The URL can be used to link to this page

CEB Minutes 03/25/2004 RMarch 25, 2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida March 25, 2004 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Clifford Flegal Sheri Barnett Raymond Bowie Albert Doria, Jr. Roberta Dusek Gerald Lefebvre 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 COI,I,IER COUNTY~ FLORIDA AGENDA Date: March 25, 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. 2. 3. 4. ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 26, 2004 PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS Motion to Continue (No request submitted at the time of this agenda) B. HEARINGS CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2004-005 267 3RD 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DONALD GRAY SHAWN LUEDTKE VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.7.6.1 AND 2.7.6.5 ORD 98-76 SECTION 104.1.5.1 AS REPEALED BY ORDINANCE NO 2002-01, SECTIONS 104.1.1 AND 104.1.3.5, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE WOODEN ROOF STRUCTURE CREATING A BOATHOUSE INSTALLED OVER A BOAT LIFT WITHOUT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: VIOLATIONS: 2004-018 2630 18TM AVE SE, NAPLES, FL HERMAN HAEGER JEFF LETOURNEAU ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 1.5.6 AND 2.1.15 LAND AND STRUCTURES NOT BEING USED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ZONING DISTRICT ORD 99-51, SEC 6, 7 AND 8 WEED, LITTER AND EXOTICS ORDINANCE LITTER CONISISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO: PLASTIC POTS, METAL, WOOD, WIRE, LAWNMOWERS AND TIRES. LITTER LEFT EXPOSED TO THE ELEMENTS UNATTENDED UNSECURED AND IN A PROGRESSIVE STATE OF DISREPAIR PRESENTING A NUISANCE TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. 3. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 2004-015 281 39*" AVE NE, NAPLES, FL DEBORAH KATCHUR JEFF LETOURNEAU ORD 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.7.6.1 AND 2.7.6.5 ADDITION TO PERMITTED PRIMARY STRUCTURE WITH ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING AND AIR CONDITIONING IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF A COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT AND HAVING ALL OF THE REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AND RECEIVING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 4. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 2004-017 2420 27TM AVE NE NAPLES, FL RONALD AND SHELLY BROWN JEFF LETOURNEAU ORD 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.7.6.1 AND 2.7.6.5 LARGE STORAGE STRUCTURE BU1LT IN REAR YARD WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF A COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT AND HAVING ALL OF THE REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AND RECEIVING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 5. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 2004-008 423 TAYLOR ROAD, IMMOKALEE, FL CURTIS D. BLOCKERK AND CURTIS BLOCKER, JR DENNIS MAZZONE ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 1.5.6, 1.8.7, 1.9.2, 2.1.11, 2.1.15 PAR 1, 2.2.9.2.1, 2.2.9.4 AND ZONING REGULATIONS OF COLLIER COUNTY DATED MARCH 31, 1974, SECTION 4.1,4.2, 4.6, 5.1, 11.14 PAR 4, 5, 6, 8 &14 LAND AND STRUCTURES NOT BEING USED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ZONING DISTRICT. THE EXISTENCE OF THREE SINGLE WIDE MOBILE HOME STRUCTURES, TWO ADDITIONAL SINGLE WIDE MOBILE HOME STRUCTURES JOINED TOGETHER TO FORM A DUPLEX TYPE DWELLING FACILITY AND ONE 12X20 ALUMINUM LAUNDRY FACILITY CONSISTING OF EIGHT COIN OPERATED WASHING MACHINES AND SIX COIN OPERATED DRYERS. ALL SAME IMPROVEMENTS HAVING BEEN PLACED, CONSTRUCTED OR INSTALLED ON VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL ZONED LAND IN COLLIER COUNTY LESS THAN ONE ACRE IN SIZE. ALL SAME IMPROVEMENTS COLLECTIVELY EXCEEDING COLLIER COUNTY DISTRICT [,AND USE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS. ORD 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.7.6. PAR 1 AND 5 ALL IMPROVEMENTS NOT HAVING RECEIVED REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN (SIP)/SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS THROUGH CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 2004-006 5245 MCCARTY ST, NAPLES, FL KELLY CAPOLINO 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 CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2004-012 228 SABAL PALM ROAD, NAPLES, FL EDWARD MCCARTHY AND DOROTHY LEWIS RITA CRISP VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 1.5.6, 2.2.2, 2.2.2.2.1 AND 2.1.15 LAND AND STRUCTURES NOT BEING USED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ZONING DISTRICT. PROPERTY IS ZONED AGRICULTURAL AND IS BEING USED AS MULTI FAMILY RENTAL. ORD 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.7.6. ALL IMPROVEMENTS NOT HAVING RECEIVED REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS THROUGH CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. o 10.9 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC vs. Monika Van Stone 2. BCC vs. Southern Development 3. BCC vs. Southern Development 4. BCC vs. Pacacios B. Request for Reduction/Abatement of Fines (No request submitted at the time of this agenda) C. Request for Foreclosure 1. BCC vs. Ponce Realty 2. BCC vs. Dixie Higginbotham 3. BCC vs. Ironwood Golf Club 4. BCC vs. Barbara Galloway D. Motion/Request for Extension of Time (No request submitted at the time of this agenda) 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Affidavits of Compliance 1. BCC vs. Pacacios B. Affidavits of Non-Compliance 1. BCC vs. Monika Van Stone 2. BCC vs. Southern Development 3. BCC vs. Southern Development REPORTS 1. BCC vs. Steven Johnson 2. BCC vs. Baker Towing COMMENTS a. Election of Officers b. Rules and Regulations (changes if any) NEXT MEETING DATE April 22, 2004, Code Enforcement Meeting ADJOURN CEB NO. 2003-048 CEB NO. 2003-005 CEB NO. 2003-006 CEB NO. 2003-052 CEB NO. 2003-042 CEB NO. 2003-022 CEB NO. 2003-039 CEB NO. 2003-035 CEB NO. 2003-052 CEB NO. 2003-048 CEB NO. 2003-005 CEB NO. 2003-006 CEB NO. 2003-057 CEB NO. 2003-026 March 25, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll call the Collier County Code Enforcement Board to order, please. Please take 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. Shanelle, may we have the roll call, please? MS. HILTON: Yes. Good morning. For the record, Shanelle Hilton, CEB coordinator. Clifford Flegal? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Present. MS. HILTON: Bobbie Dusek? MS. DUSEK: Here. MS. HILTON: George Ponte has an excused absence. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. HILTON: Sheri Barnett? MS. BARNETT: Here. MS. HILTON: Albert Doria? MR. DORIA: MS. HILTON: MR. BOWIE: MS. HILTON: be able to make it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: quorum. Approval of our agenda. Here. Raymond Bowie? Here. And Mr. Dowling called in and said he would not We have six members, so we do have a Are there any changes, corrections, Page March 25, 2004 additions? MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director. We have a request to put -- by Mr. Edward McCarthy, which is Case No. 4.B.7 to be heard-- motion for continuance. So we need to add him under Board of County Commissioners versus Monika Van Stone. We also have a motion from Mr. Pritt, the attorney representing the Marrone case, which is on your agenda under new business, Item 5.A.5, which actually should be under old business. And Attorney Belpedio is here to talk to you on that matter. But he is wanting to request that action be held in abeyance until another court action that's pended in the court system. And we have another request to move Item B.5 to Item B.2, which is Board of County Commissioners versus Curtis D. Blocker, and Curtis Blocker, Jr. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Run that by me again, Michelle. MS. ARNOLD: All righty. Under public hearing motions, we're adding Edward McCarthy as Item 2. And that's the seventh item. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL' MS. ARNOLD: Okay? Marrone's imposition of fine. Right. Under that item, we're adding Mr. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, so 5.A.5 you want to move up to -- is that what you're telling me? MS. ARNOLD' Yes. Well, he's making a request to hold it -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: To move it to where? MS. ARNOLD: He's making a request to not hear it at all, so you have to make a decision on that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So he wants to make a motion to not hear it. So we want to move that to -- he's asking us to move that up to 4.A.3 ? Page 3 March 25, 2004 MS. ARNOLD: We're adding an item 4.A.3 to hear that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And then what was the last one? MS. ARNOLD: Okay. And then actually because this is in old -- that was in old business, if you decide to hear it after he makes the request, that item really should be under old business. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Old business, not new business. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. And then the final change is Item-- the current item on your agenda, 4.B.5, is going to be renumbered to 4.B.2. MS. DUSEK: So the only case that was changed up was Case No. 5? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. For the hearings, yes. MR. SPILLER: Mr. Flegal, if I could, I made the request to move Case 4.B.5 to 4.B.2 to accommodate a witness who's an employee of the sheriff's office of Immokalee. He indicated to me last night that he'd be here at 9:00 this morning. He's not here yet. So I appreciate the board's accommodation for him. If he is here, when we're through with the first case, 4.B. 1, we could proceed with 4.B.2, my case. If he's not here at that time, then I would withdraw the request to advance the case on the docket. MS. ARNOLD: There is another change that I forgot-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I was just going to say, I remember a gentleman asking me about a report on Baker Towing, and I haven't heard that yet. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Mr. Ferguson, who's here for the Baker case, is requesting to be heard first. As a part of the board's order at the time you all required him to come back to make a report. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So if we permit that, we want to move 7.2 to right before the public hearings. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It won't have a number, but we'll just Page 4 March 25, 2004 slide it in between the minutes and the public hearings. Is that what we're saying? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: Now, which one is that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. DUSEK: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: order. MS. DUSEK: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And I think that's all the changes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any member of the board have any comment? (No response.) 7.2. We're going to move up. It's a report that we requested under our CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If not, I would entertain a motion to approve the agenda as recommended for change. MS. DUSEK: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as changed. Any further discussion? MS. BARNETT: I have a question on Baker -- or on the Blockers' case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. BARNETT: Do we want to move that up, in the fact that the officer's not here? MR. SPILLER: I was just informed -- John Spiller. I was just informed by the property owner that he'll be here within five minutes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. MS. BARNETT: Then I'll withdraw that question. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So we have a motion and a Page March 25, 2004 second and no further questions. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, since --just for formality sake, since we have six members here, five of them which are permanent, Mr. Bowie is an alternate, he will participate and vote. Sorry I didn't mention that earlier. Okay, approval of minutes. We all received our minutes via electronic. This is a procedure we're trying. So we don't have them in front of us, but if we read through them, are there any changes? Thank you. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the minutes. MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes as submitted. Any further discussion? MS. BARNETT: Yes. I do not like the new electronic set-up. Only because I printed them out just so that we would have a hard copy, if we were to make a change. MS. ARNOLD: Well, there is a hard copy here, and there's always going to be one hard copy because we have to have the chairman's signature upon approval. MS. BARNETT: I just thought for the purposes of if someone wanted to make a change or an adjustment, I had nothing to go by. And so I also felt that, you know, that's something that should be put in our packet. That's just my objection. I tried it, I didn't like it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So noted. I'd like you to, just in case we forget, mention it again when we get to our rules and regulations. Because I think it's something that maybe needs a little further discussion and clarification. Page March 25, 2004 We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes as submitted. Any further discussion? (No response.) All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Based on our change, we will hear the report on Baker Towing. MR. FERGUSON: Good morning. For purposes of the record, Tim Ferguson, representing Baker Towing. When we were here before you last, we had two options to hear our problem: One was amend the SDP, the other was to buy the property next door. We've actively pursued that. We submitted an SDP to Collier County for an insubstantial change. They suggested that it was a substantial change. We've begged to differ. It's a $6,000 difference. Plus, if we are able to buy the property, I have a letter from the attorney representing the owner of the property. And the owner of the property is a conglomerate, and they're in the process of selling properties. And this one's going to be one, but they've got properties on the east coast, and then they're going to be on the west coast. And they're doing appraisals. We have an appraisal we've paid for. The most substantial likelihood is is that we're going to be buying that property and then we're going to go and do a major SDP change, which will solve the problem. If we go and do a major SDP and then we get the property and we have to do another SDP, it doesn't make a lot of sense. So we're in the process of challenging the determination that our SDP amendment was a substantial amendment instead of an insubstantial amendment. And we're moving forward to try to Page 7 March 25, 2004 purchase the property. And I have the appraisals, I have the SDPs, I have the letters, if you'd like to see them. If not, that's what we're doing. We're going as fast as we can to get it changed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any member of the board have any question? MR. BOWIE: You say your clients are proceeding to purchase the property. I thought they already held title to this property and there are deeds you have in the file? MR. FERGUSON: No, it's the property next door that we're trying to buy. MR. BOWIE: Oh, next door. MR. FERGUSON: Next door. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions? MS. BARNETT: Is our time frame going to be in question then that we've given them to do? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't remember what it is, but I think it was substantial. MS. ARNOLD: It's under-- I believe you have that in your packet, under reports. MS. HILTON: Yes, you have a copy of the order in your reports. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. FERGUSON: Certainly if we were running out of time we would ask that the timetable be extended. MS. ARNOLD: According to -- according to the order, they were given until October 27th to submit a sufficient SDP. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Amended SDP is what it actually says. It didn't say insubstantial change or anything like that. There was one submitted, we checked with the planning department, but it was rejected for being insufficient. And that rejection, I believe, was Page 8 March 25, 2004 submitted to them in December of 2003. MR. FERGUSON: It was rejected because we asked it to be an insubstantial change. And the correspondence from the county suggested that it is a substantial change, and they wanted us to submit a $6,000 fee and consider this a substantial change, and all we're changing is some wording on a map. So we strongly beg to differ about that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: With the October deadline, there's still some sufficient time, at least in my estimation, that since you say you're proceeding as fast as you can -- MR. FERGUSON: We expect to be. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- should you need more time, as we get closer to October, you certainly have the right to come and present a case to us, you know. MS. ARNOLD: We've already passed it. It's October of last year. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, last year? Oh, okay. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Submitting an SDP. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So he's already -- MS. ARNOLD: Exactly. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- under a fine? Have we imposed any fines yet? MS. ARNOLD: We have not imposed a fine because of the requirement. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Because of their-- okay. Okay, if so we haven't imposed the fine, you're in good shape. MR. FERGUSON: We'd certainly be -- okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. Okay, now we get to our public hearings. MS. RAWSON: Motions. Page 9 March 25, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Motions for continuance under our public hearings. First one is BCC versus Monika Van Stone. MS. ARNOLD: Is there a representative for Ms. Van Stone here? MS. HILTON: When they contacted me Tuesday and they sent their request over Wednesday, I told them they had to be here in person to present their request. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And they didn't give you anything in writing why they wanted this, or-- MS. HILTON: It's the document that you have in front of you, explanation of purchase. It's a three-page document. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I see the document, but I guess -- MR. BOWIE: I'll tell you, I honestly don't see anything in this submittal that's not ancient history or a recital of ancient history. And I do remember, what was it, last month the respondent's counsel appeared and promised us absolutely, positively unqualifiedly that this would be heard in March, if we continued it then. And lo and behold, here's March and we're getting yet another request. I can't see any grounds for it. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, I have a question. I'm not sure what the motion means. This is a motion to continue, but the only information that I had was for imposition of fines. MS. ARNOLD: I don't have the motion either. MS. HILTON: I provided the motion to you. MS. DUSEK: I mean, what is the motion for? MS. HILTON: The motion, ifI understood the telephone conversation correctly from the respondent, was to continue the time for compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, well, that isn't what this is, so -- MS. DUSEK: I guess I'm confused, because the only information I have that we were to act on today was an imposition of Page 10 March 25, 2004 to continue. MS. DUSEK: continue. MR. BOWIE: fines. So I think-- MS. ARNOLD' If Shanelle could-- I don't have it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think based on what's been given in writing and since the respondent is not here to plead her side, that the only thing I could suggest to the board is that we not approve a motion I make a motion that we deny the motion to Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to deny the request -- the motion to continue. 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. Next motion, is that the McCarthy? Is that what we're -- if I remember correctly? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, Edward McCarthy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: You don't have anything in writing. Mr. McCarthy approached me this morning. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, he just came this morning. MR. McCARTHY: My name is Ed-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One moment, sir. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. McCARTHY: For the record, my name is Edward Franklin McCarthy. I reside at 94 Second Street South, Naples. I've been in Naples for 34 years. And the issue here today is Item B.7. I had a call from my attorney, and he's been served for this Page 11 March 25, 2004 hearing. I have been out of town, and presently my partner in this is in Tallahassee in a meeting today. And I'd request that the commission, you know, give me a reprieve here so that my attorney can be present to discuss the issues at hand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, sir. So you're asking us to place this on our, say, next month's -- MR. McCARTHY: Next month's agenda, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Can I speak on that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions from the -- MS. ARNOLD: The reason why we placed it on this month's agenda is because we were given information that they are selling the property, and we wanted to make sure that the current owner that we provided notice to was the ones that were brought before the board, rather than having someone else being brought before the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is that a correct statement, sir? MR. McCARTHY: That is a correct statement, sir. And we have a contract on the sale. And the new owner has told me that he is planning on going before the County Commission to get a rezone of the whole project and tear down all those buildings, so, in relative, it will be a mute (sic) situation when that happens. And I can assure you that that's what he wants to do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're telling us, sir, under oath, that the new purchaser is aware of all the filing -- MR. McCARTHY: He's aware that we have some problems. He doesn't know the specifics of those. But he has indicated to me that he is going before the County Commission to get it rezoned so that he can build some houses in there. So, I mean, that's -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. McCARTHY: And I have went out and made the facility that they have -- the county has requested unrentable by blocking off Page 12 March 25, 2004 certain, you know, sewer and taking out the plumbing, et cetera, out of that. So the other units that -- when I purchased them, they were rentable, and this particular one, 228B. MS. ARNOLD: I would have to object, because he's testifying about the case and -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, my question to you is if the board were to grant a continuance based on what we've heard today, that the property is under contract but the new owners have been notified, are there any problems that we need to be aware of?. MS. RAWSON: As long as title doesn't pass in the next 30 days, and as long as he'll waive notice of service and say he personally will be back next week (sic) with his attorney, whom I assume is Mr. Yovanovich? MR. McCARTHY: Yovanovich, Richard Yovanovich. Next week; you mean next month? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next month. MS. RAWSON: Next month. MR. McCARTHY: Next month. MS. RAWSON: It actually is April 22nd. MR. McCARTHY: Okay. MS. DUSEK: Now, Jean, let's assume that title passes. Then we have to reestablish this case against the new owner? MS. RAWSON: That's right. MS. ARNOLD: We were advised that the closing was April 8th. MR. McCARTHY: That has since been postponed because he can't get the closing that quickly, so -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But as I understand it, if-- since there isn't a quote, unquote, case that we have heard yet, if title changes, then really it has to start all over, as far as this board is concerned. I don't know about the county's side, but as far as this board is concerned. Is that correct, Jean? Page 13 March 25, 2004 MS. RAWSON: That's correct, because you would have to then file your action against the new owner. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. McCARTHY: If the board would like, I can have the new owner come and speak with Michelle Arnold, you know -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have a -- since it was -- I guess closing was the 8th and it's now been changed, do you have an estimated closing date? MR. McCARTHY: I don't have a specific date yet for the closing, so I can't tell you exactly when it is going to close. But it will be within -- he said he can close within 45 days, so -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. McCARTHY: And I can have him meet with Michelle, if the board is concerned regarding that issue. MR. BOWIE: Jean, maybe you could clarify this for us. It's my understanding that the statutes require that once an owner of property is served with a notice of code violation, that since, what, '99 or a couple of years back, the statutes require that that owner give notice to any prospective purchaser? MS. RAWSON: That's true. MR. BOWIE: Of not only that a code violation has been alleged, but also copies of all of the documents that have been served upon the owner. MS. RAWSON: That's true. That doesn't mean, though, that Michelle wouldn't have to then refile a new case against the new owner if title passes before the 22nd of April. MR. BOWIE: Then the new owner is supposedly -- I don't think we have to serve documents on the new owner, correct? MS. RAWSON: Not yet. MR. BOWIE: We need to give them a reasonable time to come into compliance, I think. Page 14 March 25, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, the county would -- that would be up to the county. MR. BOWIE: But my concern is that this gentleman has just told us that his prospective purchaser, while being aware that there is some code enforcement matter, he indicated is not aware of the details of it, which means he hasn't complied with the statutes and has not delivered to your prospective buyer copies of the notice of-- MR. McCARTHY: That's correct. He doesn't know the details of this -- you know, the code violations. MR. BOWIE: You have the duty to do that. MR. McCARTHY: Right, exactly. MR. BOWIE: So that concerns me a little bit. We have an acknowledgement that this particular owner has not complied with the statute, at least so far as this prospective purchaser is concerned. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, the question to the board is, should we grant a continuance to our next meeting because the respondent's attorney isn't present, his partner isn't present, he has told us that he's going to sell the property and the new owner is aware that there is some problem? Not the extent of the problem but that there is some problem. MS. BARNETT: I've got a question, Cliff. If we were to decide not to continue this, are we giving him due process, because he's here but his attorney's not? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, that's really for Jean to tell us. I mean, he has an attorney, and he's requested that his attorney be present. Normally what we have done in the past is honor that request, since he has retained counsel. MS. BARNETT: But because we have the other issue of the transfer of property title, I'm not in favor of that. But I don't want to not let him have due process. So Jean, where are we going on that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't know that because we've been Page 15 March 25, 2004 told that he's in the process of selling that we can force him to take part in a case when he has an attorney. MS. BARNETT: Well, I'm just -- I'm asking the question. MS. RAWSON: I think that the staff is aware that Mr. Yovanovich is his attorney, because I note in the packet there's a letter to Mr. Yovanovich. Mr. Yovanovich is not here today. Mr. McCarthy is here by himself asking for the continuance, and he has told you that the property is going to be sold. We don't know whether it's going to be sold before April 22nd or not. If it is, it makes a problem for staff, because they are now going to have to refile the case against the new owner. If we had some assurance that it would not close before the 22nd, I wouldn't have any problem with your giving him a continuance. But we -- I haven't heard that. MS. BARNETT: But my question is, if we decided not to give him a continuance because his attorney is not present, he has made that known to us, but he has obtained one, are we giving him due process if we -- MS. RAWSON: I think Mr. Yovanovich has been on the scene for a while. I believe. Because I think I knew about him last month. MS. ARNOLD: He has been. In fact, we met about this case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sir, let me put it to you this way. I think I understand what the board's attorney is telling us. I would like to make a request of you, and I'm going to get your response on the record, and it will, I think, decide whether we proceed or not, okay? Could this board have your assurance -- and since you are one of the parties, you have control -- that you will not close on the sale of this property until after the board's next meeting? Now that's, we said, the 22nd of April; is that what you said, Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You said sometimes he could close within 45 days. We're well within that limit. What we would like is Page 16 March 25, 2004 your assurance that you will not close on this property until after the next board hearing. MR. McCARTHY: I do not like issues, so I will promise you this, that I will do everything I possibly can to make sure that that doesn't close until -- and the issue is resolved. I'm not here to say, you know, I don't like the issue. The reason I'm selling it, one of the reasons I'm selling it, is because I don't like those issues. And the property I know is old property. It was built back in the -- you know, before -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All we want -- we don't want to get into the case, but what I want from you is your assurance that you will not close on the property until after our next board meeting, which is April 22nd. MR. McCARTHY: I will be here with my attorney and we will not be closed before the 22nd of April. Is that what you're saying? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. McCARTHY: Okay, you have my assurance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. With that assurance, would the board make a motion to continue this to our next meeting? MS. BARNETT: I will make a motion to continue this until our next board meeting on April 22nd. MS. DUSEK: Before we second that, what happens if it closes, Jean? MS. RAWSON: We're still going to hear it on the 22nd of April, and you're going to take that into consideration. MS. DUSEK: And if it closes and there's a new owner, how can we hear the case against him? MS. RAWSON: You can't. I will send Mr. Yovanovich a copy of this order and I will put in the order that we have Mr. McCarthy's assurance that there will not be a closing before the 22nd. I know Mr. Yovanovich will probably call me if there is one, or call Michelle. Page 17 March 25, 2004 MS. DUSEK: I mean, I think that's fine that he's given us that -- MR. McCARTHY: Ladies and gentlemen, I've been here 34 years. I'm not here to, you know, to, you know, make any distrust of this board. I'm telling you right now, I will not close. And my word is good, okay? