Loading...
CEB Minutes 04/22/2004 R April 22, 2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida April 22, 2004 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Clifford Flegal Sheri Barnett Raymond Bowie Albert Doria, Jr. Gerald Lefebvre George Ponte ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney Shanelle Hilton, Code Enforcement Coordinator 1 "- CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA AGENDA Date: April 22, 2004 at 9:00 o'clock a.m. Location: 3301 E. Tamiami Tr., Naples, Florida, Collier County Government Center, Administrative Bldg, 3rd Floor NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 25, 2004 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS 1. Motion to Continue A. BCC VS. Baker CEB NO. 2003-026 B. BCC VS. Gomez & Izquierdo CEB NO. 2004-011 2. Motion for Rehearing: A. BCC VS. Haeger CEB NO. 2004-018 B. HEARINGS 1. CASE NO: 2004-008 CASE ADDR: 423 TAYLOR ROAD, IMMOKALEE, FL OWNER: CURTIS D. BLOCKERK AND CURTIS BLOCKER, JR INSPECTOR: DENNIS MAZZONE VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 1.5.6, 1.8.7, 1.9.2, 2.1.1I, 2.1.15 PAR I, 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, 11.14PAR4,5,6,8&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 I2X20 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 LAND 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. 2. CASE NO: 2004-012 CASE ADDR: 228 SABAL PALM ROAD, NAPLES, FL OWNER: EDWARD MCCARTHY AND DOROTHY LEWIS INSPECTOR: 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 -"" ",--" - --"-",--_._,"---___"__n LAND AND STRUCTURES NOT BEING USED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ZONING DISTRICT. PROPERTY IS ZONED AGRICULTURAL AND IS BEING USED AS MULTI F AMIL Y 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. 3. CASE NO: 2004-021 CASE ADDR: 707 WEBB RD, NAPLES, FL OWNER: GREG AND JANE BEE INSPECTOR: CHRISTAL SEGURA VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.2.24.3.2. CIA), 2.2.24.5 AND 3.9.3 REMOV AL OF VEGETATION AND ADDITION OF FILL ON IMPROVED CONSERVATION AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY ZONED PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST SUBMITTING AND OBTAINING APPROVAL FOR EXP ANISON OF IMPACTED AREA. 4. CASE NO: 2004-010 CASE ADDR: 831 16TH ST NE, NAPLES, FL OWNER: PAUL AND KELLY BYRD INSPECTOR: JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: ORD 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 3.5.7.1, 3.5.7.1.2, 3.5.5.1.2, 3.5.5.7.1, 3.5.7.7, AND 1.9.2 LAKE EXCAVATION NOT COMPLETED WITHIN REQUIRED TIME FRAME OF COMMERCIAL EXCA V A TION PERMIT AND NOT MEETING COLLIER COUNTY REQUIREMENTS OR SETBACKS. 5. CASE NO: 2004-011 CASE ADDR: 811 16TH ST NE, NAPLES, FL OWNER: JUAN CARLOS GOMEZ AND JUANA MA YDELIN IZQUIERDO INSPECTOR: JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.2.24.3.2. CIA), 2.2.24.5 AND 3.9.3 REMOVAL OF VEGETATION AND ADDITION OF FILL ON IMPROVED CONSERVATION AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY ZONED PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST SUBMITTING AND OBTAINING APPROV AL FOR EXP ANISON OF IMP ACTED AREA. 6. CASE NO: 2004-018 CASE ADDR: 2630 18TH AVE SE, NAPLES, FL OWNER: HERMAN HAEGER INSPECTOR: JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: 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, LA WNMOWERS AND TIRES. LITTER LEFT EXPOSED TO THE ELEMENTS UNATTENDED UNSECURED AND IN A PROGRESSIVE STATE OF DISREPAIR PRESENTING A NUISANCE TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. --- --- 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC vs. Baker CEB NO. 2003-026 2. BCC vs. Maria Brizuela CEB NO. 2004-020 3. BCC vs. Pacacios CEB NO. 2003-052 4. BCC vs. Southern Development CEB NO. 2003-005 5. BCC vs. Southern Development CEB NO. 2003-006 B. Request for Reduction/Abatement of Fines- (No request submitted at the time of this agenda) C. Request for Foreclosure 1. BCC vs. Guy Fracasso CEB NO. 2003-028 2. BCC vs. Robert Bidlack CEB NO. 2003-045 3. BCC vs. Cora Sneibrun CEB NO. 2003-031 D. MotionlRequest for Extension of Time - (No request submitted at the time of this agenda) 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Affidavits of Compliance 1. BCC vs. Pacacios CEB NO. 2003-052 2. BCC vs. Maria Brizuela CEB NO. 2004-020 B. Affidavits of Non-Compliance 1. BCC vs. Southern Development CEB NO. 2003-005 2. BCC vs. Southern Development CEB NO. 2003-006 7. REPORTS 1. BCC vs. Steven Johnson CEB NO. 2003-057 . 8. COMMENTS a. Rules and Regulations (changes if any and approval) 9. NEXT MEETING DATE May 27, 2004, Code Enforcement Meeting 10. ADJOURN --- ,- April 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll call the Collier County Code Enforcement Board to order, please. Please make note, any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May I have the roll call, please. MS. HILTON: Good morning. For the record, Shanelle Hilton, CEB coordinator. Clifford Flegal. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Present. MS. HILTON: George Ponte. MR. PONTE: Here. MS. HILTON: Gerald Lefebvre. MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. HILTON: Sheri Barnett. MS. BARNETT: Here. MS. HILTON: Albert Doria. MR. DORIA: Present. MS. HILTON: Raymond Bowie. MR. BOWIE: Here. MS. HILTON: Bobbie Dusek has an excused absence, and I did not hear anything from Mr. Dowling. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Since we have five regular members, Mr. Bowie will participate fully this morning, including voting. Approval of our agenda. Are there any changes, additions? MS. ARNOLD: F or the record, Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director. There is a request to add an Item C, which would be Board of County Commissioners versus Edward McCarthy 2 -- April 22, 2004 and Dorothy Lewis, CEB case 2004-012, to our motions -- request for motions agenda. So we'll be adding Item 1 -- or 4(A)(1)(C). CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And this is who again, please? MS. ARNOLD: Edward McCarthy and Dorothy Lewis. It's Item 2 under your hearing process. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, any others? MS. ARNOLD: I have no other changes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none, I'd entertain a motion to accept the agenda as changed. MS. BARNETT: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion by Mr. Ponte, seconded by Ms. Barnett. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, approval of our minutes from March 25th. They were sent to us bye-mail. Are there any changes, additions, corrections? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to accept our minutes as submitted. MR. BOWIE: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion to accept, do I hear a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) 3 '-"- April 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll now open our public hearings. First item under public hearings, motions to continue. First item, Board of County Commissioners versus Baker, Case No. 2003-026. MS. ARNOLD: You have a letter in your packet from the law firm of Ferguson Law Group, LLC. The item that's on your agenda is a imposition of fine process, and Mr. Ferguson is requesting a continuance. The county's position is we've -- you heard from Mr. Ferguson at last month's hearing. The order requested some compliance by December of last year, I believe? Or actually it was October of last year. And the county provided him a response to his submittal last December, and no other action has been taken from the respondent at this time to come anywhere close to compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, was he out of compliance as of October or something like that, or -- MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Let me look at the dates here in the packet. MS. BARNETT: Michelle, wasn't he waiting on an SDP or-- MS. ARNOLD: He got a response from the county for a submittal back last year in, I think it was, December. But let me look. I've got it here. MR. LEFEBVRE: Was this a case where he was trying to purchase an adjoining property? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. And this is a case that's in the Industrial Park, and he's got excessive storage and parking problems. And he needed to get an SDP amendment. He requested an insubstantial change, and it was rej ected by the county. And I believe he got a response from the county back in December. But there's been no submittal to reply to the county's rejection from that date to present. 4 -- - April 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And on today's agenda, you merely want to impose fines for him being out of compliance as of some date, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Ms. Rawson? MS. RAWSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Just so we can have all the technical information we need in imposing the fine, since we have this request to continue on such a thing, imposing a fine is an administrative type thing? MS. RAWSON: It is an administrative function. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any problems if the board decided not to grant the continuance? MS. RAWSON: Well, it's obviously at the board's pleasure. There is an order that the board has entered that says what the fine will be and when it will start. So administratively you can impose those fines any time. I would presume that the attorney wants to be here because he wants to make an argument to you, I would assume, that the fines should be less or that the fines should be abated. I'm not sure what he's going to say. But obviously he has some kind of an argument he wants to make to you before you impose the fines. But it's obviously your decision. MR. BOWIE: They could always come in afterwards and request a reduction or abatement as well. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, that was going to be my next question, they still have the right after we impose the fines, to come before us and ask for a reduction, abatement, or -- under our current system. MS. RAWSON: Under our current system, despite the Attorney General's opinion, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I didn't want to say that, but thank you. Okay. 5 "- April 22, 2004 MS. BARNETT: Are we in violation of possibly not giving them their due process if we don't allow their attorney to present his side? MS. RAWSON: Well, due process is something that people are afforded, obviously, the highest bit at the beginning hearing. The imposition of fines is an administrative function, it's not a hearing. But we always give people due process in that we invite them to be here, and they can bring attorneys, if they wish. So I don't think the due process argument is, you know, your paramount decision. But obviously Mr. Ferguson must have something he wants to say to you or he would not have asked you to wait till he could be here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. PONTE: Given that Mr. Ferguson can come back and appeal the fine, I would make a motion that the request for continuance be denied and just move this right along to the next step. He might not come back. MR. BOWIE: Second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to deny the request for continuance. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next motion, Board of County Commissioners versus Gomez and Izquierdo. I hope I said that right. Case No. 2004-011. MS. ARNOLD: This is also a request from the attorney representing, actually, Florida Community Bank, who is foreclosing on the property. This is actually a hearing on your agenda today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. This is a case that's not yet 6 ---- ------ April 22, 2004 before us? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Ms. Rawson, I guess I need to ask you a few technical questions. This motion is by somebody who is, I guess the proper way to put this is, not a party to this action that's not yet before us. MS. RAWSON: Well, I would ask if Mr. Molina, the attorney for the bank, is present. MS. ARNOLD: He's not. He's out of the country. MS. RAWSON: Because it would be paramount to your decision to know whether or not he is the authorized speaker for the respondent. MR. BOWIE: He indicates in his letter to us that he is representing Florida Community Bank, not the respondents Gomez and Izquierdo. MS. ARNOLD: Just for the board's information, we have had a very difficult time getting hold of these respondents. We've tried everything. And I think the reason why is because they've kind of abandoned the property. And that's why the bank is foreclosing on it. So, you know, we probably should add the bank to the case, because they're ultimately going to be the ones that take over the property. MR. BOWIE: I don't see how we can add them now at this point, though. MS. ARNOLD: Well, if you all grant the continuance. I mean, they're the mortgagors. I mean, they own the mortgage on the property, so -- MR. PONTE: Mr. Molina mentioned that he would -- Michelle, Mr. Molina mentioned in his note here that he would have someone appear on his behalf. Was there any attempt from any side? MS. ARNOLD: I'm not sure if anybody's here from the -- no one approached me. Is anyone here representing Community Bank for this property? 7 ---" - April 22, 2004 (N 0 response.) MR. PONTE: No. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: My Rawson, if -- since the case is on our docket to be heard, I'm trying to get some more information in considering the motion to continue. If we were to deny the motion to continue and we went ahead and heard the case, we then have an order on record against the property owner, which is these two people. And should it go to sale, that record protects the county, does it not, since it's filed? MS. RAWSON: If you enter an order, it obviously runs with the land. And I think if I understand Ms. Arnold, she's telling you that probably who they're going to be dealing with is the bank, because this property is in foreclosure, apparently has not yet been foreclosed. So I think that the owner of record is still Gomez and Izquierdo. But again, it's up to you. I still think we'll be dealing with the bank. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: Who I presume will become owners of this property quite soon. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Down the road, yeah. Okay. Any other questions from board members? MS. BARNETT: I have a question in regards to this letter. It's not that there will be someone here, it says that to please notify him if we aren't going to allow him to continue so that he can make arrangements to have someone. I don't know how we could do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, it's -- MS. BARNETT: He's trying to make sure that someone is here to represent the case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. I guess my only comment is I'm not for continuing it. I don't think that's a good position for the county. I think we need to be on record that is there a problem, is there not a problem. If there is, let's issue an order and get on with it. And the current owner and/or the owner who buys it needs 8 ------- -.--"- --- April 22, 2004 to solve the problem. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any motions to grant or deny? MR. BOWIE: I'd like to move that the motion for continuance be denied. MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to deny 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: Next motion is McCarthy and Lewis. We have no paperwork, so -- MS. ARNOLD: We have Rich Yovanovich here representing Edward McCarthy and Dorothy Lewis on this particular motion. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. F or the record, Rich Yovanovich. It's actually Doris Lewis, instead of Dorothy. MS. ARNOLD: Sorry, Doris. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's okay. This is a rather confusing and has a lot of -- the matter has a lot of facts to it. The original structures were constructed in 1968 under, you know, a zoning ordinance that applied back in 1968, which is different than the zoning ordinance that is in effect today. We have been working with staff to figure out exactly what were the rules of the game that needed to apply to this particular piece of property, since these structures were built in 1968. We have, on one of the -- one of the structures was a carport that admittedly was converted to a residential structure improperly. We 9 "---- April 22, 2004 have worked with your staff to decommission, if you will, that structure. We have capped off the water, we have capped off the sewer, so it is no longer being used as a residential structure. We have talked with your staff that we will get -- when we bought the property, you need to know that this was already converted to an enclosed storage area. We will work with your staff over the next 60 days to get the appropriate permits and inspections to have that structure be used as a storage structure and not as a residential structure. So we're asking for your continuance to get that accomplished, and that could be part of the order on the continuance. The other issue is a little bit more difficult. There are three duplexes on the property that existed on the property when my client bought the property in 1983. They're shown on the tax records as duplexes. We've been paying taxes on it, at least since we've owned the property and before that the question became are those legal nonconforming or are they not legal nonconforming structures. We've been working with code enforcement staff on that issue, providing additional information, getting opinion from the County Attorney's office as to whether or not these six structures are -- or six units are or are not legal conforming structures. To avoid the fight over, you know, is there some estoppel arguments or whatever that these can be legally nonconforming structures, we have agreed that we will go through the -- to a couple of things: First, we will give the tenants that are in there now notice that they need to leave, they're on month-to-month leases, so we have to give them 30 days to get out. We'll give them the appropriate notice and we will stop using the duplexes as rental units within 60 days, because that's about how long it's going to take to do the appropriate notice for the tenants. We will stop using them as rental units. We will start the process of getting a rezone to the property -- because this property is in the urban fringe, and the urban fringe density is one and a half units per acre, we have -- and we had to do a 10 , '.~--,-- ""- --,----"- - April 22, 2004 survey -- we have somewhere between 4.25 acres and five acres. So depending on how the survey comes out, we will either be allowed six units or seven units under the comprehensive plan. So we will apply for a rezone of the property to the appropriate zoning classification, which I think is going to be RSF-2 at this point, within 60 days and we will diligently pursue the rezone to have it, hopefully, approved. If it's not approved, then we will obviously have to deal with those structures. And if we have to remove them, we will. I regret to tell you that the process to rezone property in Collier County takes about 12 months. But what we will have done to assure the Code Enforcement Board that there is not going to be any issues is we will have already removed the tenants in 60 days. So there will be nobody living in those structures while we're going through the rezone process. So we're requesting a continuance for -- with those stipulations, that we have to meet those milestones for this case. If we don't meet those milestones, then we would come back in front of the Code Enforcement Board and go forward with the hearing. But I think -- we have been meeting with Michelle Arnold and her staff, giving them information, trying to figure out were these legal nonconforming uses, not legal nonconforming uses. The county's records are not the best going back to 1967. MS. BARNETT: I have a question with this. MR. YO V ANOVICH: Yes, ma'am. MS. BARNETT: I believe we've seen this case once before and we continued it based on the fact that there was a sale pending. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we have agreed, ma'am, that we will notify -- first of all, there is a pending contract. And I'm going to write that contract purchaser a letter saying you can either close with knowledge that you can't rent those units or you can get out of the contract. And if they elect to get out of the contract, fine. If they elect to close, they will be on notice that they cannot use those duplexes as 11 --------- "- April 22, 2004 rental income. And we will make sure that any -- if they bailout and if someone else wants to come buy the property, we will also notify them that this is not rental property, we're going through the rezone process and they're not to use those duplexes. MS. BARNETT: Okay. But I'm going to say, we've granted one continuance based on that information, and now you're asking us to give you another continuance based on some further information? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, because I've had an opportunity -- first of all -- MS. BARNETT: You were not here yet -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was not -- right, I was not here. And this case was rushed to the Code Enforcement Board because of the pending sale, as I understand it. They wanted to make sure that the potential purchaser knew this was out there. We -- I know the details, I've had an opportunity to actually analyze the packet. MS. BARNETT: I think also part of it was because of the conditions. MR. YO V ANOVICH: Well, you need to understand that -- MS. ARNOLD: There was -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That -- MS. ARNOLD: Go ahead. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That has to do with the one structure that we have decommissioned. The other structures were all raised up and are -- you know, back when those pictures were taken, we had a lot of rain, and a lot of houses around Collier County had water in the yards. But the pictures you saw had to do with the one that's no longer being used. MS. BARNETT: The interior? MR. YO V ANOVICH: Yeah. So that's our request for a continuance. We wanted to include milestones so you all knew we were diligently pursuing this and not just simply trying to delay. If you want to ask Ms. Arnold any questions. 12 -----"---"-- ,--- April 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. Michelle, what's the county's position? MS. ARNOLD: I think what we ought to do is memorial-- if the board grants this continuance, we'll memorialize this with a compliance agreement so that there is written documentation, you know, in the absence of actually going through the hearing process and doing an order. So we can do that and then just bring it back to the board for informational purposes at the next meeting. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we're happy to do that. And just for the board's information, when we were first notified of the violation, we were obviously supposed to be given a reasonable opportunity to cure the violation. One of the things we could do to cure that violation, because of the compo plan designation on the property, is to go through the rezone process. I'm telling you, there's no way I could get a rezone in a week. And that's all we were given is a week. And again, if I can get county -- if I could get the process to move quicker than 12 months, believe me, I would, because I've got several other zoning petitions that I'd like to meet that 12-month time period. So we just wanted to assure you we would be in the process within that 60 days, because we do need to put the application materials together and have a pre-application meeting, which takes us about 30 days to get one of those scheduled, and we'll pursue the rezone. MR. BOWIE: Michelle, maybe I could ask this question. You seem to be -- staff seems to be amenable to this. If so, how come a compliance agreement couldn't have been arrived prior to this and presented to us this morning? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Bowie, I take responsibility for that. It was my idea to go this way after, finally, for my own information getting down and looking as far back into the zoning code myself to try to find -- I know there's an old pamphlet out there somewhere 13 ----------' ----- April 22, 2004 that's the 1967 code. I haven't been able to find that. As far back as I could get was 1975. So it was me coming to staff saying listen, I can't go far enough back to tell you whether I'm right or I'm wrong on this legal nonconforming use argument. I give up. Let's move forward and try to just fix the problem. So I didn't give staff enough time to come back to you with a compliance agreement. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, it was a matter of timing and sitting down with all the parties, you know, to communicate. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If the board was so inclined to grant a continuance, could we make it contingent on some type of compliance agreement? MS. RAWSON: Yes. Definitely. And you grant the continuance on Mr. Yovanovich's assurance that a compliance will be reached and set it for another day down the road. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we've laid out all the terms and I think the terms are all acceptable to staff. If they're acceptable to you, it will come forward in whatever form your compliance agreement is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other questions from board members? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. I guess since hearing this and hearing that the county is willing to work with Mr. Yovanovich, I don't have a problem with granting a continuance, say, for a 60-day period, you know, whatever that -- this is April, May -- to our June meeting, contingent upon the compliance agreement being signed by the county and Mr. Yovanovich. MS. ARNOLD: What was the 60 days? Because we can bring the compliance agreement back to you next month. The 60 days was for the vacation of the units. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, I don't have a problem with that. 14 - April 22, 2004 Jean, is that -- MS. RAWSON: May 27th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. BARNETT: And Cliff, my only thing is generally we don't like to give one continuance and now we're giving two. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that. MS. BARNETT: But I do understand that the staff is not necessarily against this. So as long as -- I agree with you, as long as I think we have a compliance -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They seem to be trying to work it out so maybe I'm thinking this might be a way to get it resolved, rather than an actual case down the road. So that's the only reason I'm for it, I guess. Any other comments from board members? If none, if somebody would like to make a motion to either grant or deny the continuance? MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion to grant the continuance. MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to -- . yes, SIr. MR. BOWIE: Could we make that subject to-- MS. BARNETT: Subject to the compliance. MR. BOWIE: -- a compliance agreement incorporating terms acceptable to both staff and the respondents to be presented to us at our May 27th meeting? MR. PONTE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. That was my understanding, so thank you, Mr. Bowie. MR. PONTE: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to grant a continuance based on the compliance agreement being presented to us. Any further discussion? (No response.) 15 --- April 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next item is a motion for a rehearing, Board of County Commissioners versus Haeger. Case No. 2004-018. MR. HAEGER: Good morning. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good morning, sir. (Speaker sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, Mr. Haeger. MR. HAEGER: Okay. I'm here to request a rehearing on the complaint that I received to appear before the board. The -- this entails a -- probably a miscommunication on the part of the Code Enforcement Board and myself. Approximately beginning of March sometime, I received one of these things on the -- on my -- I live out in -- I'm building a house out in Golden Gate Estates. And I received a thing that said that my case was coming before the board for, you know, like right here. And I went in to see -- into the Code Enforcement Board office and I talked to, I believe a Michaelle Crowley. And in that meeting she showed me the packet that was being prepared to bring to the board and all. And she also handed me this notice of hearing, okay, which on it says that you -- I don't have my glasses, but it says that pending and undetermined by the board on April 22nd, 2004 at 9:00 a.m., at Collier County government center. This was handed to me and it has the time -- or the certified mail stamp on the back of it. Then approximately on the 20th or so of March, I received this packet in the mail, it's the same packet that has the stamp on this, and it also says on the inside, on Page 2, it says that you are to appear at a public hearing at the above style cause on April 22nd, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. at the Collier County government center. 