county. We had told them we had moved, et cetera. So we would have gotten your notices about hearings and gotten everything on down, but they didn't do it manually. We found out later Abe Skinner isn't going to do it. Somebody has to go to somebody called Indira, because I went in myself to find out what happened. You can keep sending letters to doomsday, and whatever they have in Abe Skinner's computer is how the forms are. As I said before, would any logical human being if you have to pay an $840 fine, would they ignore it and be fined $30,000? As soon as we found out about it, we mailed it in. By the time Page 141 February 26, 2004 you got it and we sent Frank Polara down, he came in with the rental registration forms, which took about an hour to fill them out. So you had both sets. So this is like a clerical error and this enormous fine is being assessed to us besides the $7,000 rental registration form, because that was administrative work that we paid that the county said that, you know. So there it is. Seems like an enormous fine for being three weeks late. MR. BOWIE: I agree with you about that. For this violation I do think the fine portion is perhaps a little bit out of balance here. I think maybe in order to establish some equity here the amount of the fine to the severity of the violation, I'd like to move, not that we abate the fine, but to reduce the amount of the fine to $10,000 and let the operational costs stand. MR. BOTINO: Well, I don't have the $10,000, I brought a check for the administrative fee. But $10,000, what options do I have? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You want to make a motion, Ray? MR. BOWIE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Bowie made a motion to reduce the $30,000 down to $10,000 and the operational costs still stand. That's just the fine portion. MR. PONTE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second to reduce the fine down to $10,000; not the operational. Any further questions? All those in favor signify by saying aye. (All respond in the affirmative.) Any opposed? Okay. Do you understand, sir? MR. BOTINO: Yes, I understand. Do we have any recourse? That's what I'm asking. MR. BOWIE: Appeal to the circuit court. MR. BOTINO: Okay. Page 142 February 26, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Naples Elks Lodge. MS. ARNOLD: This is a Request for Reduction/Abatement of Fines, case number 2002-001, Naples Elks Lodge. I believe Mr. Tom Killam is here. MR. KILLAM: We're all here. We want to hear you have to say, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What do you mean what we have to say? We don't have anything to say. MR. KILLAM: What Michelle has to say. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You made the request, sir. You have to come and tell us what you want. MR. KILLAM: I thought we did that with the request. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, you sent the request, now you have to tell the Board. (The speaker was duly sworn.) MR. KILLAM: Tom Killam. We don't feel like the Elks Lodge owes anything. This is Gloria Patterson. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She'll be sworn in next if she'd like to speak. You're up, sir. MR. KILLAM: I want to make the request I don't feel like the Elks owe any money in this case and we spent two weeks of having meetings and filling out forms and going through the procedures that hopefully you have read what was submitted, because that was compiled by three people who spent an awful lot of time doing it. And we sincerely feel that that's the posture we have. We have done nothing wrong, there is nothing wrong exists any longer. I don't know how to explain it to you other than what was written in those documents that you received. MS. ARNOLD: I believe this was before the Board last month, as well, and at that time did we reduce fines? MR. KILLAM: What? MS. ARNOLD: Was this -- we imposed fines at the last Page 143 February 26, 2004 meeting? MR. KILLAM: MS. ARNOLD: continued it. No. You don't remember? I can't remember if we imposed it or we MR. KILLAM: No. You continued it. You alone continued it. You requested that it be continued so you could go to the county and find out whose fault it was that this thing took so long. I think you found out whose fault it was, it was the county's fault. I brought Gloria along because she can remember things I can't remember that has to do with this prolonged ordeal with Collier County, and she could remember what people said exactly. And I can't believe you just asked that question. This might be a very small thing to you; it's a very large thing to us. I would hope that you would try to remember these things in the future. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sarcasm doesn't come forward, sir. MR. KILLAM: Well, I'm here; I don't even want to be here. MR. BOWIE: I understand that, but you got to remember these people have a lot of other cases to be and this apparently is the only thing you worry about. So obviously all this is in your mind because I think has been the forefront of what you've been doing. You're right; sarcasm doesn't get you anywhere but backwards, okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So Mr. Killam says they don't owe the money. Michelle, I'll ask the basic question to start with. Did we in fact impose the fines? MS. ARNOLD: That's what I'm trying to get from Shelly. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. On your status report that you gave us last month, you have a note that says fines being imposed 1/22/04. So then did last month you request a continuance? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. I'm looking through the minutes of the hearing though. There was a motion and a second to continue the Page 144 February 26, 2004 request until next meeting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And that was approved. Mr. Killam was going to get with the county, which he did, and try to come up with an agreement for what would be a reasonable abatement of the fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: So we didn't actually impose it at the last meeting. They were on the agenda, but we continued. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I suspect, based on what you just said, Mr. Killam's request is he doesn't think any fine should be imposed. MS. ARNOLD: That's the request before you, I believe. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. PONTE: He's changed his mind. He was going to come back and say, okay, let's reduce the fine. He's come back and said let's reduce it, let's eliminate the fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. What's the county's position? MS. ARNOLD: Considering the delays that went on on both sides, I think that it would be reasonable to reduce the fines. There is operational of $1,090.04 and I believe Mr. Killam is requesting those be abated, as well. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: As I understand the statute we can't abate those. MR. KILLAM: I have a suggestion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What's the cost again, Michelle, please? MS. ARNOLD: $1,040.90. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And what's the fine amount? MS. ARNOLD: It is -- there were two separate amounts. Let me figure out what that is. $18,150. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MR. KILLAM: My That's the fine only, correct? Thank you. Yes, sir? suggestion is that if you would, in the Page 145 February 26, 2004 goodness of your heart, drop all the fines and then for which Michelle only offered to do last time I was here. But she wanted to collect and still wants to collect, execute, what ever it is. My suggestion is if you folks will select a local charity, the Elks write a check to that charity for that exact amount. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's not in our purview, sir. MR. KILLAM: Well, it's only thing that makes sense to me. The Elks don't owe the money and we certainly don't want to throw it away and give it to the county. We are in the business of giving money to charity and would be very happy to take that amount of money and let you folks select a charity of your choice and we'll make a check out to them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Again, sir, it's something we don't have the power to do. MR. KILLAM: MS. ARNOLD: Then we ask that we pay no fine at all. I think what they are presenting to you, the fine amount was $19,190.90 with operational costs. They are showing that they have expended that amount and then some with the 24 000 and then another $2,800 and another $3,200 that were costs for processing the case. MR. KILLAM: The main thing in the paperwork that was forwarded to you is that all the work was done well within the time frame of the order from this Board; well in advance of that. And at this time there was never an infraction. So there never was anything to really be fined for. MS. ARNOLD: I think what Mr. Gilliam is saying is that what they needed to do is amend their Site Development Plan to allow them to have landscaping in the fashion that was installed. MR. KILLAM: That was an amendment to a PUD which took almost two years to process. MS. ARNOLD: I'm sorry, I misspoke -- PUD. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So statute wise, Jean, if I Page 146 February 26, 2004 remember, we cannot reduce operational costs, period. We're only limited to fines. MS. RAWSON: If he's saying they were in compliance prior to the date, I don't know if that's true or not. MR. KILLAM: It is true. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We can impose the operational costs? MS. RAWSON: Up to that point. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's all it is, the operational costs on will go to the day of the hearing. You don't impose them beyond that at this point. That only applies if we get the commission to change the amendment. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MS. RAWSON: Well, if it's operational costs up until the day of the hearing, we can't waive that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We can't waive, so that will stay in. so what we're really talking about is the fine amount, $18,150, they are requesting be abated. MR. PONTE: I'm sure that was their position when the case was heard. The Board disagreed with their argument at that time and it resulted in the fine. So I think the hard facts have already been presented and the Board fully assembled heard the entire case. And nothing has changed since hearing those facts at that time except for a request to reduce or eliminate the fine, but the facts haven't changed. MR. KILLAM: I think the facts have changed. If you look, I think it's a mistake all the way around. I think the county was in error. MR. PONTE: But that was your argument, of course. MR. KILLAM: It's still a valid argument, sir. MR. PONTE: Well, I know, but this is not a hearing. MS. ARNOLD: Let me just add that the county doesn't have any objection to the request for the fine amount being waived because Mr. Gilliam is correct. That there was, the plants were there but they just Page 147 February 26, 2004 did not meet the standards that were in place at the time, and now they changed the standards to comply. So that was an alternate to compliance to the code case. It takes an awful long time to get that document changed and as I noted at the last hearing. I think that the county was at fault for the amount of time that it did take. We have changed the way we've done our orders now so that we don't typically have the time frame that it something in there. In this particular case we did, and so it extended out the fines tremendously. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I don't have a problem with waiving the fines. MR. RAMSEY: specifically. While I presentation, I think probably some justification. I think we've all been frustrated dealing with bureaucracy from time to time and Michelle's admission in fact there was a problem and some of those processes have been modified, I have a problem putting the Elks Lodge on the fire for what may not be their entire problem. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Would you like to make a motion to abate the fine amount? MS. ARNOLD: $18,150 was the fine amount and one to you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We can't touch the prosecutorial cost. MR. RAMSEY: Motion to impose, to reduce the -- pay the fine takes to get approval of I don't have a problem waiving the fines, may not agree with Mr. Gilliam's method of he's perhaps having some frustration from a motion to abate the fine Is there a second to that? of $18,150. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have amount and impose the operational costs. (No response.) Okay. No second, that motion dies. Is there another motion Page 148 February 26, 2004 somebody would like to make in the form of some other numbers? MR. BOWIE: Let me just ask the question. It's been conceded that at least a portion of the accrual of these fines may be attributable to delays that were incurred on the county's part in processing the PUD amendment; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. MR. BOWIE: Do we have any idea what proportion of these fines might be attributable to that delay? Maybe that's a fair means of adjusting this. MS. ARNOLD: Jennifer Belpettio was in the meeting where we agreed to figure that out, which was difficult to assess which portion, because there were submittals and resubmittals and those types of things. And I think that's why the county's taken a position that we have no objection to abating all of the fines. MS. BELPETTIO: I don't recall the specific amount of money that out I do recall the Joe Schmitt, the Division Administrator, and Michelle were there and they came to the conclusion that given the circumstances, that the entire amount could be justified to be waived. Because of that, that's why the recommendation of the county is to waive that full amount. I parcel out at this point in time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: opinions or change direction? MR. PONTE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: don't think interest is anything left to That's my recollection. Okay. Hering that, does that change Chris, you want to try it again? MR. RAMSEY: I'll remake my motion to impose operational costs and abate the fine of $18,150. MR. BOWIE: I'll second that, hearing what I just heard. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion and a second by Mr. Bowie to abate the fine amount, but impose the operational costs of $1,040.90. Any further discussion? Page 149 February 26, 2004 All those in favor signify by saying aye. (All respond in the That finishes the request for reductions and abatement. There are no foreclosures, there are no extensions of time -- Old business: Affidavits of compliance. MS. ARNOLD: We'll be filing an affidavit of compliance for Board of County Commissioners versus Moise Wesner, code case 2003-053; Board versus Dream Homes 2003-047; Board versus Keith Heckman, case 2003-059 and 058; and Board versus Manatee, and that's case 2001-086. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Affidavits of noncompliance. MS. ARNOLD: We'll be filing -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Two Dreamscape cases. MS. ARNOLD: I just saw that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: States the same case number, in compliance or not in compliance. I'm confused. MS. ARNOLD: I'm confused, too. We'll figure that one out. Just say we'll be filing noncompliance versus Manuel Rosa, 2003-019 and Board versus Monika Van Stone, which is case number 2003-048. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: I think what we should be doing is removing the compliance portion of it because a part of the order with Dreamscape Homes was that the county was ordered to correct a portion of it. We've done our part but the respondent hasn't done their part. So we don't need to file a compliance portion for the county's part. But we do need to file an Affidavit of Noncompliance, which is Case number 2003-047. MR. BOWIE: I don't think you're going to get much. He's pretty much defunct if not in jail. So I don't think you're going to be hearing much. MS. ARNOLD: Then we have a report -- if you remember, you Page 150 February 26, 2004 had a case number 2003-057, Mr. Steven Johnson, with all of the debris and construction and/or marine type of equipment down on Plantation. and as a part of your order you asked that he provide a report to the Board or report to staff, and he has done that. I just wanted to report to you all that he has given us some information with respect to the removal of some of the equipment. I was actually down there one day for a meeting and it looks much better. He's got a little bit more to go, but he's working towards compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Comments? We have a meeting the 25th of March in this location. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Our annual meeting, at which meeting we'll elect a new Chair and Vice Chair. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And also talk about any changes to our rules and regulations, if there are any. MS. ARNOLD: Right. If you notice under the next meeting item on the agenda, we've got March 18 as a workshop. At that workshop is where we thought we would go through the nitty-gritty of the rules and regulations or any other things that we would be proposing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine, because there are some people that haven't been through that yet. Maybe they have at least read them and can offer some helpful hints. MS. ARNOLD: That meeting is going to be at the Community Development Building on Horseshoe Drive. We'll send you all a notice of that. But it's in the large conference room, Room 609 and 610T. STAFF: As a reminder, you had received in your packets the Sunshine Law information. You need to bring that with you to the workshop. Page 151 February 26, 2004 day. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Anything else? It's been a long I appreciate it. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. PONTE: So move. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All in favor signify by saying aye. (All respond in the affirmative.) There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:30 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE NOTTINGHAM AND KAYE GRAY Page 152