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You know, I mean, we all have to understand it in real estate transactions, if it's his property, he's going to have to sign. If he doesn't sign, he can't close. Even if he's got a partner, it's going to take two of them. MR. McCARTHY: That's right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So if he's saying he's not going to sign until after the meeting, I think we have to take the gentleman at his word. MR. BOWIE: I wonder if we could also possibly condition any continuance upon the respondent providing to us within a relatively limited period of time an affidavit under oath that the respondent has delivered to his prospective buyers, and he'd like the name and address of those buyers in this affidavit, copies of the notice of violation and all of the other materials you've received relating to this violation, and further notice them that under the Florida statutes, they will be responsible for compliance with any order issued by this board. I don't have the particular statutory reference that requires this, but I would like to condition any continuance on compliance with that statutory requirement of disclosure to the prospective buyer. MS. BELPEDIO: Mr. Bowie, I'm Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney. I think the provision that you're looking for is located in Chapter 162. It's 162.06, under Section 5. And that particular section requiring the disclosure is under 5(A). MR. BOWIE: Thank you. Would you be amenable to that, sir? MR. McCARTHY: Well-- Page 18 March 25, 2004 MR. BOWIE: Which is required of you by Florida statute, in any event, before you close on this property. MR. McCARTHY: I'll be happy to tell you here today that it's not going to close before the -- you know, the 22nd. Doing something without seeing an attorney, I respectfully say that I can't do that without, you know, seeing the documentation. And ! don't have any attorney. MR. BOWIE: If the gentleman can't comply -- MR. McCARTHY: I mean, I'm not an attorney, so I don't -- MR. BOWIE: If the gentleman says he can't comply with the Florida statute so as to preclude us having to recommence these proceedings against a new property owner if in fact he does close before our next meeting, I can't support the continuance. MS. DUSEK: What he's asking you to do is to comply with the law. It's not anything outside of the law. All he wants you to do is disclose to your prospective buyer-- MR. McCARTHY: That I will do. MS. DUSEK: -- what those, what the conditions are, what the violations are. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, let's try to make it real simple so the gentleman doesn't feel uneasy. MR. McCARTHY: Well, I feel uneasy when whenever you start doing, you know, stuff that's attorney stuff-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm trying to back it up so everybody gets on the same page. In granting, if we grant a continuance, could we just, as part of the order granting the continuance, make note that we advised the respondent to -- MS. BARNETT: Fully inform. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- inform through his attorney the -- any prospective purchaser the requirements as noted in the Florida statutes or something like that? I'm trying to think of a real simple Page 19 March 25, 2004 sentence where he doesn't have to go get affidavits and that, that it's just, when we grant it, we're also telling you that you and your attorney work this out or make sure you comply with the law, whatever that is. MS. RAWSON: I can simply say that the board grants the continuance, if that's what you do, because the respondent assures the board that no closing of the real estate will occur before April 22nd, and that the prospective buyers will be fully informed of the potential violation. MS. DUSEK: That sounds good. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I mean, I don't have a problem with that. MS. RAWSON: And then it's really coming from the respondent. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I know his attorney from past dealings, here and in other places, and I'm sure he'll make sure that that happens. MS. RAWSON: I'm sure he will, too. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He's pretty straightforward. MS. DUSEK: I like the wording of the way Jean said we should do our motion. So if-- who made the motion? Sheri, did you -- MS. BARNETT: I made the motion. MS. DUSEK: Can it be amended to -- MS. BARNETT: It can be amended to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- the words that Jean would like -- MS. BARNETT: -- that Jean has provided for us. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- recommends it be in. How's that? MS. DUSEK: Okay, I second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second that we will grant the continuance, since we've had the gentleman's assurance. Any further discussion? Page 20 March 25, 2004 MR. BOWIE: Could someone read the motion as to what the gentleman's assurance to us actually is? MS. RAWSON: That no closing of the real estate will occur before the next board meeting, and that any prospective purchaser will be fully informed of the potential code violation. MR. BOWIE: Could we add to that in compliance with -- Jennifer, you provided us with the statutory reference. MS. BELPEDIO: I would reference 162.06, Paragraph 5, and that covers disclosing in writing the existence and the nature of the proceedings to the prospective transferee and the delivering of the prospective transferee the copy of the pleadings, notices, and other materials relating to the code enforcement matter. MR. McCARTHY: It's 162.067 MS. BELPEDIO: Yes, sir. MR. McCARTHY: Paragraph 5? MS. BELPEDIO: (Nodding). CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor of granting, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 5-1. THE WITNESS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. Okay. Page 21 March 25, 2004 That was all under motions? MS. ARNOLD: No, there's one more motion from Mr. Pritt. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Oh, is that Marrone? Is that the one you're talking about? MS. ARNOLD: It's -- he's requesting that -- a continuance of that item, to hold it in abeyance. Well, I'll have him speak for himself. MR. PRITT: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, it's been a couple of years since we've met on this particular matter. My name is Robert Pritt. I'm the attorney for Phil and Anna Marrone. This is a -- I guess what we call a legacy from several years ago. It has -- the case has gone up to the court in two parts. It was split into two parts. The court has ruled on the one part, and I believe that you have in your packet the court's ruling on the one part. Unfortunately the ruling on the -- that we received so far is the ruling on the tail end of the case, as opposed to the front end of the case. So my request today would be that the matter be held in abeyance. Technically, I think it would be a motion to put it in abeyance pending the determination by the judge of the rest of the case. There are two separate case numbers in the court. And as far as I know, we checked the other day, I don't think that the judge -- I've not received anything from the judge on the first part of the case, nor has Jennifer, to my knowledge. So it seems to make sense to have the ruling on the rest of the case before we deal with this aspect of it. Because who knows, maybe everything would become moot after that. So that's the request. The request is that it be placed in abeyance pending the outcome of the case. As soon as the rest of the case comes out, then we can schedule it for hearing, if necessary, again. MS. DUSEK: I have a question. MR. PRITT: Yes. Page 22 March 25, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Go ahead. MS. DUSEK: Did you say there are two different cases? MR. PRITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. MR. PRITT: Not-- to you there -- MS. DUSEK: Two parts of one case. MR. PRITT: As far as this board is concerned, there was one case. MS. DUSEK: Okay. MR. PRITT: There's one -- I think it's 013. When it got to court, because there were multiple hearings on the case, the county moved to bifurcate or to place the case into two parts, two cases, and that was granted. We objected, but that's not relevant here. But the bottom line is the court did split it into two parts, and we got the ruling on the back end of the case, which was the order imposing the fine. But we haven't received the ruling yet on the case itself, on the rest of the case. So it just seems to make sense to everybody to hold it in abeyance until the rest of the case catches up to US. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, since this was listed as request for imposition of fines, was that originally? Okay. If we grant a continuance for some period of time, I don't like them indefinite, so there would be a time limit I would recommend, does that in any way affect our position to impose the fines at a later date, since they've been accruing since -- this is an '01 case, so I assume they've been accruing for a while. MR. PRITT: No. MS. RAWSON: No, it does not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. PRITT: They have not been accruing. They stopped accruing nine days, I think, or eight days. It was brought into Page 23 March 25, 2004 compliance, and the fine stopped accruing. So it's not something where fines are accruing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, fine. MS. ARNOLD: However, the position of the judge, they quashed that imposition of fines, so we don't have any fines on the books at all. MR. BOWIE: There are no fines? MS. ARNOLD: Well, now we don't. And that's why we are bringing it back, based on the ruling to impose fines. MS. RAWSON: It's a remand. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: And what Mr. Pritt is saying is we're not ready to do the remand, because one part of the case is not here yet. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a request to continue this. I think it should be some time limit, not knowing what the court may do, but we can bring it back and see how it's proceeding. So if we're going to do something, either pick a date or -- MS. BARNETT: Do you have a time frame where your courts are hearing the second part of this case? MR. PRITT: The case has been fully submitted to the court, so it -- and there is no time limitation on the court. So we might get the answer today or we might get the answer several months from now. That's one thing that we don't know and just cannot control. Quite often, in administrative proceedings, a case is held in abeyance pending the outcome of another piece of it, which is why I'm asking for this. If it's a problem with the board, I would not mind or object to an order that would place it into -- place it into con -- I can't Page 24 March 25, 2004 say the word, got up too early this morning -- place it into abeyance until after the court has made the determination. Or if you want to put a time certain on it, with the caveat that if the court has made a decision earlier, you can set it up at a time earlier. I have no problem in how you do that. But it just doesn't make sense to go through the process today when we don't know what the outcome of the rest of the case is going to be. Because who knows, maybe it would never come back, depending on the outcome of the other part of the case. I'm not sure I made too much sense there. So I have no problem. I think that if you put it on each month, then you're going to have somebody coming back, well, haven't heard from the court yet, we haven't heard from the court yet. So I think that as soon as we do hear from the court, Michelle will put it back on the agenda, and probably put both of them back on, if they both come back to you, I don't know if they will or not. And you can handle it that way. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If we were so inclined to continue this for some period, whether, say, 60 days or something, at that time if the court hasn't decided anything, are we in a position to move ahead and impose fines as requested by the county? MS. RAWSON: I would wait till you got the order from -- I assume it's going to be Judge Brousseau again, or did you -- MR. PRITT: Yes, he has both cases. MS. RAWSON: He entered his other order on February the 4th. If they were all heard pretty close to the same time, I can't imagine that it's going to be too long that you're going to get another order from Judge Brousseau. MS. DUSEK: Jean, this is a reasonable request, is it not? MS. RAWSON: Yes, it is. MS. DUSEK: Okay. And if we were to put a time frame of 60 Page 25 March 25, 2004 we're going to know. MS. BARNETT: flame on it that way. MS. RAWSON: days or sooner? MS. RAWSON: Only for a report back to you. I still would wait until you heard from Judge Brousseau, whether, you know, to move forward. Because I don't-- I don't know. Jennifer, I guess, can tell you the difference between the two parts of the case? But you've read Judge Brousseau's order on the first part of the case, which did away with the fines, and your costs are already set, so -- MS. BARNETT: Jean, could we put a motion together that stated that he could have the continuance, that once he notified Michelle that the case was heard and we have an order that he be in front of this board within 30 days? MS. RAWSON: Well, I think what's going to happen is Jennifer is going to get a copy, as am I, of the judge's order. So we're really going to know right away. I mean, I don't think Mr. Pritt has to tell us, We're going to get a copy of the order. I was just trying to think if we could put a time And then I think we're going to put it on the very next docket, would be my guess. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Why don't we do an order to continue for 60 days? At which time we'd like to have a report of the status. MS. RAWSON: You can do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You know. And then that way you can tell us, gee, nothing's happened and we're still waiting, and, okay, we'll give you another 60 days until we see if the judge does something. And we just kind of like move it every 60 days and you tell us what's going on. How's that? Would that work for you, sir? MR. PRITT: That's fair enough, yes. MS. DUSEK: Jean, is the motion a motion to continue or to put it into abeyance? Is it an abeyance without time? Page 26 March 25, 2004 MS. RAWSON: Well, I think it's really a motion to continue your hearing the case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. It's to continue the imposition of fines, which is what's being requested. And we're saying we're not going to do that today, come back in 60 days and report the status, and we'll decide whether we want to give you another 60 days before we try to impose fines, until the judge makes a decision. Okay. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we continue the imposition of fines for 60 days, at which point, if you have not heard from the court, that you come back and give us your report. MR. PRITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: How's that, sir? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we now get to the public hearing part. First case, 2004-005, Board of County Commissioners versus Donald Gray. MS. HILTON: Yes, this is Board of County Commissioners versus Donald Gray, CEB Case No. 2004-005. At this time, I would like to ask if the respondent is present in the courtroom? MR. GRAY: Yes. MS. HILTON: And he is, and he's represented by counsel. We had previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information at the last hearing, and Mr. Gray waived notice, so he was sent a letter reminding him his case had been continued. Page 27 March 25, 2004 The alleged violations are of Section 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code, and Section 104.1.1 and 104.1.5.1 of Ordinance No. 98-76, as repealed by Ordinance No. 2002-01, Sections 104.1.1 and 104.1.3.5 of the Florida Building Code. The description of the violation: Observed a wooden structure installed over boat lift without first receiving authorization of a Collier County building permit and having all of the required inspections and receiving a certificate of completion. Location where violation exists: 267 Third Street West, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 5600088009, Little Hickory Shores. Name and address of owner: Donald Gray, 26941 Leeport Street, Bonita Springs. Date violation first observed: January 23, 2002. Date owner given notice of violation: January 23, 2002. Date on which violation was to be corrected: February 17th, 2002. Date of reinspection: March 24th, 2004. Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And we do need to enter the packet, the evidentiary packet that was provided to the respondent last month as Exhibit A at this time. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we enter County's Exhibit A. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to enter the County's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: And at this time, I would like to turn the case Page 28 March 25, 2004 over to the supervisor, Shawn Luedtke, to present the case to the board. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LUEDTKFi: For the record, Shawn Luedtke, supervisor, Collier County Code Enforcement. On January 23rd, 2002, I responded to a complaints at 267 Third Street, Lot No. 6, in the Little Hickory Shores subdivision. This location are boat dock lots only; they don't have principal structures, just boat docks. I -- when I arrived on-site, I saw that there was a boat dock with a roof structure over the top of it, and by definition of code, made that a boathouse. I researched the property, did not see any permits for a boathouse, so I sent a notice of violation on January 23rd for failure to obtain permit for the roof portion. Because this was not the only lot in violation of this ordinance, a variance request was submitted to the Collier County Planning Department on all the boat dock lots up in that area. That variance request was denied by the Board of County Commissioners on September 9th, 2003. As a courtesy, I mailed a letter to Mr. Gray on September 16th, '03, advising him that since the variance was denied, he'd have to come into compliance by obtaining permits or removing the roof structure. I gave him until October 12th, 2003 to come into compliance, or I'd forward it to Code Enforcement Board hearing. I had several meetings with Mr. Gray up until February 11 th, '04 discussing this violation. We found two permits: A '94 permit for a boat dock only, and then we found a '95 permit for electrical boat lift. But we were not -- we did not find any permits for a shingled roof or a boathouse. So at that time I forwarded the case to the Code Enforcement Board for a hearing. Page 29 March 25, 2004 MS. BARNETT: I have a question for you. On some of the information that you provided us in our packet, specifically Page No. 28, looks like a graph that references, I believe it's the '95 permit. It's this piece right here, if that will help you. MR. LUEDTKE: The property card? MS. BARNETT: The property card? it. MR. LUEDTKE: MS. BARNETT: underneath roofing, it has circled, shingles. It has circled -- MS. ARNOLD: Can you show us what you're referring to? MR. LUEDTKE: She's referring to the property card. This is done by the property appraiser's office, it's not done by the -- MS. BARNETT: Okay. Because it shows a hip roof in that, so I don't know what you call Yes. It looks like, to me as a lay person, that MR. LUEDTKE: MS. BARNETT: saying. MR. LUEDTKE: MS. BARNETT: Exactly, they're just doing it for-- -- he has been taxed on this is what this is That's -- exactly. Okay. It's not necessarily -- but it refers to the permit numbers and a date of 1995. MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct. That's how they recorded the permits in the early Nineties and further back on the property card. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The permit was only for the boat dock, not a roof. MS. BARNETT: Okay, okay. MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct. and the '95: The '94 is for the boat dock and the '95 is for a electrical for a boat lift. MS. BARNETT: Just having lived in this county, I know that a lot of things have changed over the years -- Two permits listed here, the '94 Page 30 March 25, 2004 MR. LUEDTKE: Definitely. MS. BARNETT: -- and I just wanted to try to verify from this if possibly it was something that was allowed back then to be added on that not necessarily had to be permitted. And I kind of caught some information in the packet in reference to that, but I just wanted a clarification, because he has been taxed on it-- MR. LUEDTKE: Sure. MS. BARNETT: -- and I didn't know if that was something that we needed to discuss, so I was going to ask for your input. MR. LUEDTKE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions from the respondent's attorney for the county? MS. STEWART: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Pamela Stewart. I'm an attorney with Stewart Law Firm, and I represent the respondent, Mr. Donald Gray. MS. ARNOLD: Can I interrupt for a minute? There were additional exhibits that were -- that Shawn needed to enter in as part of the case, and these were not included in the original packet because they're rebuttal to the exhibit that was presented by the respondent. MS. STEWART: I move for a continuance. We have not seen this. MS. ARNOLD: The board hasn't seen it either. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we haven't had the respondent's package entered yet by them. MS. STEWART: We entered it on Friday -- oh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You haven't entered it to this board, okay? You'll get that chance when it's your mm. You say you have -- MS. ARNOLD: We can -- it's up to the board whether or not you Page 31 March 25, 2004 want to hear it now or after her packet's entered. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You say what you want to enter is in rebuttal to a packet they're going to enter? MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would rather you wait until they enter their packet, so we can have it officially entered. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay? So that piece of paper will be not used right now. MS. STEWART: Okay. It won't be used in this hearing? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Don't know yet. But not at this five seconds it won't be used. So do you have questions for Mr. Luedtke on what he's presented so far? MS. STEWART: Yes, sir, I do. Mr. Luedtke, is this -- you said that there was a complaint filed. Did you give Mr. Gray a copy of that complaint? MR. LUEDTKE: I don't recall. This is an older case. It's been going on since -- for a couple of years. I don't know if he's originally got the original case that came in or not. MS. STEWART: When was the complaint filed? MR. LUEDTKE: One second, I'll give you the exact date. The open date was January 23rd, 2002. MS. STEWART: Okay. Was this boat dock not built in 19947 MR. LUEDTKE: The boat dock was built -- permits were obtained for the boat dock in 1994, that's correct. MS. STEWART: record? MR. LUEDTKE: MS. STEWART: Okay. And is this the first complaint of To my knowledge, that's correct. Okay. So that's eight years without a complaint; is that correct? Page 32 March 25, 2004 MR. LUEDTKE: To my knowledge, that's correct. MS. STEWART: Was the complainant a recent purchaser? MR. LUEDTKE: I have the case here, and it's been supplied to everybody. The complainant information was left off. It was probably called in anonymously, as are a great majority of our cases. MS. STEWART: Okay. But it -- there is a record of it, of exactly what was complained of?. MR. LUEDTKE: MS. STEWART: someone's view? MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, that's correct. Okay. Was the complaint that it blocked The specific complaint was a boat dock lift with a wooden roof installed over it without permits obtained. That was what the complaint was. MS. STEWART: And that wasn't -- that sounds an awful lot like the language that you have in your case detail report. I thought that you had driven by this site. MR. LUEDTKE: I believe this one was a call-in, because we were dealing with two other-- a total of three properties in that boat lot thing. Now, it might have been a patrol. Like I said, I had three different cases and I was addressing all the violations on the boat dock for boathouses. MS. STEWART: So you can't say for sure that there was a specific vi -- complaint on this piece of property. MR. LUEDTKE: Not 100 percent. MS. STEWART: Okay, thank you. Mr. Luedtke, I have a copy here of the notice of violation, and maybe it was just a slip of the tongue, but when Shanelle was reading the permit -- the section that was violated under permit application? MR. LUEDTKE: Uh-huh. MS. STEWART: I believe she said 104.3 something, instead of · 1. Is this what Mr. Gray is being charged with, 104.1.5.1 ? Can you Page 33 March 25, 2004 verify that? MR. LUEDTKE: code that you read. MS. HILTON: 2002-01. MS. STEWART: there is a current code, see the language? MR. LUEDTKE: MS. STEWART: Well, the 98-76 was updated into the current Can you just recall that, Shanelle? Yes, it's -- the current code is Ordinance No. Okay. I have two questions about that. If why was it not specifically cited so we could At the time this notice of-- well, I'm sorry. And No. two is, is it possible that that code is not applicable to Mr. Gray? MR. LUEDTKF.: Okay, your first question. At the time this notice of violation was written out, the 98-76 was the current and active code. Since that -- since the notice was issued, the code has changed, so we are updating it. You know, it's just administratively. MS. STEWART: Okay. Do you think that it might have been a good idea to update it if you were going to charge Mr. Gray with a different code violation, to let him know that? MR. LUEDTKE: It's not a different code violation. The numbers have changed. It's basically specifically the same wording; am I correct? MS. STEWART: Okay. I still think a copy should have been provided. Secondly, looking at your notice of violation, I see it says other ordinance/narrative: A wooden canopy/structure over the boat lift at the noted location; is that correct? MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct. MS. STEWART: Is that your language? Okay. And exactly what ordinance does that violate? MR. LUEDTKE: The violation, as you look on the notice of violation, is for County Ordinance 91-102, Section 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5, Page 34 March 25, 2004 failure to obtain permits for, if you look in the narrative, a wooden canopy structure over the noted boat lift. MS. STEWART: Okay. And you're describing that as a wooden canopy structure over a boat lift, not as a wooden structure to which a boat lift is attached? MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct. MS. STEWART: Okay. Now, this case has been continued repeatedly; is that correct? MR. LUEDTKF.: Yeah, a great majority of that time was waiting for the Board of County Commissioners to hear a variance request for all those lots up there, to allow for boat docks. MS. STEWART: You think it was for all those lots? MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct. MS. STEWART: Okay. Is that why you continued it, because you thought that Mr. Gray's lot was involved? MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct. We held off on all the properties up there, on all the boat dock lots. MS. STEWART: Okay. Mr. Luedtke, did you tell my client after the last meeting that you were going to -- that you would be happy to supply him with the missing documents out of his file? MR. LUEDTKE: The missing documents? Be more specific. MS. STEWART: Or supply them to the counsel, actually. The renderings that showed a roof and trusses, specifically. MR. LUEDTKE: You're talking about the drawings that were in the permit packet that was submitted? MS. STEWART: Yes, sir, I am. MR. LUEDTKE: Okay. Yes, we did attempt to obtain that information for Mr. Gray, and we did-- records had a problem locating it. The last I heard last week, records has officially sent a request over. We carry all our records at an off-site facility. They sent a request over for them to manually go into the boxes and try to Page 35 March 25, 2004 locate it, because we had turned the packet back in to our storage facility. MS. STEWART: Okay. Mr. Luedtke, isn't it true that the records room's last indicia of what was going on with that file was that it was checked out to you and not returned? MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct. There is a check-out card in my name, that's correct. MS. STEWART: And you did not make sure that it was checked back in? MR. LUEDTKE: It was turned in after we had reviewed it with the county attorney's office prior to it coming to the board -- MS. STEWART: MR. LUEDTKE: MS. STEWART: MR. LUEDTKE: MS. STEWART: Okay. -- or set for a board hearing. And the file still has not been obtained? To my knowledge, it has not. Okay. So in other words, Mr. Luedtke, all of Mr. Gray's documents are missing at this point, both of his permit applications? MR. LUEDTKE: We have copies that have been attached to the packet both you have received and the board has received that do have the sketches, that do have the permit request, that do have -- or the permit application, copies of the permits. MS. STEWART: But Mr. Luedtke, you're saying it has the sketches. Can you point out or tell me what page in your package has Mr. Gray's sketches? MR. LUEDTKE: Page 25. MS. STEWART: Luedtke? MR. LUEDTKE: packet here. I have one sketch on Page 24, one sketch on Are you looking for an additional sketch, Mr. I do have a copy, I'm just looking for it in my Page 36 March 25, 2004 I'm saying that we do have a copy of additional sketches, but it is not in the packet that we submitted. MS. STEWART: Mr. Luedtke, why did you leave it out of the packet that was submitted? MR. LUEDTKE: I believe it was an oversight, to be honest with you. MS. STEWART: Okay. And when that oversight was pointed out to you, why did you not rectify it? MR. LUEDTKFi: Because it was included in the defense's rebuttal package that you're submitting. MS. STEWART: I didn't submit that until Friday. There was a month in there for you to submit the missing paperwork. MR. LUEDTKE: And as I had stated, that we had a problem locating the actual permit after we had turned it back in to records. MS. STEWART: Okay. But you checked it out-- you checked it out prior to the meeting and then didn't return it, or you checked it out after the meeting? MR. LUEDTKE: I checked it out-- I don't have the specific date. It was a couple of months and I had it in my custody for a little bit of time until we reviewed it prior to it coming to last month's board hearing, at which time, after we reviewed the case that we had, we turned the permit back in to records. MS. STEWART: Okay. Are you aware that records has said that that file has since been destroyed? MR. LUEDTKE: I'm not aware of that. MS. STEWART: The Permit No. 97, that only certain sketches in it were microfiched, and the rest -- and the permanent file was destroyed. MR. LUEDTKE: I have not heard that. MS. STEWART: Okay. Were you present when Mr. Gray was looking at the file last October, I believe? Page 37 March 25, 2004 MR. LUEDTKE: MS. STEWART: MR. LUEDTKE: MS. STEWART: Was it during one of our meetings? No, it was over in records. No, then I was not. Okay. I would like to reserve the right to ask some questions again later. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. You're finished for now? MS. STEWART: Asking questions, yes, sir. Oh, yes, Mr. Luedtke, did you show the board what paper we're referring to that was missing that was present in my package? MR. LUEDTKFi: No, I haven't-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He hasn't submitted anything into evidence, so it's -- you don't need to see it. MR. LUEDTKE: -- submitted anything at this point other than the packet you received. MS. STEWART: Okay. But you've been referring to it. MR. LUEDTKE: I've been answering your questions, that's correct. MS. STEWART: Yes. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Shawn? Okay. Questions from the board? MS. DUSEK: Shawn? MR. LUEDTKE: Ma'am. MS. DUSEK: Since they've been referring to a drawing, I see a drawing in this section that says table of contents. Looks like a hand drawing by Donald Gray. MR. BOWIE: This is the respondent's exhibit? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's the respondent's packet which hasn't been entered yet. MS. DUSEK: Oh, all right. Sorry, okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions on what Shawn has testified to, or the Exhibit A from the county? Page 38 March 25, 2004 MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask Shawn a question? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. ARNOLD: Shawn, you indicated that the cases were put on hold because of a variance. What was the variance request for? MR. LUEDTKF.: I believe specifically was to allow for boathouses on the boat dock lots without having to have a principal structure. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Shawn? MR. LUEDTKE: Sir? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Your testimony is that there is no permit on file that you can find for a roof over this dock; is that correct? MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct. There's only two permits, one for a dock and one for electrical for a lift. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And under the ordinance that he's been cited for, docks with a roof are not permitted; is that correct? MR. LUEDTKE: Not for this specific -- these particular lots. I can-- see, a conditional use was -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, I'll rephrase it to say they're not permitted unless they have a permit. MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, how's that? MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: Shawn, I have a question. MR. LUEDTKE: Ma'am? MS. DUSEK: On these particular lots, since there is no principal structure, would a permit be granted for a roof over the dock? MR. LUEDTKFJ: No, because they attempted to get a variance to allow for that, and it was denied by the Board of County Page 39 March 25, 2004 Commissioners. So I don't see them getting a permit, no, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for members of the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Shawn. MR. LUEDTKE: Thank you, sir. MS. STEWART: May I ask another question? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. STEWART: Okay. You said because a variance was denied. And that was denied -- was that denied in September of 2003? MR. LUEDTKE: I believe so. Let me check my notes. The request was denied by the Board of County Commissioners on September 9th, 2003. MS. STEWART: Okay. And specifically, could you please repeat what you said the request was for? MR. LUEDTKFJ: I believe the variance request was to allow for roof structures, or boathouses on the boat dock lots up in Bonita Shores. MS. STEWART: And which boat lock dot -- boat dock lots were those? MR. LUEDTKE: I don't have the variance -- or the variance request in front of me, but I believe it was for all of the boat dock lots up in that location. MS. STEWART: Okay. Did you check to make sure that Mr. Gray's was even on the petition? MR. LUEDTKF.: I thought I did, yes, ma'am. MS. STEWART: Okay, I'd like to call your attention to your copy of the express application for Building Permit No. 97 -- MR. LUEDTKE: What page? MS. STEWART: Well, my pages aren't numbered, but it's about three-fifths of the way through. Page 40 March 25, 2004 MS. ARNOLD: 23. MR. LUEDTKE' What page? MS. ARNOLD: 23. MR. LUEDTKE: Okay. MS. STEWART: Okay, first let me pulled for this site, for MR. LUEDTKE: permit. MS. STEWART' Okay. Copy of Permit No. 94-0010797. ask you a question: Was that the only permit this project? I believe we pulled both the '94 and the '95 Okay, I believe -- could you direct me to what page MR. LUEDTKE: MS. STEWART: MR. LUEDTKE: MS. STEWART: the copy of the other permit is on, please? The '95 permit is not attached to the packet. Can you tell me why you left that one out? No, ! cannot. It should be attached. Okay. Thank you. Now, I direct your attention to the express application for building permit, Collier County, Florida that we just mentioned, the 94-0010797. MR. LUEDTKE: Okay. MS. STEWART: Yes, look at the top portion of the application, please. Can you tell me -- this is yours. MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct. I'm just looking to see what you're showing me. This top portion here, right? MS. STEWART: MR. LUEDTKE: MS. STEWART: portion? MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, yes. Okay. Can you tell me what is checked in that A 302 inspection, which is a dock. And then there is a line drawn through. I can't even read what the rest of that says. MS. STEWART: Part of it is davits. Page 41 March 25, 2004 it? MR. LUEDTKE: MS. STEWART: MR. LUEDTKE: MS. STEWART: Okay. I'm not sure what the rest is. Yes, me neither. But we need to find out. It's not boathouse, is MR. LUEDTKE: No, it would not be a boathouse. MS. STEWART: Okay, do you see any -- MR. LUEDTKE: This is -- this is just the application that was submitted by Mr. Gray. If you look at Page 27, three more pages back -- or four more pages, that is the actual '94 permit that was issued. MS. STEWART: Okay, I understand that. But we're not on that, we're on the application right now. MR. LUEDTKE: Gray. MS. STEWART: MR. LUEDTKE: MS. STEWART: Which was filled out and submitted by Mr. Yes, yes. May I continue my question? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Is there anyplace that you can check off a roof over a deck? Or a boathouse? MR. LUEDTKE: I don't see it. But again, this is an express permit, this isn't a full-fledged building permit. MS. STEWART: I understand that. But this is the application that Mr. Gray was given, wasn't it, when he went in to apply for a permit; would you say? MR. LUEDTKE: I'm assuming. I wasn't there in '94. MS. STEWART: Okay. All right, now, under residential and nonresidential use OCC code, okay? MR. LUEDTKE: Ma'am. MS. STEWART: It seems that there was a little confusion over to exactly whether this was a nonresidential or a residential use. Do you see that, where it's crossed out over -- under nonresidential? Page 42 March 25, 2004 MR. LUEDTKE: I do see that, yes. MS. STEWART: Okay. And then it specifies boat dock, but it's on the side that was crossed out? MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct. MS. STEWART: Okay. On the other side, could you tell me which number -- which residential use code is checked? MR. LUEDTKE: It says structures other than buildings, pools, seawalls, docks, fences, and then it has specify with a line. MS. STEWART: Okay. And would you say that the roof is a structure other than a building, pool, seawall, dock or fence? MR. LUEDTKE: It could be considered that, that's correct. MS. STEWART: Okay. Okay, thank you. MR. LUEDTKFJ: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Shawn. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just have two quick questions? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. ARNOLD: The '95 permit that Mrs. Stewart was referring to that was excluded from the board's packet, was that perm -- what was that permit for? MR. LUEDTKE: That was for electrical, 100-amp service for a boat lift. MS. ARNOLD: Are you-- is that a part of your case? MR. LUEDTKE: It is a part of my case. MS. ARNOLD: The electrical permit? MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct. MS. ARNOLD: Have you cited him for failure to obtain electrical? MR. LUEDTKE: No, I did not. My notice of violation was for failure to obtain permit for the roof over the boat dock. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. The permit that Mrs. Stewart was referring to, the '94 permit application that Mrs. Stewart was referring Page 43 March 25, 2004 to, who completes the permit application? MR. LUEDTKE: The property owner fills all that information in. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. MS. BARNETT: Can I ask another question? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. MS. BARNETT: When she was pointing out underneath that permit application, I guess it was section 529, you missed stating it also says structures other than buildings, according to mine anyway, fence, dish, pool, seawall, dock, tank towers, roof structure, and to specify, and he wrote in boat dock. MR. LUEDTKE: Under the nonresidential section, correct. MS. BARNETT: Okay. So -- but it does specify roof structure there, right, and he specified boat dock? MR. LUEDTKE: Boat dock, exactly. MS. BARNETT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Shawn. MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Stewart, your client's turn. MS. STEWART: Thankyou. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Gray, you're going to have to come over to the microphone, please. MS. ARNOLD: He can go over to that one. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Tell us your side. MS. STEWART: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Pamela Stewart. That's Ms. Pamela Stewart, with Stewart Law Firm. I'm not married. And I represent Mr. Donald Gray. We have submitted -- oh, Mr. Gray has been accused of violating Page 44 March 25, 2004 two county codes by not obtaining permits to construct a -- the deck and roof of his dock. He is also charged with not obtaining certificates of completion, when in fact he did apply for and received the appropriate permits and was issued certificates of completion, commonly referred to as COs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Stewart, may I stop you for a moment? Do you want to enter your packet as evidence? MS. STEWART: I do, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Can we have a motion to accept the Respondent's Exhibit A, please? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept Respondent's Exhibit A. MS. BARNETT: I second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the Respondent's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, ma'am. MS. STEWART: Okay. I'd like to call your attention to the first item after the table of contents, which is the affidavit of the chief building inspector. For the record, I would like to read this, in pertinent part. The undersigned chief building inspector for Collier County, Jeff Kucko, upon his oath deposes and says, the affiant, which is Mr. Kucko, held the position of structural building inspector for Collier County during the period of time pertinent hereto. During the period of time in which Donald E. Gray applied for building permits, a boathouse could have been considered part of a dock and, therefore, would not have required a separate permit. Furthermore, at that time it was not necessary to submit signed and sealed architectural renderings for this type of permit. Hand Page 45 March 25, 2004 drawn sketches were satisfactory. According to the record, Mr. Gray was issued a permit to build a dock. However, on the express application for building permit, hereinafter application, attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference, the top section of the application does not have a separate selection for the roof over a dock or a boathouse, only for a dock. The appropriate selection for a dock is selection number 302, and that is checked. In the section entitled residential use, OCC code No. 329, it's marked, which is for structures other than buildings. A dock with a roof or a boathouse is a structure other than a building. Mr. Gray applied for and received a second permit for electrical wiring for lights and a boat lift which were to be installed in the roof. A final inspection, including the electrical components and the roof was performed. All construction would have had to be in place prior to the installation of the boat lift. If further permits were required, that fact would have been noted at the time of the inspection. A CO was issued as a result of the inspection. Mr. Gray was issued two permits, his boat launching facility was inspected, and he received two COs. Further affiant sayeth not. And it is notarized and signed by Mr. Kucko. I'd like to direct your attention to the document immediately following. MS. ARNOLD: Can staff enter in objections to a couple of the statements? One of which we object to, statement number two, because Mr. Kucko is merely stating something could have been, he wasn't the recipient of the permit that is in question. MS. STEWART: Why is that objectionable? MS. ARNOLD: Just objecting to that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Noted. Page 46 March 25, 2004 MS. STEWART: Okay. I'd like to direct your attention to Page 3. May I put this on the overhead, please? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. MS. STEWART: You can't see the very top of this, but it says Donald E. Gray, Lot 6, Little Hickory Shores. And under that it says boat dock proposal. Right there. It shows an overhead view of a deck of a dock, and it says deck right there. It shows pilings, it shows a roof and shingles, and it shows a side view of shingles, trusses, open boat cover, truss and shingles, and boat lift underneath. This was one of the drawings that Mr. Luedtke failed to submit with his package. There were two other drawings as well, but when Mr. Gray looked at the file, those two drawings were missing. MS. BELPEDIO: I have to object at this point. Jennifer Belpedio with the county attorney's office. It seems that Ms. Stewart is attempting to testify and introduce the evidence. The evidence has been introduced. There can be questioning of witnesses on this evidence, but I do not believe that she has firsthand knowledge of the things that she's trying to bring into evidence right now. MS. STEWART: I have firsthand knowledge of the fact that I could not get the permit file. MS. BELPEDIO: And what I'm saying, Ms. Stewart, is you do not know that this document was submitted. You cannot testify that this is in the file. MS. STEWART: Okay. One moment, please. MR. GRAY: My name is Donald Gray, and my name is on the top of the document, and I hereby testify under oath that I personally submitted that document into the file with my building permit application, and there were two additional sketches showing the lift facilities. And when I applied for them, they told me there was no engineering required, just a hand sketch as best as you could do, and Page 47 March 25, 2004 submit them. And that's what I did. And these documents were in the file. If you go to the building department file, open it up, if it's located, you will find them in their file of record. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And this paper was submitted with what document? MR. GRAY: dock permit. MR. BOWIE: MR. GRAY: That was submitted along with my application for This was the 1994 application? 1994, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The express application? MR. GRAY: Yes, sir. And along with several other sketches. One -- two of them furnished by Garland and Garland, the company driving the pilings, that just give generic drawings. But there were three sketches that I personally drew. I went to the -- submit the application, I told them what I was doing, they said they needed sketches or drawing with more detail. I asked them if it needed to be engineered, they said no. So I went home, sketched those drawings and returned to the application with all the documents in one packet. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And you submitted this hand sketch and others that you're saying -- MR. GRAY: Two other hand sketches, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BOWIE: I think that in the county's packet we have this express permit application, along with two other attachments. MR. GRAY: Correct. But they failed to put that attachment in it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I guess my question is, looking at the express permit, which has what appears -- I'm assuming is your signature? MR. GRAY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Dated October 7th of'94, with two Page 48 March 25, 2004 other documents attached, which are drawings of the docks, dated the same day, October 7th of'94, the second one isn't dated, the side view, for some reason. And so you're telling me when those were submitted, this hand sketch was also submitted? MR. GRAY: Everything was submitted at one time, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, proceed. MS. STEWART: Okay. We've already heard from Mr. Luedtke that the third -- that this sketch was not included in the package, and it was an error of omission, I believe he testified, which means that he did intend to put it in there. I would like for the board of code enforcement to note that only the first page of the drawings was, like Mr. Flegal said, stamped received. The second one wasn't, and neither is the other, the third one. But this is -- doesn't mean anything. MR. BOWIE: Could I ask just of the county, perhaps, on your exhibit, Page No. 26 is apparently a blank page, and it is stamped with a date and receipt. Could this be the reverse of the side view of the dock, which doesn't seem to be stamped, which is Page 25 of the county's exhibit? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Without the original, we wouldn't know that, really. We'll get back to that. Let's let the respondent continue his defense of-- MS. STEWART: All right, I would like to -- okay, I'd like to draw your attention to resolution 87-260, which is the next exhibit in my package. I trust everyone has had a chance to read that. But in pertinent part -- or a summary thereof would be the Collier County Planning Commission had requested staff to come back with a proposal for a provisional use. This was after Mr. Gray had contacted his Commissioner, Arnold Glass, to request the same. The property is Page 49 March 25, 2004 located in a residential single-family 4, RS-4, part of the county. In an RS-4, a permitted use is that of a boathouse. It specifically states that. These lots are not large enough. It's listed as an accessory use as well. It's private boathouse and accessory use. These lots are not large enough to contain a home. They're quite small. They originally perhaps were, but over time they were eroded and a road was taken out of the middle of them and they were no longer suitable for that purpose. Therefore, the -- an ordinance -- okay, this is the -- oh, a resolution was passed. It relates to a petition for provisional use, 87-17(C). But in the resolution it refers to -- okay, they considered the advisability of provisional use A in an RSF-4 zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact, Exhibit A, which is attached, that satisfactory provision and arrangement has been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations in accordance with Section 13-1(B) of the zoning regulations of Collier County Planning Commission. If you -- at the bottom of the page, it says Lots 1 through 23, Block G, Little Hickory Shores, Unit 3. On the following page lists the criteria. And at the bottom it's signed. Following that is Exhibit A, to which it refers. And it also refers to a Section 7.1 lB.3, in parentheses, parenthetical A of the zoning ordinance authorizing the provisional use that's attached to the -- to the Exhibit A. You will see 7.11 RSF. If you go down to permitted uses and structures, you'll see what I was referring to of the private boathouses. Number 3, permitted provisional uses and structures. 3(A) is what was put into effect. It's a non-commercial boat launching facilities and multiple docking areas. They specifically did not say private boathouse, which is pertinent. They could have. Page 50 March 25, 2004 If you will turn to the next page, you will see, under definitions, that there is a private boathouse listed. But this is not a private boathouse. A private boathouse is an accessory use, okay? This is a boat launching facility. The only place that boat launching facility -- well, actually there's no definition of boat launching facility that I could find in the ordinance -- in the code. However, there is a reference under boathouse, commercial, which says a building where, for a fee, and that's the commercial part, boathouses are housed, launched -- I'm sorry, boats are housed, launched, hauled, repaired, serviced, maintained or stored. Now, we were given a provisional use for a non-commercial boathouse, meaning you cannot rent it -- I mean, I'm sorry, a non-commercial boat launching facility, meaning you can't rent it out. Under the definition of boathouse, it specifically says where boats are launched. MS. BARNETT: Can I ask a question? Because also in your provisional use document, it states that all boat docks erected -- and this goes back to, I'm sure, 1987 -- must comply with Sections 8.46 of the zoning ordinance, and I don't see that anywhere in this packet. And in order for me to have a clear definition of what the boat dock would be able to be allowed, ! need to see what that ordinance would have been back then. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Was that conveniently left out? MS. STEWART: No, no, it was not conveniently left out. I believe that is the portion -- and I probably have it here -- that says that -- it talks about being able to project further out into the -- MS. BARNETT: It specifically states that it must be in compliance with Section 8.46, so I need to see that. MS. STEWART: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We need to see what 8.46 is. Why don't we do this: While you're looking that up, let's take 10 Page 51 March 25, 2004 minutes, give our court reporter a break, okay? It's 10:40; 10:50 we will resume. (Brief recess.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If everybody would take their seats, please. Before we get back to the position at hand, I'll make an announcement. We've been talking among ourselves at the board, and we have a lot to cover today, and there are some time constraints. Taking that into consideration, the consensus of the board members is what is going to happen, we're going to go through the public hearings and hear all the cases. We may take a short lunch break. And all the other items on the agenda, which are requests for imposition of fines, we have a request for an abatement of fines, some foreclosure requests. Basically a lot of these are administrative. Affidavits to be submitted. There's another report. And our rules and regulations. Those items we will continue to a later date, which hypothetically right now may be in another two weeks. We'll have to see what's available. But the people that are here for those items, what I'm telling you is you don't have to stay, because we're not going to get there from here. There's just not enough time. So anyone here for the imposition of fines, which is Van Stone, Southern Development, Pacacios, ! hope I said that right. And the abatement is Wesner. Those people do not have to remain, because we're not going to be able to get to you. So rather than have you sit here all day and then find out at 3:00 or 4:00 or 4:30 or 5:00 that you didn't get to say anything, I think that's unfair. So I'm going to tell you in advance -- MS. ARNOLD: I think you have to do a motion to continue. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I will. But I want to tell them -- we haven't got that far yet -- that they're not going to have to stay. I've talked to the various board members, I've talked to our attorney. We Page 52 March 25, 2004 feel that time isn't going to permit that. So what I would do at this moment to keep us, I guess, correct is I'll make the motion that we amend our agenda to have Items 5, 6, 7 and 8(B) continued to a later date to be determined. The county will have to tell us an availability of a room. We will have to notice some people, which won't be a problem. But hypothetically, maybe we can get that. It will be more or less a business meeting, rather than quote, unquote a true public hearing. There won't be any cases, just those items that I've said, our new business, our old business, the reports and the revising our own rules and regulations that govern our work. So I would make the motion that we do that. MS. BARNETT: I will second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean is that correct? MS. RAWSON: Yes, that is correct. I think that you probably should put some of that discussion on the record about the fact that you -- some people have to leave and you don't think you're going to get to everything today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, okay. The reason for the time constraint is we have two members that have prior commitments; that they're going to have to leave shortly after lunch. We'd like to have as many board members present as possible. That's the only way to be fair to the public, rather than down to -- yes, we could still maintain a quorum, but it's going to be a lot harder to deal with all this stuff. Two heads are always better than one, as they say. So that's the reason in discussing this with the various board members, we think it's only fair to you and to the board and to the county that we move some of this stuff to a later date. So that was -- that's why our decision to do that. Okay? Page 53 March 25, 2004 So we have a motion and a second. the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: aye. Any further discussion from All those in favor, signify by saying (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, now we're back on the record. Ms. Stewart, you may continue. MS. STEWART: Yes, I have indeed a copy of 86 -- 8. -- zoning ordinance 8.46. Mr. Gray had actually forwarded a copy of that to Mr. Luedtke, and I have the faxed document that says so. It -- I'm wondering if you can read it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Once we quit moving it around -- MS. STEWART: Okay. I cannot, unless I stand-- I'll stand over there. MS. ARNOLD: Let me put it so you can read it. MS. STEWART: Okay, I can read it up here. I'm nearsighted. 8.46, private boathouses and docks. Individual or multiple private boathouses and docks, including moorings, pilings to serve the residents of a development, with or without boat hoists, on canal or waterway lots not protruding more than five feet into the canal or waterway, unless such canal or waterway has a width of 100 feet or more, in which case the boathouse or dock may protrude 20 feet into such canal or waterway. Extension of dock is measured from the property line. Additional length beyond said five feet or 20 feet may be requested and shall require public hearing by the Planning Commission. After public hearing of due public notice, the Planning Commission may either approve or deny any additional length. The Planning Commission's recommendation shall be based upon Page 54 March 25, 2004 consideration of the following factors. Now, this is specifically what I said it was. It has to do with lengthening the dock, and I didn't think it was pertinent. MS. BARNETT: But without knowing that and without having record, I couldn't see. MS. STEWART: Yes, ma'am. IfI had included that in the packet, you would have wondered why. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And the width of the canal is -- waterway is what? MS. STEWART: It's over 100 feet. It's quite wide there. And it has mangroves on the opposite side, so there's really no issue about any other docks. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And can I ask a question of the respondent? And what's the depth of your dock; protrusion of your dock? MR. LEFEBVRE: How far out does your dock go from your property line? MR. GRAY: Approximately -- that's a little ambiguous, because there was a lot of erosion, so we actually own out into the waterway. And that I'm not quite sure. But from the current land, the land that is there now, it protrudes out approximately 20 feet from the parallel dock. But it's probably only -- I don't know how many feet from my actual property line. Because of the erosion, you actually owned out into the property farther than what is actually existing. Now, the drawings might show the actual size of the property, but that's not what you have. If you go there and look at my property, it's quite a bit shorter, the land is than what -- the land is than what is actually shown in the drawings. We don't have the full -- MS. BARNETT: I was going to say, if I'm understanding this one drawing of your dock, it looks like it protruded out 16 feet from the original. Page 55 March 25, 2004 MR. GRAY: That's -- and plus the little finger thing, the other one is -- would be about 20 foot total. MS. BARNETT: Okay. So-- MR. GRAY: But like ! say, I wanted to be specific that my property line had eroded back. So if he asked for property line, it would actually be less than that. MS. BARNETT: I'm going back to when the permit was done, because that was what this is reference to. MS. STEWART: Yes, ma'am. MS. ARNOLD: Where are you seeing 16 feet? MS. BARNETT: If you look on the sheet where the dock is, the outside line, if you're reading the blueprint -- MS. ARNOLD: Right, it looks like 26 feet. MS. BARNETT: Mine looks like 16. MS. ARNOLD: Ten plus six. MS. BARNETT: Ten plus 10 plus six, okay, is 26. Okay. But I was just looking at the top line, it looked like a 16. I'm sorry. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. And I have another question for Mr. Gray. Did you hear what your attorney just read with respect to the provisions that you were required to meet for that property, according to that resolution? MR. GRAY: Provisions? You said provisions? What provisions? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, your-- MR. GRAY: That were referenced in the ordinance? MS. ARNOLD: That your attorney just read for the board. MR. GRAY: Let me make sure I understand. The ordinance -- MS. ARNOLD: Did you hear-- did you hear the information that your attorney just read? MR. GRAY: That referenced to the provisional usage, the Ordinance 46 that she talked about extending the dock? Page 56 March 25, 2004 MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. GRAY: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. So did you hear that she had indicated that anything extending beyond 20 feet needed to have a public petition? MR. GRAY: I'm not sure. I didn't hear. MS. STEWART: Yes, actually what it says is 20 feet into the waterway. And as Mr. Gray just explained, it does -- a great deal of the dock is over land. Land which he owns. It does not protrude more than 20 feet out into the waterway. Plus there's another issue as to how far the opposite bank is. And I believe it says -- MS. ARNOLD: Okay, I'm asking Mr. Gray the questions. Can I ask Mr. Gray the questions? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. MR. GRAY: I'm going to pass to my counsel, because it's a legal question, and I don't -- I'm not sure I understand exactly what Ms. Arnold is asking me. MS. ARNOLD: I'm just asking you -- MS. BARNETT: Michelle, if you look at the drawing, it looks like the six feet is over land. Because it shows the little dotted line. MR. BOWIE: There's two measurements of 10 feet each going out into the waterway, so that would be 20 feet. MS. BARNETT: And then there's two 10-foot measurements out. That's if I'm reading this correctly. I've already been wrong once. MS. STEWART: MS. BARNETT: MS. STEWART: even more. MS. BARNETT: Yes, and that drawing was done back in 19 -- '94. -- 94. And it has eroded since then, so there's So it looks like if that's the case, he's only got the 20 feet projecting in, so he doesn't have to have a public hearing. MR. GRAY: That's correct. And when I applied for it, that was Page 57 March 25, 2004 the only length I could go that was the biggest. Does that answer your question? MS. BARNETT: Am I incorrect in my assumption there? MS. ARNOLD: Okay, I'm -- the dock is full T, correct? MS. BARNETT: Uh-huh. MS. ARNOLD: And there's a measurement of 10 feet, plus an additional 10 feet where a portion of it is out into the waterway. MS. BARNETT: Looks like the 20 feet goes out in the waterway. It looks like the six foot is on land. MS. ARNOLD: Exactly. And the section that is made reference to says that anything beyond the 20 feet, 20 feet or more needed a public petition. And my question is did you go to the Planning Commission -- MR. GRAY: It wasn't needed. Because I don't extend out -- MS. BARNETT: But it says -- the extension -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sheri, let them present their case. MS. STEWART: I would like to object to this entire thing. Mr. Gray has not been cited for that, nor is he guilty of it. Also, the waterway is over 100 feet. We're not prepared at this point to defend something that he has not been cited with, nor is guilty of. MS. ARNOLD: You entered it as an exhibit. MS. STEWART: No, ma'am, I was asked -- MS. ARNOLD: I'm asking questions from your exhibit. MS. STEWART: I was asked to enter it to clarify. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, you did enter it, because it's part of what you entered. It's referenced in the item that you entered, so therefore it's part of it. MS. STEWART: Yes, sir. Sir-- MR. BOWIE: I think I would have to concur with the respondent's attorney, however. That's not what they've been cited for, Page March 25, 2004 so I don't see where it's an issue. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. ARNOLD: Well, the only issue is that under the resolution that she entered in, it indicated that they must meet the provisions of that section. MS. STEWART: I agree with that. But you haven't said that he's in violation of that-- MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MS. STEWART: -- section. MR. GRAY: And it also included boathouses that were allowable use. MS. ARNOLD: I don't see that, but -- MR. GRAY: It's there. MS. STEWART: What my client is referring to, it says individual or multiple private boathouses and docks, including -- et cetera. MS. MS. MS. ARNOLD: Right. STEWART: So that was an allowable use under 8.46. ARNOLD: I have to object. MR. LEFEBVRE: But if you read a little bit further, it says that serve the residents of a development. MS. STEWART: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: But there's no primary structures allowed -- MS. STEWART: Well exactly. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- on his property. MS. STEWART: But -- exactly. And the county -- the Planning Commission at that point, however, although there is no residences allowed, made this part of the ordinance. And we -- there's nothing we can do about that. It's a matter of definitions. And it's very confusing, as I pointed out earlier when Mr. Gray was confused, because it says a non-commercial boat launching facility. Does not Page 59 March 25, 2004 say a private boathouse. A private boathouse is an accessory use in a subdivision, so-- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, but if you don't have a primary use, you can't have an accessory use, correct? MS. STEWART: Tree. And they don't. They're not a private boathouse, they're a non-commercial boat launching facility. MR. GRAY: I can probably answer that question. I'm the one that applied for that petition in 1987. I was personally there, and I understand the intent of that provisional usage change. I went to apply for a boat dock and a covered structure. They told me then I was not allowed to build a boathouse or a dock because I didn't have a primary residence and I would have to apply for a variance. I complained about that to my commissioner, and he said it's a ridiculous oversight, because we were zoned RSF-4 residential, which already allows for the boathouses, but we needed to do a provisional usage change that would allow us to build a dock and a boathouse without the building of a primary structure. And that's what the provisional usage was intended to enact. So all the properties listed there are allowed to build boathouses, boat docks, anything that a RS-4 zoning allows, except we do not have to build a primary structure. And that's specifically what that 87- ordinance is, the intent of it. MR. BOWIE: Could I just ask a question of the respondent, please? Based upon the provisional use resolution you've just entered into evidence, this is the 1987 resolution, it seems to apply the old zoning ordinance, which is referenced in the attachment 7.11(B)(3)(A). Then in the conditional use resolution itself it references non-commercial boat launching facilities. And under that it says all boat docks erected on subject lots must comply with Section 8.46, and the old 8.46 we see here could be applicable either to boathouses or boat docks. It's Page 60 March 25, 2004 equally applicable to both. But the resolution does particularly reference all boat docks. And when it applies the old zoning ordinance, 7.11(B)(3)(A), which you supplied to us, 7.11(B)(3)(A), among your attachments only references permitted provisional uses, non-commercial boat launching facilities. And boat launching facility doesn't seem to be defined here. I would think if the resolution had intended to grant you a provisional use to put -- to install a private boathouse, it would have referenced the preceding old ordinance, which is 7.11 (B)(2)(A), which does reference private boathouses and docks. But it doesn't. It applies (}3)(~)(A). MS. STEWART: I would like to respond to that. A private boathouse is listed as an -- the definition of it is as an accessory use. Therefore, they could not have said a private boathouse. However, I did point out that under the definition of a commercial boathouse, not only says for a fee, which is the commercial part, but it does say that you can -- it's for launching, okay? So a boathouse is a launching facility. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And it says boathouse where? MS. STEWART: Under definitions -- MR. BOWIE: Commercial, which-- MS. STEWART: I attached it. It's right behind the 7.11. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. STEWART: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Uh-huh. I'm looking at that. And I still don't see a boathouse. MR. BOWIE: Says boathouse commercial. Which is a building, where for a fee boats can be a number of things, launched, hauled, repaired, serviced, so on and so forth. But this is clearly not a conditional use for a commercial boathouse. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: My problem is in what you've submitted, you've given us this Exhibit A, which is this finding of fact Page 61 March 25, 2004 by the Planning Commission, and then behind it you have a page out of something, which is 7.11. Don't know if that's all of it or not, because it's just a page numbered 33. And behind that you've given us some definitions, which is Page 243 out of some document. ! don't know what that document is. It could be a document describing definitions of everything in Collier County. So it doesn't seem that this document goes with the other docu-- you know, you're taking pages out of who knows, 27 different things, and just giving us a little piece. So I don't see any consistency, so I have problems. MS. STEWART: I'm sorry. Those are the definitions of the code under 82-2 which was under effect at the time. If you looked at the bottom of the page there, you will see that that 82-2 was revised in '89. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I don't know if this is 82-2 because it doesn't say anywhere on this page. As ! say, it's a page out of something, but I don't know what that is. MS. BARNETT: Our copy does not-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Our copy doesn't say, it just -- it has that revision, -35 and revised dash -- or .89, Ordinance 90-30 -- what's this out of?. I have no idea. MS. STEWART: Well, you know, I asked the planner if he would -- I asked him if he would do an affidavit saying that that came out of it, and he said for $100. I thought that was pretty stiff. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I can't help you there. I'm just telling you that you're referencing things that I'm having a real problem getting consistent in that in 7.11, which is referenced by the Exhibit A, it says permitted provisional uses and structures, non-commercial boat launching facility, and multiple docking area. Doesn't speak to boathouses. A launching facility and a docking area. I don't see where you're -- you haven't given me anything to put those two terminologies into a boathouse. That's why I'm having a little trouble Page 62 March 25, 2004 here looking at all your material trying to understand every time you use the word boathouse. That's not what I'm getting out of these pieces of paper from the County Commissioners back then. MS. STEWART: Okay, well, what they do have is boat launching facilities and multiple docking areas. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. I'm okay with that so far. I know what that is. MS. STEWART: Perhaps we should then go back to the '97 permit. '94 -- well, it ends in '97. MR. BOWIE: The '94 permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. STEWART: Okay. On this, you will see there is no category of boat launching facility, so it's not defined. And that's an oversight. MR. GRAY: One of the things -- I was there personally, and I attended all the meetings. And the same thing that Mr. Bowie stated, that boat launching facilities does not specifically say boathouses. But at the same token, there's no negative there. It doesn't say they're not allowed. Nor, if it's so simple that the County Commissioners could get together and say boat dock, I'm sure that they would have written boat dock instead of boat launching facilities. If that was the only thing they wanted, that's -- a simpleton would be able to handle that and just say dock only. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. On your express permit, which you keep saying there's nothing specified, and I -- you know, granted, I don't see the word boathouse, but they have a blank line that says specify, and you wrote in, assuming you told us that you did this, boat dock. You didn't say boathouse. MR. GRAY: At that time they were together. There was no such thing. When you call a person-- when I call my son and say go to the boathouse, we never talk like that. In '94 we were referencing Page 63 March 25, 2004 docks. And you just said the dock. And that's the only thing when they applied was a boat dock, which included the covered structure. MS. STEWART: If you will look at the drawing that Mr. Gray did, it's part of what we submitted -- find the page. It's Number 2. After the affidavit, it starts on Page 3. You will see that it is captioned boat dock proposal. The wooden deck is referred to as a deck. The roof is referred to as a roof. There are pilings, trusses and shingles. And a boat lift. These are all part of the boat dock. And this is what he submitted, and he was given permits at that time to build. MR. BOWIE: I'm honestly a little bit troubled by this exhibit, because it's not stamped, as the other exhibits are attached to this application for building permit. The others are all date stamped. MS. STEWART: No, Ray, they're not. If you look at it, and I pointed that out earlier, only the first page was date stamped. The second drawing was not. MR. BOWIE: And then there's a last page which is also date stamped. It looks like a blank page. MS. STEWART: Which-- which concluded everything. But they're not all stamped. And the only other one that would be like this, which would be a drawing coming after the first drawing, is not date stamped. Therefore, one would conclude that the rest of the drawings would not be date stamped either, because it was not the habit. MS. BARNETT: Can I ask a simple question of you? This is just to get this clear in my head. When you got CO'd for this boat dock/boathouse, did it have a roof on it? MR. GRAY: Yes, ma'am. In 1994, I built the whole structure complete as one unit. And I called for inspections, they came out and inspected it. One time the inspector came and had all the drawings in a packet. And he referenced me -- or asked me about hurricane clips. That stuck in my mind for some reason. Page (~4 March 25, 2004 And luckily I had a friend of mine that was a roofer helping me do it, and he had installed the hurricane clips, and he was going to, said fine, you're no problem. Then I completely finished the boat, dock, deck, pilings and the canopy structure. Then I went and applied for electrical permit to install my boat lift, which is part of the roof. So every step of the way, it was inspected by county officials. And there's no way they could overlook it, as stated in the affidavit from the inspector. The pilings are 12-foot high. MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask him a question? On your -- on Page 24 of our exhibit, which is -- it looks like a survey. MR. GRAY: Yes, ma'am. MS. ARNOLD: Is that a survey of your lot? MR. GRAY: Yes, it looks like a survey of my lot, yes, ma'am. MS. ARNOLD: Is there a roof structure in that survey? MR. GRAY: No. When I applied-- MS. ARNOLD: Okay, that's all. And can you turn to -- and there's no -- MR. GRAY: That was prior to. That's a drawing on a survey that's submitted for an application. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, all right. Thank you. I'm glad -- MR. GRAY: I wanted to clarify that. MS. ARNOLD: All right. Also, on sev -- there's a-- in your exhibit under -- it's a copy of a CD Plus inspection, and there's no page numbers on your exhibits, so I -- it's noted CD Plus on the upper left-hand comer and it has Permit No. 94-0010797. Do you see that, Ms. Stewart? MS. STEWART: Yes, I do. There are two that I believe have that on it. Which one do you-- MS. ARNOLD: Okay. I'm asking a question about the '94 permit. MS. STEWART: The '94 permit? Page 65 March 25, 2004 MS. ARNOLD: Which is what we've been discussing. It has -- you just -- Mr. Gray just said that you got a CO in '94? MR. GRAY: No, I didn't say that. That's wrong. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. You didn't say that you called in for an inspection in 19947 MR. GRAY: I sure did. Yes, ma'am. MS. ARNOLD: And they came and inspected your property? MR. GRAY: Yes, ma'am. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MR. GRAY: But I didn't get a CO. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MS. STEWART: You did get a CO -- MR. GRAY: Later. MS. STEWART: -- it just wasn't right at that time. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. What is the date of that CO? It's on that same page that I just referred to. MS. STEWART: Okay, well, we were looking at different pages. I told you there was a problem with that, that the permit number was on several pages, and that's what you were describing. MR. GRAY: Looks like 6/15/96 when they issued the CO. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. So you called in an inspection in 1994, but the CO was issued in 1996? MR. GRAY: Yes, ma'am. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MS. STEWART: We can't be responsible for when these (sic) county issues their CO's after their inspections. However, I would like to continue on in the exhibit. Express application for building permit. It's the next page. It's date stamped March 24th, 1995, which is within six months of the October 7th, 1994 original permit. You have to start building within six months after pulling a permit. Mr. Gray was finished with the deck and the roof within six Page 66 March 25, 2004 months. Finished. And called and got an -- filled out an application for a permit for electrical for the dock. The only electrical on the dock is in the roof. Now-- and on the pilings leading up to it. If you notice, in the middle section you'll see that there was a final electrical performed and a final roof inspection under No. 111. It was marked off by the inspector at the time. So this was inspected and it's dated 3/14/95. MS. ARNOLD: Where are you referring to? MS. STEWART: I'm referring to the express application for building permit. MS. ARNOLD: I want to object. She's testifying, plus this is an application, not an inspection sheet. MS. STEWART: I defer to your objection on my testifying, and I will be happy to have my client testify. However, the county has lost the file. We cannot pull the final inspection from the file. MR. GRAY: But it was CO'd, was the answer to Mrs. Barnett. The roof was -- everything completely was inspected as one unit, and inspected by the county and approved by the county. MS. DUSEK: Are you saying that that document has been misplaced, or has been lost, the CO? MR. GRAY: We have no record-- we do have a computer record that the county generated for us, showing where it was CO'd in '96. But there's no record of the original document. MS. DUSEK: On that particular one, it says dock. MR. GRAY: Yes. That's what they referenced. Everything -- because in your application, they checked dock. MS. STEWART: We are saying that the roof is part of the dock. That the dock has a deck, pilings and a roof. Also, if you'll notice, when the electrical was CO'd -- let's see. Okay, if you'll notice on the CD Plus it's the next to last page, it says Permit No. 950003463, status CO'd. And it has the address and, let's Page 67 March 25, 2004 see, the date. Okay. Okay, if you'll look at the next page, you will see that it was inspection -- results CO'd, and it was CO'd on April 3rd, 1995. So the final inspection on the roof and the electrical, which the electrical -- the roof had to be up before the electrical or the boat launch was installed. And we have pictures that we'll be happy to show you which will make it clearer. There is a picture, actually, on the last page. We have some clearer ones. But looking at the first -- the top left quadrant, you'll see the boat's at the bottom, the pilings are on the side. If you look right at the top in the middle, you'll see boards going across. That's the roof. That white area right in the middle there is a light. And the lift is -- has the little porpoise or dolphin, it's to the front of the picture. All installed in the roof. Okay. And the next picture shows a close-up of the eaves. Yes, there's -- going back to the chief building inspector's affidavit, he says that the roof had to be -- nothing was wrong, or else they would have said so. Also, that the roof-- all construction would have had to be in place prior to the installation of the boat lift. If further permits were required -- oh, and he says the electrical wiring for the lights and boat lift were installed in the roof-- or were to be. Okay. MR. GRAY: Did I answer -- Ms. Barnett, did I answer your question? MS. BARNETT: (Nodding). MR. GRAY: Okay, thank you. MR. BOWIE: Can I ask Michelle Arnold a question, please, about one of the informations -- some of the information on that permit from 19947 It says the county's exhibit Page 27. And there are other references to this same thing. I'm just not sure what it means. In that permit there is a reference to FCC code, and I'm sure that Page 68 March 25, 2004 doesn't mean Federal Communications Commission. What does FCC mean? MS. ARNOLD: Where are you referring to? MR. BOWIE: About midway down, that permit when the dock was originally installed. And yes, top reference is dock. Midway down, you'll see FCC code, off to the left, 529-NR, structure other than buildings. What does that reference? MS. ARNOLD: I don't under -- I don't know what the FCC stands for, but it's referring back to the application. MR. BOWIE: And yes, there is a-- there is a nonresidential use OCC code on this application. MS. ARNOLD: Right, the 529. MR. BOWIE: 529, which refers to a structure other than buildings or roof structure. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. BOWIE: Could this possibly be a reference to a permissible roof structure as part of this permit? MS. ARNOLD: According to that permit, dock is the only thing that was permitted. And -- MR. BOWIE: Except I see this reference down here, 529. MS. ARNOLD: Right. And that's just the way it's -- the whole entire inclusive 529, that's how it reads. Other -- structures other than fence, pool, seawall. I mean, it's just an all-inclusive section. As I indicated, the county does have additional information, but we don't know -- MR. BOWIE: What you're saying, this is a generic category, and a boat dock would come under that at this time? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MS. STEWART: I would like to submit something else into evidence at this point. I have gone to the trouble of going up to records and pulling the resolution that Mr. Luedtke refers to Page 69 March 25, 2004 repeatedly in his -- well, he refers to a variance petition repeatedly in his notes, in what the county submitted, and this -- I'm going to -- oh, thank you. What I'm attempting to show you there is the clerk's certification. You can see the seal at the bottom. And I'll read it to you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Are you wanting to submit this as evidence? MS. STEWART: I'm wanting to submit -- yes. And the pages that follow it. These are certified copies from minutes and records. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Put them all together and I guess this will be your Exhibit B. MS. STEWART: Yes, sir. What this says -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, let us have a motion to accept it or reject it first, please. Respondent's attorney is wanting to submit an Exhibit B, which is -- seems to be some document from clerk of courts office. Do I hear a motion to accept it or reject it? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept Exhibit B. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept Respondent's Exhibit B. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, ma'am. MS. STEWART: Thank you. Are you able to read it, or shall I? Okay. State of Florida, County of Collier, I, Dwight E. Brock, Clerk of Courts in and for the 20th Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Page 70 March 25, 2004 Agenda Item Number 7A from the September 9th, 2003 Board of County Commissioners' meeting, and also a true and correct copy of Page Number 73 of the Code Enforcement Board minutes from the February 26th, 2004 meeting. Witness my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 19th day of March, 2004. Dwight E. Brock, Clerk of Court and Clerk Ex-officio to Board of County Commissioners. And the seal is there, and it's signed by a deputy clerk. What this is referring to, and Mr. -- well, the county's, Mr. Luedtke's -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We just accepted your exhibit. We need you to give that to the recorder so she can mark it and it will be exhibit. Now, you said there was additional pages. How many pages are we talking about, one, two, 107 MS. STEWART: We are only talking about one, two, three, four additional -- no, wait. As to the ones that are certified true and correct, we are talking about three more pages. Three more pages. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we need to give them to the -- or are you going to display these or what? What are we doing? MS. STEWART: Yes, I am. This is Resolution No. 03. This is what was presented to the Board of County Commissioners, which they did not sign. If you will note down at the bottom -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is this item 7(A) in Mr. Brock's memo? MS. STEWART: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. STEWART: Okay. You will notice down at the bottom of the page, it says Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of Block G, and then it lists Blocks -- lots in Block H. Mr. Gray, will you please tell them what your lot and block number are? Page 71 March 25, 2004 MR. GRAY: Lot No. 6, Block G. MS. STEWART: Lot No. 6, Block G was not included in that petition on September 9th. Mr. Luedtke said he thought it was. But as you can see, it is not. And if you will look, there are various references to the legal description, including on the building permit that it is Lot 6, Block G. Mr. Gray chose not to -- not to participate in that because he had a permit, he had a dock, and he didn't need a variance. He had already gone before the County, Collier County Planning Commission and gotten that in place many years previously. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Ms. Stewart, you're saying that your client did go before the Planning Commission to get a dock, boathouse permit? MS. STEWART: My client went before the County Planning Commission. He talked to his County Commissioner and the Board of County Commission instructed staff to come back with a provisional use provision, which they did. He was in the room at the time and he was a precipitating factor, is what I'm saying. Okay. I would like to point out at this time that there was -- this is Page 73 of the last minutes of your meeting where Mr. Davy -- Mr. Davy came before the board and was denied. Mr. Davy had a canopy over his dock. Not a roof. Okay? And it says that. Mr. Luedtke says: Thank you, he supplied a lot of evidence referring to boathouses. We did not cite him for boathouses. I just wanted to point out that that does not serve a precedent. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's a part of the attachment that you submitted, right? MS. STEWART: Yes, sir. Oh, I would like to correct something I said earlier. There are -- this is part of what was certified. This is Exhibit 7A on the petition which was denied. Page 72 March 25, 2004 This right here is where -- I need to bring that in a little closer. Okay, Mr. Gray's dock is the sixth little teeny square, which you really can't see very well in, but you can see its approximate position in relation to -- these are house lots down here. The last house that has a lot on it is right here. That person's view -- and we have pictures of it, and I'll show you, is -- stops -- well, it goes straight this way towards the mangroves. And when they look this way, they see land. Their-- Mr. Gray's -- the point is, Mr. Gray's dock and roof do not block anyone's views. And we have pictures of that. But this is part of the exhibit. This was part of it as well. Okay. Yes. Now, this was part, from the water. Can you see that? Okay. This picture was one of the exhibits in the petition. Right here, you're sitting in the middle of the water. Apparently was taken from a boat. These are single-family residences back here with boathouses, I might add. There's a single-family residence right there. Mr. Gray's roof is over to the right. It is not blocking this person's view. You can see the house very clearly right there. The -- if they were looking toward his roof, they would be looking toward the land, not over the water. MR. BOWIE: I don't think the issue is whether it blocks anybody's view or not. MS. STEWART: Okay, well, that -- the complaint -- I'm not sure why the complaint was registered. We don't have a -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's immaterial why the complaint was registered. MS. STEWART: --copy of it. Okay. All right. To sum it up, my client was charged with not having permits. He did have permits. He was charged with not having COs. He did have COs. And he was charged, as a matter of legal opinion, of not being able to put a roof on his dock, although he was given a Page 73 March 25, 2004 permit and we have an affidavit of someone who was there at the time. Also, he was mistakenly assumed to be part of a petition, which did not pertain to him whatsoever. None of the other lots there actually have roofs on their docks. So they are in a totally different category. Mr. Gray was under not only the provisional use category that was passed back in '87, which was in accordance with the 82-2 code, but he was subject to provisions at the time that he built his dock, including the deck, pilings and roof, which are not necessarily the way things are done today. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Gray, I have some questions. Of those lots that surround you and were in this petition, are they all the same type of lot that your lot is? MR. GRAY: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: Is yours the only dock that has a roof on it? MR. GRAY: Yes, ma'am. The others, you know, tried later by -- with the variance and with canopies, but-- MS. DUSEK: Did you get a special provisional use? MR. GRAY: No, it was included in my first provisional use. I attended the meetings, and I even had draw -- photographs of covered roof structures that Mr. Glass and I talked about. That is the reason that it was worded boat launching facility, because they tried to direct the staff to come up with an all encompassing. Because they had no idea what kind of lift, if you have -- what kind of pilings and what kind of deck, or what kind of covered structures. They let that go to the building department to issue. MS. DUSEK: You applied for a provisional use and it was denied; is that correct? MR. GRAY: No, ma'am, it was approved. MS. DUSEK: A provisional use for you to have a roof on your boat? Page 74 March 25, 2004 MR. GRAY: Yes, ma'am. MS. STEWART: Excuse me, I think this is a matter of semantics. There was a provisional use in place. It was as a result of the petition -- Resolution 87-260. Mr. Gray applied for his permit under that resolution, which allowed that as a provisional use. He brought in drawings that showed specifically what he wanted to do, and he was issued permits. And he had inspections. MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask Ms. Stewart a question? The Resolution 87-260 that you repeatedly refer to, can you tell me what lots were included in that resolution? MS. STEWART: Yes, ma'am. Lots 1 through 23, Block G, Little Hickory Shores, Unit 3, as recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 2, official records of Collier County. Block G is where my client's lot is, and his is No. 6, which falls in between 1 and 23. MS. ARNOLD: And the variance petition that the board just heard that you brought up the properties that were included, are Lots 1 through 23 or thereabouts included in that variance petition for Lot G? MS. STEWART: Perhaps some of them are. But I don't see the relevance. None of them have decks on them. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. I'll ask you another question. If this '87 resolution allows for boathouses, as you have been stating, why would all of those other lots have to go back to the board and require another variance request? MS. STEWART: Okay. I'm not sure that they would. However, if they did, it would be because they did not build when Mr. Gray built. They are under current requirements in order to get permits to build boathouses. He fulfilled what was in place at the time that he built his dock with the deck and the roof. MS. ARNOLD: So -- MS. STEWART: And he signed off on it. MS. ARNOLD: So -- but you're indicating that 87-260, that Page 75 March 25, 2004 resolution, allows for boathouses on those lots. Is there anything that appealed that resolution? MS. STEWART: Not to my knowledge. Do you have any knowledge of anything that appeal -- repealed it? MS. ARNOLD: No, I don't. MS. STEWART: Okay. MR. GRAY: Also, there's nothing that denies boathouses. Absolutely no wording. MS. STEWART: Well, that's the point. There's nothing that denies boathouses on that property. Also -- actually, I want to stand corrected. There is a different procedure in place right now to get a boathouse than there was at this time. At the time, and it specifically says, all you had to do was go get your permits and it had to be in accordance with 84-6, I believe. I believe now you have to go -- and they've changed it again, and you would know that better than I. It was before the Collier County Planning -- it was administrative. Then you had to go before the Collier County Planning Commission. And it has been changed again, and I'm not real sure how. Do you know how, Ms. Arnold? MS. ARNOLD: No, I don't know how. MS. STEWART: Well, you were in the meeting on boathouses when it was discussed. I watched it on TV. MR. GRAY: And also, to answer your question, one of the things that revolved what I was doing, was everything was to be done at one time. It was just like a good 'ol boy thing. You brought in your permit, you didn't need engineering, you didn't need architects, you just drew it up, handed it to them and they did it. And that's proof-- and if you look on my electrical permit, there is not one single drawing showing any electrical at all. They just said check the box, build what you do. It was of little or no value. And also, it was non-residential. So they allowed me to build the Page 76 March 25, 2004 roof and the dock and do the electrical all on my own. And I'm just a citizen. I walked in there, I asked them what do I need, I showed them the drawings, checked the boxes, signed the paper, we give you a permit, you build it, they inspected it. That's what happened. MS. BELPEDIO: Mr. Chairman, Jennifer Belpedio, County Attorney's Office. I think now is a good time just to remind this board that the Code Enforcement Director was seeking to move in rebuttal evidence. I'd like to move that evidence into the record. There are three documents, two affidavits and a letter. And we'd like to make this the county's composite exhibit, I believe we're on B. Can I ask that you give our affidavits the same weight and credibility as the affidavit that Ms. Stewart has brought to your attention today. MS. STEWART: I object to that. Ms. Stewart presented her materials on Friday. The county had an opportunity to review them. MS. ARNOLD: Ms. Stewart also entered in -- MS. STEWART: I have not had an opportunity to review anything -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, whoa, whoa, whoa. MS. ARNOLD: Ms. Stewart also -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll make the decision who submits what, where, when, how. Okay? Let's get that straight. Everybody understand that. It's our decision. MS. STEWART: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, the county wants to submit what? MS. BELPEDIO: There are two affidavits. One of Cheryl Soter, who is currently a senior planner. It appears from the face of the affidavit that she had accepted the application when she was at the front desk. The second affidavit is from Alamar Smiley. From the face of the affidavit, it appears that she had reviewed the permit application. Page 77 March 25, 2004 And there is a letter to Mr. Gray from Joyce Ernst. She is in the Zoning and Land Development Review Department as a planner. I believe that Mr. Gray had requested a zoning -- a verification letter, and that information was provided to him. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And this will all be County's Exhibit B? MS. BELPEDIO: I believe we are on Exhibit B, Composite B, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The county wants to submit Exhibit B. Do I hear a motion to accept it? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit B. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear a second? MR. DORIA: Second. aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you want to place that -- MS. ARNOLD: Are you all in receipt of that -- MS. STEWART: I want to make a motion to continue, because I have not had the opportunity to review this. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm sorry, Michelle, you started to say something. What? MS. ARNOLD: Are you all in receipt of that information? MR. BOWIE: Yes, we received copies. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since I don't know what it looks like, I don't want -- I got so much paper in the beginning. Without seeing the actual exhibit, I can't tell you whether we've got it. But you need to give it to Cherie' to mark it as B. And Ms. Stewart, you want to voice an objection to them submitting this? Page 78 March 25, 2004 MS. STEWART: I do. I also want to voice an objection to them having access to my client's letter that he paid for and it's supposed to be for him only. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So noted. MS. ARNOLD: Public record. MS. STEWART: Really? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now, do you have anymore evidence to submit? MS. STEWART: Well, I don't know, because I haven't had a chance to respond to what the county has just put under my nose. I would like to continue. MR. GRAY: Even the letter, if you use that -- I just wanted to make a note. That was a letter that I had requested for verification of grandfathering. I had a meeting with Ross in the boat docks, he told me I have no problem, your lot is grandfathered in. And that's why I sent in for the letter of verification. Then to find out that that's not what they said. They looked at the file, building permits, and that's what they based their stuff on. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Respondent's attorney has requested a continuance. Do I hear any motion to deny or accept? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we deny the continuance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Second? MR. DORIA: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion and a second to deny the request for a continuance. Any further discussion? MR. BOWIE: The only reason I think I would vote in allowing the admission of this is apparently the respondent, Mr. Gray, did receive it prior, well prior to this hearing. It's addressed to him. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, the letter. MS. STEWART: No. MR. BOWIE: In response -- and it was in response to his Page 79 March 25, 2004 particular inquiry. MS. ARNOLD: The letter from Ms. Ernst. MR. GRAY: The letter from Ms. Ernst I did receive, yes, sir. But not the other affidavits. MS. ARNOLD: The other affidavits are a couple of pages long, and as other evidence that has been submitted by Ms. Stewart today, we haven't even been provided copies of those. At least we provided copies of the affidavit to Ms. Stewart at the beginning of this proceeding, and she had an opportunity to read it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, right now the board is considering a request to continue. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? MS. DUSEK: I just want to say that the fact that were -- we have allowed the respondent to introduce evidence that we had not seen prior to today. I see no reason to continue after allowing the county to introduce evidence that we had not seen before today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor of denying the request for continuance, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. You have anything else to present as evidence? MS. STEWART: I don't know, sir. May I have a moment to read this? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. MS. STEWART: The evidence that I presented were pictures, by and large, and I read them out loud. Unless counsel would like to read them out loud. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, we're not going to read letters out loud. That's unfortunately a waste of time -- Page 80 March 25, 2004 MS. STEWART: Well, it's very wordy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- we all can read English, so let's -- you have two minutes. This has taken way too long. MS. ARNOLD: I mean, we can read the affidavit, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. We can read the affidavits. We don't want to be here for three days reading pieces of paper that we can read. MS. STEWART: I actually have no problem with these whatsoever. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Fine. Okay, do you have anything else to present to the board? MS. STEWART: I have -- well, I've presented just about everything. What is in here is talking about the electrical permit, and Mr. Gray did not apply for the -- the roof wasn't part of that permit, it was part of the '97 permit, the original permit. It was 1994, it ends in '97. Okay. Yeah, and they're not cited for violation of the electrical. So these don't really mean anything. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Again, my question is, do you have any more evidence to present to the board before we move on? MS. STEWART: I don't believe so. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any questions from the county of Mr. Gray? MR. GRAY: I hope I answered her question. MS. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, any questions from the board of Mr. Gray? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. You may sit down. We'll close the public hearing -- yes, ma'am? MS. DUSEK: I just -- I have one question of the county. In this Page 81 March 25, 2004 letter that you've sent to Mr. Gray, it says the plan submitted with the building permit for the boat dock included a side view top, which only indicated a T-shape dock and so on, so forth. If the application had shown a roof structure and boat lift, the building department would have requested additional plans for rafters, et cetera. Now, when you asked for additional plans, the drawings that he submitted by hand, is that considered additional plans? MS. ARNOLD: I can only go by what information is in the letter that was submitted by Ms. Ernst, and the affidavit that was submitted by the technician that received his application, and I would say that that was not accepted by the county as a part of the building permit application. MS. DUSEK: Do you know if it wasn't accepted because it wasn't drawn by an engineer? MS. ARNOLD: I don't know. I can't -- I can't answer that question. MS. STEWART: May I respond? It wasn't required at the time. The chief building inspector said it wasn't. And the letter from Ms. Ernst is responding to whether it was grandfathered in prior to '91 or not, which it was not. And where it had been saying that it was -- MS. ARNOLD: There is an affidavit from the technician that received his permit, and she's indicating that the approval was for a boat dock only. MS. STEWART: Electrical for the boat dock only. And-- MS. ARNOLD: Excuse me, there is -- MS. STEWART: And the whole thing is a boat dock. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, I'm referring to the '94 permit. There's an affidavit from Ms. Soter, who is the agent that received that, indicating that her approval of that permit was for a boat dock only, with no boathouse. MS. STEWART: May we respond to that, and can we refer you Page 82 March 25, 2004 to the document that she is referring to? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. STEWART: It is in our package, toward the back. And it is the express application for building permit for the electrical for the dock. MS. ARNOLD: I'm not referring to that document. MS. STEWART: Well, I believe the affidavits refer to it. MR. BOWIE: It refers to the '94 permit, I do believe, 940010797. MS. STEWART: Wait just a moment. I was not given that one. 63. 63. Letter from you. No, I was not given that affidavit. Yes, I'd like to respond to the affidavit that she has. This was the building customer service agent. We have an affidavit from the chief building inspector. I think we'd win. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Fine. Any other questions? MS. STEWART: The main thing is, it was inspected and approved, so it existed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Public hearings on this case are closed. Board will now deliberate. First order of business is to find if there is in fact a finding of fact of a violation. MS. BARNETT: Cliff, I'm not sure that I'm able to do that in my own mind, because, one, we have reports that the actual case is missing, so we can't go back to find out if some of the pieces of information that we have been given from either party is actually there, such as the rough drawing. Because I do know back in earlier days, they did allow rough drawings to be submitted as your structural drawings, only because my family did do that on certain structures. Not on a house, but on auxiliary structures, that was allowed. So I don't know, looks like on some of the express permits that Page 83 March 25, 2004 possibly there was a roof mentioned, because it was an X'd box for a final. So I don't know if I can find that there was not a CO'd permit. MS. DUSEK: That was on the application that the respondent filled out. MS. BARNETT: But he had put it in there, so therefore, it would have directed the county to do it. MS. DUSEK: I don't think that in the app -- in the permit itself it shows that. MS. BARNETT: He requested it, though, on his application. MS. DUSEK: Well, I understand, but-- MS. BARNETT: So I'm saying I don't know if I have enough evidence and I don't know if the county has produced enough evidence for me to come up with that he did not do what he says he has done. And I think the proof has to come from the county. MS. DUSEK: I find it hard to believe that out of all of these lots there that he would be the only one to be allowed to have a roof. I find that very hard to believe. And in this most recent letter to Mr. Gray, dated March 9th, there was no survey ever presented to show that the dock existed with a roof. MS. BARNETT: She's referring to the microfilm. And I think they have testified that not all of the case was put onto microfilm. MS. DUSEK: We have testimony here in a letter form. MS. BARNETT: I just have -- MS. DUSEK: The one survey that was presented shows a dock. It does not show a roof. And that's what's in question throughout this whole -- MS. BARNETT: But I believe the gentleman testified that they said he needed more information and more drawings, and he went back and submitted, he said, the secondary hand drawing. And I can't tell, because we don't have the file to refer back to. That's my problem, Robbie, I don't know if I can legitimately say Page 84 March 25, 2004 whether or not he is in a violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So that's Sheri's position. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Donald Gray, that there is a violation. The violation is of Sections 2.7.6.1, and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. And Sections 104.1.1 -- ABD, I think that's supposed to be and -- 104.1.5.1 of Ordinance No. 98-76, as repealed by Ordinance No. 2002-01, Sections 104.1.1 and 104.1.3.5 of the Florida Building Code. Description of the violation: Observed a structure, wooden structure, possibly, installed over a boat lift without first receiving authorization of a Collier County building permit and having all of the required inspections and receiving a certificate of completion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion that in fact a violation exists. MS. DUSEK: I might point out that this is for the structure of the roof. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. There is a motion on the floor. Is there a second to the motion that in fact a violation exists? MR. BOWIE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second that in fact a violation exists. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none, all those in favor that a violation does in fact exist, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MR. BOWIE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MR. DORIA: Aye. Those opposed? Page 85 March 25, 2004 MS. BARNETT: Nay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. One, two, three -- 4-2. Next item to be considered would be the order of the board. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion -- recommend that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by removing canopies, wooden structures, whatever it may be composed of, within 45 days of this hearing, or a fine of $75 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and to request the investigator to come out and perform the site inspection. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Question. I need to ask Michelle a question. Is it possible at this point for Mr. Gray to get some type of a variance from the Commissioners for his structure, based on whatever? I don't want to say based on certain things, that's between he and his attorney to go forward. But is that possible that he could still get some type of variance? MS. ARNOLD: I guess that he could make a request, seeing as though he wasn't included in the last request that went before the board. So he can -- he can make a request to keep his boathouse, I guess. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The only reason I ask that is Bobbie, you know, where you say -- ask him to remove it, I think we ought to also give him the option to obtain a variance or permit or whatever, not just say remove it but give him the right to go try and at least get a variance from the Commissioners, based on whether he was left out or some additional facts or something. Would you amend your order to give him, you know, either/or? MR. BOWIE: It's going to take more than 45 days, too. Page 86 March 25, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I understand that. But I think he should be given the option to do one or the other, just not a flat go tear it down. I'd like to at least give him the chance to go try it. MS. DUSEK: I understand your feeling for that. It would seem very unusual that he would be given a variance and all the others hadn't been. But I'm not sure how we would structure that, because then that gives him some time. How long does it usually take? Three months? MS. ARNOLD: At minimum. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, maybe we could do this if the board's amenable. Because we have some on one side of the fence and some on the other. And in trying to be fair to everybody, the violation, in quotation marks, exists, it has existed. I think if we give Mr. Gray some additional time, if he wants to pursue a variance, it's not going to really upset the apple cart. I have no problem in granting him that, and we can say: Abate all violations by either removing said roof or applying for and obtaining a variance within -- I guess that's really his only two options, either get a variance or you remove it. I don't think there is any others. MS. ARNOLD: I guess you could give him time to submit. I mean, because it's not fair to kind of hold him responsible for the review time of-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. Okay, yeah, we can get him to submit for a variance within "X". When he gets it, as long as he's submitted, we know it's being processed. Would that help? MS. DUSEK: Well, submitting doesn't take much time at all, does it? So, I mean, a 45-day limit to submit or remove, at this point if he submits, then that negates the removal for the moment. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, why don't we -- yeah, then we'd have to -- just so we're going to give him time to submit. And then of course it would go on forever. Let's ask for a report of some type after Page 87 March 25, 2004 the submission so that we can make some other kind of determination. How does that sound? That gives him a chance to get his paperwork in, let the county be doing their thing, and say at the end of this 45-day period he or his attorney can come back and say okay, we've done what you asked, they're working on it or they're not working on it, or -- you know, and then we can say fine, come back in another "X", like we've done on somebody else, and tell us how you're progressing. How does that sound? MS. DUSEK: Sounds good. Now, I guess you want me to put this together. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, are you with us on what we're trying to do? MS. RAWSON: You want him either to submit an application for a variance or remove the structure within 45 days? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. And then at the end of those 45 days, we'd also like him to come back and tell us what's happening, you know, that yes, I took it down or -- MS. RAWSON: Before the fines ensue? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, before we do any fining, let's let him come back and tell us what he's doing. MS. DUSEK: If we put a 60-day on this, that makes it equal to come back here -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, at our -- at our two meetings away. MS. DUSEK: Two months from now. MS. RAWSON: The May meeting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: At the May meeting. How's that? MS. DUSEK: whatever that date CHAIRMAN MS. DUSEK: So why don't we do it for the May meeting, is. FLEGAL: A report -- So rather than days, we'll get a -- Page 88 March 25, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- as to how he's progressing. MR. BOWIE: What is the date of the May meeting? MS. DUSEK: So whatever the date that the May meeting is, either he has removed the structure, applied for a variance, and must also come back and give us a report. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Probably May 27th? That sound about right? That's the fourth Thursday, so -- and I guess I need to ask Jean this question. Do we need to impose a fine at this time with our order, or is that something we can determine at a later date? MS. RAWSON: Well, we've never done that before. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that. And -- but what we're trying to do, we're giving him an option here of doing one or two things. And since we have no control over how long the county may take, if he does submit for a variance, you can't say if you don't tear it down in 45 days the fine starts, because the other option was to get a variance, so -- MS. RAWSON: I understand what you're saying. We can bifurcate it and we can say and at the May 27th, 2004 CEB hearing, you know, a decision will be made as to whether or not to include the fines. MS. DUSEK: done -- MR. BOWIE: MS. DUSEK: imposed -- MR. BOWIE: MS. DUSEK: down or applied for MR. BOWIE: MS. DUSEK: MS. RAWSON: Or can we -- another option is to say if he has not Right. -- one or the other, the fines will begin -- will be By May 27th. -- by May 27th. That's if he hasn't either torn it a variance, the fines begin. I'd prefer that. I would, too. That's good. Page 89 March 25, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I can live with that. MS. DUSEK: Do you understand everything, Jean? MS. RAWSON: I think I do. MS. DUSEK: Does everyone else on the board understand? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Everybody on the board understand what we're doing? We're giving him two alternatives, he can tear it down or go for a variance. And he's to come back at our May meeting and tell us how he's doing and what he's done, whether he's tom it down or he has submitted. Everybody understand that? Okay. Do we have a second to the motion? MR. BOWIE: 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: Ms. Stewart, do you understand? Mr. Gray, do you understand what we're doing? Okay. Thank you. We've got a long way to go. Yes, sir. MR. SPILLER: John Spiller on behalf of the respondent in your next case. As I indicated this morning, three hours ago, I have a witness who is employed part-time in the Collier Sheriff's Office in Immokalee. He just now informs me that he has to leave within 10 minutes to return to his duties. I would like to present his testimony before your lunch. If not, I don't have a witness. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I was going to ask what your status was because I was going to say is this a good time to go to lunch, but we'll do this case so we can get him back to work. How does that sound? Page 90 March 25, 2004 MR. SPILLER: Well, the case is likely to be lengthy. I would ask the board to consider his testimony out of sequence. Once his testimony is concluded, then we can break for our lunch and resume it after the lunch break. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, does that give us a problem? MS. RAWSON: No, it's okay to take testimony out of order. You just have to, you know, compartmentalize your mind so that you remember that this is part of Mr. Spiller's case when you get there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does the county have any objections to us doing this to try and -- okay. Everybody open their little drawer in their mind to put this in, because -- MR. SPILLER: Before I begin with the testimony of Kenny Kemp, we have previously submitted our notice of exhibits, and his testimony will relate to some of those, so you may want to have some of those available to you. We'll call that Respondent's Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We're going to have to accept those so that we can refer to them. MR. SPILLER: I'll give Madam Reporter the original copy. (Respondent's Exhibit A marked for identification.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We've had a request from the respondent to accept his Exhibit A. Do I hear a motion to do that? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the defense package, Exhibit A. MS. BARNETT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second. Sheri. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, sir. And we are -- Cherie', you'll need to swear him in, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SPILLER: Your full name, sir? Page 91 March 25, 2004 MR. KEMP: Kenneth Edward Kemp. MR. SPILLER: And by way of introduction, where were you bom? MR. KEMP: East Prairie, Missouri. MR. SPILLER: Where were you raised? MR. KEMP: Immokalee. MR. SPILLER: And did you graduate from Immokalee High School? MR. KEMP: That's correct. MR. SPILLER: What year? MR. KEMP: 1970. MR. SPILLER: And after graduation from high school, did you attain a degree? MR. KEMP: That's correct. AA at Edison Community College and a Bachelor of Science at Florida Atlantic University. MR. SPILLER: And after your graduation, did you return to Immokalee for employment? MR. KEMP: That's correct. I taught high school from '74 to '78. MR. SPILLER: And since 1978, what has been your business activity? MR. KEMP: Real estate, self-employed. Buying and selling real estate, my own. MR. SPILLER: The location of the property owned by the Blockers is identified as 423 Taylor Street, Immokalee. Are you familiar with that location? MR. KEMP: Yes, I am. MR. SPILLER: Were you born in its -- excuse me, were you raised in its vicinity? MR. KEMP: Across the street, 426 Taylor Street. MR. SPILLER: And how old are you today? MR. KEMP: Fifty-one. Page 92 March 25, 2004 MR. SPILLER: And approximately how old were you when you first took up occupancy across the street from 423 Taylor Street? MR. KEMP: Twelve. Twelve years old. MR. SPILLER: Okay. So you've known it since you were a teenager? MR. KEMP: That's correct. MR. SPILLER: Did you subsequently become the owner of that property? MR. KEMP: Are you talking about the -- in this case here you're talking about? MR. SPILLER: Yes. MR. KEMP: Oh, yes. MR. SPILLER: And we're talking about the small parcel that comprises the larger parcel, the larger trailer park, correct? MR. KEMP: Yes. MR. SPILLER: When did you become the owner of it? MR. KEMP: In April of 1975. MR. SPILLER: All right. And did you occupy any of the structures as your residence during that time period of ownership? MR. KEMP: I lived there five years. MR. SPILLER: And looking now at -- do you have available to you the color photographs of the county's exhibit? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The county's exhibit hasn't been submitted, so it's not evidence to us. MR. SPILLER: Just to facilitate his testimony, did you occupy the only double mobile home that's depicted on the county's -- MR. KEMP: That's correct. MR. SPILLER: Now, let's go back in time from when you were a teenager. Was the use of the land as a mobile home park the same when you were 12 years old when you first moved in across the street as it is today? Page 93 March 25, 2004 MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. workers? MR. MR. correct? KEMP: Yes. SPILLER: Hadn't changed at all? KEMP: As far as the use, you're talking about? SPILLER: Right. KEMP: No, the same. SPILLER: It's still a mobile home park for migrant farm KEMP: That's correct. SPILLER: During the time of your ownership, same thing, MR. KEMP: Same thing, right. MR. SPILLER: All right. Now, on Exhibit A toward the back is -- and you'll find it marked with a letter D handwritten up at the top. MR. KEMP: Do you have a page number? MR. SPILLER: No, mine aren't numbered, I'm sorry. MR. KEMP: Oh, here it is. D? MR. SPILLER: D, right. MR. KEMP: Okay. Right. MR. SPILLER: That describes what we're calling the small parcel at 423 Taylor Street, correct? MR. KEMP: That seems to be right. MR. SPILLER: All right. And going behind that, that is the tax appraiser's records relating to that parcel. Do you see that? MR. KEMP: You're talking about the next page? MR. SPILLER: Yes. MR. KEMP: Yes. MR. SPILLER: It's actually four pages. MR. KEMP: Oh, okay, yes. Okay. MR. SPILLER: Now, I'd like you to turn to the page of the tax appraiser's records. That would be the second in sequence after the letter D. Page 94 March 25, 2004 MR. MR. left side? MR. MR. MR. KEMP: Okay. All right. SPILLER: Do you see a rough depiction of buildings on the Just make sure we're on the right document. KEMP: Are you referring to this page? SPILLER: Yes. KEMP: Okay, all right. MR. SPILLER: Now, do you see the entry there that says 1965 Permit No. 65-4 cabana, something edition? MR. KEMP: Uh-huh, I see it. MR. SPILLER: All right. As it relates to this parcel, what is that cabana? MR. KEMP: Okay, what you have is a 12 -- I mean, a 10 by 60, if my memory serves me right, mobile home with a manufactured 12 by 15 room that was added on with a balance of a screened-in enclosure. MR. SPILLER: So this permit refers to something that was added on to this double wide, as we might be calling it -- MR. KEMP: That's correct. MR. SPILLER: -- that you occupied for five years as your residence? MR. KEMP: That's correct. That's correct. And it was already there before I moved there. MR. SPILLER: All right. And that's a 1965 permit? MR. KEMP: Yes. MR. SPILLER: All right. Do you have any idea what the notation underneath that cabana-l.84 means? MR. KEMP: I have no idea what that is. MR. SPILLER: Now, during the time of your possession/ownership of the property, did you obtain any permits from the county for the purpose of adding any structures or facilities to the mobile home park? Page 95 March 25, 2004 MR. KEMP: I did. MR. SPILLER: What was that? MR. KEMP: Well, after a few years of owning it, I wanted to make some changes, update it. And so I went to the local building department and told them that I wanted to add better quality trailers and add some new service, electrical services. And they said okay. So they said come to them -- well, first of all, I hired -- at the time it was JR Electric Company, a licensed electrician in business. He went ahead and made up the service poles, et cetera. Anyway, okay, backing up, I got a permit. I purchased a permit from the building department and then they told me when you're ready, Kenny, you come to let us know and we'll come out and inspect all improvements, meaning the mobile homes that I put on, plus the new electrical services. That's kind of much in a nutshell. MR. SPILLER: So you applied for a permit for the electrical work? MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. KEMP: That's correct. Oh, yes, oh, yes. SPILLER: Received the permit? KEMP: Oh, yes. SPILLER: The work was performed? KEMP: Oh, yes. MR. SPILLER: And it was subsequently inspected by the county inspectors? MR. KEMP: Um-hum, yes. MR. SPILLER: Now, at the time that you applied for this permit, did you tell them that you wanted to get everything legal on your part and for them to tell you what you needed to do? MR. KEMP: Yes. MR. SPILLER: And what were the names of those inspectors? MR. KEMP: Chub Boone, Pat Tillis (phonetic). Page 96 March 25, 2004 MR. Blockers? MR. MR. MR. SPILLER: Did you sell the property later on to the KEMP: Yes, I did. SPILLER: And that occurred in 19897 KEMP: September of'89. MR. SPILLER: No further inquiry. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does the board have any questions? You only get this one shot, since he's got to leave. County, do you have any questions for him? MS. ARNOLD: Kenny -- Mr. Kemp, sorry. I know Kenny. MR. KEMP: Hey, I've been called everything. Go ahead. I'm good. MS. ARNOLD: Did you at any time get a site plan for the mobile home park? MR. KEMP: No, I was -- they didn't ask me for one when I went for the permit. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Questions from the board? You actually got permits for everything you MS. DUSEK: requested? MR. KEMP: I guess you would call it an umbrella. I went to, like I told you, the building inspectors. I first of all told them what I wanted to do, improve the property. That was on the west side of the property. I think what he's referring to, I didn't do any changes, really, on the -- that I can recall, on the front, on the east side, small parcel here. There's two parcels. And I told him what I wanted to do, I wanted to improve the property. At the time, seemed like it was jumping electricity, I didn't care for that, I wanted to do it the proper way, each unit to have their own service. And so I explained to them what I wanted to do. They said okay, so they issued -- I purchased the permit. And they told me, Page 97 March 25, 2004 when I was ready for final inspection, this is quoting verbatim, come let them know and then they would come out, inspect it. And if it was done properly, then they would handle the CO through Lee County Electric. And they also would inspect the trailers to see if they were properly set up. MS. DUSEK: Did you get a CO for the trailers and the electric? MR. KEMP: Apparently I did, ma'am, because Lee County Electric won't turn the utility on unless they're called in from the county. I mean, to answer your question, I got CO'd for that permit, and that permit covered all those services in those trailers that I had put on, replaced. MS. ARNOLD: Kenny, did you say that you didn't do anything to the parcel that we're talking about right now? You didn't change anything? MR. KEMP: Oh, I had a new service put on it, in this mobile home that he's referring to. MS. ARNOLD: But you didn't change any of the mobile homes? MR. KEMP: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. SPILLER: Thank you. MR. KEMP: Is that it? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. It's 25 after 12:00. I'd like to adjourn the hearings at this time, we'll reconvene at 1:00. That's 35 minutes. Everybody be prompt, please. We have a lot to do yet. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: For the record, Mr. Bowie had to leave. He had a previous appointment, so we'll make note that he's absent. There still is a quorum. There are five of us present. Okay. Page 98 March 25, 2004 MR. SPILLER: Mr. Flegal, during the lengthy lunch recess, Ms. Arnold and I have worked out the fundamentals of an agreement, and I'd like to try to recite those for the board for the purpose of either seeking from the board a continuance or, as you've done in prior cases, an order that requires us to comply and come back at a later time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. SPILLER: What we're going to do is, as it relates to this parcel as well as the adjoining parcel, which are the same street address. MS. ARNOLD: We can't do the adjoining property, because we don't have that issue in front of us. MR. SPILLER: All right. We'll do that on the site improvement plan. But just for the purpose of the board -- MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MR. SPILLER: All right. For the cited parcel, the property owners will be submitting the documents that result in the process called site improvement plan review. Of this parcel, that may involve the necessity of a permit for the facility identified in the notice of violation as a washroom facility. It may also require permits for the three existing single mobile homes, as well as permit for the existing mobile home that's joined together, two of them joined together. And a site improvement plan for review and approval by the county. The density. And this is where we came to our biggest dispute and why we wound up in front of the board today to begin with. The density is going to be under the 1974 land use code, which is 3,600 square feet average per lot, rather than the '91 edition which upped it up to 6,000 square feet average per lot. And the reason that we're doing that, in my view, is because we grandfather in as a legal nonconforming use prior to the enactment of the '91 code and are entitled to that lesser, smaller density. County has agreed with me on that, and that would be our proposal. We Page 99 March 25, 2004 would ask for 90 days in order to submit that initial application. The reason why 90 days is necessary is because we've got to get an architect involved in doing survey work and drawings. MS. ARNOLD: I just want to make a clarification that the site improvement plan process would be that which was approved by the Board of County Commissioners under the Immokalee initiative. There's a separate section, I think it's 2.29 in the Land Development Code that kind of outlines what the regulations are that they would have to follow under that provision. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since you're both -- have a mutual understand, so to speak, would the county object if, rather than issue an order, the board continue this for 90 days and maybe it will just go away? MS. ARNOLD: I'd rather do a stipulated agreement. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, just asking. Okay with you? MR. SPILLER: If that's the county's preference, we'll go along with it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Jean, do you know what format we need to have for this? MS. RAWSON: Well, I think we probably need on the record an admission that the violations exist, and then the outline of the proposed settlement, which would be the order that the site development plans will be submitted within 90 days. And I don't know if you want to put the other language in there, is if they decide not to do that, then they get a demolition permit. I don't know if that's part of your agreement or not. MS. ARNOLD: Why don't we do this, because this was just, you know, five minutes that we had an opportunity to do it. Perhaps we can continue this till the next meeting and at that time we'll -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You all work out -- MS. ARNOLD: We'll have a stipulated agreement to bring back Page 100 March 25, 2004 to the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Cool. How's that? MS. RAWSON: I like that. MR. SPILLER: That's preferable. Because the first thing that Jean mentioned was an admission of the lot -- of the violations, cannot be done. Because we firmly believe we're not in violation, we're doing this site improvement plan as a compromise to avoid the expense of litigation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. BELPEDIO: Mr. Spiller, what I think ultimately we'll be looking for is some sort of agreement that if this case were brought to the board, that the board could find that there may be evidence to support the violation. Similar to criminal proceedings like a plea of no contest, if you're not objecting, but you just recognize there's a resolution. But we can certainly tweak it out. We're not looking for an absolute admission. We can work that out. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Why don't we give you, both sides, till -- a continuance to our next meeting to come up with something. And at that time if you don't come up with it, then we'll hear the case. How's that? Okay? MR. SPILLER: I'm moving from Collier County to Osceola County in the middle of next month, and I would prefer to have a little bit more lead time than 30 days continuance. I'm sorry, this 30 days is for the purpose of-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Coming up with -- MR. SPILLER: Reaching an agreement. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Reaching your agreement. MR. SPILLER: I would prefer to have 60 days for the hearing, and let me explain why. I was out of my office three days last week getting married. And on the day before, the afternoon before I left, Mr. Blocker received his Page 101 March 25, 2004 certified mail of these proceedings. I didn't find out about it until Monday of this week and I've gotten minimal time preparation. And there's some matters -- and I pulled my 2001 evidence on this case in order to create an exhibit. If you recall, this property was before the board in the year 2001. And it was not concluded, it was dismissed by the county attorney's office. And I had virtually no time to get ready for the hearing of today. If I'm going to have to get ready for a full-blown hearing, I'd rather have some adequate time to do it. And a short continuance just for the purpose of working out a stipulation in view of my moving from the county will not work for me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Are you saying you fear you're not going to be able to work out an agreement? MR. SPILLER: No, I'm confident that we can. But if we don't, then I would not want to have to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, if you don't, and you both come back to us next month and say, you know, we tried and we just couldn't get a deal, I think at that time we may be receptive to something else. Does the county have any objection if we made it 60 days instead of the next meeting? MS. ARNOLD: Well, Mr. Spiller was ready to try the case today, so I don't understand why 30 days is going to make a difference. MR. SPILLER: There's a difference between minimal readiness and full-blown readiness. I would prefer to have adequate time to put together the case. As I've indicated, I've had to -- for example, in the exhibits before you are the statements of the supervisors of two different offices that I obtained from them in the year 2001. And simply because I didn't have time to get it in the last two days, to go over and find those people and get additional statements -- given my location in Immokalee I've got to make two trips in order to accomplish a written statement. And I'd rather have current Page 102 March 25, 2004 statements from those supervisors, the various officers, rather than rely on something that's now three years old. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, let's do this. Because I hope you both can work this out. I would probably recommend to my fellow board members, we continue the case till next month in hopes that you can reach this agreement. If at that time you are unable to reach an agreement, we will most certainly hear your argument for an additional 30 days extension, okay? MR. SPILLER: That's fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Everybody here understand that? Can we have a motion to continue this to next meeting, please. MS. BARNETT: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further discussion? We have a motion and a second to continue this to our next meeting so the parties can hopefully work out an agreement. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MS. ARNOLD: Just remember, you have to remember Mr. Kemp's testimony. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, everybody keep that little postal drawer where we just heard Mr. Kemp's before -- but by then he may be available and we'll bring him back again. MS. BARNETT: You can always read-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we heard Mr. Gray, and we brought that one forward, so we're now back in order where we're dealing with Mr. Haeger, Case 2004-018. MS. HILTON: Yes, this is Board of County Commissioners Page 103 March 25, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: accept the county's Exhibit A. aye. versus Herman Haeger, CEB 2004-018. And at this time I'd like to ask if the respondent is present in the courtroom? The respondent is not present in the courtroom. We have previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. MS. DUSEK: I'll make a motion that we accept the county's Exhibit A. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. We have a motion and a second to All those in favor, signify by saying (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of section 1.5.6, and 2.1.15 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code, and Sections 6, 7, and 8 of Ordinance No. 99-51. The description of the violation: Observed litter consisting of but not limited to plastic pots, metal, wood, wire, lawnmowers and tires, a properly tagged trailer being used for storage of nursery items on an unimproved lot, and doing business as Islandscapers, which is not allowed without a primary structure. Primary structure in the process of being built under Permit No. 2003-07005. Location where violation exists: 2630, 18th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner: Herman Haeger 2630, 18th Avenue Southeast. Date violation first observed: July 7th, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: July 8th, 2003 by certified Page 104 March 25, 2004 mail, return receipt requested, returned unclaimed, and personally served second NOV on January 5, 2004. Date in which violation was to be corrected: February 1 st, 2004. Date of reinspection: March 24, 2004. Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And the CEB notice of hearing was sent certified, which green card was returned and the property was posted, as well as the courthouse. And at this time I'd like to turn the case over to the investigator, Jeff Letourneau to present the case to the board. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. This case started back in August -- no, July of 2003. I received an anonymous complaint about the property in question, 2630, 18th Avenue Southeast. I responded out there. Let me get my pictures right here. I found the property under construction. As you can see from that picture that the ground work was laid, but not much else was done. In addition, I found a lot of litter and what appeared to be a nursery business being conducted. I got ahold of the property owner, Mr. Haeger, and I told him that it was a violation, he had two violations, mainly. One was the litter and the other was running a business without having any principal structure on the property CO'd. I said that until you get a CO on your property, you cannot conduct any other business on this property, and you also have to remove the litter. He said at that time that he couldn't stop doing his business, and whatever I had to do I had to do, so -- In the proceeding weeks, he did clean up a little bit, and he proceeded to start building his house and try to get his CO done. Then it came to -- I think September 16th, he called my supervisor, Mr. Hendrickson, and I was in the office at the same time, and he stated Page 105 March 25, 2004 that he would have the house done by December 25th. And in which case we said we'd give him that much time, so if he got the house done, inspected and CO'd, the nursery business would not be a violation anymore, because he would have a principal use structure on the property, and you're allowed to have nurseries on a property in the Estates if you already have a house on it. Well, it lead on, he was getting his inspections pretty well, but then December 25th came up and he was still along way from getting his house done. So I left some more notes out there and Mr. Haeger came in the office and we explained to him that he hadn't finished his house before the 25th and he needed to get it done or we were going to take him before the board. And he pleaded with us and said, you know, give him a little more time, he'd have it done by February 1st. So I served him an NOV at that time and basically from that time on, he didn't get too much done on his house. Let me see here. Here's another image at 2/4. He did get a lot done, you know, between the first time I was out there and this picture, but he's still along way from getting this house done. And he hadn't had any inspections, he hadn't had any inspections -- let me see -- he hadn't had any inspections done since the end of last year in December. So I contacted him again and I said I'm going to have to bring you before the board. In the meantime, he never really got rid of any litter that was out there. As you can see, he stores all his pots and all the other nursery debris on the outside, which I advised him that he needed to -- if he was going to run the nursery out there and get a CO, he was going to have to get those taken off the property or put in a completely enclosed structure. I mean, you can see the backyard's pretty much a mess. It's all taken up with nursery items, you know, pots, wiring, I don't know, all sorts of other stuff he's got back there, bird cages, everything else, which is not allowed until you get your CO on your primary structure. Page 106 March 25, 2004 And that's where we're at today, he still hasn't had an, you know, inspection in three months, and he's still got all that litter and he's still running his business out there. MS. DUSEK: Jeff, did he give a reason why he couldn't get this completed, the house completed? MR. LETOURNEAU: He had numerous reasons. One was that the original contractor that he had in the house ran out, and took a bunch of money from him. He was just -- it was more monetary than anything. He didn't have enough money to, you know, get stuff done. And every time he'd, you know, get enough money up, he would get something done and he would get it inspected. But over the last three months, he hasn't done anything done, really. You know, I thought that -- I saw him -- the last time he pulled out, like it was, in late December he had the culvert pipe brought in there and I thought he was going to get his right-of-way done, but it's still sitting out there. For three months he hasn't done any of that work. He hasn't really made an effort to get anything done in the last three months on his house. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jeff, the stuff that we're seeing here, is this litter, is it fair to say it's all business related, or is it in fact true litter? MR. LETOURNEAU: I would say 90 percent is nursery business related. But he's got some various other things out there, you know, animal pens. But 90 percent is probably business related. I still don't think that, you know, even if he's running a nursery, he should be allowed to leave, you know, vast piles of thousands of plastic pots and CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm not disputing that. I'm just trying to separate what, his business stuff versus true litter, thinking ahead, okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: I would say probably 90 percent is Page 107 March 25, 2004 business related, yes. MS. BARNETT: I saw a couple of pictures of a trailer? MR. LETOURNEAU: He's got a trailer out there. We told him that -- you know, that's another thing. He can have that trailer out there because it does have wheels and it's moveable if he got valid tag on there. That was in conjunction with him getting a CO also, because he's not using that trailer for construction, he's using the trailer to hold his nursery items, like shovels and other things in there. MS. BARNETT: He's not living in it? MR. LETOURNEAU: No, nobody's living on this site right now. This trailer is specifically for nursery items. So we said you're allowed to have that out there if you have a CO on your house, and he did put a valid tag out there at one time. That was part of the stipulation, we told him, put a valid tag on there, and if you get the house done, then can keep the trailer out there. MR. LEFEBVRE: The permits for the house, are they still active? MR. LETOURNEAU: The permits for the house are active, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's as long as you inspections done? MR. LETOURNEAU: Every six months. So his last inspection was little over three months ago, so he's still going to have three months between inspections. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Jeff?. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since the respondent isn't here, we'll close that section of the public hearings and debate the issue. First item is a finding of fact, whether or not a violation does in fact exist. MS. DUSEK: I'll make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Herman Haeger, that a violation does Page 108 March 25, 2004 exist in the case of CEB Number 2004-18. The violation is of Sections 1.5.6 and 2.1.15 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code, and Sections 6, 7, and 8 of Ordinance No. 99-51. Description of the violation: Observed litter consisting of but not limited to plastic pots, metal, wood, lawnmowers and tires. A properly trailer being used for storage of nursery items on an unimproved lot and doing business as in quote, Islandscapers end of quote, which is not allowed without a primary structure. Primary structure is in the process of being built under Permit No. 2003-070051. MS. BARNETT: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second that in fact a violation does exist. Any further questions? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. MS. BARNETT: I have a question. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. BARNETT: If he is doing business as Islandscapers, as it indicates here, unlawfully, because he's doing it off of business -- or property that does not have the primary structure, can we denote that he must stop doing business? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. Because he's in violation of an ordinance that says you can't do business. MS. BARNETT: Okay, I just wanted to question that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. That's -- I can't remember what -- I think 2.1.15.4 says that, as I remember. See how good my memory is. I think I looked the same thing up, just to make sure. Page 109 March 25, 2004 MS. BARNETT: Point 4 isn't listed, though. MS. DUSEK: Sheri, do you want to make a recommendation? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, the storage, display or sale of any items, services, materials or products, whether finished or unfinished, other than from within as far as normal operation of a permanent structure authorized by the Land Development Code. He doesn't have a permanent structure yes, so he can't sell anything off of that property. So we can tell him to cease and desist until he gets his structure. MS. BARNETT: Let's see ifI can put this in my head. MR. LEFEBVRE: Fll make a recommendation. MS. DUSEK: Go for it. MR. LEFEBVRE: That the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this and abate all violations through removing all litter consisting of but not limited to metal, wood, plastic, plastic pots, metal, wood, wire, lawnmowers and tires. The litter must be removed within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Alternately, the county may, after 45 days, hire a contractor to remove the litter and debris listed above and impose the cost against the respondent. Respondent must remove all outside storage of all business related storage within 30 days from the date of this hearing to a commercial industrial location authorized for such use or a fine of $75 a day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Cease all business activity within one week from the date of this hearing, or a fine of $75 a day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and request an investigator to come out and perform the site inspection. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, the -- Jean? Page 110 March 25, 2004 MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: As a motion, I think we need to break that down to specific items, so it doesn't all run together. The operational costs should be like an item one, and then start with the abatement of the violations as an item two. I'll skip something in a minute and come back, because I need to ask Gerald something. Then item three would be remove the outside storage of all business related items. And then item four, cease all business activity. Item five, respondent must notify code enforcement. The question I have for Gerald is, where we say alternatively the county can, after 45 days, remove -- I guess my question would be, if we're giving him 30 days to do it all, or and imposing a fine, maybe he gets started and he can't finish it and then we let the county run in in 45 days and do it and give him a big bill, maybe he could have got it done say in, within the 45 days, so you're looking at 15 days times 50 bucks and the county's bill might have been higher, so do we really want to give the county authority to do anything? I'm just asking the question. MR. LEFEBVRE: Or how about giving the county authority after certain, after 60 days or 90 days? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I just think when we shorten it, maybe he's trying and he doesn't make it and all of a sudden he's in the middle of trying to remove it, and he has amassed some fines. But then the county steps in and says, oh, we have authority to come in and do it and we're going to give you a bill for $2,000. And, you know, if would have had another couple of days, maybe it would only have been a 200 bucks fine. So maybe we should lengthen that part of it? I don't know if anybody agrees with that or not. MS. DUSEK: What part are you wanting to lengthen, the time to get rid of the litter? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, right where you say alternatively Page 111 March 25, 2004 the county may, after 45 days, maybe we make it after 60 days. That gives him, you know, an extra period in there that the fine's accruing for 30 days, but if he hasn't done anything or is just, the process isn't so, the county at that point says, you know, we've been ordered to come in, and you've had 60 days to do something and obviously you're not trying very hard. MS. DUSEK: Even though we've only given him 30 days? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. I think he can get rid of this stuff in 30 days. If he just, if most of it's business related, he can probably put it in his trailer and take it to somewhere and store it, rent a storage space for "X" period and get it all off his lot, or finish his house. MS. BARNETT: That brings up my question, because we don't ever mention the trailer specifically in here, and it is technically not allowed to be here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, it says he has to remove all outside storage of a business related storage, so if he's using the trailer to store anything, he's -- MS. BARNETT: But that's not outside storage, it's a physical -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, the trailer is an outside storage. It's not in a structure, it's something on wheels. That's outside. A structure to me is, you know-- MS. BARNETT: I thought it was considered a vehicle. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, but you use a vehicle, just like an 18-wheeler, you store stuff in it, that's outside storage. Inside storage to me is in a structure. Anything else is outside. I mean, unless you're going to take it off wheels and put a frame under it, you know, put a -- MS. BARNETT: I just think we need to specify that the trailer needs to be removed because the house isn't permanently there either. MS. DUSEK: I think the trailer can stay because it's tagged, is that -- Page 112 March 25, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, it can't stay because there's not a permanent structure. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, there has to be a permanent structure. MS. DUSEK: But it's a movable trailer, and I thought that was different. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Doesn't matter. MR. LETOURNEAU: I would say it can't stay because the house -- I mean, the property is still unimproved and the trailer's not being used as a -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Construction trailer. MR. LETOURNEAU: Construction trailer, exactly right. MS. DUSEK: So your question, Sheri, is, we should include the removal of the trailer? MS. BARNETT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, then where Gerald says respondent must remove all outside storage, including the trailer, of all business related storage. How's that? That gets us what we want? MS. BARNETT: That makes me happy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She's happy, okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: And back to the 45 days. I would be amenable to 60, that would be fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm just trying to not put the extra pressure on the county to do something where the gentleman says gee, I'm trying, but you jumped on me, so -- I'm sure the county doesn't want to do it anyway. That's just extra work for them. Okay, everybody understand what we're going to try to do? Jean, you got us worked out? MS. RAWSON: I think so. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. BARNETT: And I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any Page 113 March 25, 2004 further questions? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next case is back to public hearings, 2004-015. Katchur, k-A-T-C-H-U-R. Hope I say that right. MS. HILTON: Yes, Board of County Commissioners versus Deborah Katchur, CEB 2004-015. The respondent was present earlier. 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: ! make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. MR. DORIA: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of Section 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: An addition to the-- to permitted primary structure with electrical, plumbing and air conditioning improvements without first obtaining authorization of a Collier County building permit and having all the required inspections and receiving a certificate of occupancy. Location where violation exists: 281 39th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida. Page 114 March 25, 2004 Name and address of owner: Deborah Katchur, 281 39th Avenue Northeast. Date violation first observed: July 22nd, 2002. Date Ms. Katchur given notice of violation: June 25, 2003. Date on which violation was to be corrected: July 8th, 2003. Date of reinspection: March 24, 2004. Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And the CEB notice of hearing was sent certified and the property and the courthouse was posted. And at this time I'd like to mm the case over to the investigator Jeff Letourneau to present the case to the board. MS. ARNOLD: Before Jeff starts, I think we -- don't we have an agreement on this? This isn't the one where -- okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I got -- I will explain at the end of my presentation here. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay, this case started almost two years ago in July of 2002. Another anonymous complaint I received about an addition built onto the primary structure of this house. As you can see on that picture, this area right here. I responded to the complaint. I got there and I met a woman who was renting that addition who let me in, and I found out that it had a kitchen, a bathroom and all sorts of other stuff. It was just like a separate apartment. I went back, checked the property cards and found out that no permit had been issued for this addition, and that the owner of record was in jail at that time. So I posted the NOV and mailed an NOV. Mr. Noto (phonetic), the owner of the property at that time, got out ofjail, and I proceeded to, you know, work with him on getting a permit. He was, you know, very willing to get a permit. And during Page llg March 25, 2004 the next, let me think here, probably eight months, we worked on getting a permit. It was a lot of hitches, he had some problems with money, you know, paying off the engineers and everything. But finally on March 2003 they applied for a permit. I know it says that they didn't get a permit application it, but a permit has been applied for this. Subsequently he was having trouble, he had septic issues, other issues that were holding up the permit when they tried to review it, and he went back to jail for one reason or the other. I talked to him while he was in jail a few times and he made a decision to sell the property to his ex-wife, Ms. Katchur. So I had to start the case all over again, since we had a new property owner. And I met Ms. Katchur out on the property on -- let me see here, looks like June 25th of 2003, and served her an NOV. From that point on, from June 25th 2003, Ms. Katchur has been trying to get this permit issued. But she's run into some snags and monetary problems, one was being the kitchen was not allowed in there due to the house did not have enough square footage for a second kitchen. So she removed that. But she needed some of the engineering details redrawn. And the guy that originally drew it, Bob Ferris, was owed money by Mr. Noto, so he wasn't going to release any of the old drawings until she paid off that debt owed by the ex-husband plus more to do the new drawings. And also, she owed money to the septic company. I gave them ample time. It's been, how long now, six, seven, eight, nine months since she had this problem taken on, and I just couldn't extend her any more time. This morning she was in here and we went out there and I worked out an agreement with her, if it's okay for the board, that she agreed that there was a violation, and she showed me some paperwork that she's very close to getting the permit issued. She had her septic company, all her paperwork in, Mr. Ferris is now doing the drawings. Page 116 March 25, 2004 She gave him money to complete the new drawings. So I feel that she's pretty close to getting this thing issued. So I said if she can get it -- you know, I just kind of through it out there, if she can get this thing done, issued within 60 days and CO'd within 60 days after that, that I would have no problem with that. MS. DUSEK: This seems like an unusual situation, and Jean, I'm looking to you. We have a case before us and in essence what the investigator is saying, he doesn't mind if it's continued. Is that the way I'm reading this? MR. LETOURNEAU: No, no, I think that she's -- I mean, I'm just saying that's a verbal agreement that I made with her. I'm not saying any writing. She just, she admitted to me that there was, you know, she knows there's a violation. And she's very close to getting it. I want the board to find her guilty and then give her a reasonable amount of time to get it issued and CO'd, and she's willing to make a -- you know, pay off the administration fees for this. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what I got out of it, that she is stipulating, she has stipulated that she is guilty, and rather than the original recommendation, I think you're somewhat changing it to 60 days and 60 days, rather than 90 days and 60 days, basically. MR. LETOURNEAU: Right, correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Anybody have any questions for Jeff?. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. Close the public hearings. Open up to discussion by the board. First item, finding of fact. We have had a stipulation as told to us by the county from the respondent that they admitted there is a violation, and they're trying to correct it. MS. BARNETT: Then, ! guess I'll make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Deborah Katchur, Page 117 March 25, 2004 CEB Number 2004-015, that a violation does exist. The violation is of Section 2.7.6.1, and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance Number 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. Facts of the violation are that in addition to permitted primary structure with electrical, plumbing and air conditioning improvements, without first obtaining the authorization of a Collier County building permit and having all of the required inspections and receiving certificate of occupancy. MS. DUSEK: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second in fact a violation does exist. Any further discussion? If not, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board? MS. BARNETT: I guess I'll recommend-- MR. LEFEBVRE: I can go. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Gerald's going to give it a shot. MR. LEFEBVRE: I might have a better handle on this than the last one. Number one, that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution in this case, and abate all violations by submitting a complete and sufficient building permit application for the described structure/improvements. If the respondent does not submit sufficient building plans or applications and so forth, the structure must be removed within 60 days of this hearing, or a fine of $75 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Must request or cause required inspections -- I guess this would be number three. Must request or cause required inspections to be Page 118 March 25, 2004 performed and obtain certificate of occupancy within 60 days after obtaining the required building permits, or a fine of $75 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and request an inspector to come out and perform site inspections. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And before we go on, let me ask Jeff a question because he-- MR. LETOURNEAU: Can I make a statement that the permit has been applied for already. So it would be issuance, not the application. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. She doesn't have any control over the issuance. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I mean-- MS. ARNOLD: I think it's okay. I mean, you're just giving her additional -- you may want to shorten the amount of time, since she's already applied for it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think the 60 days is fine, but let's, rather than submit a complete and sufficient building permit application -- MS. DUSEK: Are you sure it's not the permit. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, the permit's already been applied CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She's applied for it, but the county hasn't issued it for some reason, correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct, because of certain plan reviews, they rejected it a few times, so -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. What I'm trying to do is, she has a little bit of control, if it's issued, because if there are some problems, she has to correct the problems on the permit for the county to issue it. But that the county takes, whether it's one day or six months to review a permit isn't under her control. That's what bothers me. Page 119 March 25, 2004 We're giving her 60 days to have it issued, but she doesn't issue it to herself, the county issues it, so -- but she can't come down and make you issue it. She can just say I've done everything they asked, I don't know why they haven't given it to me. That's where I'm hung up. I'm worried about giving her a time limit for something she can't do. MR. LEFEBVRE: How about submit issues that make the application deficient, or to the necessary paperwork, some type of wording to that effect? MS. ARNOLD: You all have had wording before where you request that they complete a -- or submit a complete and sufficient application. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's cool. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's the wording I'm looking for. MS. RAWSON: I got that. MS. DUSEK: And is the 90 days a sufficient time? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we're backing that up to 60, 'cause she's already in the process and that's kind of what she -- Okay, do we have that, Jean, so that we don't get into trouble? MS. RAWSON: I've got that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Everybody understand Gerald's motion, it has one, tw.o, three, I think four items in it? Is that right, Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. DUSEK: I'm just going to make one comment and that is listening to the circumstances that this woman has gone through and the fact that she's really trying her best to get all of this completed, and some of it's been out of her control, I'd like to see the fine $50 rather than 75. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Gerald made the motion, so we have to defer to him. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll amend it to $50. Page 120 March 25, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: In both cases? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, does that -- everybody understand? Sixty days in both cases and $50 in both cases. Do I hear a second? MS. BARNETT: Second. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, Bobbie already seconded it, I'm sorry. We have a motion and a second. Any more discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Case 2004-017, Ronald and Shelly Brown. MS. HILTON: Yes, this the Board of County Commissioners versus Ronald and Shelly Brown. And Ms. Brown came in our office and signed an agreement, but I need to read in the information. We have previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the county's Exhibit A. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the county's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of section 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Page 121 March 25, 2004 Land Development Code. The description of the violation: A large storage structure erected in the rear yard without first obtaining authorization of a Collier County building permit, having all the required inspections and receiving a certificate of completion. Location where violation exists: 2420 27th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner: Ronald and Shelly Brown, 2420 27th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida. Date violation first observed: May 30th, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation, second notice of violation: January 29, 2004. Date on which violation is to be corrected: February 8th, 2004. Date of reinspection: March 24, 2004. And as of yesterday, Ms. Brown has received her certificate of completion and the violation has been abated, and she has entered into a stipulation for settlement where she acknowledges her violations, agrees to get her CO, which she has done, and agrees to pay the operational cost. And at this time, I'll turn the case over to the investigator Jeff Letourneau, in case you have questions. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And you want to submit the stipulation for settlement as your Exhibit B? MS. HILTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Do I hear a -- MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the county's Exhibit B. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the county's Exhibit B. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 122 March 25, 2004 (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any nos? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let me first ask a question of the board. Does everybody have a copy of the stipulation agreement, and do you understand it and do you need to ask the county any questions? It's pretty straightforward. Respondent has stipulated that they are in violation-- she is in violation, and that she has corrected it and she is agreeing to pay costs. And the county has worked out a plan. And the respondent is also saying that if she doesn't meet the deadline -- I guess the only question I see, you say she has a permit -- she hasn't got her CO yet, right, Jeff?. MR. LETOURNEAU: I think she just said she got her CO yesterday. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, she did get her CO? MS. HILTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now -- that's fine. I had that one question, because it says here and I missed what Shanelle said. Okay. So she's got the CO, so the last item in the stipulation wouldn't apply. But that's okay. Does any member of the board have any questions for the county at all? That's okay, Jeff. Jean, let me ask you a question. Can we in issuing an order, issue it based on -- I'm trying to think of the proper words, I can't right now. That the respondent, since there is a stipulation for settlement, that our order states that the respondent has stipulated that there in fact as a violation and has agreed to comply with a stipulation for settlement dated da, da, da, da, da; or do we need to be more specific? MS. RAWSON: Well, I'm probably going to be a little more specific than that. But in terms of what you can do, you can just vote to approve her stipulation and enter it in the record. Page 123 March 25, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I'm just trying to make it -- MS. RAWSON: Well, I'll attach it as exhibit to my order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, so if we say that we make a motion that the board accept the stipulation for settlement between the county and the respondent, and that's it, pretty much? MS. RAWSON: Well, you accept it and, you know, order that she -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Comply with it. MS. RAWSON: Comply with it. MS. DUSEK: So we do on order first, is that right, that there was a violation? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. DUSEK: And then we do a motion for the stipulation? MS. RAWSON: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Go ahead, you do it. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Ron and Shelly Brown, that there is a violation in the case of CEB Number 2004-017. The violation is of Sections 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance Number 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. Description of the violation: A large storage structure erected in rear yard without first obtaining authorization of a Collier County building permit, having all of the required inspections, and receiving a certificate of completion. Is it completion or occupancy? MS. RAWSON: It's completion. MS. DUSEK: It's completion, okay. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second in fact a violation does exist. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) Page 124 March 25, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the stipulation for settlement between the Board of County Commissioners and Ronald and Shelly Brown in the case of CEB Number 2004-017. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And order her to comply with it. MS. DUSEK: And we order the respondent to comply with the stipulation. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second for the respondent to comply with the settlement agreement. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's take about five minutes so we can change court reporters, before we lose her. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Next case, 2004-006, Kelly Capolino? MS. HILTON: Yes. This is -- okay -- this is the Board of County Commissioners versus Kelly Capolino. I would like to ask if the respondent is present in the courtroom? THE RESPONDENT: Yes. MS. HILTON: The respondent is 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. Page 125 March 25, 2004 MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the county's Exhibit A. Excuse me. All those in favor signify by saying aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Miss Capolino, you can have a seat because we'll hear the county's side first, ma'am. THE RESPONDENT: Thank you. MS. HILTON: The violation is of Section 2.7.6.1 of Ordinance Number 91-102 as amended of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: Shed erected in backyard without first obtaining authorization of a Collier County building permit and following through with all the required inspections and receiving a Certificate of Completion. Location of violation exists: Florida. Name and address of owner: Naples, Florida. Date violation first observed: 5245 McCarty Street, Naples, Kelly Capolino, P.O. Box 7645, July 22nd, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: July 23rd, 2003. Date on which violation was to be corrected: August 1st, 2003. Date of re-inspection, March 24, 2004. And the CEB Notice of Hearing was sent certified and the property was posted as well as the courthouse, and at this time I'd like to turn the case over to the code enforcement investigator, Rita Crisp, to present the case to the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You need to swear her in, please. Page 126 March 25, 2004 THE COURT REPORTER: Do you want her as well? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. Swear them both in at the same time just to save -- save time. (The court reporter placed the two witnesses under oath.) MS. CRISP: For the record, my name is Margaret Reid Crisp, also known as Rita Crisp. On July 22nd of 2003, on a staff patrol, I arrived at 5245 McCarty Street. I observed at the rear of the property a shed. There was no permits on file. I first spoke with Mr. Capolino who informed me that he was calling for his wife and that he would get with permitting and take care of this violation. On September the 29th of 2003, Mr. Capolino -- or, excuse me -- it's Mr. -- yes, Mr. Capolino was informed shed did not meet the required setbacks and would not be able to be permitted to stay, that he would have to either pull a permit to relocate or to demolition it, to de -- you know, bring it down. On February the 3rd of 2004 the violation remained. We prepared this case for the Code Enforcement Board hearing. A request for continuance was granted in February. On March 24th, the violation remained at 11:00 a.m.; however, a crew was on site starting the demolition of the shed. I have some pictures of the shed here, too, for you. This is -- this is how it looked on the first observation of the shed, and as I said on the 24th, yesterday, this is where we were at, at 11:00 a.m. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Miss Capolino. THE RESPONDENT: Any questions from the board? Thank you. I'm Kelly Capolino, the Page 127 March 25, 2004 owner of the property. Unfortunately the untimeliness -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you pull that down, maybe that will take the ring out of it. THE RESPONDENT: Is that better? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. THE RESPONDENT: Okay. First, I'd like to thank you very much and we apologize for taking the time of the board twice with regard to this issue. We found it was not an error on our behalf, that this property did have the shed. It was -- we purchased the property in April of 2003 and we're just amazed that there was a violation. As you could tell the shed was as old as could be. The building -- the initial building was built in '74. We did look through the permit documents, never a permit pulled for the garage. Through our research, we realized that there was another party that was going to take responsibility for the shed. They agreed before last month's hearing, before February 26, that they would start removing the shed. Upon my return from vacation -- that's why I asked for the continuance -- they assured me that it would be removed before today's meeting so I would not waste the time of the board again. Upon my return, it was not removed. As far as yesterday, I was basically putting my hand down saying, you know, you're going to be sitting in court in the hearing room tomorrow. I did go to the property during our half hour recess. It has been removed. So, I'm just asking for leniency from the board because it took more time to research who the responsibility was and then get the contractor to actually begin work, because he did pull his permit yesterday, but he had pulled on March 18th the Commencement Notice. Page 128 March 25, 2004 So, he would have had enough time to have removed it before today's meeting. So, I'm just asking for leniency from the board on any fines. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But the shed in fact is gone. THE RESPONDENT: It's -- it's dirt and actually I've had my assistant fax a note that it needs to be graded properly. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Are there any questions from the board for Miss Capolino? Thank you, ma'am. THE RESPONDENT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Close that section of the public hearings. The board is permitted when a case is brought forth, even though it's been complied with, to take action after the fact if they so desire. I -- I'm trying to think. I guess my only comment would be the respondent has tried to get things done and it is down, so there was in fact a violation. It has been abated at this point. If anything were to be done, I would probably say possibly the institution of operational costs might be considered after we find in fact a violation did exist and has been abated. Anyone else have any discussions? Comments? MS. DUSEK: I would agree with you there. I do think we have to find that there was a violation because when it was first observed, it was last July. And, so, I think we do have to find that there was a violation. And I agree with you about the fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So, first item of business is in fact finding of fact. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Kelly Capolino in the CEB Case Number 2004-006 that a violation did exist, the violation of section Page 129 March 25, 2004 two point-- the violation is of Section 2.7.6.1 of Ordinance Number 91-102 as amended of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation, shed erected in backyard without first obtaining authorization of Collier County building permit and following through with all the required inspections and receiving a Certificate of Completion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion -- I'm sorry? MS. DUSEK: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion in effect, a violation did exist. MR. LEFEBRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. There is now a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Order of the board. MS. DUSEK: Is there any opposition? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, I'm sorry. Anybody opposed? I'm sorry. Order of the board. And -- and when you start your order, if you -- the first item would be -- if you're going to do operational costs maybe it will be the second item to state that in fact the respondent has testified that the violation has been abated. MS. BARNETT: I'm going to -- I'll make a recommendation that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case. And because the respondent has testified that all violations have Page 130 March 25, 2004 been abated, if the code enforcement officer could verify that, then I would not subject it to any other fine. MS. CRISP: Yes, ma'am -- yes, ma'am, I will. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion that we impose operational costs and a statement that the violation has been abated and request that code enforcement verify that it has been abated. MS. DUSEK: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The motion has a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? Miss Capolino, do you understand? THE RESPONDENT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There are some operational costs which is the cost for the county to bring the case before us, and they'll tell you what that is and that's what we propose. THE RESPONDENT: And I appreciate that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now we're down to Case 2004-020, Brizuela or Brizuela. I don't know how you say that. I apologize if I say it wrong. MS. HILTON: I know the respondent is -- she's out in the hallway. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. HILTON: We would like-- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKF~R: Well, my mother doesn't speaks Page 131 March 25, 2004 English but do you need her to be here? MS. HILTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, and are you going to translate for her? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. MS. HILTON: Okay. 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. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the county's Exhibit A. MS. BARNETT: 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. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? You can have a seat, ma'am. MS. HILTON: The alleged information is of Ordinance 89-06 as amended, Section 5, Subsection 1, 2, 5, 12i, 12o and 12p. The description of the violation: Did witness a dwelling which is unfit and creating an immediate safety and health hazard to occupants and adjacent neighbors due to lack of maintenance, obsolescence or abandonment and which contain defects which increase the hazard of fire, accident or other calamities. Occupants do not have any running water in the structure. Location or violation exist: 11571 Laakso, L-a-a-k-s-o, Lane, Naples, Florida. Page 132 March 25, 2004 P.O. Date Date Date Name and address of owner: Maria Brizuela, B-r-i-z-u-e-l-a, Box 10582, Naples, Florida. of violation first observed: March 5, 2004. owner given notice of violation: March 5, 2004. to which violation be corrected: Within 24 hours. Date of re-inspection: March 24, 2004. Resulting in a re-inspection of violation remains. And the Notice of Hearing was personally served and posted on the property and the courthouse. And at this time I'd like to mm the case over to Investigator Carol Sykora to present the case to the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll need to swear your mother in so -- she's going to ask her some questions and she'll need to respond. THE COURT REPORTER: I will also have to swear the interpreter in, so we need her name, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And we need your name, ma'am. THE COURT REPORTER: State your name, please. THE INTERPRETER: Ismarelda Cerritos. THE COURT REPORTER: Can you spell your last name? THE INTERPRETER: C-e-r-r-i-t-o-s. (The interpreter and the witnesses were sworn by the court reporter.) MS. SYKORA: For the record my name is Carol Sykora, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. And I appreciate you hearing this case on an emergency basis. On March 5th, 2004, I received a minimum housing complaint that the tenant whose -- who complained was -- said his aunt had -- was the renter and had no water for seven months in this mobile home and she had just -- she had lived there two months without electricity. Upon arriving at the location, I obtained a signed entry consent Page 133 March 25, 2004 form and inspected the mobile home for minimum housing complaint. And inside I found a few violations of-- the majority of them -- the worse of them, I should say, was no water supply at all. Couldn't do a full minimum housing inspection due to the fact there was no water, so I couldn't tell about the hot water tank, the pipes and so forth. But I completed a check, found that the refrigerator was not cooling well, doors were not fitted in the frame, the window on one of the doors was broken, no doorknobs inside or they were loose and holes in the wall. After inspection, I served an NOV which was signed by the owner of the property who's here today. I gave 24 hours due to the emergency of this but the tenant also explained to me that she had to have the electrical pole and meter put in herself in order to have electricity in this home. Also, the water was -- she never had the water in seven months living there. I had issued two citations to try to prompt -- fix the repair of this well, but it didn't seem to do too much good, so I decided to try to get her prepared for the board on an emergency basis. In -- it was on the -- March 9th, the tenant called me and said that there was men tampering with the electrical meter and trying to run electric back to the well pump, which was at the rear of the property. I arrived and posted a stop work order because no permits were obtained for electrical work and I started a new case on -- on that separately to get a permit for electrical work to repair the water. She refused to sign it but I did post this Notice of Violation on her property at the courthouse and sent it certified, regular mail on that separate case. As of yesterday, she did hire an electrician. They obtained a permit to do the electrical. Page 134 March 25, 2004 I was out there from about one o'clock to three o'clock and there was a man present who I thought was the electrician but hear the electrician had already left. There was an inspection, which passed, but the man that was there then was a man changing out the pump on the well and he still could not turn the water on because he said the electric that was in place would -- is not suitable for the pump that he put in there. So, it has to be either redone and I put a CO hold on that permit to make sure that that electrical was inspected and that pump wasn't running on insufficient wiring and electrical box. The tenant was here earlier but she left so -- do you have any questions? MS. DUSEK: This may be hard for you to answer -- well, I'm withdrawing it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody have any questions for Carol? Excuse me. Go ahead. Miss Cerritos -- THE INTERPRETER: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- this is your mother; correct? THE INTERPRETER: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Does she understand the problems? THE RESPONDENT: Yes. THE INTERPRETER: I think-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, she does. Okay. THE INTERPRETER: Yeah. She understands all the problems. MS. ARNOLD: Can we have her go -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's -- I just wanted to ask her that question just to make sure. We've heard the county's side but I want to know that she understands what the county is saying. Page 135 March 25, 2004 THE INTERPRETER: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She understands. I mean we'll let her tell us her side in a minute. I just want to make sure she understands so that everybody is on the same playing field here. Anybody have any questions for Carol? MS. SYKORA: The pictures I have over here are she had to bring in water for seven months, fill cans, bottles in order to flush the toilet or even cook with or anything, and she said she hadn't complained before because she was traveling to Texas, her mother was ill, and she didn't really miss it because she wasn't there that much, but now she's been living there. She just, of course, could not live without it. MS. BARNETT: Carol, one of your pictures showed a PVC pipe that went into the septic. MS. SYKORA: There was PVC pipe all over the back yard. I don't-- it's hard to determine what it's for. This particular site there are three mobile homes on there. This one -- I eventually determined that this one was permitted. The other two in the rear of the property are not. And I -- it's hard to determine what the -- I do have a case -- a separate case on permitted mobile homes also, but -- MS. BARNETT: You can't-- MS. SYKORA: -- my main concern was this mobile home was rented without electric or water and the lady was promised that it would be put in. It was never -- two months went by and she finally went to the electric company and paid for the meter and -- and pole out of her pocket in order to have electricity in there. And then no water for probably seven to eight months. MS. BARNETT: Did you check whether the septic was permitted? Page 136 March 25, 2004 MS. SYKORA: Actually they would have had to permit that whole system, one as -- I couldn't believe that this mobile home even got a CO to tell you the truth. I -- the septic is way in the back and it had to have been permitted along with this mobile home, but I actually did not have a clue as to how it got CO, but it did. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you, Carol. MS. SYKORA: You're welcome. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Reid, now your -- your mother can tell us her side, okay, and she'll need to come up to the microphone so we can hear. I know you'll be translating but -- THE INTERPRETER: Well, a lot of it I've been with her through the process. THE COURT REPORTER: Just a minute, just a minute, just a minute. Go to the microphone. THE INTERPRETER: Oh, sorry. This is really complicated. My mother had originally back in '95 a Code enforcement case. She had eight mobile homes and they did a clean sweep of like what was Duda's and 6 L's of a lot of mobile homes that were illegally put there without permits. They had her remove five. This was when Dick Clark was -- worked a lot with her, with Wanda and some other people. The gentleman that was representing her was -- was helping her translate was Victor Valdez. At the end of everything, I think it was like the end of'95, they allowed her to keep three mobile homes and she had to get permits for them. She applied for the permits but never got a Certificate of Occupancy because she thought that just by applying for the permits was all she had to do. Page 137 March 25, 2004 I don't know what happened in the translation or everything that went on. I was very young. Now, about two years ago, the first mobile -- one of the mobile homes, which was in the place of this one, burnt down. We don't know -- there was an investigation and it was not electrical. They don't -- they think it was something else. They didn't really say what it was. So, it was burnt down. We applied for replace -- to replace a mobile home. It took about a year to get this permit because planning and permitting was saying that -- you know, that she had outstanding permits and this and that and it's just really confusing. They had us going around in circles. And, finally, planning approved this mobile home which she had bought. It was a mobile home which they had for a year waiting there for them to be able to move it in. It took six months to get a Certificate of Occupancy. I don't know exactly. I've just purchased a home that's built so I don't know the whole process of-- you know, of going and applying for permits and inspections and all that. But they told us that everything was ready and -- for this mobile home. Now, my mother with this lady, she was -- and she was -- when the trailer would be ready to move in, she was talking to this lady that she was going to move in. Now, I don't know. My mom said that this lady was kicked out of the -- the camp next door, Meno's camp and that all of a sudden she had just kind of moved in there. They had been talking about her moving in. But my mother, you know, like we said, we're having things that we weren't sure if it was ready because of all the inspections. But around the same moment that she moved in, the Certificate of Occupancy was -- they said everything was okay. Page 138 March 25, 2004 Now, the reason she was without electric -- she didn't pay for the post. The post was already there. All the electric company had to go do was go and do what they had to do, which the county is supposed to call -- as I learned eventually after like 20 phone calls, the county is supposed to call the electric company or fax over some kind of paper saying that that mobile home is ready to have electricity. And -- and that's what ended up happening. I ended up calling and they ended up faxing over that paperwork. The lady gave her deposit for the electricity and-- and then the electricity was put on. And it took like a week after that paper was faxed because their engineer that's supposed to put in a box was on vacation and whatnot. After that, we ended up finding out that the well had no power to put water in the -- in the mobile home. But then there was another mobile home, I'm sorry, that burnt down, which was the middle one, and we applied for a permit for that one and that's the one that used to power the well. So, when we applied for that one, they had-- the Health Department that does for, I guess, the wells and the septics had -- had us talk to an engineer about, you know, where the septic would go and all this other stuff for this mobile home that was going to replace it that was a little bit bigger. It was a double wide. They ended up saying that we were looking at having to do another well, we're going to have to move the well and all this stuff and then, you know, I was talking to planning about, you know, what we were going to do about this mobile home that didn't have water. And they said that we had to wait to see if we were going to have to do a new -- a new well. So, you know, how were we going to get started a well that we were talking about moving? And during all this time when I ended up finding out all these things, I spoke to the lady with my mother there. We told her that we l~age 139 March 25, 2004 were looking at complications with the well and that she should move out. And she said that she did not want to move out because she had already moved in there and that she wanted to stay. And I said that it would probably -- that it -- just to get this mobile home all set up, it took us more than a year and -- and it's all because of this whole problem back in '95, that she never got these mobile homes straightened out, how it should have been. MS. BARNETT: During this time, were you collecting rent from this lady that was staying there? THE INTERPRETER: My mom? Yes, she was for-- MS. DUSEK: Did you indicate that the tenant moved in without your permission? THE INTERPRETER: My mother says that, yes, that's what happened. They were previously before, because she knew the mobile home was coming in once they said the permit was going to be allowed and the -- and the trailer sat there for like five or six months with people coming to work and inspected and the inspections weren't passing. And-- and then eventually, you know, this lady and my mom said that she just one day kind of moved in there, that she was kicked out of the other mobile home and she put her things in there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you know how long your mother has been collecting rent on this mobile home? THE INTERPRETER: About seven months. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. THE RESPONDENT: No. Six months. Six. THE INTERPRETER: The last few months she didn't. She hadn't paid anything. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: For the past how many months? THE INTERPRETER: I think the two or three last months. Page 140 March 25, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So, she was collecting rent for six -- THE INTERPRETER: She said that her agreement when we told -- that I told my mother that she -- and I was present and I told her that she needed to move out and she said that she didn't want to and that my mom said -- because originally their agreement was like seven fifty, that she would charge her less because there was no water. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And-- MS. BARNETT: I have a question for you. THE INTERPRETER: And the -- and the tenant agreed and I was there, present for that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. BARNETT: What-- and the -- when you CO a property, don't they check for running water and that to get a CO? I know they check for electric. MS. ARNOLD: I don't -- I don't know. I know that they are supposed to. I guess she indicated when they do the inspection for the tie down, if everything's okay, then they call the electric company, they advise them they could hook up the electric. But I'm not really sure about the plumbing side of it. I would assume we do. MS. BARNETT: I was going to say, I would think if you have a MS. MS. MR. MS. ARNOLD: CO. BARNETT: -- CO, you would have had a -- this baffles me. DORIA: Maybe Carol will know. BARNETT: Carol? MS. SYKORA: Well, I did ask about the electrical and they just checked the mobile home itself to make sure that it has proper outlets and everything. They don't really check the box after it's been put in. And I'm not -- I'm not quite sure about the plumbing. If they Page 141 March 25, 2004 determine that it's running because it's wells, it did say well on there -- on the permit. Maybe they just checked to see if there's proper plumbing in-- in the mobile home and outside running back to -- if they don't check it if the pump is working or not. But I did want to say that when I was there yesterday, a deputy came to the property and served the tenant with an eviction notice and on there it stated that she owed $400 for the month of February. She said she's been paying 750 a month and had receipts but she didn't have a receipt for the last time she made payment. So, they are evicting her. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. Does anybody have any questions for Miss Cerritos to ask her mom? MS. DUSEK: One more for clarification. How many mobile units on this property are there that your mother owns? THE INTERPRETER: There is three presently. MS. DUSEK: Three? THE INTERPRETER: Uh-huh. MS. DUSEK: And this is the only one that doesn't have electricity and running water? THE INTERPRETER: No. The -- the other two don't have any power or water to them either. MS. DUSEK: And no one is occupying either. THE INTERPRETER: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: This is the only one that's been written up so far. MS. SYKORA: So far. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We need to keep it straight, that we're just dealing with one right now. Page 142 March 25, 2004 this. Okay. No other questions for Miss Cerritos to ask her mom? Thank you, ma'am. Anybody have any questions for anybody? MS. DUSEK: I do. This is for you, Carol, or Michelle, someone who can answer Can mobile units sit on a property without being permitted correctly? I understand this one's been permitted and COed. MS. SYKORA: I have a case on the other two. MS. DUSEK: Okay. I know that we're not dealing with that now. MS. SYKORA: Right. MS. DUSEK: But this is just a general question. THE COURT REPORTER: Mrs. Dusek-- MS. DUSEK: They have to be COed. They can't just sit on-- THE COURT REPORTER: She's got competition over here behind me. I can't hear you. MS. DUSEK: Oh, I'm sorry. THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. You'll have to repeat, if you can. MS. DUSEK: I just asked if the mobile homes have to be permitted in order to stay on a property. MS. SYKORA: Yes, I -- I have a case on the other two because they're not permitted. MS. DUSEK: Okay. MS. SYKORA: There's a possibility that someone's living in one of them but they don't come until late at night. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I -- I think the basic question is if I a vacant lot somewhere and I just put a mobile home on it, can it sit there or do I have to get a permit -- MS. SYKORA: No. Page 143 March 25, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- before I pull it on there? MS. SYKORA: It needs to be permitted. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. SYKORA: Otherwise it wouldn't be tied down. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Any other questions? Okay. Close the public hearing portion and go to a finding of fact, which first case is to find that in fact a violation does exist. MS. BARNETT: I'll make the motion that the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Maria Brizuela-- I hope I -- I'm probably messing that name up. I apologize. CEB Number 2004-020, that a violation does occur. The violation is of Ordinance Number 89-06 as amended, Section 5, Subsections 1, 2, 5, 12i, 12o and 12p. Description of violation is the dwelling which is unfit in creating an immediate safety and health hazard to occupants and adjacent neighbors due to the lack of maintenance, obsolescence for abandonment, and contains defects which increased the hazard of fire, accidents or other calamities. The occupants do not have any running water in the structure. MS. DUSEK: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that in fact violations do exist. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? Page 144 March 25, 2004 MS. RAWSON: MS. ARNOLD: violation. Okay. Order of the board. I would -- I won't say caution. I would recommend that the board members in trying to formulate an order remember that understanding this is an emergency case and some of the items are safety related and health hazard related, but we are still stuck with a max penalty of $250 per day per violation. Okay. MS. BARNETT: Question though. She had a violation on this property prior. Did she mention that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't know if it was on this -- MS. BARNETT: It was on this property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- trailer. Was it on this -- I mean I have no way of knowing that. It was -- MS. BARNETT: This particular trailer, I guess, burned down. So, this is a replacement. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So, this is a replacement. It is. Jean, if-- if that is the case, and we can double check with the county to make sure it was against this physical piece of land, would this be considered a repeat violation? I mean -- MS. RAWSON: If this -- if it was the same legal description. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Exact same violations? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Which we don't know at this point. MS. RAWSON: I don't think there's evidence before you that -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: To say that. -- that there's a repeat violation. Carol was saying it was a minimum housing CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I didn't see it, so I was -- so, we're back to $250 a day per violation. Okay. Page 145 March 25, 2004 MS. DUSEK: Well, let's start with what the county is recommending. I make a motion that the CEB order the respondent to, number one, pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case; number two, begin repairs on all violations within two days from the date of this hearing or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues; number three, respondent must use a properly licensed contractor and electricians to do the required electrical work for the well to be operational. Contractor must pull required permits within five days from the date of this hearing or a fine of 100 -- $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues and follow through with all required -- I'm going to make this number four; follow through with all required inspections to CO within ten days after obtaining permit for a fine of $100 per day will be instilled until the viol -- as long as the violation continues; number five, must complete all repairs and abate all violations within 20 days from the date of this hearing or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues; number six, must have the required inspections performed when repairs are made and allow Code Enforcement and the building official on site to make official inspection within one day after repairs are made or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues; number seven, respondent must notify Code Enforcement that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform the site inspections. MS. BARNETT: Robbie-- MS. DUSEK: Yes. MS. BARNETT: -- ifI could get you -- because I have a problem with this if this person has allowed someone to live in a facility that did not have electricity, did not have water, and I saw where you came off of some of the county's suggested fines in a Page 146 March 25, 2004 couple of places, but I would like on item number four, that rather than coming down, I would like to state that that one within 20 days be raised to $250 a day. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Before we play with the numbers, let me fall back and regroup with you a minute. MS. BARNETT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You must understand that when we -- if we're going to do a fine, it must be tied to a violation where here if you're looking at what they're talking about, you have one, two, three, four, five, six, $750, roughly, and we're limited to $250 per day per violation. So, the reason I mentioned that in the beginning is if you're going to impose any kind of fine, you're going to have to tie an item to a section of the ordinance that they're in violation of, and -- which gives you basically in Section 5 of 89-06, Subsections 1, 2, 5, 12i, o and p. And if you look at Section 5 -- let me fall back and regroup. Subsection 1 is the sanitary facilities, two is the hot and cold water, five would be -- MS. BARNETT: Cooking equipment. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- cooking equipment and then 12i, which is windows, 12o, which is doors, and 12p, which is floors, walls and ceilings, okay, you must -- you must tie fines into violations, otherwise if you could tell them what we want them to do and it would just be a max of $250 unless we tied into a specific violation. Otherwise, it would be subject to be appealed and probably disallowed if I had to make a guess. Jean could help us there but she's shaking her head and I think she knows where I'm coming from. So, you need to keep that in mind. I'm not against what we're all trying to do. It's just that to be specific we must be specific in understanding the validity and it's an emergency and health and so on. Page 147 March 25, 2004 And I think another item we must add is we would encourage the respondent to remove the tenant from the premises due to health and safety and I understand she's already trying that. She's told us that under oath and we can't order her to do that, I don't believe, so we can just recommend that she do it. So, keeping that in mind, try to adjust your thinking. Sorry. MS. DUSEK: Well, Cliff, are you suggesting that on each one of the items, actually six that I suggested, that in this recommendation that I must identify? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If we want to use these numbers that are being recommended to us by the county, we're going to have to tie them to something, like item two where it says start -- start repairs in two days or $150. Okay. That's -- that's just because she's violated the whole ordinance, I assume. That only leaves you a hundred dollars to play with unless you're going to start tying it to a specific item, but since you've -- I don't know if we would get called on this, but since you used the whole ordinance, I don't know, and Jean maybe can give us guidance, that we then can go back and started picking little items out of the ordinance once we pick all of the ordinance. MS. RAWSON: While you listed a number of things that needed to be done, starting the repair on the -- on the violations using the licensed contractor and electricians, following through the required inspections and completing all repairs within 20 days, you could issue fines on each one of those separately if they weren't completed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But I guess what I'm looking for is the violations brought before us were specific sections of an ordinance. Any fines must be tied to those, correct? They just can't be -- like, I don't -- I don't see a specific -- I guess what I'm looking for is like hot and cold water supply. It just says it Page 148 March 25, 2004 has to be connected. It doesn't say it has to be connected by a licensed contractor, but yet we're saying if you don't use a licensed contractor, we're going to nail you $150. Well, how do we get to the licensed contractor? We can't just dream it up. MS. RAWSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean we've got to tie it to something so that it backs up our fine; i.e., sanitary facilities, that's not a specific item here but what I'm saying is if we can tie it to that, that you by abating violations, they must -- MS. DUSEK: Well, if we took out the word contractor -- well, you can't really -- if you -- if she must pull required permits, in order to do that they have to have a licensed contractor and/or electrician, would they not? So, if we took out that word contractor, would that cover that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I guess what I'm trying to say is that -- MS. BARNETT: You're saying there's too many fines -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. The sections that she has been charged with violating, okay, you need to look at those sections and -- and one of them was, too, and that's what I'm saying, hot and cold water same, every dwelling or unit shall have connected to the sink, lavatory, blah, blah, blah, added supply of hot and cold water and it will supplied through, approved by distribution. So, what she needs is approved distribution and she already had a CO on this building, maybe there's somehow -- the only thing she doesn't have is -- as I'm listening to all what has been presented, is actual water running through the pipes. So, she has distribution. She just doesn't have any -- any liquid flowing through the pipes. So, how do you -- how do you charge her with not having -- you know, it's -- she has this supply lines and it says Page 149 March 25, 2004 have an adequate supply of hot and cold water, so there -- those -- those words right there, adequate supply of not -- both hot and cold water, that's where you can tie a fine because she doesn't have any water. So, now you can tie a fine to something. It's an actual thing. You can say she must obtain or furnish adequate supply of hot and cold water to the property, okay, or if she does it within X, it's a fine of something. That's what I'm saying. You have to tie those in, otherwise the most you can say is you're going to have to comply with the whole ordinance or $250 a day period. But if you want to do max or if you want to do various numbers, you're going to have to tie them in. Okay. Am I making sense? MS. DUSEK: Well, you're somewhat making sense -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Am I on the right track, Jean? MS. DUSEK: -- but not completely because if we ask her first of all to start repairs on all the violations, that's everything involved, perhaps -- and maybe and including in that -- no, we can't do that. I'm just -- I don't understand why we have to be specific and say where hot and cold running water-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Because we found her in violation of those sections. MS. DUSEK: I understand that we did. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now you just can't make a general statement by thinking up other sentences and tying numbers to other sentences. She's in violation of certain things, so you must find -- the fine must go with the things. Or you can tell her to do all this thing, all these items, one through five, leave out the money and then Item 6 would become, if the respondent fails to do the above by a certain date, it's $250 a day. Page 150 March 25, 2004 MS. DUSEK: All right. Let me ask you this. If we -- if we lumped everything together for one -- one part of it, must -- must abate all violations within 20 days -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: -- or a fine of, let's say, $200 a day would be instilled. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: And then the next part would be follow through with all required inspections to CO within ten days after obtaining permit? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay so far. MS. DUSEK: Or a fine of $100 a day? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now you're up to 300. MS. DUSEK: Well, ! have -- I know that -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You could -- you could stop at 50. Now, you haven't gone over your 250 max. MS. DUSEK: All right. So, then, I guess what you -- what we have to end up doing is, I don't know how you lump it all into one. MS. BARNETT: If you don't lump it into one, you have to separate it out by -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. It -- MS. DUSEK: Yeah, well-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- you know. And -- and I -- you know -- and what we're trying to do, I think, is because it is a serious nature, I don't have a problem with lumping it all into one and giving her X days now with the recommendation that she, you know, remove her tenant, which I think she's already working at supposedly, as she told us, because I think Carol also said the Sheriff had been out there. But that's about all you can do, that they -- that we will -- you know, we would start to -- we'll recommend that she start the repairs and the violations immediately within two days, no dollars associated Page 151 March 25, 2004 MS. DUSEK: CHAIRMAN MS. DUSEK: CHAIRMAN MS. DUSEK: $250. with it, that she use the licensed contractors and electricians and pull whatever permits are required to do the repairs, no fine associated with it, you know, and obtain the proper CO after obtaining the permits, again, no fine associated with it, then complete and abate the violations within X days or a fine of whatever that number is, say $200 a day will be imposed, and then cause inspections to be performed within one day after all repairs for a fine of $50 a day. Now, that amounts to 250. Something like that. MS. DUSEK: Okay. Yeah. Well, how does something like this, that maybe I'm saying the same thing that you are, but must abate all violations by the following: Repair violations within two days, no fine, must use a licensed -- properly licensed contractor and electrician to do the electrical work, must pull required permits within -- within -- I don't even know that we have to give a date, but say must pull required permits and follow through with all required inspections to CO within 20 days, that's for everything, or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: Now, can you do that although -- if she does one part of this and doesn't do the other? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She has to do it all. I'm saying she has to do it all. FLEGAL: Right. She has to do it all that way. She has to do it all. FLEGAL: Yes. And if she doesn't do it all within 20 days, then it's CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. DUSEK: Does that care of it? MS. BARNETT: One thing I would say rather than say make repairs within two days, which is what you started with, must start Page 152 March 25, 2004 repairs. MS. DUSEK: Okay. MS. BARNETT: Because I don't think she can make all the repairs. MS. DUSEK: Right. I didn't realize I had said that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. That -- that way she -- she has to comply with all the violations and there are one, two, three, four-- there are six violations she's be cited for, so that all must, you know, do everything within 20 days. That's your 250. She's going to have to fix all of them. Okay. Is that what you want? MS. DUSEK: Yeah. That's-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And, again, I don't have a problem with the money because it is a health and safety issue. MS. DUSEK: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We've taken that into consideration. MS. DUSEK: Right. But that more or less takes care of everything. And the only thing it doesn't take care of is the inspections afterwards, but we could include that without a fine, but I don't know if that's going to be an impetus to do anything. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, what we -- you could do it without a fine. Say, your -- your item six, you could still leave that on there, because if she doesn't notify the Code Enforcement Division that the violations have been completed, then the fines are going to keep running until Code Enforcement says, oh, they have been abated, so that's up to her to notify Code Enforcement so the fines stop. MS. DUSEK: So, if we more or less combine six and seven, must cause inspections to be performed when repairs are made and allow Code Enforcement and the building inspector on site to make official inspections within one day after repairs and notify Code Enforcement that the violation has been abated to request the inspector Page 153 March 25, 2004 to come out and perform the site inspection period without a fine. So, we've already imposed the $250. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. I don't have a problem. The fines will run until she gets Code Enforcement to say it's done, she's done. MS. DUSEK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So, it behooves her to comply with that sentence even though there's no money attached, because it's just going to -- the clock is going to keep ticking. MS. DUSEK: Well, do we even need to put number six in there? We just said, respondent must notify Code Enforcement that the violation has been abated and to request the investigator to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. I don't have a problem with that. MS. DUSEK: Because then we can eliminate that number six. MS. BARNETT: Do you not want to put in there also something to the effect that you would advise her to relief?. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. I think -- I think since we're being -- and I don't like the word, but since this is an emergency and it is a sense of nature, that it's a safety and health hazard and we are being rather stiff in our fines because of the health and safety issue, that the board should in its order strongly recommend that the respondent remove the tenant from the premises. We can't order her to do it but we recommend that she does it because of the health and safety issue. MS. ARNOLD: I have one comment regarding the case. Could there be something added regarding the -- keeping the unit vacant until in compliance because we don't want her to re-occupy it again? And then I just have a -- a quick comment regarding the room. There's another meeting in here at three o'clock. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We're just about done. As soon Page 154 March 25, 2004 as we get this case. This is the last one and we only have one other item and we're out of here. MS. DUSEK: Okay. We're eliminating number six and we're -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. DUSEK: -- writing everything, Jean, into one for 250 and we're recommending that she get rid of the tenant and not have unit occupied until all violations are abated. MS. BARNETT: And I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Everybody on board? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? Okay. That concludes the public hearings. Closed. We only have one other item of business that we agreed to do today and we'll do it real quick. This is our annual meeting, which means there are elections to be held for a chair and a vice-chair. We don't have any alternates here so I don't have to make a statement that they can't vote. So, the floor is open. The first item of business is for a chair. MS. BARNETT: I'd like to make a motion that we leave it as is. MR. LEFEBRE: I second that motion. MS. DUSEK: All in favor, signify by saying aye. Let's go. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that I assume that I, Cliff Flegal, remain as chairman and it's been seconded. Any other candidates? Page 155 March 25, 2004 Don't everybody run from the room at once. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Okay. We have a vice-chair (sic). I would recommend that we leave the vice-chair as it is. MR. LEFEBRE: I second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She keeps me in line. MR. LEFEBRE: Or I make a motion for that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion by Gerald to -- MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- for Bobby to remain vice-chair and we have a second by Sheri. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. The next meeting is April 22nd in this room. There will be another meeting called for administrative, as we said earlier, and Michelle will tell us when that's going to be. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Motion to adjourn. MS. BARNETT: Second. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Page 156 March 25, 2004 MS. DUSEK: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Aye. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:07 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE NOTTINGHAM AND ROSE WITT Page 157