16 -- ----'- ""-- April 22, 2004 Well, I assume that, you know, that was the day I was supposed to be here, which is today. Then I received, again, taped to my permit board out there, from Mr. Letourneau, who is an inspector who's been working on this thing, it says your case was brought before the Code Enforcement Board and the violations were found to be true. If you do not comply with the order, daily fines will be levied. Please contact Shanelle Hilton, and her number and details. And I'd like to make a mention that none of these things -- and I have a collection of these, none of them have a date on them. So as far as the time frame go, you know, you can play almost cards with them. The only reason I know it, the one that got me to -- the one that got me to the Code Enforcement Board initially, as you can see, all these are kind of pink, okay? The one that got me to there was this one. It looked like it had been laying on the ground for along while, okay? And this is the one that I had shown Mrs. Crowley and this is the one, you know, that started this whole thing, or, you know, started the process of me knowing that I was supposed to be here. I got the notice saying that the board was already -- you already had heard my case, and then I received the findings of facts, conclusions of law and order of the board, which you had had on your last meeting on the 25th of March. I received this about the 2nd or 3rd of April, okay? And I didn't know what was happening. I mean, I was supposed to be here today, not last March 25th meeting. MR. BOWIE: If I could just interrupt, I think I understand what happened. Michelle, is there a possibility of some miscommunication as to the hearing date that was communicated to this respondent? MS. ARNOLD: There was a notice that was posted, because of lack of him picking up his packet via certified mail. There was a notice that was posted that is the notice of hearing that actually went out. But quite frankly, I can't tell you whether or not -- what that date 17 -- April 22, 2004 said, because it was taken in a way that you can't read what was actually posted. Those notices that are -- that he showed you were just kind of informational type thing. There was an actual notice, an additional notice that was posted on the board out there. And a photograph was taken, and it was posted in the courthouse. But again, I can't tell you what that date was. MR. BOWIE: So you can't really deny that he was led to believe -- MS. ARNOLD: There could have been a mixup. MR. BOWIE: I'd like to move that the motion for a hearing be granted in this then. MR. HAEGER: I'd -- I would also like to have -- and this was on the advice of both Debbie White and Michael Sheffield, in the County Manager's office. I'd like to request that this order that you did last March be vacated, because I'm ready to, you know -- in other words, what I'm trying to tell you is that I knew I had to be here today, April 22nd. So I had -- I knew what I had to do on my property, and from that time to this time, I had, you know, gotten things done and in order so that when I came in front of you people, the board today, I would be able to show you that, well, this is what I have accomplished and this is what I have done, and I have pictures, you know, to prove it, and inspections and all. And that's why I'd like to have this order vacated. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If we grant him a motion to rehear the case, then we'll decide what to do with the existing order, okay? MR. HAEGER: Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So right now we have -- is there anything else you'd like to tell us? MR. HAEGER: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, sir. We have a motion from Mr. Bowie to grant a rehearing of this particular case today. MR. PONTE: I'll second that motion. 18 --'-----------"""- ------ - -- April 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And we have a second by Mr. Ponte. 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, sir, we will rehear your case. MR. HAEGER: Thank you, sir. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's on there as 18 -- and it is on the agenda as Item 6. Any more motions? There were none on the agenda. MS. ARNOLD: Excuse me? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We done? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we're done with motions. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Excuse me. All right, now we'll open the public hearings. First case, 2004-008, Blocker. And we have -- MS. ARNOLD: Before Shanelle starts, this particular item was before you all last month, and we agreed to get with the attorney representing the Blockers and come up with a compliance agreement. You should have a copy of that compliance agreement in your packet. Basically they're stipulating to the violation and -- that they would go through the site improvement plan process and try to come into compliance within certain time frames, and if not, there are also fines associated with that. So I don't know if the board has had an opportunity to review that compliance agreement? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Glanced over it. What we need to do is have the county present their side of the case, and then we'll -- since we have a compliance agreement, we will enter that as -- we'll stipulate that they agree that they're -- MS. ARNOLD: Well, I think all we would do is read the 19 -- -~--, --- April 22, 2004 information into the record with respect to the ownership and the violation. And I don't think we'll go through the testimony. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, no, I don't want the testimony. I need the first part, since we haven't heard anything about this so far, before we make some kind of determination. MS. HILTON: All right, this is Board of County Commissioners versus Curtis D. Blocker and Curtis Blocker, Jr., CEB No. 2004-008. We have previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear a motion to enter it, please? MR. PONTE: So moved. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept 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 1.5.6, 1.8.7, 2.1.11, 2.1.15, Paragraph 1, 2.2.9.2.1, 2.2.9.4, 2.7.6, Paragraphs 1 and 5,3.3.11 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. And Section 5.1, 7.16, Paragraph A, 10.2, 10.5, Paragraph B, 10.7 of Ordinance No. 82-02. And Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.6, 5.1, 11.14, Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 8 and 14 of the Zoning Regulations of Collier County, dated March 31 st, 1974. The description of the violation: 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 12 by 20 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 20 --- -- April 22, 2004 size; all same improvements collectively exceeding Collier County district land use density requirements; all same improvements not having received required Collier County site improvement plan or site development plan, Collier County building permits and inspections through certificate of occupancy. Location where violation exists: 423 Taylor Street, Immokalee, Florida. Name and address of owner: Curtis D. Blocker and Curtis Blocker, Jr., PO Box 970, Immokalee, Florida. Date violation first observed: October 22nd, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: October 23, 2003. Date on which violation was to be corrected: December 15th, 2003. Date of reinspection: April 20th, 2004. Result of reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a stipulation from the owner that in fact violations do exist, and a compliance agreement. Therefore, Jean, would it not be prudent at this point we close the public hearings and move on to -- MS. RAWSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- order of the board? Public hearings are closed on this item. We'll move into the order of the board. First item, finding of fact that in fact a violation does exist. MS. BARNETT: I'll make a motion that in the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County versus Curtis D. Blocker and Curtis Blocker, Jr., that a violation does exist. The violation -- and I guess it's CEB No. 2004-008. The violation is of Sections 1.5.6, 1.8.7, 2.1.11, 2.1.15, Paragraph 1, 2.2.9.2.1, 2.2.9.4, 2.7.6, Paragraphs 1 and 5, 3.3.11 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended by the Collier County Land Enforcement (sic) Code. And Sections 5.1, 7.16, Paragraph A, 10.2, 10.5, Paragraph B, 10.7 of Ordinance No. 82-02. And Sections 21 _--n -"--U- --"------"--'--------"- --- April 22, 2004 4.1,4.2,4.6, 5.1, 11.14, Paragraphs 4,5,6, 8 and 14 of zoning regulations of Collier County dated March 31st, 1974. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Only one correction, Sheri, it's Land Development Code, not Land Enforcement Code. MS. BARNETT: I missed that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's the only -- MS. BARNETT: Okay, I'll make that change. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Just so we have the right document. Not a problem. We have a motion on the floor that in fact violations do exist. Do I hear a second? MR. BOWIE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, order of the board. We do have a compliance agreement from the respondent's attorney and agreed to by the code enforcement department. MS. BARNETT: I make a motion we accept the compliance. MR. PONTE: I have some questions about the agreement itself. Page 2 of the agreement, the time frames seem rather broad. By charge of the agreement is 90 days from the date of today, we just made the finding of fact, conclusion of law. But then in B, in 2-B, there's an 18-month lapse for getting approval of the SIP. MS. ARNOLD: And the time period is based upon the site improvement plan process, that Section 2.2.29 of the Land Development Code. There's a timetable based on the size of the park 22 ---- -- April 22, 2004 or number of units in the park that is granted through that process. So we just were trying to be consistent with that process. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So that's already culled out in-- MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- in a procedure that the county has developed. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions about the agreement? MS. ARNOLD: Is the agreement being referenced in the order? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We haven't got that far, but that's probably what we're going to do. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, thank you. MR. BOWIE: Another question about this 18-month time frame following the SIP. This 18 months requires them to obtain building permits within the 18 months. That's just obtaining the permits, not to finish anything that needs to be done pursuant to those permits; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: That is a good point. It says just, basically, obtain them, it doesn't say follow through with the process. MR. BOWIE: So they could obtain permits and do nothing and be in compliance with this order? MS. ARNOLD: If read literally, yes, that's correct. MS. RAWSON: What you could do is we can approve the compliance agreement and then you can add the language in your order that, you know, says that they will follow through with required inspections and certificate of occupancy or completion. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, there is a -- in paragraph D, that they should contact us or contact me upon full compliance to request a final inspection. But that's just applicable to our compliance inspection, it doesn't really address all of the inspections required for the building permits or the site development process. 23 ---- -- April 22, 2004 MR. BOWIE: Now, if we were to attempt to amend this agreement, do we still have an agreement? MS. RAWSON: I think that you're attempting to amend it in such a way that just fleshes it out. I don't think you're changing the substance of the agreement. Because I think it's implicit in there that they're going to follow through. But if you add that in your order, I'll put it in my written order, and I will attach the compliance agreement and incorporate it in the order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would think if we accept the compliance agreement, which says Item B, which seems to be our concern, including building permits within 18 months, if we then say okay, we'll accept your agreement but then the board stipulation is that after receiving your building permits you must finish, you must get any COs required, any inspections and whatever, and if you fail to do that within some period, then we're going to enforce additional fines, you know. And I find that only logical. Yeah, you can get a permit. I know they run out after a while, but we want you to get a permit and do something with the property, not just get a permit. So I don't have a problem with adding -- accepting this agreement and then adding our own stipulations to make sure that there is a finalization of everything. I wouldn't have a problem doing that. I would feel comfortable there. So we're down to order of the board, which I think would be to incorporate the compliance agreement between the parties and anything else that the board wishes to add to round out and bring finalization to the events. So why don't the members consider that when they're contemplating making a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: I just have a question. Where it says 18 months for approval of the SIP, I'd like to see that the work, once permits are received, that they have a certain time frame, I'm not sure what that time frame should be, but a time frame to complete all the work. Because I would hate to see it go 18 months and they start to 24 "-.--"'" -- April 22, 2004 work on it. After permits are received, maybe 60 days. MR. BOWIE: I don't know why they can't get it all done in 18 months. That's a lot of time. MR. LEFEBVRE: That is a lot of time. MS. BARNETT: Would they be able to do that, Michelle? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, Michelle, can you -- can they get there without -- let's say they don't get the approval of the SIP. Can they get their building permits before that approval and proceed? MS. ARNOLD: They have to get the SIP first. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Then the building permits. MS. ARNOLD: And then the building permits. And the building permits for the mobile homes themselves shouldn't take that long, so it's a doable time frame for -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So if we gave them the 18 months to get the approval of the SIP and then we gave them, say, 60 days after that to get all the final inspections and COs and everything, would that be consistent with their building permit process? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, let me read this again, though. MR. LEFEBVRE: What I would like to see is if they get the building permits -- or get the approval within 12 months, I'd like to see that they have 60 more days to actually complete the work. I wouldn't want it to go 18 months and then two months beyond that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, they have to have that option, since that's what they agreed to. I think if we're going to word anything, the wording should be something to the effect that after receipt of approval of an SIP, we don't care when that is, then get the required permits. MS. ARNOLD: Staffs intent here was to have everything completed, including certificate of occupancy, within that 18-month time period, but -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But is that the way -- you said this all came out of a procedure, so not having the procedure, we can't read it, 25 ---~ ---" -- April 22, 2004 so -- MS. ARNOLD: That's where the 18 months came from. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But does that -- in that procedure, does it permit the approval, the permits, the -- or is it just 18 months for the SIP? MS. ARNOLD: They need to be completed within 18 months. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Everything has to be done within 18 months? MS. ARNOLD: Right, right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BOWIE: Is there anyone here from the respondent or the respondents themselves present here to confirm this? MS. ARNOLD: Jennifer did speak with Mr. Spiller and he said that he was not going to be here today. MS. BARNETT: So rather than giving it an additional 60 days, we could just say and completed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MR. BOWIE: Right. I'd like to make a motion that in the Case No. 2004-008, that the board adopt the terms of the compliance agreement dated April 20th, 2004, with respondents Curtis D. Blocker and Curtis Blocker, Jr., and incorporate that agreement as its order in this case. Subject, however, to the stipulation that Paragraph 2(B) of the agreement require respondents to secure certificates of completion and certificates of occupancy within the 18-month time frame. That was the understanding that you said that you had with them, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. PONTE: I think there should be -- my suggestion, to kind of close that door -- and to say okay, obtain all the required development orders, including building permits and complete all -- and complete all work, bring the property into compliance within 18 months of approval of the SIP. MR. BOWIE: Well, they've got -- I think that's incorporating the 26 -"- ---,.. _.- - April 22, 2004 idea of certificates of completion and occupancy, that everything must be completed or they wouldn't get those. MR. PONTE: Might be there, but why can't it be here? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, if we put in -- if we follow Ray's idea of getting the COs or certificate of completion, whatever is required, what we're saying is the county won't give them those certificates unless everything is done. They can't get those. The county won't sign off on those two documents unless everything is completed. So that's why Ray has culled out both of those documents. MS. BARNETT: I'd like to second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, have you got it all? MS. RAWSON: You're approving the agreement, but you are adding in Paragraph 2, following through with required inspections and CO within 18 months. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Just to make sure that it does reach a finalization period and there's no kind of loopholes laying out there. Okay, everybody understands? We have a motion and a second. No further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Case No.2 we continued. Case No.3, 2004-021, Greg and Jane Bee. MS. HILTON: Yes, this is Board of County Commissioners versus Bee, Greg and Jane, CEB Number 2004-021. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Shanelle, just a moment, please. Ma'am, you can sit down a minute because she's going to read a bunch of stuff, and rather than have you stand there -- 27 -- April 22, 2004 MS. BEE: I have artificial knees. Once I get up, I'm up. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. BEE: But thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Didn't want to see you standing there for a while. MS. BEE: I appreciate it. MS. HILTON: The respondent is present in the courtroom. 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. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do we have a motion to accept Exhibit A? MS. BARNETT: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: A second, please. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept 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 of Sections 2.2.24.3.2, Paragraph l(A), and 2.2.24.5, and 3.9.3 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: Removal of vegetation and addition of fill on improved conservation area of critical state concern, special treatment overlay zoned property without first submitting and obtaining approval for expansion of impacted area. New impact exceeds maximum allowed alteration of 10 percent. Before new impacts, property already exceeded 1.835 acres impact allowed for this size of parcel under the special treatment overlay. Location where violation exists: 707 Webb Road, Copeland, 28 -"--~ ,,",------"-" ---- April 22, 2004 Florida. Name and address of owner: Greg and Jane Bee, P.O. Box 87, Copeland, Florida. Date violation first observed: March 19th, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: April 1st, 2003, which was sent certified mail and returned claimed. Date on which violation was to be corrected: May 4,2003. Date of reinspection: April 20th, 2004. Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And the CEB packet was sent certified mail, and I have the green card that I received. And at this time, I would like to turn the case over to the investigator, Christal Segura, to present the case to the board. (Speaker sworn.) MS. SEGURA: Hello. This case was actually started by former Investigator Susan Mason on March 19th, 2003. She was called out to the property on a complaint, an anonymous complaint. On-site she observed that vegetation had been removed, fill had been brought in, and fill had also been placed on the root zones of existing vegetation, including cypress and maple. The NOV was issued on April 1 st, 2003. And the violation, the order to correct, was to abate the violation by May 4th, 2003. The case was then turned over to Investigator Summer Brown on the transfer of Susan Mason to our planning department. She attempted to work with Ms. Bee for many months, and she told Ms. Bee that she needed to replace some mitigation sized three red maples, four cypress and one cabbage palm. Also to remove the fill and plant the trees. She also worked out an agreement with Ms. Bee to plant the trees one tree every two weeks, or per pay period, until completed. And in February, 2004, the case was then turned over to me because I was returning from leave, and this was my territory. And I 29 -----"'-- ----- April 22, 2004 have made several phone calls and left messages for the Bees and have not received any calls back or any attempts to abate the violation, so the decision was made to bring the case to you today. MR. PONTE: Investigator, I have a question. What you're saying is it would just take the planting -- replanting of seven trees and the addition of fill to bring this property into compliance? MS. SEGURA: Yes, sir. Eight trees. MR. PONTE: Eight trees. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for the investigator? MR. PONTE: Is there -- just one other question. Is there any reason that Mrs. Bee has suggested why it has taken so long to plant eight trees? MS. SEGURA: Financial reasons. And I guess that's the biggest reason why they haven't been able to replant them, that they've stated they haven't been able to replant them. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions? MS. BARNETT: Is it actually the planting of the trees that's the problem or the removal of the fill? MS. SEGURA: It's purchasing the trees to replant them. MS. BARNETT: Not the removal of the fill? Because I would think that that would be more costly than planting eight trees. MS. BEE: Really, with the first rain the fill -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You get a chance, ma'am. MS. SEGURA: It is a small area that was impacted. We just -- we haven't seen any compliance to this date to do anything. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is there a -- the fill that was brought in, is there a lot of it or is this something that -- I mean, is this -- are we talking wheelbarrow loads or dump truck loads, or -- can you tell us? MS. SEGURA: I actually did not observe the violation back when it was brought in. It had -- you know, a year has passed since 30 "-----" -- April 22, 2004 then before the case was turned over to me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. SEGURA: It was not a significant amount, to my knowledge. MS. BARNETT: Have you been out there at all? MS. SEGURA: Yes, ma'am. MS. BARNETT: And you can't determine the size or the amount of fill? MS. SEGURA: A year has passed, so it's hard to determine. I mean, it does look a lot different now than it did before. It was just a small area around the house. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for the investigator? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Bee, if you'll step forward, please. (Speaker sworn.) MS. BEE: I apologize, I've got laryngitis. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's okay. Just pull the mic. a little closer, please. Thank you, ma'am. MS. BEE: You're welcome. Basically we have to replace the trees with 16- foot trees. In order to do that, you've actually got to get somebody that's got a nursery bucket that can come in and dig the hole and put the big trees in. If we put smaller trees in, we have to buy more of them. But five to eight-foot cypress tree is $100. Five to eight-foot maple tree is $100. Cabbage palm, I didn't even get a price on them. I was so disgusted, as time progressed, that I just threw up my hands and said we can't do it. We can't get -- we can't afford to have a nurseryman do it. My husband and I aren't physically able to do it. We've offered to do anything else. You know, I'll go sit in their office and answer phones or something. 31 -------_."- ----"-- "'--- April 22, 2004 But the amount of fill, we cleared Brazilian pepper because we were going to lose our house insurance, fire insurance, so we had to clear Brazilian pepper. In clearing the Brazilian pepper, we accidentally knocked down three trees that shouldn't have gone down but we didn't see them in there. We got the fire break up. The fill that we put in was to fill in the holes where the Brazilian pepper roots came out. So it really was just the leveling off so we didn't have these big pits back there where water would accumulate and mosquitoes grow. We really didn't think this would go anywhere because so many people in Copeland have done 10 times worse. I mean, they've cleared acres and nobody snitched them out. And you guys -- even if they did, you guys didn't do anything about it. So we didn't think our three little trees were that big a deal, except we do have a neighbor that happens to hate us. And if we plant a rose bush, he wants to know if we got a permit to do it. I mean, he's a real pain in the neck. But we had to put the fire breakup to keep our homeowners Insurance. We lost our insurance anyhow, because they don't insure fabric homes anymore, they've got to be cinderblock. We put the fire breakup. We filled in the holes so we wouldn't have stagnant water. I'm retired and disabled. My husband works but he's partially disabled, too. What can we do? Last night I was talking with some neighbors and they said, you know, we'll give you the plants. I said will you come plant them for me, too, because I've got to have a receipt that I bought them. You can't give me plants unless you give me a receipt. And I can't -- I just can't afford to have a nurseryman come and do it. If one of these contractors that cleared hundreds of acres on 41 wants to bring me some of his cabbage palms and cypress trees and plant, I'll give him the land to plant them on. He can plant them anywhere. I've got a lot of acreage out there. And this is the first improvement we've done to the land. Any improvements that were done before that, before we bought it was 32 -"--'- -- April 22, 2004 before the restrictions went in as to improving 10 percent. We've only -- I don't think that we actually have improved 10 percent of our property. Weare -- you know, day by day, as my husband is able, he goes out and cuts down Brazilian pepper. We're trying to get all our acreage cleared of exotics. But there's only so much we can do. If they would -- we've asked them before if they would give us some way to mitigate it besides paying out -- in the thing they said it's $590. It isn't. It's thousands of dollars that we're going to have to payout to have these trees planted. And, you know, we didn't mean to knock them down. The guy came to do it. He was very careful. There were other trees that we worked around that he saw. But these three accidentally got knocked down -- you know, the Brazilian peppers were so big that we didn't see them. But, you know, if there's some other mitigation we could do. You know, if I can go on the computer and send notices to people, or whatever, let me know and I will do it. Or have -- if somebody wants to do it for me, I'll be more than glad to give them the land to plant them on. But I just physically can't do it. And financially we really can't do it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You said the trees of -- I can't remember, was it eight foot or something, were like $100 apiece? MS. BEE: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Did you get a price -- you said the taller trees, the 16- foot trees a contractor would have to do for you. Did you ever get a price for doing that? MS. BEE: No. By that point I was so discouraged and disgusted, and I was going in to have my knees replaced, and I just threw up my hands and told my husband, I said I can't cope anymore. I just -- you know, we'll go to court and whatever they say we have to do, we'll have to do. I had just reached the point of I couldn't deal with it anymore. 33 -"- April 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Anyone have any questions for Ms. Bee? MS. BARNETT: The trees that had the fill put on them, the cypress trees and that, are they still alive or are they -- MS. BEE: Oh, yeah, the first good rain, you know, washed the fill down in and filled the up the holes. Just a light scattering of fill to fill in the holes. And when it rained, it washed it away from the roots, which we were sure it would. MS. BARNETT: But they are still alive? MS. BEE: Oh, yeah, yeah. And the worst part is, I planted a maple tree when we first moved there. And it's huge, out by the side of my house. I wish I could count that as my maple tree because it's taller than my house now. I planted it before we knocked the other ones down, and I don't get credit for it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, ma'am. Close the public hearings on this case and move on to order of the board, finding of fact. MR. PONTE: Okay, I'll make a motion that a violation does exist in the case CEB No. 2004-021, Board of County Commissioners versus Greg and Jane Bee. And the violation is of Sections 2.2.24.3.2, 1.A, and 2.2.24.5, and 3.9.3, Ordinance 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: Is the removal of vegetation and the addition of fill on improved conservation area of critical state concern and special treatment overlays zoned property without first submitting and obtaining approval for the expansion of the impacted area. A -- new impacts exceed the maximum allowed alteration of 10 percent. Before new impacts were properly exceeded -- we're talking about 1.385 acres of impact that were allowed for this size parcel under this special treatment of overlay. 34 -"-" ",""-------"--------" ---- April 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Are you done, George? MR. PONTE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that in fact a violation does exist. Is there a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that a violation does exist. Any 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: Order of the board. Before we get to that phase, Michelle, I have a question. If the Bees were able to obtain trees, let's say, from some goodhearted neighbors or whatever, where they gave them the trees they needed, would a letter from those people that they were donating the trees to them be sufficient for the county to -- you know, rather than a bill of sale that they bought them somewhere, would that help if somebody just gave them the trees? Do you need proof that they were given the trees? MS. ARNOLD: We just need to see them planted. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So the fact that they have them is -- it doesn't matter where. MS. ARNOLD: We don't -- it doesn't matter where they get them from. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Where they get them. Okay. All you want to see is them in the ground? Okay. MS. BARNETT: Michelle, would you be amenable if they put them in the ground if they weren't necessarily as large, as long as they were replanted and maintained? MS. ARNOLD: I'm going to have to defer that to -- 35 '- April 22, 2004 MS. BARNETT: I realize it's not replacing same with same, but under the issue, I just -- MS. SEGURA: Yeah. I mean, we would have been happy if they would have planted a 10- foot tree. We would have worked with them, I guess, on the sizes. And the mitigation specifically states that it needs to be a 14- foot tree, but like I said, they didn't even make an attempt to plant one. If it would have been 12 feet, we would have accepted it. MS. BARNETT: The part being that you really want the tree replaced and maintained, right? MS. SEGURA: Right. And for mitigation, there's a monitoring period for five years to ensure the survival of the tree. And actually, the -- regarding the other issue, generally we do state that they have to be nursery grown trees. But we don't want anyone else to go over their limit of the 10 percent on their property as well. And I guess generally we don't accept trees from other properties, but I guess -- MS. ARNOLD: Oh, I see what you're saying. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You don't want somebody else to dig up their trees to put over there. We understand that and hope that wouldn't be the case. MS. SEGURA: They would need a permit, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. I'm hopefully of the opinion that if somebody wanted to donate trees, they would go to a nursery and buy some trees and donate them to the Bees. That's what I was hoping for, not dig them up off of my property and give them to them. MS. ARNOLD: That's what I thought you were talking about. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, I hope they don't do that, because then that would give somebody else a problem. MR. BOWIE: Is the mitigation requirement rigid as far as requiring three red maples, four cypress and one cabbage palm, or can there be some substitution here? MS. SEGURA: As long as they're native and they would grow in 36 --- April 22, 2004 that particular area. F or instance, you know, that was what was removed, so that's what we told them they had to replace. But they could replace it with eight red maples or eight cypress or -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's get back to the height requirement of the mitigation. I'm looking for the rigidity of that number, because of cost and their situation. Is there any leeway to do something less? And I'll just give you an example, I'm not saying this is what we would consider, because I honestly don't know. But if they went and got eight-foot trees and instead of one 14- foot tree they put in two eight-foots or some number, is that in the realm of possibility to be acceptable? MS. SEGURA: It's not according to the code, but I guess if you decided that was -- you made that decision, then -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, what I'm trying to think of is, obviously, their financial enters into this, and you know, I don't know if anybody is going to donate a 14- foot tree to them, or let alone three or four or whatever is required. But something less may be donatable or whatever, and somebody else may be willing to plant them for them. I don't know. But whether we're so rigid with a number, that may rule out anything, and in trying to give them every chance to comply with what you want, I'm just looking for can we make the ballfield any bigger or is this the size and we're done, we can only play here and that's it? So that's what I'm trying to find. Is there any leeway for us? If you say no, that's -- I understand that. I'm just looking. MS. ARNOLD: I think what we're saying is that the code requires one thing, but the board has the authority to maybe suggest an alternative. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I mean, we'd like to get compliance and I'm looking for a way to get that. And if we can do it smaller but more, I don't have a problem with that, and I would hope that the county or the state wouldn't. Instead of one tree, we get three, 37 ---- April 22, 2004 sounds good. MS. SEGURA: That would be acceptable. But I don't have the authority to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. I'm just looking to -- if we would order something like that or give them the option to do that. I don't wanted to say order, but give them the option to do something different, I don't want to get the county upset either. I want to know, could you live with that if that's what the order might end up being? MS. SEGURA: Yes. And basically the trees that need to be replaced are based on their canopy size. So if two trees were to be put in, eventually they would create the same amount of canopy. But I guess the mitigation sizes were set in the code for -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I'm just looking for all the options so that -- trying to be fair to the people. It's hard to order somebody to put in something that's impossible to do. I mean, that's -- why would you even do that? You know, that just defeats the purpose, I think, if you're ordering somebody to do something that can't be done. I'm looking for ways to give them at least some options so that maybe they can find a way to do it and we still get what we want, trees. Okay. Thank you. Okay, we're down to order of the board. MR. PONTE: Perhaps before we get to the order of the board, obtaining the trees is one part of the problem, planting them seems to be the big part, the actual sweat part. I'd like to ask Mrs. Bee whether or not she has any male relatives, any relatives in the neighborhood who could pitch in and plant some trees? MS. BEE: I'm expecting my grandson to come, and he would be able to help. As long as they're, you know, reasonable size trees, not these huge ones, he would be able to dig the holes for me. MR. PONTE: So that if you -- if he did have six or eight reasonably sized trees, he could handle it? 38 --- -- April 22, 2004 MS. BEE: Yes, yes. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess maybe what we ought to be thinking about, to give the broadest latitude, is rather than an order to comply with quote, unquote, the mitigation plan requirements, that our order would be to plant a sufficient number of trees agreeable to the county in lieu of the mitigation plan number required. So that if three are required of 14- foot and they want to plant eight that are eight-foot and the county says yeah, we can live with that, then it can be done. Rather than us tell them they must plant "X" number. I'm looking at to give them some latitude to go to the county and say can we do this, is that okay, and if the county agrees, then it's done. Michelle, could you live with that if we came up with something like that? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we could. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you have to follow the code that says that they have to be mitigated with a 14- foot tree, or do you have the leeway to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, we have that leeway. We can change. MR. LEFEBVRE: So we would state that instead of in lieu of one 14- foot tree, that they would put in two, is that -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, yeah, and I don't want to say the number. What I want to do is rather than follow the mitigation plan as required, that the respondent work out with the county a number, a revised number of trees to be planted, you know, type and size, and leave that open. Let Ms. Bee and the county work out the number. Rather than us say two for one or three for one, let her work it out with the county. We don't care what it is number-wise. MR. LEFEBVRE: So we're giving the county authority to change the mitigation plan. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, and we're allowed to do that. 39 -- April 22, 2004 We're saying work out the number, and rather than give them a numb er. MS. BARNETT: Cliff, are we leaving it too open then? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I'm afraid if we say a number -- I mean, I guess we can. If we say three for one, we're going from 14 -- what is it, 14- foot down to we don't know what size yet, because we don't know who -- if they're going to buy them or if they're going to be donated or whatever. MS. BARNETT: Well, just ask Michelle, wasn't it -- was it a total of 10 trees? MR. DORIA: Eight. MS. BARNETT: Eight trees, actually? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, eight. MR. DORIA: Fourteen-footers? MS. BARNETT: Eight 14-footers? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So if we -- you know, if we say two per instead of 14- foot, let's cut them in half and say you have to put in -- MS. BARNETT: Six to eight-foot. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Two six to eight-foot trees for every one. Okay. If that's acceptable to the county, I can live with that. MS. BARNETT: I just think that that way they have more -- you know, maybe not specify what type of tree, as long as it's natural. MR. LEFEBVRE: Native tree. MS. BARNETT: Native. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'll go along with that. MS. BARNETT: I'm just concerned that if we don't give a number, then it could go anywhere. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not a problem, I can accept that. MS. SEGURA: May I approach? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma' am, we need all the information we can get to try to help these folks and still give the 40 ",-- April 22, 2004 county what they need. MS. SEGURA: I understand the situation and the circumstances. However, you can't replace -- normally we would go inch per inch for the tree and make them replace a lot more than what we're asking. I just want you to keep that in mind. The mitigation size says 14- foot, but the trees that were removed were much larger and much more mature and you can never really replace that. I just want you to keep that in mind. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Well, give us a hint. If we're willing to say two for one, is that not acceptable? Or do you want three for one? That's why I was trying to leave it open. But I understand what Sheri is saying, so we need some help. I have no problem spouting a number, but you need to give us a hint. MS. ARNOLD: If cost is a part of the consideration, I think adding additional trees is going to increase to the cost of the compliance, so you need to keep that into consideration. I think what Christal is saying is that we've already been lenient with respect to what we're asking them to come into compliance with for the code. MS. BARNETT: I don't know, Michelle, because they were trying to say that they would have to get a formal -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Nursery. MS. BARNETT: -- nursery to plant the trees, and they couldn't afford that part. But a six to eight-foot tree, their grandson could plant for them. MR. DORIA: Yeah, but if you start to get two for one, you might as well just buy the 14- footer -- or three for one. I mean, I think we're kind of beating it all up. Why don't we just say 10 eight-foot trees and be done with it? I think two eight-footers are going to cost more than one 14-footer. MS. ARNOLD: Right. That's what I was trying to say. MS. BARNETT: But the planting part is the part that they couldn't afford. 41 -- -----"-- --- April 22, 2004 MR. DORIA: Well, it's both parts. They can't afford either one. MR. BOWIE: You still have to dig a hole, so dig more holes. MS. BARNETT: I'm just -- you know, a 14-foot tree to plant, having a nursery come in, that's an added expense, versus an eight- foot tree that an individual could plant. That's where the cost savings came, even though you multiply the cost to the tree. That's where I thought we were saving money. But I -- you know more about that than I do. MR. DORIA: If you get two eight-foot trees, that's the same cost as one 14- footer and you still have to -- then you've got to plant two more. And quite honestly, the eight-foot trees might not be that easy for one person to plant, either. So -- I think we're trying to get something that she can afford and try to bring her back into compliance somewhat. If we start doing two for one or three for one, we're going to beat it all up. MR. BOWIE: In principal, too, I have a concern if in fact the county ordinance is specific as to the size of the trees and the numbers of the trees and the type of trees that are needed in mitigation for this kind of offense, I'm a little bit troubled as to what authority this board would have to tell the county staff to ignore the requirements of a county ordinance. I don't think this board has that power. MR. DORIA: Do we, Jean? MS. RAWSON: I doubt it. MR. BOWIE: And I think a better alternative might be to do something clearly within our power, which would be to allow a specified time schedule for this to occur, you know, to begin, let's say, 60 days from now and to be completed, let's say, within, as an example, 180 days from now, the requirements of the county ordinance. Give them more time to do it. But not waive the requirements of the ordinances, which I think we're acting beyond our power to attempt to do this. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle, let me ask this question; 42 -""' --- April 22, 2004 maybe this is the solution: Since finances are a problem, and the larger trees and everything, what if -- big what if -- what if we ordered the county to put the trees in and charge the Bees and then you work out a payment plan with them? MS. ARNOLD: That's not something that we've done before, but I guess we can look into it. It's going to cost them probably more to have us do it. MR. PONTE: It sets a dangerous precedent for other actions. MS. ARNOLD: Plus we're improving private property which -- usually what we do is board up, or, you know, remove dangerous structures, and normally we don't get into the practice of improving. MR. PONTE: And the other thought, just in terms of taking on the time frame to 180 days, if whenever the trees get planted, they should be planted when there's a good rainy season on us, and not at the end of a rainy season or just at the beginning or before. So that the Bees don't have the responsibility of then getting out there and watering eight or six or 10 trees. So that when we set the time frame, we should be aware of the rainy aspects here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does the county have any idea what these 14- foot trees cost? I mean, I honestly don't, so I'm hard pressed to say they're a $200 tree or $500 tree or -- I honestly don't know. MS. ARNOLD: I'm not -- I have no idea. MS. SEGURA: Yeah, I mean, every nursery charges a different price. But I've seen prices from $10 a foot to higher, so -- MR. DORIA: I was going to say about $150 per tree. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is that installed or-- MR. DORIA: Just for the tree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Then you've got to get it delivered. MR. DORIA: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Delivery and installation will be extra. MR. BOWIE: Just to move this off center, I'm going to make a motion that in Case No. 2004-021, that the Code Enforcement Board 43 April 22, 2004 order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case, and abate all violations through removal of damaged vegetation within 60 days, and commencement of replacement plantings, as required under the mitigation ordinance, commencing within 60 days to be completed within not later than 180 days, or pay a fine of $25 a day for each day the violation continues. MR. DORIA: So are you saying sticking with the eight 14- foot trees? MR. BOWIE: Yeah, I think we have no alternative, from what I'm hearing, other than to stick with what the mitigation ordinance requIres. MR. DORIA: Well, I'm a little confused, because at the beginning of this talking about this, Michelle said we could -- the board could say that. But now Jean's saying at the end that we can't do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, our lawyer said we can't, so -- MS. RAWSON: Well, I don't think we have the power, with all due respect, to change the county ordinances. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So I have to side with Jean on that. If she tells us we don't have that power, then that's out. MS. ARNOLD: She's the attorney. MR. BOWIE: We have the power to stretch out the period for compliance to allow for affordability, and that's what my motion attempts to do. MR. PONTE: Well, the only thing is, my colleague has suggested the 180 days again. I just have to remind up of you of the rainy season, because it's just not the planting, the trees will be inspected for five years, and if they don't survive, the problem exacerbates itself and it all has to be done again. Am I correct? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. If they die, they have to replant them. MR. PONTE: So that 180 days is just too long. 44 -- April 22, 2004 MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me ask the respondents, is there any irrigation to these trees? MS. BEE: Not really. MS. ARNOLD: Our rainy season really is within that 60-day time period that you're asking for commencement. MR. BOWIE: Commencement, yes. MS. ARNOLD: That's when it's going to be kind of in its height. MR. PONTE: Yeah, that's fine. So was the completion within 180 days so that you can still be -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They're just starting then, if they, you know, planted one tree or two trees a month or something, then they would fill up that 180-day period, and some of them wouldn't get any water. Well, I think that's -- MS. ARNOLD: And what -- the five-year time period would only require replacement of the non-surviving trees. It wouldn't start the whole process over again. I just wanted to clarify that. We wouldn't then ask them to plant more. It would be just whatever didn't survive would have to be replaced. MR. PONTE: Do you want to amend the motion just to change the time frame? MR. BOWIE: To a shorter period, maybe 120 or something like this, that's four months? Commence within 60 and complete the required plantings within 120 days? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does that work for you, George? MR. PONTE: That works for me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion on the floor that's been revised. MR. LEFEBVRE: Under the circumstances, I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying 45 -- April 22, 2004 aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? MR. DORIA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One, two, three, four, five to one. Let's take five minutes to give our court reporter a chance to regroup. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Our next case is 2004-021, Greg and Jane Bee -- I'm sorry, we did the Bees. MR. BOWIE: It's the Byrds. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 2004-010 -- oh, Paul and Kelly Byrd. This is too good to be true, the Byrds and the Bees. How did we work this out? MS. HILTON: This is the Board of County Commissioners versus Paul and Kelly Byrd, CEB 2004-010. At this time we would like to ask if the respondent is present in the courtroom? (No response.) MS. HILTON: The respondent is not present in the courtroom. We have previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Entertain a motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: So moved. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. 46 ---, -----"----" "-- April 22, 2004 (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of Section 3.5.7.1, 3.5.7.1.2, 3.5.5.1.2, 3.5.5.7.1, 3.5.7.7, and 1.9.2 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: Observed an excavation that was permitted as a type one commercial excavation Permit No. 59-738, on July 28th, 2000. This excavation has not been completed within the 12-month period, and a reapplication has not been sought. There has not been any work done on the excavation in at least 90 days, and it does not conform with finished county standards. In addition, the excavation has been dug approximately 30 feet too close to the north side setbacks. Location where violation exists: 831 16th Street Northeast, Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner: Paul and Kelly Byrd, 871 16th Street Northeast, Naples, Florida. Date violation first observed: June 25th, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: November 12,2003. Date on which violation was to be corrected: Was November 25, 2003. Date of reinspection: April 20th, 2004. Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And the CEB packet was sent certified, which I never received back, so then it was sent regular mail, and the property was posted, as well as the courthouse. And at this time I would like to turn the case over to the Investigator Jeff Letourneau to present the case to the board. (Speaker sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. 47 -"------- - --'----'---"""" --- April 22, 2004 This is a difficult case. I'm going to try -- you have to bear with me, it's the first time I've done an excavation case and the first time I've ever brought one before the board. On June 25th, 2003, I received an anonymous complaint about a lake in somebody's backyard that was causing overflooding. I went to the above site and I went to the house directly north of the violation and observed an area that had been dug up and was very swampy, and it looked pretty bad. I spoke to the owner of the property where I was at, and he stated that he had been sold that property recently by the Byrds who happened to own the property where the violation was at. After contacting county engineers, found that a permit had been issued for this property to do a commercial -- type one commercial excavation. But obviously the owner had not followed through with all the requirements of, you know, making the lake up to county standards. I'll show you a piece -- this was the drawing submitted with the permit. As you can see, it's a nice round lake with the -- some of the fill was supposed to be left as future use for a house on the property. Let me get an aerial of the property right now. As you can see, the Byrds started on the project, but left it kind of haphazard with digging here and there all over the property, but never finishing the lake in its round form or conforming with the depth requirements or anything else. Lakes in Collier County that are dug out in the Estates have to, obviously, be dug according to the plans submitted, and the banking has to be shored up, according to county engineering, and certain plants have to be planted along the banks, therefore, to prevent erosion. And none of this was completed. After, you know, months of, you know, going over the ordinances with Jennifer Belpedio, we finally decided to cite Mr. Byrd. But during that time, I noted, as you'll note, that the property was -- excuse me, not during that time, but before that time, Mr. Byrd 48 --- -- April 22, 2004 had sold half of the property to another person, which was the Gomez thing that you heard earlier with the lawyer. That's the next case, so these cases are intertwined together, as you can see. The north side of the property, right here, is still owned by Mr. Byrd. And the south side is owned by Mr. Gomez, and I can't even pronounce the other name. So after this case, I'll -- we'll do that one next. But as far as this case is concerned, I'm just concerned with the north side of the property right now. As you can see, he violated setbacks in 3.5.7.1.2. The setbacks in a commercial type one excavation are 50 feet from side, rear and abutting property lines. These aerial views aren't always accurate, but you can tell that they're violating at least 50 feet on numerous sides. And, let me see, citing 3.5.7.7, the discontinuance of operations, if the excavating operation is inactive for a period of 90 days, which it has been -- let me see, recommendations shall also be -- if the operation never started or discontinued for a period of one year, that permit is void, which it has been voided, unless a written request has been made by the permittee, which it hasn't been done, and sufficient justification for a time extension, which none of these have been done. Also on 3.5.5.7.1, a commercial type one excavation shall be valid for a period of 12 months. If the work is not completed, a second application with a reapplication fee must be submitted to the development services director, and that has also not been done. So the order to correct would be to resubmit a permit, fix the lake up like it was supposed to be done in the original permit, get the county engineers out there to inspect it and okay it, or bring back in clean fill and restore the property to its originally permitted condition. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jeff, I'm having a little bit of difficulty, so bear with me. Let's go to your aerial views that you got from the property appraiser's office. Your first map is the 2000 aerial map which shows -- and it's not numbered, so I can't give you a page, but that looks like it. The property has all these trees on it. 49 --- --- April 22, 2004 MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Then I go to the 2001 aerial map. MR. LETOURNEAU: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And now there's a whole bunch of earth being moved and I don't know whether that's one big lake, two lakes, three lakes, but he's moving dirt on what looks like two or three parcels of property. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well-- go ahead. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay? And then I go to the 2002 aerial map, which is the next page, and shows that he's finished moving all this dirt around and now has this big, I don't know, lake or whatever it is, which looks different than the first picture you showed us of a nice little round egg-shaped type lake. This now encompasses -- I don't know what those two parcels are, probably five acres or something like that total. MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And then when I go to the next, the 2003, I guess that's just pretty much the same as 2002, although it looks like there's been some vegetation growth and the water's now kind of yucky and whatever. MR. LETOURNEAU: It looks like there wasn't any work done between the 2002, 2003, right. Just the underbrush has probably grown back on some of it over the years. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, the part where I'm getting out of hand here is you say it doesn't meet setbacks and all that. His permit was to dig what, this whole thing that covered all this acreage, or was it just for a little round lake? MR. LETOURNEAU: It was to cover that whole five acres within the setbacks of -- as you can see, that's what the lake should have been. That encompasses the two properties that are in question. The one that's up there now is the north side property that Mr. Byrd still owns. 50 -~- ---- April 22, 2004 1101 East 6th Court, Hialeah, Florida. Date violation first observed: November 12, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: November 12,2003. Date on which violation was to be corrected: November 25th, 2003. Date of reinspection: April 20th, 2004. Result of reinspection. The violation remains. And the CEB packet was sent certified mail, which I have never received back. And it was sent regular mail and the property was posted, as well as the courthouse. And at this time I would like to turn the case over to the investigator, Jeff Letourneau to present the case to the board. (Speaker sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. Just like the previous case, everything would be the same. Do I have to go over the whole thing again or -- okay. All right. Let me get my stuff together here. On -- in July -- I mean, excuse me, in June of last year I went out to a property in question due to an anonymous complaint about overflooding. I observed an excavation that was done haphazardly and not up to county standards. After consulting with county engineers, determined that the excavation had been permitted at that time one time, but according to certain codes in the LDC, it was considered abandoned and not completed according to county satisfaction. After researching the properties, determined that the original owner of the property had sold the property to Mr. Gomez and the other person. Therefore, they were now responsible for this part of the excavation. It had started out as a five-acre plot and then been divided into two two-and-a-half-acre plots. As you can see, the south side is the one we're in question right now. This is the lake as it was submitted with the permit package in the original permit. It was supposed to be done, a nice round lake, shored 59 -----",. -"-- ---- April 22, 2004 up nicely, vegetation planted with 6,000 square feet of fill remaining for a future home site. As you can see, what we have now is a swamp with approximately 10,000 feet of fill removed, none left for the home site, and the excavation not completed in accord with Collier County satisfaction. Last week, my supervisor, Dennis Mitchell, doing some research, has contacted the owners. They live here in Naples now. And they basically told him that because the property was in foreclosure that they didn't really care what was going on with the county as far as this case is concerned. I tried calling them and I didn't get an answer. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Did you have occasion to check, Jeff, if in fact there were any foreclosure papers filed at the courthouse or anything? MR. LETOURNEAU: I didn't, no. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Since they made that statement, I just wondered if you had checked. That's fine. Anybody have any questions for Jeff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MS. BARNETT: Cliff, I think this goes to that first -- there is a letter from the bank stating that they are going to start foreclosure proceedings. MR. LEFEBVRE: Florida Community Bank. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I close the public hearing portion, and we'll go to order of the board. First item being if in fact a violation does exist, finding of fact. MR. PONTE: Okay, I'll do it. I will make a motion that a violation does exist in the case of 2004-011, Board of County Commissioners versus Juan Carlos Gomez and Juana Maydelin Izquierdo. Violation is of Sections 3.5.7.1,3.5.7.1.2,3.5.5.1.2,3.5.5.7.1,3.5.7.7 and 1.9.2 of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. 60 -..- April 22, 2004 MS. ARNOLD: It looks like this. MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, exactly right like that, exactly like that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And what's actually on the aerial doesn't even come close to looking like that. MR. LETOURNEAU: No, it doesn't. See, as you notice, you can see the 50-foot setbacks on either side and -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. BARNETT: There's no setback. MR. LETOURNEAU: I mean, he went all over the property, dug haphazardly and then, you know, just kind of abandoned the property is basically what happened, and then sold half of it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's why I'm -- what I'm trying to do is get in focus as to what was he allowed to do. We have pictures of what was done. So now you've got me on track as to -- MR. LETOURNEAU: He was allowed to dig that nice round lake, finish it off according to county standards, take 14,000 yards of -- cubic yards of fill off the property, leaving 6,000 for a future home site, and then finish everything up according to county engineers standards, which hasn't been done. And he hasn't worked on it for at least two years, and it's considered abandoned now, and, you know, he needs to come in here and fix it up or fill it back in like it was before he started. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I'm assuming from looking at these aerials -- have you been out to the site, Greg (sic)? MR. LETOURNEAU: I've been out to the site. When he was doing this operation, he owned the house to the north, which is on the -- as you can see, the house right there, he owned that house. So when I went out there, the gentleman that owns the house now, Mr. Perlown, told me that he bought the house recently from Mr. Byrd, and that Mr. Byrd had left the county, according to him. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What I'm looking for is, is there 51 --- April 22, 2004 sufficient fill on the property if he had to fill this lake in? I mean, I don't know that he's -- MR. LETOURNEAU: No. He'd have to bring off-site fill. As much as he took off-site, he'd have to bring back in, basically, is what -- I mean, I'm not sure how much he took off. Probably -- I would estimate maybe 10,000 cubic yards, maybe. He'd have to bring that back in. And I've been unable to contact him or his wife anywhere. I mean, I found Paul and Kelly Byrds throughout Florida, but everything's been a dead end. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Anyone else have questions for Greg (sic)? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. Since the respondent isn't here, I close the public hearings and move right on to order of the board. First item being finding of fact. MR. PONTE: Okay, I'm going to do it. I'll make a motion the violation does exist in the case of CEB 2004-010, Board of County Commissioners versus Paul and Kelly Byrd. Violation is of Sections 3.5.7.1, 3.5.7.1.2, 3.5.5.1.2, 3.5.5.7.1, 3.5.7.7, and 1.9.2 of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation is that an excavation exists that was permitted as a type one commercial excavation, and was permitted with No. 59738 on July 28th, the year 2000. This excavation has not been completed within the 12-month period, and a reapplication has not been sought. There hasn't been any work done on the excavation for at least 90 days, and it does not conform with the finished county standards. In addition, the excavation has been dug approximately 30 feet too close to the north side setbacks. MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that in fact a violation does exist. Any further discussion? 52 ---- April 22, 2004 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. MR. PONTE: Before we craft the order, I anticipate a problem in whatever we direct this respondent to do about his portion of the lake, we're looking at -- we have knowledge of the next case, and it's the same lake. So we've got to be careful of what we're telling him to do about filling in the lake and all of that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, you have to take the cases before you, you have to do it a property at a time, unfortunately. MR. PONTE: Just a point of clarification for Jeff. Jeff, you don't have to get up. Just very quickly, when you estimated the cubic footage of fill that would be required, was that for both the north and the south lake? MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm by no means an expert on figuring out cubic yardage of fill. That was just my estimation on both properties. So I know it's going to be tough, you know, stating that Mr. Byrd has to either do one or the other and another property is going to try to do the opposite that he's doing. I see your dilemma right there, but we do have to take one property at a time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jeff, I notice in the package that you submitted to us, you have a copy of the Collier County Tax Collector's tax roll page, and I note that as of last month, taxes haven't been paid on this property for the year 2000, 2001, 2002 and probably not for 2003. So obviously these people aren't paying their taxes. So -- and you've been unable anywhere to find him in the State of Florida, correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. I mean, I found Pauls and Kelly 53 --- April 22, 2004 Byrds throughout Florida, but -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not these, probably. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I mean, they might have been but they never returned my calls. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, okay. But they obviously aren't paying their taxes on the property, so -- MR. BOWIE: Called dig, sell and run. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, they took their money and left town. Thank you, Greg (sic). I think whatever we do, we should keep in mind that these folks haven't paid their taxes for the last three years and possibly four years. So if we issue an order, the order probably isn't ever going to get to them because we don't know where they are. It will be on record. And the long and short of it is, this is probably, at least it appears, unless something strange happens, that this is going to be a case that very shortly down the pike we're going to ask the County Attorney to do something about, based on the kind of information that's been submitted to us. So with that in mind, let's do an order. Got any ideas, George? MR. PONTE: Well, it's kind of like giving an order to the wind, isn't it? There's nobody there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We kind of know what's coming down the road, so don't feel shy, because we know it's coming. MR. PONTE: Well, if we just follow the recommendation of the county and increase the fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't know that we gain anything by increasing the fine, because -- MS. BARNETT: If we do fine him, then we might make something. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I do feel that down the road we're probably going to ask the County Attorney to foreclose on the 54 ---~ "--- April 22, 2004 property anyway, so -- MR. PONTE: If the fine is larger, it's a little bit more serious. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And the value of the property is reasonable. MR. PONTE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Taxable value is $32,000, so -- MS. BARNETT: It's probably gone up since that tax roll, because everything out there is escalating at about three percent a month. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Go for it, George. MR. PONTE: Okay, well, I'll make a recommendation that the respondent pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by reapplying for a new excavation permit within 60 days from the date of this hearing and finish the excavation according to Collier County standards, including all setbacks, or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Additionally, they must obtain all inspections and the certificate of completion within 60 days after obtaining the required permit, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Alternatively, respondent may fill in the excavation with permitted clean fill and restore the property to its original permitted condition before the excavation was started, following through on all of the required inspections to be performed and also obtain certificates of completion within 60 days from the date of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Additionally, the respondent must notify code enforcement the violation has been abated and request that an inspector perform an in-site inspection. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, the one thing I think we need to do -- we have three different items with three different fines. We need 55 ----- April 22, 2004 to, I think, be very cautious and attach a violation section to each fine; otherwise, we're at possibly $600 a day, which is way over what we can do. $250 a day is max, but it's per violation, and right now there are -- one, two, three, four, five, there's six violations that he's been cited for. So we need to attach some of them to your items, just so that they could be in full force and effect. MR. BOWIE: Here's a question. We have alternatives here, and the way this is phrased, we have a separate violation and a separate amount, depending upon which alternative is done. If neither of them are done, are they cumulative or are they still disjunctive. In other words, is it $400 plus neither alternative was pursued at that point, which is a little bit difficult, I think to rationalize. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, the first one was George wanted him to apply for a permit within 60 days or a fine of $200 a day. And, you know, get the permit and finish the excavation. Then he said you have to get all inspections and a certificate of completion after you get the permit, or another $200 a day. That's already 400, which is above what we can do. Then he goes down and wants -- then he gives him an alternative to the above, which is fill it all in back to its original -- back within 60 days, or $200. So you have 400 or 200. So the first -- MR. PONTE: One's an alternative. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what I said, you have 400 or 200. MR. BOWIE: Why don't we just simply say he does one or the other within 60 days, and failing doing either, he incurs $250 a day fine. MR. PONTE: Fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. We just have a limit that I don't want us to go over, so -- MR. BOWIE: That's 250, so we'll go to the limit. But he gets to do one or the other, and failing either, it becomes the maximum $250 per fine after 60 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't have a problem with that. I just 56 -- ----,~- ---"- April 22, 2004 don't want to us go over the limit unless we -- MR. BOWIE: Right, that is a problem. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So basically you have -- George, would it be -- to amend it we have the first item be all operational costs, the second item be your getting his permit and doing the excavation in accordance with the standards, and getting his inspections and his CO, or 250 a day. Alternatively, he can just fill it all in. And if he doesn't do that within 60 days, it's $250 a day. How's that? MR. PONTE: That's great. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, have you -- MS. RAWSON: I think so. MR. BOWIE: Under no circumstance could it be 500 -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, it's just one or the other. MR. BOWIE: Yeah, okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He gets two choices, make it a lake like he originally intended or fill it all in. It's his option. Okay. George has a motion on the floor that I think we all understand. Is there a second? MR. BOWIE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (N 0 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 case, 2004-011. Juan Carlos Gomez and Juana Maydelin Izquierdo. I'm sorry if I messed those up, I apologize. MS. HILTON: Yes, this is Board of County Commissioners versus Juan Carlos Gomez and J-U-A-N-A Maydelin, , 57 - April 22, 2004 M-A-Y-D-E-L-I-N, last name I-Z-Q-U-I-E-R-D-O. CEB number 2004-011. At this time I would like to ask if the respondents are present in the courtroom. (No response.) MS. HILTON: The respondents are not present in the courtroom. We have previously provided the board and the respondents with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do we hear a motion to accept? MR. PONTE: Move to accept. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept County's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of Sections 3.5.7.1, 3.5.7.1.2, 3.5.5.1.2, 3.5.5.7.1, 3.5.7.7 and 1.9.2 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: Observed an excavation that was permitted as a type one commercial excavation Permit No. 59-738 on July 28th, 2000. This excavation has not been completed within the 12-month period, and a reapplication has not been sought. There has not been any work done on the excavation in at least 90 days, and it does not conform with finished county standards. In addition, the excavation has been dug approximately 30 feet too close to the north side setbacks. Location where violation exists: 811 16th Street Northeast, Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner: Juan Gomez and Juanita Izquierdo, 58 -- April 22, 2004 The description of the violation is that an excavation exists that was permitted as a type one commercial excavation, Number 59738 on July 28, year 2000. This excavation has not been completed within the past 12 months and reapplication has not been sought. There's not been any work done on the excavation for at least 90 days, and it does not conform with the finished county standards. In addition, the excavation has been dug approximately 30 feet too close to the north side setbacks. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second in fact a violation does exist. Any 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: Order of the board. MR. PONTE: I have a question. What does the bank's position -- how does the bank's position -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Doesn't. MR. PONTE: -- affect this? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Doesn't. Right now they're not a party to this. They're out -- they don't own the property. They have a mortgage on it, but they don't own it. These two people still own it, so we're dealing with them. And we need to get on record, since we do know that a foreclosure is imminent. To protect the county's position, I think we need to get something, an order out and filed in the courthouse, so that when it is foreclosed, there is something on public record that a problem exists with the property and the bank or whoever they sell it to will have to resolve the problem. 61 ----- - April 22, 2004 MS. BARNETT: I'll try to make a motion. I make a motion that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in this prosecution of this case and abate all violations by reapplying for a new excavation permit within 60 days from the date of this hearing, finish the excavation according to Collier County standards, including all setbacks, or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. They must obtain all inspections and a certificate of completion within 60 days after obtaining the required permit, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Alternatively, respondent may fill in the excavation before the -- let's see. And may fill in the excavation with permitted clean fill and restore the property to its original permitted condition before the excavation was started, following through with all the required inspections to be performed and obtain certificates of completion within 60 days from the date of this hearing, or a fine of $250 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 inspections. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion. MR. PONTE: And a second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And a second. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next case, 2004-018. It's a rehearing. Mr. Haeger. MS. ARNOLD: Shanelle, I think you need to go back through the whole -- 62 --- April 22, 2004 MS. HILTON: This is Board of County Commissioners versus Herman Haeger, that's H-A-E-G-E-R. CEB No. 2004-018. And the respondent is present in the courtroom. We have previously provided the respondent and the board with a packet of information that we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I need a motion to accept Exhibit A from the county. MR. PONTE: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Second? MR. BOWIE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept County's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of Sections 1.5 .6 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 99-51. The description of the violation: Observed litter consisting of but not limited to plastic pots, metal, wood, wire, lawnrnower 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. 2003-070051. Location where violation exists: 2630 18th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner: Herman Haeger, 2630 18th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida. Date violation first observed: July 7th, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: July 8th, 2003, by certified 63 -"- -- April 22, 2004 mail, return receipt requested, returned unclaimed. And personally served on January 5th, 2004. Date on which violation was to be corrected: August, 2003. Date of reinspection: February 20th, 2004. And Jeff was also out there earlier this week. Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And at this time I would like to turn the case over to the investigator, Jeff Letourneau, to present the case to the board. (Speaker sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: On July 7th, 2003, I responded to an anonymous complaint about debris and a possible business being conducted on this unimproved property. I went out there, I observed a house being built under a valid permit. In the rear of the yard I noticed a vast amount of debris consisting of mostly nursery items, plastic pots, wood, fertilizer, various other nursery items, a trailer, and I -- and an untagged truck in the front. I spoke with Mr. Haeger over the next few days, next months, and I described the violation to him, that in the Estates or most other districts in the county, unless you have a permitted primary structure with all its inspections and COs, you cannot conduct a home occupation on this property. The key word being home. There's no home on the property yet, so you can't conduct business on there. The litter would be litter no matter if there was a house on there or not. The truck would be a violation because it didn't have a tag and didn't run. And the trailer cannot be on the property until you have the CO for the house. There's circumstances where you can use the trailer for construction circumstances, but this trailer was being used in conjunction with a nursery business. On December 16th, he had done some straightening up of the property. Mr. Haeger called my supervisor at the time, Jim Hendrickson, and we spoke to him over the phone. And we agreed if 64 --- -- April 22, 2004 he got a tag for the trailer, we would give him to December 25th to get the CO for his house, which would abate the nursery violation, because he would have a permitted structure on the property at that time and he could conduct a nursery business under certain circumstance -- you know, with various other circumstances. I'd like at this time to just show you a home occupation, a copy of this I printed up this morning. Can I just read it to you? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. MR. LETOURNEAU: Home occupation is 2.6.20. And this is a subsection .2. It says -- excuse me, .1. 9, there shall be no outside storage of goods or products except plants, in which case no more than 50 percent of the total square footage of the lot may be used for plant storage. So what that means is when you get a home occupation for a nursery, you can conduct your nursery, you know, like your -- all your filing and everything at home, you can bring your equipment home as long as you're staying at that location, and you can store your plants outside. But under no circumstances can you store any other goods or products out there. So even when he does or if and when he does get his CO on his house, the only thing he can do out there is store plants. He cannot have customers or he cannot have any other off-site employees coming onto the property. MS. BARNETT: Jeff, did you cite him? MR. LETOURNEAU: No, I didn't. I'm just going over the home occupation right now, just -- I mean, is that -- I just want to give you a basic idea of what the home occupation is. And that you can't have a nursery out there, but the plant storage is the only thing he can do out there. Okay, getting back on track. Now, over the next few months between the time that me and Mr. Hendrickson talked to him on the phone in September till January 5th of this year, Mr. Haeger tried to get his CO. I know he probably tried his best. He had some problems 65 ---- April 22, 2004 with contractors, this and that. But when December 25th came around, he didn't have his house CO'd as promised. So Mr. Haeger came into the office and we discussed it with him again, and we agreed that by February 1 st, if he had his CO then, the nursery business would take care of itself, it would be a legal thing and the only thing he would have to worry about was the litter. February 1st rolled by, and he didn't have his CO. So I talked it over with my supervisor and we submitted it for CEB. We heard the case last month and it's going to be heard again. So I went out there yesterday and Mr. Haeger has done a vast improvement on the litter. Almost all the plastic pots have been removed, a majority of all the nursery equipment has been removed. There is still some debris out there that would not be allowed on unimproved property, and the business still is illegal due to the fact that the house hasn't got a CO. MR. BOWIE: I'd like to ask one question about the legality of the business use of this property. One of the items in our handout, the second from the last, I believe, is a home occupational license issued for a plant nursery service at this address. How did he get that? MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe that -- when was that issued, back in '92? MR. BOWIE: Oh, it's issued -- I guess maybe renewed December 30th, 2003. MR. HAEGER: Started in 1991. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, sir, let Jeff answer. MR. LETOURNEAU: I think back on the day that Mr. Haeger first got it back in '91, '92, that the county required what we call a zoning certificate -- didn't require what we call zoning certificates now. That zoning certificate stated that you could run the business as long as everything else is legal on the property. I don't think they really even worried about it back then, and I think it's just been getting renewed as part of, you know, error. That's a -- you know, that's a 66 -- April 22, 2004 misstep by the county, but in all reality, it still makes it still a violation. MS. BARNETT: Jean, I've got a question. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. BARNETT: What legal grounds do we stand on if the county has authorized this gentleman to have the license to partake in this business and they've given him the certification to do it and now we're saying they're in violation? MS. RAWSON: Well, I guess I can just tell you what your role is. Your role is to decide if he is in compliance or in violation of a county ordinance. And then you just have to listen to the testimony from the county and from the respondent, you know, to see if he's been -- MS. BARNETT: But it's as if the county themselves have said that it's okay for him to do that. MR. LETOURNEAU: Can I make a clarification? MS. BARNETT: I'm just confused. MR. LETOURNEAU: The home occupation is issued by the tax collector's office. Back in 1991, 1992, they didn't require what they call a zoning certificate. That has nothing to do with the zoning. Back then they didn't even require it. N ow when they issue it, a new one, they have to get permission from the zoning department, verifying that everything is in order with the property. So back -- MS. BARNETT: So technically the rules have changed. MR. LETOURNEAU: They have changed, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Sheri, also there's some fine print here that says it does not permit the licensee, right on this form here. MR. LETOURNEAU: It still was a violation back in '91. The rules haven't changed as far as being an unimproved property. The rules have changed as far as the tax collectors having to get the okay from the zoning department. It still was a violation because it was an unimproved lot back in that day. 67 --- April 22, 2004 MS. BARNETT: I just want to get a clarification on -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right here in the verbiage, it says -- on this permit it says it does not permit the licensee to violate any existing regulatory zoning laws of the state, county or cities, nor does it exempt the licensee from any other license or permits that it may be required by law. MS. BARNETT: That one piece of material is missing out of my packet. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He's cited for two things. And let's focus on the two items. He's not cited because he's running his business. He's cited because he has all this stuff illegally. MR. LETOURNEAU: Illegal land use, correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're not here to dispute whether he's allowed to have a business or not. He wasn't cited for that. Anybody else have any questions for Jeff? MR. PONTE: Jeff, just because one of the items is an untagged vehicle, is the vehicle still there or has the vehicle been removed or tagged? MR. LETOURNEAU: The truck has been removed, yes. MR. DO RIA: How about the trailer? MR. LETOURNEAU: The trailer remains. And it's being utilized for the nursery. Mr. Haeger let me inside one time and it's holding, like, you know, nursery items, shovels and other kinds of equipment. MR. DORIA: And the trailer is not allowed if the home is not CO'd, correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: It could be allowed as a construction trailer under certain stipulations, but right now it's not allowed being used as a nursery trailer. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Jeff. 68 ---- April 22, 2004 Mr. Haeger, sir? MR. HAEGER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You have to be sworn in, sir. (Speaker sworn.) MR. HAEGER: I had -- as -- first I want to thank you for rehearing the case and giving me the opportunity to be in front of you people. I know when Mr. Letourneau came out and initially gave me, you know, the violations that I had, I knew that I was in violation. I admit that openly. And in working with them, both with Jeff and his old supervisor, Mr. Hendrickson, we had more or less worked out an agreement where I'm building a house out there, I'm an owner/builder. I've owned the property out there for about four and a half years now. And what I'm trying to do is take -- I don't have a mortgage, so I'm trying to take money as I make it in my business, my landscaping business, to pay for the house. And up until now, it's been going slow, but since September it's progressed along pretty well. I'm not -- I don't have, you know, a big builder behind me or anything or a big bank, but, you know, I'd like to -- I have some pictures that were taken last week that not only show where my house is -- and, matter of fact, we got our air conditioning AC inspection about two weeks ago. What my plan was is -- coming in here on the 22nd was to show -- was to show the board that I was, you know, trying to get into compliance of all the things that Jeff had cited me for. As you can see, I took pictures the other day of all the pots removed, all the trash. We're on our second dumpster. You can see the dumpster. Right there, that's -- if you look at it, you can almost see the pots sticking out of that, some of the old trays and all. What we did, we trashed everything that was really trash, okay? I moved all the pots to another location. The trailer is -- is being -- I finally found a place I can tow that to, and that's going to be moved this -- right there is where all the pots used to be, you know, hundreds and 69 -- April 22, 2004 hundreds of them. What we have to do, if you can look -- I have to cut -- well, there's just a little tree. See we pulled the trailer in that way, you know, nose first, not thinking it was ever going to be moved. Right now I'm living in a trailer myself until I finish my building. I have to cut down that little palm tree right there because we're going to pull the trailer out straight this way and tow it to another area, you know, another place where it's legal to be in. I've got almost all -- like Jeff said, a lot has been done in the last three or four weeks. We've gotten two more inspections on my house. That's where a lot of -- all the tires, as a matter of fact, remember, Jeff, there was the tires all there? They were all taken to the Collier County landfill. Things are just getting all cleaned up. There's still a little bit more to do, but it's a lot more than what it was. And all I'm -- what I would like to do today is because this was supposed to be my first time in front of you people, in talking to some people that have been friends of mine for many years since I've been here in Naples, what I'm asking you to do for me, as far as your order of the board, is that I would like to have just an extension of 60 days for whatever decision you make today to give me an opportunity to not only more than likely clean up the whole area, which will only take a couple more days, but will give me a chance to get me my CO on my house, so that when that occurs, everything is -- reverts back to being legal again. Now, the occupational license that I've had, I've had an occupational license in Collier County since '91 for both landscaping contractor, a limited landscape contractor, and a plant nursery service. They don't call it a nursery, per se, but the way the thing is written, it's plant nursery service. And I've had that since '91. I've had it at this location for the last four years. It was a little misleading, as Jeff was saying, because when I bought this property, I just transferred all my licenses, all my legal -- you know, this is -- I have all my mail sent 70 ---- --- April 22, 2004 to me, and this is -- my license is on here and everything else, so that -- because after I had sold my last property, it was hard to try to find a place to stay any length of time, so I needed a mailing address that was steady. And this is what it was. So that four years ago is when I first got my license transferred from my old address on 30th Avenue Southeast to 18th Avenue Southeast out there. So it had been in effect now for four years. And they had to go through all their -- you know, so the license at this location is only four years old. Or it might be five, but no more than that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But you haven't been cited for the license, you've been cited for all the litter and everything, and that's what we're interested in. MR. HAEGER: That will be -- other than the trailer, which is going to be scheduled to move out this Sunday, it's almost all gone. You can see the -- well, you didn't see a picture. Up in front as you come in the main driveway -- well, that's the inside of my house with the AC thing. No, next picture, Jeff. There's one that had the side of the driveway with a piles of -- with a pile of paver bricks on it. Yeah, there you go. Remember all that stuff? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah, I'll show you the before picture. There's the before picture right there. That's the after. MR. HAEGER: So we've really -- we've really -- you know, it's taken two 18-yard dumpers (sic), but we've gotten there. We've gotten there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You weren't cited, as I remember, for not having a CO on your house or anything, all we were interested in -- MR. HAEGER: No, right, right, right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- at the time was all the litter and-- MR. HAEGER: Well, see, originally the -- why this was carried on for a length of time is -- was as long as I was progressing in the building of my house and getting timely inspections, that this would 71 ---'-- - April 22, 2004 be sort of abated, you know, put on a, you know, on a back burner, more or less. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. BARNETT: We didn't cite him for not having a CO. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what I just told him, the house has nothing to do with it. It was all litter. MS. BARNETT: But because he didn't have a CO we did cite him and state that he had to cease all business activity. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Well, he's not allowed to run a business because he doesn't have a house. But we didn't -- that he doesn't -- didn't have the house was not a citation. You can't run a business off a -- the vacant lot out there. MR. HAEGER: Right. And see, the nursery is not really a business. All I'm doing is -- my business is I'm a landscape contractor, okay? The reason I got my nursery license is because a lot of the plants -- matter of fact, we've had two burglaries out there in the last three weeks now where things that I was raising to put in and around my property and around my house, all my bigger material, I was -- you know, I was robbed twice in like four days. But the reason that -- the main thing that I'm licensed for, or, you know, at least, you know, that I have my state license for a nursery is so that I can get all the materials and all the -- you know, this is the thing from the state. You know what that is, Albert, it's the nursery inspection. And so that I can get all their information. If I ever have a problem, I can call the state, you know, nursery person and have them come down right away and, you know, it's -- I haven't sold the plants out of the nursery, quote, unquote, since it was there. MR. BOWIE: Let me just ask a question: You asked for a 60-day extension to acquire the certificate of occupancy on the residence? MR. HAEGER: Yes, sir. MR. BOWIE: Is that -- 72 -- --------- '-- April 22, 2004 MR. HAEGER: Well, no, no, no, I don't want it to hinge on that. In other words, I want just a 60-day thing to clear up everything that is yet to be cleared up. MR. BOWIE: Well, I think the more important question is when are you going to get a certificate of occupancy for this residence? MR. HAEGER: I hope to be in there by end of June, sir. I'm getting tired of living in a trailer. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Anybody else have any questions for Mr. Haeger? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Jeff. We need to stay focused on what he was cited for. It had nothing to do with permits for the house. It was all the litter, which based on what he's shown us on pictures, he's worked at very hard. We did issue an order last month, and we granted him a rehearing this morning, and if you look at our order from last month, we gave him until the 24th to remove all his litter, and if he didn't comply with it by next month, that we would get the county to remove it. And he had to remove the trailer and cease any business storage by the 24th, which is not yet here. And he had to cease any business activity, and he stated that he wasn't running any business activity. And we said that if he didn't respond with Paragraph 1, which was removing all the litter by the 24th of this month, the 75 days would kick in. He's made a very good attempt at doing that so far. And that if he doesn't comply with 3, which is removing the trailer and any business storage by the 24th, then that's a $50 a day. And if he doesn't cease any -- with any business activity by April 1st, then that's $75, and he's already stated he didn't do any business activity. So our original order from last month, he's pretty much worked everything out, I guess, except moving the trailer. He's complied with pretty much everything we put out in our previous order of last month. The only thing that I've seen pretty much from the pictures he's 73 ---- April 22, 2004 showed is the trailer. Is that correct, Jeff? MR. LE TO URNEA U: Well, there's still some items out there. There's like an aluminum canopy thing. Some bird houses or whatever. Some -- but the plants are also in question, too. I mean, is he going to use all those plants -- I mean, there's a -- I mean, how many plants do you have out there? MR. HAEGER: The thing is probably 20- foot by 100- foot. MR. LETOURNEAU: I mean, are you seriously thinking of using all those plants on that property or -- MR. HAEGER: Well, considering somebody's been out there sabotaging it, yeah. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. MR. HAEGER: I mean, I've had my water -- I'm not out there every day, and I've had to come out there where the -- it's on automatic irrigation, the water's been turned off. I've had two major burglaries where I've lost almost $4,000 worth of material out there. MR. LETOURNEAU: I mean, the question is, if the plants are going to be used for the property then they're okay to be out there -- MR. HAEGER: I've got five acres. MR. LETOURNEAU: -- but if they're not, if they're part of his landscaping business, then they need to be moved off. MR. HAEGER: I have never, and I've sworn to it, I have never sold anything that I've grown on that nursery. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. It's just, you know, then he's just got a couple items left and he's in compliance with the litter. MR. HAEGER: And the trailer, hopefully, was going to get moved this Sunday. You know, it's the only time the person has a truck big enough to move it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What I'm looking for is so that everybody understands that the order that we had previously issued, which we granted you a rehearing on, you've worked very hard to solve everything we asked you to -- 74 -- -----" -- April 22, 2004 MR. HAEGER: That was my intention, to come in here on the 22nd to have all -- I knew what had to be done. So my intention was to come in here when I was supposed to come in here today and say, you know, gentlemen, here's what I've done to comply with the complaint. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. That's what I'm trying to get across to the board members, from what you've said and what you've showed you us, that it seems there's, you know, the trailer and maybe this lean-to or whatever it is. MR. HAEGER: It's my flea market canopy thing, you know, the metal -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Are the only two things remaining, so -- and you still have two days to get rid of them under our old order. So if there's going to be any type of change in the order, I personally don't see 60 days to remove a trailer, sorry. Couple of days -- MR. HAEGER: Give me a week or two? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But anyway. So just so we're all on board, it's not a super drastic thing. You've worked very hard to comply with what we told you, prior to when you were to come in, which we think is great, and thank you. So let's close the public hearing and get to a determination of the board. We need to understand that there is an existing order out there, and if we do anything, it would be to amend the existing order. That's why I wanted everyone to understand. MS. RAWSON: It would probably be easier -- Ms. Belpedio and I were talking about this -- for title insurance people's purposes -- and Ray can help me here, too -- but I think if we replace and supersede that order and reference it, which I'll do in the order by -- or page number, and then enter a new order, because it's going to be different, this will replace and supersede the old order and this will be the new order of the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. 75 --- April 22, 2004 MS. RAWSON: Because you did grant him a rehearing. MS. BARNETT: Do we have to find another finding of fact, or no? Because, I mean, with the rehearing. MS. RAWSON: You probably need to do a new finding of fact. And the facts may be somewhat different, based on the testimony you heard today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But under 162, even though he's solved the problem, he can still be found. MS. RAWSON: Correct. He was -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Guilty, in violation. MS. RAWSON: In violation, that's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So the facts of being in violation don't necessarily change. He's still in violation as of the time he was inspected. He's just now happened to correct it before he walked before us. Is that correct, Jean? MS. RAWSON: That is correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So yes, findings of fact would be the same. And there's just -- when we go to make a determination, based on what he's told us, we can make it differently now because he's cleaned everything up. MS. BARNETT: Basically aren't we, like, pretending that the other one didn't actually occur? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we just have to say that when we get to the order part. But the first part, the finding of fact will be the same. MS. BARNETT: I will make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners in Collier County versus Mr. Herman Haeger, CEB No. 2004-018, that there is a violation and that 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 99-51. The violation is: Litter consisting of but not limited to plastic 76 -- April 22, 2004 pots, metal, wood, wire, lawnrnowers 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. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion in fact the violation did exist. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that one. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second to the motion. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, now order of the board. The first thing, I think -- our first item, Jean, would this be correct, that the first item be that this order supersedes our order dated 1 April, 2004, supersedes and replaces? MS. RAWSON: Correct. MR. BOWIE: Wasn't it March 24th? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, it says done and ordered 1 April, 2004. MS. RAWSON: It was signed on April 1st. Recorded on April 2nd. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We had a March meeting, but I actually signed it April 1 st. So that would be the first item in the order of the board. The second item should be payment of costs and prosecution and then whatever else the board decides. So anyone going to make a motion should start there. MS. BARNETT: I'll attempt it. 77 --- -"- April 22, 2004 I'd like to make a motion that we use this order to supersede? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. BARNETT: The preceding order that was dated and signed on April 1 st of 2004, in regards to this case 24-018. And I'd like to order that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations through removing all remaining litter within the next 15 days or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Alternatively, the county has 45 days to hire a contractor to remove the litter and debris listed above and impose the cost against the respondent if he does not comply within the first 15 days. The respondent must remove all outside storage of all business related items within 30 days from the date of this hearing to a commercial industrial location authorized for use or a fine of $75 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Cease all business activity within one week from the date of this week or a fine of $75 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. And you must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform a site inspection. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just a-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One at a time, please. Ray, go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: If you can just amend that to include the trailer, removal of the trailer specifically. And-- MS. BARNETT: Within 15 days? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, let's keep it -- and also the canopy. MS. BARNETT: I think the canopy is part of the litter, isn't it? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, let's be specific. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll name it, since it's been named. MR. BOWIE: That's what my question goes to, how do you distinguish here between what's defined as litter to be removed within 78 ---"- --- April 22, 2004 15 days, as opposed to business related to be removed within 30 days? I mean, one man's litter is another man's business, you know what I mean? MR. LEFEBVRE: Let's keep it all the same, I would think. MR. BOWIE: Yeah, I think so. MS. BARNETT: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: And maybe keep the fine the same, $50. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, he's -- Mr. Haeger told us that he doesn't have any business material there, that he wasn't selling plants off his property, so I don't know what we would call -- MR. BOWIE: It should just be consistent -- MS. BARNETT: How about we just change it to that he remove all litter and the trailer? MR. LEFEBVRE: Trailer and the canopy, metal canopy, or whatever was here. MS. BARNETT: And canopy within 15 days of this hearing or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: George? MR. PONTE: You have testimony that there is no sales originating from the property, so it gives me a lot of discomfort to see cease all business activity within one week from the date of this hearing or a fine of $75 per day -- MS. BARNETT: I just took it out. MR. PONTE: You just took it out? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She's taking it out. MS. BARNETT: The whole thing is going to read that the litter, the canopy and the trailer must be removed within 15 days of this hearing or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. MR. PONTE: Period. MS. BARNETT: Period. And that they need to -- the respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation has been 79 ------ April 22, 2004 abated and to request the investigator to come out and perform the inspections. MR. PONTE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, there's a motion on the floor. MR. DORIA: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Albert gave us the second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, have you got all the items? MS. RAWSON: Did you leave in about the county coming out? MS. BARNETT: Yes. I said that the respondent must notify code enforcement. MR. BOWIE: No, this was alternatively the county. MS. BARNETT: I took that out, because I think he's done most of it. MS. RAWSON: Okay. Thank you, I think I got it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No further questions, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Haeger, you got 15 days. MR. HAEGER: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask a question of Mr. Haeger? He's saying that he didn't -- he's not operating his business and he's removing the trailer, which we saw business activity. Is he going to also modify his home occupational license? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You all work that out. He wasn't cited for that, so we're not interested. That wasn't what he was cited for, running a business. MS. ARNOLD: I understand, I just wanted to ask the question of Mr. Haeger. 80 -- April 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You two need to work that out, okay? MR. HAEGER: Okay. Is that all? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. We now close our public hearings. We now get to new business, which is imposition of fines. First imposition of fine is 2003-026. MS. HILTON: Yeah, that's BCC versus -- Board of County Commissioners versus Baker, Thomas and Marion, 2003-026. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you gentlemen would like to step out in the corridor, please. MS. HILTON: This -- Michelle, do you want to finish? MS. ARNOLD: Do I want to finish? MS. HILTON: Yeah, we're on imposition of fines. MS. ARNOLD: Didn't know I started something. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She's going to start the imposition of fines, Michelle. MS. ARNOLD: Go for it. You started, you finish. MS. HILTON: This violation involved vehicles, salvaged vehicles being stored on an industrial area in excess of the site development plan. And the board heard the case on August 28th, 2003, issued an order directing the respondents to submit a sufficient and complete SDP within 60 days, which was October 27,2003; and upon obtaining SDP approval, obtain permits within 90 days; appear before the Code Enforcement Board February, 2004 to give a progress, which they did; and that accordingly, if they didn't comply with paragraph one, that there would be a fine of 150 per day; and that if they didn't comply with paragraph two, which was obtaining the permits, then there would be a fine of 100 per day. And the respondents did submit their SDP by the date required, but it was rejected on December 8th, 2003. Staff is requesting the board issue an imposition of fine in the amount of $21,150 for the period of -- excuse me, that was December 3rd, of December 3rd, 2003 through today, April 22nd, 2004, at a rate 81 -'-- April 22, 2004 of 150 per day, plus the operational costs of $1,692.75, for a total of $22,842.75. And nothing has been resubmitted to the planning department as of yet. MS. BARNETT: Before we proceed, I have to ask Jean a question. Jean, as I abstained from being involved in this case, do I need to also abstain from voting on this? MS. RAWSON: Yes, you do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a request to impose fines as requested. Do I hear a motion to do so? MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion to impose the fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? MS. BARNETT: Abstain. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next one, 2004-020, Brizuela. Hope I didn't murder that too bad. MS. ARNOLD: This case was Code Enforcement Board 2002-020, Board of County Commissioners versus Maria Brizuela. This case was heard by the Code Enforcement Board on March 25th, 2004. The -- a violation of the dwelling being unfit and creating an unsafe and hazardous condition for the occupants was found, and the respondent was ordered to abate all violations, starting with the repairs 82 --- "-- April 22, 2004 of the violations within two days, and obtaining a licensed contractor for the appropriate work, and repairing all of the -- doing all repairs within 20 days, completing all repairs in 20 days, and obtaining a certificate of occupancy within 10 days. And the respondent was ordered to pay operational costs, and if not complied with the order to correct, $250 per day would be imposed each day the violation continues. Staff is at this time requesting that the board impose a fine in the amount of $1,016.25 for operational costs, as the violation was abated as ordered by the board. MR. BOWIE: So moved. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the operational costs. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next one, 2003-052, Pacacios (sic). MS. ARNOLD: Okay, this is Board of County Commissioners versus Manuel Pacacios (sic). This case was heard on January 22nd for -- and a violation was found for the existence of several wood structures, all erected without permits. The respondent was ordered to remove all structures from the unimproved property by March 8th, or obtaining adequate permits. Actually, it says obtain a demolition permit. And through inspections have the county come out and inspect and pay operational costs. If they did not comply with that order to correct, that fines of $25 per day would be imposed. The respondent was also ordered to pay operational costs. Staff is at this time requesting that the board impose the amount of $600 for the period between March 9th and April 2nd, and $1,025.60 for operational costs, for a total of$1,625.60. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Mr. -- MR. PALACIOS: Palacios. 83 ""- April 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Palacios, okay. I'm sorry. You wish to ask the board something? MR. PALACIOS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let the young lady swear you In. (Speakers sworn.) MRS. PALACIOS: You want me to tell or he's going to say it and I will go ahead and tell -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, we need to know what does he want to tell us before we impose anything. MRS. PALACIOS: Okay. We just want to go ahead and see if we can reduce the fine. We already did everything. We already spent a lot of money trying to fix it. We bought the land and we didn't know what was on it until we received this. We had bills we have -- that we had paid trying to clean this up. And we were told to go ahead and get a company. We asked for a company, it was $4,500. It was a lot of money. We could not pay that. So what we did is I went with her husband and my husband and my three kids and we cleared it out. And we paid a container in Naples for -- two containers, 20 tons, which was $335 each and to see if we can go ahead and get a reduction of the fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. You were supposed to do it by a certain date and you didn't do it by that date. That's why you got fined. So can you tell us, I guess, what the problems were in not getting it done by that date so we can give something to think about? MRS. PALACIOS: Yes, sir. We were supposed to do it by December, and I called Jeff. And It was the rainy season; it was raining so hard we could not find a company to go ahead and do that. We then called Waste Management, and they told us that we're supposed to wait until everything was dry because it was so wet. They gave us a date by the end of March, beginning of April. We took that date. They gave us those two containers that they were 84 - April 22, 2004 supposed to go in and put them in there. We were supposed to go ahead and put all the stuff inside. So we had to -- I called Jeff and I told him that I was going to go with my kids and I didn't want to risk anything with a lot of water, and he told me that it was okay. And that's why we couldn't do it before, because of the water. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody have any questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, ma'am, thank you. Anything else you'd like to tell us? MRS. PALACIOS: No, that would be it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you. MRS. PALACIOS: Thank you, sir. MS. BARNETT: If I'm remembering the proper case, Jeff couldn't even inspect it completely because it was under water. He could see the building outcrops, but he couldn't tell if there was animals in there other than wild animals, because it was under water. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. PONTE: Seems to me that they've come into compliance as soon as they possibly could, and that itself is a good reason to mitigate or eliminate the $600 fine and just leave them with the costs, the operational costs. MRS. PALACIOS: Excuse me, sir, I even have pictures, if you want to go and see them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, that's okay, ma'am. MR. BOWIE: It's already been confirmed that you've taken care of everything. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're satisfied that you've solved the problem. Well, do you want to make amotion? MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion that the property is now in compliance, it was brought into compliance in a timely manner, and 85 --- - April 22, 2004 that the fine should be eliminated, and that the respondents should pay the operational costs. MR. BOWIE: We should probably state the amount, then, of 1 025 -- , MR. PONTE: Okay, the operational costs of$1,025.60. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion to eliminate the fine and just impose the operational cost portion. MR. BOWIE: I second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And we have a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, ma'am, what we've done is we've eliminated $600 out of the fine. You still must pay the county the operational costs of $1,025.60, okay? And you need to work that out with Michelle. MRS. PALACIOS: Okay. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next case, 2003-005, Southern Development. MS. ARNOLD: 005 and 006 are under the same property ownership, and -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since we have two case numbers, let's impose the fines separately. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. 05 was heard by the Code Enforcement Board on January 23rd. At that time the board found a violation for the removal of vegetation from unimproved agriculturally zoned property without first obtaining vegetation removal permit and clearing permit. And the respondent was ordered to abate all violations within 90 days by April 23rd, 2003. That if the respondent did not abate the violation within that time frame, $50 per day would 86 -- April 22, 2004 be imposed, and that they would have to pay operational costs. Staff is at this time requesting that the board impose a fine in the amount of $7,200 for a period between November 1st, 2003 and March 25th, 2004, plus operational costs of $1,202.50. And the violation continues to exist. MR. PONTE: I have a question. It says the operational costs have previously been paid. How does that come about? MS. ARNOLD: Oh, okay, I'm sorry. The respondent, knowing what that cost is, can pay it at any time, and so they have paid that. So that should not be included in your order to impose fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. We haven't imposed fines previously on this, correct, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess what -- I'm curious, it said Item 2 and Item 1 says you have to come into compliance by April 23rd, and now you're imposing fines from November 1 st. So what happened between April and November -- MS. ARNOLD: Good question. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- it gets a freebie or what? MS. ARNOLD: The reason why we're doing that, and it's not clear in the executive summary, is that the respondent attempted to come into compliance, so we're kind of crediting him for that time that he's worked with the county for submittals of site development plans and the like. So similar to the prior case that we had where we only imposed -- the Baker case, for example, we only imposed fines from the time period that was after the county responded and the respondent failed to do anything else. MS. BARNETT: He was actually coming in compliance with an order, though. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But our order says the fine starts April 23rd. So I think what we need to do, I mean, we imposed the fine starting April 23rd. If there's going to be any waiving of something, 87 --- -- April 22, 2004 then the county needs to tell us they are willing to waive the fine for some period. You just can't do it automatically. MS. ARNOLD: And that's what we're telling you, that's what we're requesting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. It's kind of confusing because you don't really say that. So you're asking us to waive the fine portion between April and November and only impose the fine from November because of some extenuating circumstances; is that correct, kind of? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BOWIE: I believe there's in our material a copy of an order here on the respondent's request for extension of time, which was executed May 28th. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, that's true. MR. BOWIE: By which this board, and I wasn't on it then, but by which this board then granted them an extension until November 1st, 2003. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it's right after. You're right. That is the -- that's the reason. MR. BOWIE: So it's been agreed upon. MS. ARNOLD: And in that time period, the respondent was trying to work with the county to come into compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, sir. You are, sir? (Speaker sworn.) MR. CURIALE: My name is Mario Curiale, for the record. I'm the owner of Southern Development and also I'm the owner of the project. I believe I have been here about three or four times already in front of this board, two or three times by myself and my engineer, twice my engineer all by himself because I could not attend the meeting because I was out of town. And I could not attend the meeting that was a month ago, that I was out of town also, a short 88 ---- April 22, 2004 period of time I could not make that executive session meeting. This whole thing has taken place about over two and a half years ago. The county commission over here, most of them are all aware about this project, it's about three or four years. And the same violation that we talking about, it's the same plan that's been in place for five years. This is the violation took place over here, right where the entrance has already been cut on 41. This is the other section of violation they complain it was put in, it's the same water/utility lines put in place. Fine, we will agree to that, agree to the violation. It was nothing more than a technicality that took place on my part not to get a clearing permit from the county, due to the fact I already had the clearing permit for the DOT and the South Water Management to install my drainage pipe at this point here. We went along, we -- finally we sat in front of the board, we understood that it was my own mistakes not to pull a clearing permit. Again, it's a technicality on my part. And if I would have got a clearing permit from the county, I only would have cost me $150 for the application, and I got it right over here. Instead so far this all transpire over three years. It cost me over $30,000 in expenses, and I elaborate to that in a second. After I finally find out that we had this violation took place, okay, due from this anonymous person who calls in, that's the way we responded to these items in here, I immediately contact my engineer to find out why this has taken place, why the permitting was not put in process with the county in order to get this work before they began. We got the delivery semi trucks delivering pipes out there right on 41. The DOT would not allow to put us a kind of a stop in the roadway in order to unload the trucks. We need a big crane to unload 42-inch culvert pipes. We had to find a way to get in through 41, got the permission from them, we got the pipe unloaded, now we had a way to bring it in. The only way to bring it in was to make a small path in order to get to the point. We did that. I had no idea that all 89 ---- April 22, 2004 these things was taking place. So finally we find out, though, we got a letter from the code enforcement. The code enforcement comes in and says, well, you violated, you removed some vegetation without getting a clearing permit. I says, what are you talking about, we already have our permits in place here. No, you don't have a clearing permit for the vegetation. Fine, we went through there. Now, bottom line here, after all this time has been expressed, but on the two and a half years, what I have done, I hired an engineer to come over there and try to figure out how can we abate this violation in order to get this proj ect going forward. We've been here three times. We -- at the first meeting we had here, we all agreed to the fact since we were going to get a rezone in place, that we should eliminate the violation, because it would be part of the rezone, because eventually we going to clear the land anyway. We all -- I got the permission to 90 days, I think it was 120 days. We had a meeting with the county. We had a forum over there. We had about 25 people. The code enforcement who in turn initiated the violation was present. All the, what do you call, the environmental people were there, the engineering was there. And everybody agreed to the plan that my engineer designed after we left here to accommodate the deficiency of the violation that was taking place. Everything was done. I hired the engineer, I hired the landscape architect, I hired the environmental guy. They all got all the paperwork together. We submit the whole rezone. Boom, three months later we got rej ected. It says, well, you impact wetland. I know, but we had a meeting here three months ago. This land has not changed. It's the same land three months ago as it was five years ago. At that point we decided you need a recommendation what to do. Why don't you told me at that time? Says, well, you going to impact the wetland, therefore your violation is still in existence. No, they didn't told me that. I spent 10, $15,000 to get the engineer to do the 90 ""--- April 22, 2004 plans that's rejected. We came here in a meeting, I believe it was September, October, that we brought to the fact that we were rejected on a rezone. Now we attempted to use the violation -- to eliminate the violation through the SDP for the second phase. Agree the same thing. We had another staff meeting with the county, the environmental people were there, the code enforcement was there. At the whole meeting everybody agreed, we shook hands, that the only thing I was supposed to be paying was a double fee for the clearing permit that I didn't take, which was $150 plus another $150, that would be $300. That's a standard procedure when somebody don't pull a permit in time to do it, to make sure he's going to redo it, he get double the fine. Everybody agreed to that. We submit the SDP. December 27th comes in, I got rejected the SDP. Because now in order to get the SDP approval, I have to have an EIS approved. I said this is not about this violation, this is a conspiracy on my project in here. My building has been sitting on 41 for a year and a half and I cannot get a CO because this violation is crucifying me. I'm try anything I can and I can't go anywhere. I was supposed to get a disbursement on my proj ect, I could not get it. Because when the title search was made there is a lien and a judgment against this property, based on this violation. So in order for me to get a disbursement out, I had to go to the county here, and I had to -- I pay this, what do you call, operation fees. And at that time I said to Michelle and I said to Shanelle, I says, look, this is it. This is what I'm going to pay. This thing is over with; am I right? That's what I thought under the impression. I paid that, and I paid $2,383.25 for something that should cost $150. Forget about what I'm paying the engineer. I got a bill over $30,000 from those guys, plus my building has been on standstill for a year and a half. Am I being penalized enough over here or what else is here to do? I have no other way to 91 -- April 22, 2004 do it. Now, it so happen, it so happen, it blows my mind, next door they build the Eckerd's Drugs, am I right, you all know that, right? Well, there is some pipes in here, they were delivered in here last week. This picture, I took it yesterday. Here, I can put it on the screen. That's my property. I want to know how that pipe got over there. Now, I'm not a whistle blower, I don't have to call the code enforcement, hey, look, somebody dropped pipes on my property. The guy's got to run the drainage system from Eckerd Drug in order to get a juncture to the canal in order to hit my pipe that I installed over there. How this guy's going to bring the pipe through there? Can you see any other way? He had to go through my land in order to get the pipe there. So my question on the whole matter is, is here that there is some kind of a criteria that we, the code enforcement implies that only respond by anonymous caller, okay? Now, I personally believe that this case is not only anonymous caller, it's the same individual, one or two, who in turn has been calling the code enforcement periodically to find out how my case is. And I believe Shanelle knows about it. And meantime, before the person has been called and about the same case, then this person should come out of the shell, find out who this person is, if he's got any interest about this case, let him meet now and we solve the problem. But give keep me this major problem, like as of today, the water distribution company cannot release my water for the building unless this item is solved. I don't know what else to do. MS. BARNETT: Can I ask you a question? Because I remember this case from way back, and I believe the very initial part of this case, you were given the option to go for the permitting or to mitigate with another piece of property. Am I wrong? MR. CURIALE: We were going to -- MS. BARNETT: Am I wrong? 92 ------ - April 22, 2004 MR. CURIALE: No, we mitigate with the rezone. You're right, with the rezone. MS. BARNETT: You had a choice, either the rezone or to mitigate with another piece of property, right? MR. CURIALE: We mitigate within -- no, the rezone gets mitigated. If we going to include this mitigation with the rezone at the same time. MS. ARNOLD: The option was to revegetate on-site. MS. BARNETT: So he had a couple of options. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MS. BARNETT: And he chose to do the rezone. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MS. BARNETT: I just wanted to clarify that in my own head. MS. ARNOLD: And part of the problem is that he combined the properties, so that kind of delays the vacant -- the building, the construction that he's talking about. I think there was a combination to have all of it included in one rezone, as opposed to separate properties. MR. CURIALE: No, no, Michelle, the violation actually falls in the rezone piece, it doesn't interfere with the other land. MS. ARNOLD: Right, but you combined it and hence the requirement for the environmental impact statement. MR. CURIALE: Right. But that's over here. This is the property here. MS. ARNOLD: Which, you know, it was his option whether or not he wanted to combine that rezone property with the other property with the environmental problem. MR. CURIALE: That's the agreement that we had here at the meeting in front of this board. That's when you guys give us until September and October to comply with that. We did all of that. It's not like I did not pursue any of the item. I mean, I went through hoops and barrels to get this done, and then boom, we get rej ected. MR. BOWIE: Well, I think that was one of the risks you took 93 - April 22, 2004 going for a rezone. I mean, there's no such sure thing as a sure thing in rezoning applications. MR. CURIALE: No, the bottom line is we never got to the rezone. MR. BOWIE: That was one of the options you were given and that's the option you chose to go with, rather than the revegetation mitigation option. MR. CURIALE: The question is the revegetation of the area when to put trees in the same place when they have to be removed again I -- just did not make any sense. Because this entrance has been in here for five years. It still is going to be here. If this vegetation was removed over here and it had nothing to do with the entrance, yeah, I can understand that. But the question is this is the same part of where the entrance goes. And we went back and forth to accommodate to that any way we possibly could, but we did not make any headways. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. It's all great information and we're not here to rehear the case. What we're trying to -- and you've given us some good information. You were supposed to do something by November 1 st, and for all these reasons you're telling us, I'm assuming, that didn't occur. Okay. Since November 1st up until today, what have you done? MR. CURIALE: We submitted the SDP. After the -- see, the problem ' the never went to the Board of County IS, rezone Commissioners, or it never went to the commission itself. Staff reject the rezone application. If that would went in front of the, what do you call, the planning commission first and it was be rejected by them, I could understand it. Maybe they would do something to work with. We never got that far. The same people who agreed with me on the forum that everything was going to be fine, they're the same people who rejected me six months later. So now that we were rejected the rezone, now we -- from October, we went ahead and do the SDP. 94 --" - - April 22, 2004 Incorporated the deficiency into the SDP. They said, yeah, that's fine, it works, everything seems to be fine. But if these people in this office have told you they fine, then why they rejected me? In December 28th, they rejected the SDP. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Since November 1 st when it was supposed to be done, you've been trying to work back and forth with the county -- MR. CURIALE: We did the second plan, plan B. Plan A flunked, Plan B was okay, then it flunked again. So I have no other avenue for me to go anywhere. And my engineer says, look, Mr. Curiale, I'm not going to go forward on this proj ect because I'm going to take money from you and we're not going to go anywhere with this unless this things get solved. And not only that, I still cannot have a vacate my problem with the water distribution because there is a lien on my property from this violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Okay. What we're here today to do is the county wants us to impose a fine because you didn't do something when we told you. And what we're looking for you to give us, and I think you've given us information, is should we impose the fine or shouldn't we because of some factors. And that's what you've told us, because you've had these meetings and been rejected back and forth. So we can't give you any way to make any headway with the county. All we're going to decide today is do we impose the fine or don't we, period. And that's it. Because the case is done. You have to resolve it or the fine's going to keep running forever and ever, and the lien will stay there forever and ever. So you need to find some way for you and the county to get in a closet with ball bats, if that's what it takes, to work it out. MR. CURIALE: Yeah, but the county -- the county spent me over, I would say easy over a quarter of million dollars from just the 95 -- April 22, 2004 proj ect to stand still without doing anything, okay, and make me waste all this money to get the engineer to resolve the problem, we didn't get anywhere. So as far as the fine goes, I pay that 10 times over already. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Well, I just want you to know, today all we're going to do is decide do we impose a fine or don't we. And that's why your information helps us, but beyond that, we can't help you resolve your problem, okay? We're just, unfortunately, the fining part of it. MR. CURIALE: Right. Yeah, but I know for a fact that when I did pay these administration fees at that time, which was about three-and-a-half weeks ago, I thought I was assured that it was it -- that was -- that thing was finalized, and that was not the case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The operational costs are pretty much identical to like going to court. You pay the court costs, but you still have a fine out there. You paid the court costs portion, but you still have a fine over your head. And we'll decide whether we impose it, reduce it or, you know, or whatever. So if you have nothing else to tell us, we'll make a decision. MR. CURIALE: No, I think I'm done with my case, and I think it's out in you guys hand to find out if my effort I have made toward this project is accommodated the fine, the fees, or whatever it is, it's okay. If it is not, you got the choice to do what you feel like to do. I know how I feel inside myself, and I carry it with me, and you going to have to carry the decision with you also. That's all I got for you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. Thank you, sir. Okay. MR. PONTE: Okay, I would like to say that my feeling on this is that due to the circumstances that have existed, they're clearly beyond the respondent's control, because of that, the fine is not warranted at this time. I would make a move that the fine not be imposed. MS. BARNETT: I have a problem with that, because in the very 96 --"-- --- April 22, 2004 beginning, he had a choice to make. He could have -- MR. PONTE: That's not what we're really hearing. MS. BARNETT: No, he could have mitigated in a different manner than what he chose. MR. PONTE: That's not what we're hearing either. What we're hearing is whether or not a fine should be imposed at this time. MS. BARNETT: But you're saying that because of the circumstances that evolved, he shouldn't be fined. And I'm saying he had a choice that he chose and the path that he chose evolved the circumstances. MR. PONTE: I don't have any knowledge of that because what happened was the county, according to testimony now, has moved forward in one direction, given him a verbal okay and given him a paper rej ection. So there's a problem elsewhere than just on his original decision. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We must understand that regardless of which path somebody chooses, just because they choose that path, you can't chastise him. He chose a path and you expect both sides to do due diligence and resolve whatever it takes to get there. What he's told us is I chose this path because I thought it was best and I keep doing what the county tells me, but they keep rejecting it. I mean, that's basically what he's saying. They agreed to something in a meeting, he submitted it, then it changed. So he went back, re-did something else, they agreed, he submitted it, it changed again. And he can't seem to find the magic piece of paper, and I don't know what that is. We're not subject to that. So I guess our decision needs to be he's been trying, he keeps getting rej ected, he says, for whatever reasons, and they may be good ones from the county's standpoint. So they're still trying to work the problem out. Is it worth the fine, yes or no. It's pretty simple. And George doesn't feel it is. MS. BARNETT: If we abate the fine, what leverage do we have 97 -- April 22, 2004 to have any compliance come into view? MR. PONTE: I didn't say abate the fine, I said not impose a fine at this time. What we have before us is the request to impose fines, and I'm saying that request to impose the fine should be denied. MS. BARNETT: The property is still not in compliance, then so we -- how do we -- MR. DORIA: Yeah, but I think he's made plenty of efforts. MS. BARNETT: I'm not saying that he has, I'm just trying to get a -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you let me answer the question, I think I can solve it. MS. BARNETT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: By not imposing the fine, we're don't waive it, we just decide we're not going to impose a fine today, and the fine keeps running at $50 a day until we decide to impose it. Whether it's next month, the month after that, next year, whenever we make that decision. Don't use the words we're going to abate the fine. What you need to do is make a motion that we don't impose the fine today and it's dead. The fine still keeps running. It's our order, we just don't impose it. And he's still trying to work out the problem, which is fine, because when he does work out the problem, we then, if he asks us, could maybe abate the fine. But give him a chance to work it out. I mean, it just -- the fine keeps amassing. At some point he's either going to have to pay it or we can abate it. But if you abate it now, then it is abated up to this point, and then it would run from March 25th on. This is just one period. Now, what George is saying is just don't impose it, period. Just kind of like okay, we're not going to take any action, and it just keeps rolling along while he's trying to solve his problem. MR. CURIALE: Can I be able to put the two cents into here? I guess we don't understood what I said in the end of this conversation I said five minutes ago. This thing is going to end here today. I need to 98 "- "-'------ ---- April 22, 2004 get a CO on this building. I can't get a CO as long as this flag is pending this proj ect. Now, as far as where Mrs. Sheri Barnett is talking about, the project is continuing. As far as the violation goes, we be abated within the next item, I want to solve this problem now. As far as the rezone when you mentioned before, you must misunderstood what we said. We incorporated within second rezone. That's what was discussed from day one. As far as what goes today here, I need to finalize these things today, because the code enforcement are not going to release anything, and the county attorney is not going to release my clean bill of health in order for me to get a CO. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. You need to understand, even if we abated the fine today, you haven't complied with the order. It just abates the fine. So it's still over your head, because you haven't done what the order said you should do. It hasn't been abated yet. Is that -- if I'm understanding correctly. It's still out there. So until you do what we ordered you to do, which is get the SDP or whatever -- I don't have the order in front of me to say exactly, abate all violations by coming in -- okay. And the order is -- so you have to abate the order. And I have to just go back to the original order, because that was the extension. MS. ARNOLD: It just says abate all violations by coming into comp liance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, and there were -- I don't remember what the violations were, because we don't have that part of the package. But today is just -- it's a fine. In other words, if we said we don't impose the fine, the violation still exists, so the lien still exists. You've got to solve the problem with the county before that will go away. We can't make that go away here. MR. CURIALE: I have no idea how to solve this problem. These things has really caused me a major financial distress, major financial distress. 99 ---------- --'- April 22, 2004 Now, as far as the violation goes, the code enforcement, if they would have said to me, says okay, you're not going to plant the tree, put $10,000 in escrow two years ago -- and I would have done that, and that would solve the problem. Instead they keep lingering me over and over and over again, and this fee right now which is be seven, eight -- actually, 7,000 for each occasion is $14,000, and we still haven't solved anything. Can we come to a conclusion that says wait a minute, you remove the 50 trees, how much it cost you 50 trees. I get you money in escrow and I solve it. I can't keep doing this. MS. ARNOLD: Mario, you did come up with that estimate. If you can recall, you did come up with the estimate for the replacement cost for the trees. MR. CURIALE: Sometimes, you know, we get a right thing to do and a wrong thing to do. If somebody going to be burned for something is not right to be burned, and this is what annoys me the most. This technicality cost me a ton of money. I got a water utility come from the county to install a water system from here all the way down here. This is three times more clearance over here. I need no permit for that. I got a water company permit for the county, so I could clear 20 feet all the way across to install the water. Now, I made a boo boo here. I been accept the fact I made a boo boo. How much more I have to get penalized for this? I can't figure it out anymore. No matter who I talk to nobody's give me the answer. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Unfortunately this board can't solve that part of your problem, okay? You and Michelle and whoever else need to work that out. We're only here for the fine, unfortunately. MR. CURIALE: Mr. Chairman, you're missing what I'm trying to point out to you. This board has nothing to do with them. This board has a lien in place on the property. If you guys don't remove -- you guys put the lien on this property. If you don't remove, I'm never going to get free to do anything with this land. 100 --- ------- ---- April 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But we're not going to remove it until you do what they need. MR. CURIALE: Well, they have not come up with anything concrete to solve the matter in a year and a half. That's the problem I'm having right now. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But I have no power to force them to come up with anything. MR. CURIALE: Who do I have to ask, God? He don't answer back to us too many times. I can't do it anymore. MS. ARNOLD: It's not a matter of a decision from the code enforcement department. He has to work with the planning department, which he has been working with then, and through his engineer get whatever they need to get submitted and have it be sufficient. I can't answer those questions. You and I have discussed this several times, Mario. You need to talk to the people that are reviewing your plans. MR. CURIALE: I came to you three or four times to discuss. I went to your supervisor, I went to your boss. I went to everybody else in there. They're spinning their wheels. Nobody out there can say well, Mr. Curiale I need you to do this. If you don't do it, you ain't going to get it. MS. ARNOLD: No, Mr. Curiale, you need to make decisions as to what you are going to do on your property. You were given the option to come up with the cost for the revegetation, and you knew it was about $17,000 is my recollection of what the cost was -- MR. CURIALE: That's correct, it was $17,000. MS. ARNOLD: And you said it does not make sense to revegetate the property if I'm going to develop it so I'm going to make a decision, which you made and we abided by your decision, to go through a rezoning process. That's your decision. Now what I'm telling you, a part of your decision for rezoning includes complying with what the planning department is saying. It 101 ----- April 22, 2004 has nothing to do with the code enforcement department. You need to comply with what they're telling to you submit for a sufficient review. That's all -- that's the only option that you have left since you made the decision. MR. CURIALE: I agree with that. Yes, but we did that. We had the -- Susan Mason was there, and also she got transferred right now in the other department who in turn works with the environmental people and they come up with the idea to have the meeting. That's all we had, a forum, a meeting with 30 people of the county there. And we all came to the problem that we would incorporate into there. And I thought it was solved. And then nothing is solved. Now, I'm leaving today, I'm leaving today, and this thing is still not solved. And I still can't get a CO on the building. I can't keep doing this. MS. ARNOLD: My advice to you, if you have questions, you need to go to those people to get those answers. MR. CURIALE: Well, I ran, I spin -- I been -- I'm supposed to go on a job and work. I waste more time on Horseshoe Drive than I spend in my office. And it's very boring and tiring, because they got people on staff, they do not want to give you a fair, straight answer, if it's right or if it's wrong. They go, go see the other guy, go see the other guy. I can't do it anymore. MR. BOWIE: That's got nothing to do with this hearing. Looking at the original order here of the board as amended and extended to November 1 st, the order was very clear, it cited a particular ordinance section, it had to do with removal of vegetation without a clearing permit, and the order of the board was that this be abated, the removal of the vegetation be abated by the only way possible, revegetation, replanting, and that if this was not done, comply with Paragraph 1 of the order, by November 1st, there would be a fine of $50 a day. There's nothing in here of any option for a rezoning to be pursued. I think that was the respondent's own gamble, 102 -- April 22, 2004 own choice. The only option that was ordered by this board was revegetation. And there was a deadline for it. I think our only determination now is if that deadline was not met, are there any precluding factors that would prevent us from imposing this $50 a day fine? I don't see any. MR. PONTE: I have a motion on the floor, just as a reminder, that the fine not be imposed. MR. DORIA: And I second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. We first have to -- any further discussion about it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, not be imposed does not mean abated. So everybody understands that. It just means we will not impose the fine at this time. So everybody understands. MR. BOWIE: It means the $50 a day continues to accrue. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It keeps running until we decide to impose it. It's just we're not going to do it today. MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask a question for clarification? Does it mean that we're not going to impose the fines at all between that time period and the fines will commence -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, you asked us between this time period, so the only thing we have in front of us is a fine from November through March. And the motion is we're not going to do that today. Right now that's the motion. N ow that doesn't mean -- you can bring it back next month and ask for the same thing. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You can keep bringing it back as often as you want. We're just not going to do it today if this motion would pass. So that's the motion on the floor. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. 103 --.- --~- April 22, 2004 (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So we're not imposing anything today. Continue to work with the county, sir, and I don't know who to tell you to go see, because that's not what we do, unfortunately. We have no power there. MR. CURIALE: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Then you have one more for Southern Development, which I assume is -- that was only part one, you have -- MR. CURIALE: It's the same thing. MS. ARNOLD: It's the same thing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's basically the same item, as I remember. MR. CURIALE: Same item, same item. Let me get my picture. I'm leaving today, if I don't accomplish anything. I don't know -- this is -- somehow, somehow, there has to be a place to say well, we have this deficiency, we've got to straighten how out how we solve this problem. Let's finish and get it over with. Only thing I got to do right now I got to go see the County Attorney right now. That's the only place I got to go. And I want to know what you want me to do. I need to get a CO on my building. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Unfortunately we can't help you, sir. MR. CURIALE: This is unbelievable, because all this cost has escalated throughout the whole county, believe it or not. It's not because a lot of material cost, it's a lot of all this excess ability of cost of administrating time, of people wasting time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. CURIALE: Do I still stay here for the next case or you just want to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you want to stay for it, sir, I mean, you're going to just tell us the same thing you just told us. 104 --.---- -- April 22, 2004 MR. CURIALE: Same thing, isn't it, right? Why don't we all go for lunch and get it over with. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's just the other extension of the problem. Okay. Let's do Case No. 2003-006, Southern Development. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. This was Case No. 2003-006, heard on January 23rd. I'm sorry, this case was heard, yes, on January 23rd. And the board found a violation of removal of vegetation from the subject property with an ST, or special treatment overlay district, without first obtaining the required permits for removal and fill permits. The board ordered at that time that the respondent come into compliance by April 23rd, which was subsequently amended, or given an extension to November 1 st. If compliance was not met by that time period, that the respondent must pay $50 per day each day the violation continues. And the operational cost would also be assessed. Staff is requesting that fines in the amount of $7,200 be imposed for the period between November 1st through March 25th. And again, on this particular item, the operational costs in the amount of $1,180.75 was previously paid. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So we know the circumstances. This is the same area. Again, it's a request to impose a fine. MR. PONTE: Well, I would just repeat my position of last time. Everything else is absolutely the same, that due to the circumstances that we have here that are beyond the scope of the respondent's remedy at this point, so I would make a motion that a fine not be imposed. MR. DORIA: I second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second not to impose the fine at this time. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying 105 -- --_.,-, ---- April 22, 2004 aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. Good luck. That's all I can say. MR. CURIALE: Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There are no requests for abatements. We do have a request for foreclosure on three pieces of property. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, there is a memo -- there should be a memo in your file requesting that we forward the following cases to the county attorney's office for foreclosure and/or collection proceedings. It's Board of County Commissioners versus Guy Fracasso, and that's Case No. 2003-028; Case No. 2003-045, which is Board of County Commissioners versus Robert Bidlack; and Case No. 2003-031, Board of County Commissioners versus Cora Sneibrun. And those cases will be forwarded upon your recommendation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Bear with me a second. I'mjust checking some words that for some reason just jumped up at me. Maybe we've done this in the past and I -- we say -- you're asking us to forward this to the county attorney for foreclosure or collection by a collection agency. In 162 it says we can authorize them to foreclose or to sue, and under our own ordinance it says we can authorize the county attorney to foreclose. It doesn't give any other options. So we're going to authorize them to foreclose and whatever they want to do, they can do. MS. ARNOLD: That's right. Whatever. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So we have a request to foreclose on these three pieces of property. I would recommend that we forward them to the county attorney's office. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So I made a motion and it was 106 --- April 22, 2004 seconded. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Covers that. No extension of time. Old business, we have some affidavits of compliance. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, affidavit of compliance will be filed for Board of County Commissioners versus Manuel Pacacio (sic) and that's Case No. 2003-052; and Board of County Commissioners versus Maria Brizuela, which is Case No. 2004-020. Both are in compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And we have some affidavits of non-compliance. MS. ARNOLD: And those would be for Board of County Commissioners versus Southern Development, Cases No. 2003-005 and 2003-006. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And we have a report for -- on Mr. Johnson. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MS. HILTON: We actually -- we didn't receive one this month yet. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aha. Has Mr. Johnson tried to contact you at all, Shanelle? MS. HILTON: No, I'll have to check with the investigator. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That gets us down to comments. We'll ask for those first before we jump into our rules and regulations. Anything else that staff would like to throw at us or -- MS. ARNOLD: No, not at this time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Besides vegetables or anything like that? I know it's getting near lunch, so -- so we're down to our rules 107 --~ ------- --- April 22, 2004 and regulations. We had a meeting where we -- the staff asked us to send in comments. We did that. We sat around a table and discussed it. We then had e-mailed to us at various times various, I'll say, forms. I have one, two, three, four, five, and we got one this morning, makes six different copies. At our last meeting, we were going to bring this up, and I was confused by then, so I asked if we hold this in abeyance until today so there was more of us to be confused, I guess. I didn't want to feel lonely. So Shanelle, I'll ask you the question, the one you gave us today is what? MS. HILTON: It's the same as what was e-mailed to you. I just didn't know if you would remember to bring them with you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So this is the one -- is this the same as the one you gave us at our meeting on 4/6? MS. HILTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BOWIE: Which is the same as the marked up version that we -- MS. HILTON: But cleaned up. MR. BOWIE: Right, okay. MS. HILTON: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So if you would take a minute, those of you that submitted things to be changed or included, if you would take a look and see if your items may have got included. Maybe we can go through this fairly -- MR. BOWIE: One item I'd like to bring up is maybe a grammatical correction. This was an item I had proposed and was incorporated. This was on Page 6. If you go to Page 6 under Article 9, Hearings. This there was some additional language added about the board being without jurisdiction to hear anything contrary to county ordinances, and so on, so forth. The marked up version is the easiest 108 -- -----'-----'-- -- April 22, 2004 way to follow it. In the marked up version that I have here, what follows isn't very grammatical. I think under Hearings, the first sentence should read: formal rules of evidence shall not apply, but fundamental due process shall be observed. There should be a period there, if there isn't one showing. MS. RAWSON: Where are you? MR. DORIA: Page 5 of the new one. MR. BOWIE: Well, now this is different because I'm using the marked up version. I can possibly follow additions, deletions and corrections on clean copy. I think it's on Page 5 of the clean copy. If you have the marked up, though, it's so much easier to follow. This is under Article 9, Hearings. The first sentence should end with the word observed and have a period, I would think. MS. RAWSON: And then the next sentence starts with "the". MR. BOWIE: Yeah, yeah. And you strike out" and" and you just have the board without jurisdiction to hear, so on, so forth, so on, so forth. Then there's some additional language here at the end after "or court decisions". There's a phrase that follows makes no sense: Shall govern the proceedings. There should be a period after the next sentence, after county ordinances and court decisions. There should be a period there. And the next phrase: "Shall govern the proceedings" should just be stricken out, I would think. I don't know where that came from. MS. HILTON: That was from before. MS. RAWSON: There would be a period after "decisions", and then you would eliminate" shall govern the proceedings". MR. BOWIE: Right, right. Just didn't make any sense. MS. BARNETT: I had posed a question to Cliff when we were going through the e-mail at one point and it was just as a thing. I know that we have made a motion and it's being progressed through the county to change our fine amount and it hasn't been decided upon. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, that hasn't. 109 --'- -- April 22, 2004 MS. BARNETT: I know it hasn't been decided upon, but I was wondering if there was any way to rewrite this so we don't put a specific number down. Because then we're going to have to come back and amend it again. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we normally amend this every year anyway. MS. RAWSON: We amend it every March. MS. BARNETT: If there was a way to verbalize it so it just followed in compliance with what the county ordinance was, you know, versus having to change it every time. MR. BOWIE: If it happens, we'll come back and amend this, I would assume. MS. BARNETT: It was just a question I had posed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I think history has shown, and you haven't been here long enough to know that, but we've done this, we've revised this, I won't say every year, but close to every year since I've been on the board, for little odds and ends that as we go people find better ways to do things and we revise it. So I don't think it's that big a deal for that one thing. Yes, we did talk about it, and I kind of agree. But on reflection, we're probably going to change this next year, because as we're all working through and we have some new members, you're probably, as we go, each of you are going to find well, gee, there's a better way to run that railroad and make a suggestion, and we're going to have to change it anyway. MS. BARNETT: Then my question is, say the County Commissioners grant us that in six months, not in a year. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But we can change this any time. MS. BARNETT: We can change it then? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we're allowed to change this any time you want. MS. RAWSON: Any time you want. We usually put it on the agenda for the March meeting and start reminding you about it several 110 -- ------- -- April 22, 2004 months before. But I've been around a long time, and I don't think we've never not changed it. I think we amend it every year. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And we do have the right, we don't have to wait till next March. If something pops up that's, let's say, drastic as we're going through this, in June or July, we just have to say at our next meeting, we want to discuss Section "X" of our rules and regulations, so everyone's on board, and then at that meeting we all work it out and change it right there. So we don't have to wait once a year, we can pretty much change it monthly if that's what we wanted to do. MS. BARNETT: I did think when I talked to you, it was to change it to per the current county stipulation rather than putting in the figure, let it flow. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But another reason -- if you have an amount, I think some people that may be members, when they can actually read a number are more prevalent to read our rules and regulations than maybe the statutes of the ordinance. Where some of us spend more time reading those, others don't. MR. BOWIE: Another thing, I think, under our revised procedure, with the notice of violation a respondent will be receiving this? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, he does. MR. BOWIE: So this will give him notice of what kind of fines he faces, a dollar amount. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, this is supposed to go out with the package. MS. BARNETT: That makes sense. MR. PONTE: Sheri, it's also an instruction manual for all new board members, so they'll know what the parameters are. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And just to make sure -- MR. BOWIE: I have one other question. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. 111 -,-- ------ -- April 22, 2004 MR. BOWIE: On the cleaned up version, it's in Page 10, look to Page 10, article 12, which is right before 13 here, Section 2. Look at the last sentence of this, and maybe Jean, you could elaborate, this doesn't seem to make much sense to me. The continuation of the lien affected by a commencement of foreclosure shall not be good against creditors or subsequent purchasers unless a notice of lis pendens is recorded. Why would the lien not be good? What does it mean? MS. RAWSON: You know, I don't know. We didn't change that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm not an attorney, so you guys are way above me. MR. BOWIE: That wasn't changes, it's a carryover that was there before. MS. RAWSON: Oh, I think it's been there for probably six years. Well, you're the real estate attorney, is that the law or is it not -- MR. BOWIE: No, I mean, the lien doesn't -- a lien doesn't become invalid against creditors or subsequent purchasers just because a foreclosure action is commenced on it. I don't understand what the meaning of that is. MS. RAWSON: Well, maybe we're telling the county attorney to file a notice of lis pendens. I'm not sure why that language is in there. MS. ARNOLD: I don't know either. MR. BOWIE: I mean, if we're going to tell them, I'd just say the commencement of the action shall be accompanied by the recording of a notice lis pendens. MS. RAWSON: And I honestly don't know if the county attorney files lis pendens. MR. BOWIE: I don't either. MS. BELPEDIO: Jennifer Belpedio, County Attorney's Office. I think any time litigation is commenced regarding a property, that a 112 00_--- 00- April 22, 2004 lis pendens is filed, and -- MS. RAWSON: So you file lis pendens along with the foreclosure actions? MS. BELPEDIO: I'm not sure at what point in time it's filed, but it's at some point filed by our office. I'm sure of that. MR. BOWIE: That's their business. I don't think we need to have it in our rules and regulations, necessarily. MS. RAWSON: Well, we could eliminate the last sentence, I think. MR. BOWIE: I'd like to move that it be eliminated. Nobody understands it, knows why it's there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Most of that sentence came right out of -- that's in the ordinance. So most of that came right out of the ordinance, but that doesn't mean we have to copy it. I mean, again, these are rules for us ourselves, and unless we make some drastic boo boo against the law, that's, you know -- but we don't have to just carbon copy everything that's in the ordinance. It's a public document, let them go read it. So I don't have a problem taking that last sentence out. Is that what you want to do, Ray? MR. BOWIE: Yeah, yeah. MR. PONTE: So what we're striking is the continuation of the r ? len, etc., etc. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, that last sentence. MR. BOWIE: Nobody else has anything? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I have to get my marked up copy to see if -- MR. BOWIE: I have one question here, also on Page 4, under Article 7, Section 4. Let's see, it would be, I think, the third sentence down beginning with, under Section 4: In order to have the information provided to the board members prior to the board hearing, the alleged violator shall submit 15 copies of it to the secretary five days before the scheduled meeting. I thought we wanted to tell them 113 ---,- -- April 22, 2004 basically if they wanted to submit any kind of information to us, that they needed to have this together 15 packages of it five days prior to the meeting. This seems to imply that in order to have the information sent to us prior to the board hearing, that they had to have the 15 copies five days in advance. But it's sort of permissive. It seems to indicate, well, they could walk in with copies and just present them to us the day of the hearing as well. Was that the intent of this? I thought we were trying to get away from that. MS. RAWSON: No, no, the intent is not to be permissive at all. As a matter of fact, when we had this discussion, it was that they need to get it to us five days before, so does the county, so that you guys have it in your packets five days before. MR. PONTE: We even discussed having five working days before. For some reason that didn't fly, remember? MR. BOWIE: But maybe -- that was my recollection, that this was not to be permissive. Maybe that sentence needs to be reworded to read something that in order to have information submitted to the board, the alleged violator shall submit 15 copies of his or her information to the secretary five days prior to the scheduled hearing. Leave out the stuff about prior to the board hearing. I don't think -- I think that lends itself to a permissive interpretation. MS. RAWSON: I would agree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, the words "prior to the board hearing", right, Ray, after the word "members"? MR. BOWIE: Yeah, it should just read: In order to have information submitted, I would say, rather than provided, to the board, comma, then strike out members prior to the board hearing, take that out, then go on and say the rest of it as it sits. MR. PONTE: If we're going to revise that, I'm going to suggest again than it be five working days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Five business days. MR. PONTE: Or five businesses days prior to the hearing. 114 -- -- April 22, 2004 Somebody could drop something off on Friday afternoon at Horseshoe Drive, he has Saturday, Sunday and Monday's a holiday and Tuesday is where are we? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The other thing I'd ask for that's not in here, that same sentence, where it says the alleged violator should submit. MS. BARNETT: Shall. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Did we change that to shall? MS. RAWSON: I think the reason we put should, we had a discussion, because they don't have to do it, and we can't order them to do it. And obviously we want the "shall" in there for the county because we can't have a hearing without it, but -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What we don't have in there that I wanted in there is after the word "violator", I wanted to add the code enforcement investigator. Because we're telling the alleged violator he can submit packages to the board's secretary, and I want the county to submit something to the board's secretary. MR. BOWIE: I thought we added that? MS. RAWSON: I think -- that's in there, that's the sentence. before. MR. BOWIE: That's the sentence right above: The code investigator shall submit evidentiary packets to the secretary for distribution to the board at least five days prior to the board hearing. I think that's in here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But it doesn't say 15 copies. Why are we making the violator give us 15 copies to our secretary but we're not making the county do it. MS. ARNOLD: It's the same thing. It's the same department. We make the copies anyway. It's the code enforcement department making the copies for the board. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's not his responsibility to make the copies. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. 115 - ---- ---- April 22, 2004 MR. LEFEBVRE: It's the secretary's responsibility. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No -- okay. See, that's my problem. I don't want the board's secretary to make the copy. I want the county to make their own copies. You've got to think of Shanelle as two people. She works for Michelle, she works for us. So when she's working for us, I want the violator to walk in, hand her 15 copies, and I want the investigator to walk in and hand her 15 copies. MR. BOWIE: Even though she has to make them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand she's two people, but, you know, here we don't say that. We're just saying -- MR. BOWIE: She takes her left hand and gives it to her right hand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, no, what I'm trying to do is, the board doesn't have that big a budget. So if we just say somebody walks in and gives our secretary one copy, then the board's got to make the copies and we don't have that kind of money. MS. ARNOLD: The board doesn't have any budget. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, so the county's got to make the copies to give to our secretary. That's what the rule should say. You need to separate the people. And that seems to be hard for some people to do. You have a secretary of the board. When somebody gives something to the board secretary, it should be what the board requires. If it's 15 copies, it's 15 copies, period. Whoever's submitting it. Not that the board's secretary should run out and make the copies. So that's what the rules should say. It should be equal for both sides of the fence. I don't know why I can't get that across, but it seems not to work for people. I just think when you read something, you know, it should be equal. You're making an alleged violator, you're giving him something that he can do, but yet you don't enforce the same rules on 116 -"-_._--'""-" - April 22, 2004 the county, and we're here to be impartial. MS. ARNOLD: But I guess what I'm saying -- what I'm saying is the laws are imposed on the county, because the same individual who sits in the seat of the board's secretary also is a responsible person under the code enforcement department to make those copies. So if you want to say Shanelle, make the copies and give them to yourself, that's fine, but it's not necessary to be specified in your rules and regulations because it's something that is done. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But see, that's where it is, it is required. But here, again, separate us from the county, because we are separated. We say, Mr. Violator, give me 15 copies. We don't say anything to the county. Now, you know, if you're going to be fair, you've got to be fair. You both have to do the same thing. MS. BARNETT: If down the road the county was so big that we had someone that worked for the board solely. MS. ARNOLD: You could change the rules and regulations, just like we just talked about changing them every year. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, we're changing them, so just -- you know. Oh, God, I don't know why you can't separate, people. It's so easy. MR. BOWIE: What about the other suggestion of the five business days? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't have a problem with business days. I mean, that puts everybody at a disadvantage. A guy runs in at 4:30 and gives you 15 copies and then, you know, like George says, you've got Saturday, Sunday and Monday is a holiday, there's three out of the five days gone, you don't have a lot of time to do stuff. That's really not fair to try to get "X" packages, what, nine packages together, plus whatever you have to give to the county and Jean and -- I mean, they only have two days to meet a five day requirement. Isn't going to happen. So I think that a -- that's cool. How did this other stuff get in there? 117 "- April 22, 2004 MR. BOWIE: So each time we say, at least in this Section 4, each time we use days, it should be qualified as business days. Same thing with the evidentiary packet, the board members not -- MR. PONTE: Wherever. Wherever that time limit or a time limit of five days crops up, it ought to be five business days. MR. BOWIE: How about the reference to three days down below, though, that the secretary shall distribute to the board members not later than three days prior to the -- MR. PONTE: No, that's alright. MS. BARNETT: We've gotten them on a Saturday, so -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, unless it's a special meeting, we normally meet on a Thursday, unless we call a special meeting, so -- I don't know that that's that big a problem. She just needs to get the information in time. That's where she always runs into a problem, she doesn't get it in time. MR. BOWIE: Let's leave three days as three days, calendar days and the reference to five would be business days. MS. ARNOLD: The same should apply then to Article 8, Section 2, where we're talking about the pre-hearing motions. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Article 8. MR. BOWIE: Pre-hearing motions. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Five business days prior to the hearing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BOWIE: Hopefully that's the only reference we would have, then. Another grammatical error or correction. Article -- let's see where that would be here. Article 9, I just noticed Article 9, it's under sub-paragraph C under Hearings, which was on Page 6, now. It's E: Presentations by all parties. Okay, I think it's been corrected. Yeah, each party. Okay, I think that's good. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Where did we -- where did we put -- MS. ARNOLD: Should the word "for" be included in that 118 -------- ------ - April 22, 2004 Paragraph E that you were referring to, Mr. Bowie? Presentations for all parties may be limited to 20 minutes for each party or -- MR. BOWIE: I think that would make it clearer. MS. ARNOLD: Paragraph E. MR. BOWIE: And the presentations, I guess that includes, just to our understanding, the testimony of any witnesses produced on that part? MS. HILTON: What was that again? I'm sorry. MS. BARNETT: Would it be for or by? MS. ARNOLD: Or by. MR. BOWIE: Presentations by all parties may be limited to 20 minutes. MS. BARNETT: By each party. MR. BOWIE: By each party, yes. But for our own understanding of that does presentations by a party include the testimony of that party's witnesses? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. The witness testimony, yes. MS. HILTON: So it's going to read presentations for all parties -- MR. PONTE: By all parties. MS. HILTON: By all parties. MR. BOWIE: May be limited to 20 minutes by each party. MS. HILTON: By each party. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you want to put in there including their witnesses. MR. BOWIE: Well, it might make it clearer if we put in presentations by all parties, including testimony of that party's witnesses. MR. PONTE: No, because that's changing it totally. What that says is the presentation by individuals may be limited to 20 minutes. What you're just saying here is that if you change it to that it means the entire presentation by however many -- 119 --,---- "------ --- April 22, 2004 MR. BOWIE: Right, because witnesses aren't parties. So are there any limits on witnesses' testimony in terms of time? MR. PONTE: We had that discussion before, and Jean said, I don't know how many years ago, well, they're given a reasonable time, you cannot shut a witness off, or something to that effect. MS. RAWSON: Well, it's not that you can't shut them off. We certainly have the right to make reasonable requests for time limits so that we're not redundant. I'm always concerned about due process, that we don't shut people off in three minutes when they have 15 minutes to talk about. MR. PONTE: If I can add to suggest using the buzzer system over there on the podium. MS. ARNOLD: So are we saying that this only applies to the people giving testimony, not their witnesses giving testimony? MS. BARNETT: I think it applies to everybody. MS. RAWSON: I think it applies to their entire case. MS. BARNETT: Oh, okay, because I thought I heard -- MR. BOWIE: Well, then Joan is saying it's 20 minutes per case. MR. PONTE: No, no. You're not saying that you have 20 minutes to present your case and include all of your witnesses and your charts and graphs. MR. BOWIE: Each witness has 20 minutes. MS. ARNOLD: Twenty minutes per person. MR. BOWIE: That's what I wanted to find out, how is it going to -- MS. BARNETT: It's 20 minutes per person. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, that's not what this says. MR. BOWIE: That's not what it says. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's okay. Not a problem. That's now what's written down. It says 20 minutes for presentation of all parties may be limited to 20 minutes -- MR. PONTE: By each party. 120 --" '---00_" ..~~--"-" ""---- ----- April 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- by each party. So a party to me is a violator and the county. Those are the two parties. Everybody else is a witness to the action in that -- MS. RAWSON: Well, I don't know that anybody can present -- especially if you've got an attorney, and a lot of witnesses, that it's never going to happen in 20 minutes. You can either change that to say testimony shall be limited to 20 minutes or you can try and give a respondent an overall may be limited to so many minutes for the whole case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I may ask a dumb question, are there any time limits in court? MS. RAWSON: The judge imposes them all the time. MR. BOWIE: In fact, the judge asks you in advance, how long are you going to take to put this on. MS. RAWSON: You must tell them. And if you go over your time limit, you're gone, you know. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So why can't we impose time limits? MS. RAWSON: You can. You absolutely can. And I think we need to use the word may, because there are -- you want to give yourself some flexibility to hear more evidence, if necessary. But you certainly can. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But I mean, what I'm looking at is if we leave it by the party thing on the -- if that's a proper terminology, I don't want 20 minutes per person, what I want is Case No. 2004-012, you get 30 minutes, you may get 30 minutes. We can -- if it looks like you need more time, ask us, we'll give it to you. But we need to tell them up front, this isn't going to be an eight-hour day for you by yourself, you know, we have other things to do in our life, and you're going to get this block of time. Make it work. If you need more, ask us, and we'll grant it. MR. PONTE: Yes, but you -- you can't say -- talk about interfering with due process. 121 -' --- " - -- ----- -- April 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, she just said, the judge tells them they can do that -- MS. RAWSON: No, we tell the, we tell the -- here's what the judge does. The judge asks us, how long do you expect your hearing to last? You put down 15 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes. If it's more than 30 minutes, they'll put you on the trial docket. And then if you're on the trial docket, you must say the trial is half a day, one day, two days, three days, and the judge makes time for you. So we tell the judge up front. You can do this to the respondents, you say, you know, you must give us an approximation of how long your case is going to take. I mean that would certainly help Michelle and Shanelle in preparing the docket. On the other hand, we may never get through our docket. So you can impose time limits that are reasonable, but you have to be flexible enough to be able to give people more time if they need it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't mind giving them more time, but I want to start off by saying there are some constraints. This isn't you get to just start talking and go on for the next three hours. MS. RAWSON: Well, if we have six hearings plus four or five impositions of fines, we don't want to be here for a week. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. That's what I'm saying. I'd like to see in our rules and regulations so when we mail them out to people that they understand, oh-oh, especially the lawyers who come here, we've got some constraints put on us, and we need to be brief or to the point. MS. RAWSON: Well, here's a suggestion: You can put in there that a presentation of a case may be limited to so many minutes. If a respondent feels that his or her case is going to take longer, she should notify the secretary to the board. MR. PONTE: I have a suggestion. That's a good idea. Rather than making it part of the rules and regulations, why don't we simply 122 "-""- "",-- --." -- April 22, 2004 have a letter that goes out to the attorneys and to the respondent, just a form letter that tells them what the ground rules are for their presentation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, no. MS. RAWSON: Well, that's what this is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: This gets sent out with every case. MR. PONTE: But, yes I know. But this is on Page 9, it's buried in, and that's not what they're going to be looking at. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We don't know if they're going to hire an attorney or not. MR. PONTE: It goes out with -- it's just a blanket letter from Jean or from the Chairman -- MS. RAWSON: Well, there's too many rules, I think, to do it in a letter. And if they don't read all the way to Page 9, we can always say, did you get the rules, look on Page 9, you know, did you notice that we could limit your hearing, and I'm really sorry that we're not going to have time for a hearing. If you tell us it's going to be six hours, we're not going to be able to do it today, you're going to have to, you know, we'll have to continue it to another day when you have enough time, because you should have notified us that you needed more time. MR. PONTE: The fact of the matter, isn't it a practical matter that it's rarely been a problem. A problem, a real problem. We're spending more time on it -- MS. RAWSON: Maybe two or three times a year, that's true. It's rarely been a problem. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think should be there. MR. BOWIE: I think we should leave it there pretty much the way it is, may being permissive and have some kind of guidelines, 20 minutes. MS. BARNETT: Can I clarify this for my own self? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. That's what we're doing. 123 ------- "---_._~ --- April 22, 2004 MS. BARNETT: Okay. The presentation by all parties may be April 22, 2004 up nicely, vegetation planted with 6,000 square feet of fill remaining for a future home site. As you can see, what we have now is a swamp with approximately 10,000 feet of fill removed, none left for the home site, and the excavation not completed in accord with Collier County satisfaction. Last week, my supervisor, Dennis Mitchell, doing some research, has contacted the owners. They live here in Naples now. And they basically told him that because the property was in foreclosure that they didn't really care what was going on with the county as far as this case is concerned. I tried calling them and I didn't get an answer. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Did you have occasion to check, Jeff, if in fact there were any foreclosure papers filed at the courthouse or anything? MR. LETOURNEAU: I didn't, no. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Since they made that statement, I just wondered if you had checked. That's fine. Anybody have any questions for Jeff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MS. BARNETT: Cliff, I think this goes to that first -- there is a letter from the bank stating that they are going to start foreclosure proceedings. MR. LEFEBVRE: Florida Community Bank. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I close the public hearing portion, and we'll go to order of the board. First item being if in fact a violation does exist, finding of fact. MR. PONTE: Okay, I'll do it. I will make a motion that a violation does exist in the case of 2004-011, Board of County Commissioners versus Juan Carlos Gomez and Juana Maydelin Izquierdo. Violation is of Sections 3.5.7.1, 3.5.7.1.2, 3.5.5.1.2, 3.5.5.7.1, 3.5.7.7 and 1.9.2 of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. 60 ,---,- ---- ---- April 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand, but we can have special meetings or whatever. MR. BOWIE: It's almost hard to believe, when you think about it, that you if you get your thoughts together and your documents together, that you can't present something, even something with an extensive history and some complication, including the witnesses within 20 minutes. I mean -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Most of this stuff drags out, in all honestly, because of a lot of mumbo jumbo. MR. BOWIE: I quite honestly would like to keep the "may" in there for permissiveness. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, sure. MR. BOWIE: But I would like also to add presentations by each party and add including testimony of that party's witnesses may be limited to 20 minutes. MR. PONTE: Is that an additional 20 minutes? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, it's everything in 20 minutes. MR. BOWIE: No, including testimony of that party's witnesses. But "may" so that it is permissible. And there may be exceptional circumstances where we would allow more witnesses or would allow a party to do a more extensive presentation. MR. PONTE: Boy, I think that really looks like a gag. You get 20 minutes, including your witnesses. MR. BOWIE: It focuses the mind, you know. MS. BARNETT: I understand what you're trying to say, Ray, but I -- MR. PONTE: If I were an attorney I'd -- on the other side, and I lost, that's where I'd go. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Fine, the word is may. All he has to do is stand there and say, I'm sorry, I'm not done yet. MR. PONTE: All right, we've heard enough from you, that's all the Chairman has to say and then the gag's on. 125 --..'--- -- - -- April 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You lost me. Why would I say that? MR. PONTE: Because when you're trying to shut somebody off -- I didn't say you, I said the Chairman -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But I'm just saying, why would that ever be said to somebody? MR. PONTE: Because it says you may have up to 20 minutes. You may. You may not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So? I would think that any chair-- MR. BOWIE: How about saying they have longer than 20 minutes? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would think any chairman would say, excuse me, sir, you know -- MR. BOWIE: It wouldn't be permissive authority for the chairman to cut it shorter. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would think any chairman would sit here and legitimately say sir, you know, we've reached the 20-minute period, are you going to be much longer? And if he says, well, I need another 15 minutes. Okay, does the board mind if we go 15 more minutes? Continue, sir. But at least they know, you know, this isn't an all day event. There's no due process curtailment, no gags, none of that. At least I don't think so. Jean, am I wrong? MS. RAWSON: No, you're not wrong. It depends on how you actually apply the rules. You know, there's been an incident in our immediate area of late where somebody was cut off after three minutes and, you know, it's going to be a federal case. So you want to be sure that you apply the rules fairly. And if you let one respondent go on longer than -- you know, you've got to remember that the next time. On the other hand, if they, you know, are just being redundant and saying the same thing over and over again, there's nothing wrong with moving along. The rule is fine, and I don't have any problem 126 --- - -~---,--- ~-- April 22, 2004 with what Ray said, so they really understand that that includes the testimony of their witnesses. And I also think you ought to give them a right to let us know if they need more time up front if they already know that. But it's the application of the rule that gets you in trouble. MS. BARNETT: I was just going to say, I agree with what Ray says, you know, that you want to include the witnesses as part of that 20 minutes, and the verbiage you used, I don't quite remember at this point now. But I also think we then need to also state in that same rule that if they feel that the 20 minutes is going to be inadequate, that they need to advise the secretary of the board prior to the board meeting. And I think that would encompass the whole shebang. MR. BOWIE: I think it's actually reads better for. MS. BARNETT: For? MR. BOWIE: Yes. Presentations by all parties, including testimony of that party's witnesses, may be limited to 20 minutes for each party. And then you could say in the next sentence, something -- any party contemplating a need for more than 20 minutes to present their case may advise the secretary prior to the board meeting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That sounds reasonable. Doesn't it, Jean? Okay. Let's do that. Let's put that in there, we'll see how the vote goes. Any other changes? Nothing else? Okay, we're down to the important part. Ray, you got any more? MR. BOWIE: No, those were the only questions I had, after reviewing it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We're down to the important part. If there's no more changes, then Shanelle, did you mark up your copy as we just went through. I'm sure Jean did. MS. HILTON: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So as we have gone through and changed the document that Shanelle gave us today, I would entertain a motion to accept the rules and regulations as we have just heretofore 127 ---,-"----------- -- April 22, 2004 changed them. MR. PONTE: Before we do that, I'd like to ask that Shanelle e-mail us the revision that she's going to include of the section we just discussed regarding length of time given to respondents and their attorneys. I just want to see it in writing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Before we vote on it? MR. PONTE: Send me an e-mail. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we're not going to be able to vote till next month, then. Is that what you're saying? MR. PONTE: I guess so. I certainly want -- I want to see these changes. We're not going to just all have each individual pencil change, are we? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, there haven't been that many of them. I don't have a problem with that. MR. PONTE: It's never been done that way before. MS. RAWSON: Well, because of the -- you can do it any way you want to do it. Because of the 30 minutes -- I mean the 30-day delay between the time we all get together, if you want to see them in advance, that's not a problem, and then vote on them next month. But now we're May 27th. So we really probably wouldn't sign them then until June 27th. Maybe if you voted on them next week and you didn't change it again, we could sign them next month. But then we can't start implementing our new pretrial hearings, because we've got to give the respondents prior notice before we start doing that. So it could delay it another 30 days, but that -- MR. PONTE: Last year it didn't get kicked in until August. MS. RAWSON: I know. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: This time we made a couple substantial things. We want this pretrial thing which we all feel is where the two parties can work it out before they get to us and hopefully eliminate a lot of things, so it moves quicker. MS. RAWSON: Well, why don't we do this: Why don't we have 128 ""'~"" ---'- April 22, 2004 Shanelle e-mail you the final copy prior to the next meeting, and then we'll also have it in your packets. If anybody has any grammatical mistakes, you can call her. And then if we could maybe vote on it at the next meeting and sign it, so maybe put it on the front of the agenda so we can be passing through the board and you can sign it during the meeting. MR. BOWIE: That wouldn't cause any delay then, would it? MS. RAWSON: It shouldn't. MR. BOWIE: Since we wouldn't sign it today in any event. MS. ARNOLD: If we're signing it next month, then we implement the following month? MS. RAWSON: Correct, June. MR. PONTE: Sounds like a plan. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle, on our agenda for next month. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Put this up right after approval of our minutes, okay? So that we can -- MS. ARNOLD: See your secretary. Get that, Shanelle? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Got that, secretary? MS. HILTON: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Next meeting, May 27th. Anything else? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to adjourn? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That'd be good if somebody would make it so I can hear it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion to adjourn. MR. DO RIA: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to adjourn. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) 129 April 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1 :34 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT CLIFFORD FLEGAL, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE NOTTINGHAM 130 ""------ -----